Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the motion.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2267) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2267, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we will work with the gentleman to obtain the language that he seeks in the statement of the managers.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen] for a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue. I understand the importance of providing access to legal services for victims of domestic violence and look forward to working with her and her colleagues on this important issue in the conference.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the bill now includes $3 million for the women's business centers and $194,000 for the National Women's Business Council. Given the strong support within the Senate and the worthy goals of both programs, I am committed to working with the gentlewoman to ensure that these programs receive the necessary funding as the bill moves through conference.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentlewoman from New York for bringing up this important issue. Funding requirements for the State Academies have been somewhat reduced because two of the five State Schoolships are now funded out of the Ready Reserve Force Program. In addition, MARAD has used the Vessel Operations Revolving Fund and unobligated balances to provide additional support for State Academies during the past year. A provision is currently pending in the defense authorization conference that would provide another source of revenue through the scrapping of vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet. As we move into conference with the Senate on this bill and we receive additional clarification about the availability of these and other resources for the State Academies, I will be happy to work with you and other Members to address your concerns.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, the bill provides $642 million for the National Weather Service, and including a $15 million increase over fiscal year 1997 appropriated levels for base operations, and a $17 million increase over fiscal year 1997 appropriated levels for modernization activities.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, as well for bringing this important issue to our attention. As the Members know, I share the concern about the existing case backlog at the commission, and I will be happy to work with them and anyone else towards reaching the President's request to address this problem as the bill is considered in conference. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, before we go to final passage on this bill, about seven Members have requested colloquies that should consume maybe 15 minutes or so before we get to final passage. So for Members' interest in that question, that is about the length of time we expect. Mr. Chairman, with that mind, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brady].

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brady].

Mr. ROGERS. I understand the gentleman's concern. The funds that are appropriated to the National Weather Service cannot be removed and used for other non-Weather Service activities in NOAA without prior consultation with our subcommittee. Under section 605 of this Act, all agencies must notify the committee through our reprogramming procedures prior to any shift in funds.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Mollohan amendment and in support of the provisions in the bill regarding the 2000 census. While I certainly respect and appreciate the efforts of my distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], and I know that his intention is good, his amendment fails to address any of the real issues surrounding the 2000 census. My colleagues, this is one of the most important issues that will come before the Congress. It is the Congress' constitutional responsibility to ensure that an actual enumeration of the population is conducted once every 10 years. Those are the words in the Constitution. There is no other activity conducted by the Federal Government that has more of an impact on the daily lives of each and every one of our constituents. The census is used for everything, from ensuring that our constituents' constitutional right of one person-one vote is upheld, to determining how Federal dollars are apportioned to our communities. Many of us are all too familiar with the consequences of a disputed census. In 1990, the American taxpayer spent $2.6 billion on the 1990 census. What did we get? A botched census, a census whose results were litigated for most of the decade, a census whose results will forever be questioned. We cannot afford another disaster like 1990. But that is exactly where we are headed if the Congress does not accept its responsibility to ensure that the 2000 census is above reproach. The administration's plan for the 2000 census represents the most radical departure from the manner in which the census has been conducted for the last 200 years. Serious doubts have been raised about whether the administration is planning a fair census, a legal census, a constitutional census. Many of us believe the administration plans are not fair, and that they will not result in a more accurate census. Why? For starters, we have already seen how dangerous an error-prone statistical manipulation can be in the census. In 1990, over the objections of the Census Bureau ``experts'', the Secretary of Commerce refused to adjust the census numbers using statistics because he thought they were inaccurate. He was right. Years after the fact the same Census Bureau ``experts'' discovered their statistically manipulated numbers had overestimated the number of people missed by millions, and because of a computer glitch would have mistakenly caused Pennsylvania to lose a seat in this body. Just last month, the Census Bureau had to retract their own report extolling the accuracy of their census plans because a computer glitch underestimated the error rates. But even more importantly, unlike 1990, we are not even going to have an actual count of the population. Why? Because the administration only wants to count 90 percent of us, and then guess the rest. So how will we ever know what the actual count was, and how will we ever know if statistical adjustment is more accurate? The answer is, we never will. The administration expects us to trust the experts, the same ones that recommended we use faulty numbers to adjust the 1990 census. But even more fundamental to this debate is the question of whether the administration's plans are legal and constitutional. Many of us believe they are not. We can debate those issues all day and night. It would not matter, because only the courts can decide that, and the courts will decide that, one way or the other. The only question is, when. Under the bill, we say, have the courts resolve the questions now before we spend $4 billion on a census that is likely to be held illegal or unconstitutional. Does the Mollohan amendment address those questions? No. Even worse, it strikes the very provisions in the bill that would ensure the courts answer these questions before the fact. In fact, instead of addressing any of these serious questions surrounding the census, the Mollohan amendment avoids them entirely, and instead tries to say that the only concern surrounding the census is the threat of political manipulation. That is just not the case, though certainly, given the track record of this administration, I can understand how people would be so concerned. Even if it were the only concern, the Mollohan amendment is not the answer. Why? Because the commission has neither the expertise nor the power to oversee the administration's complicated, convoluted census 2000. If Members want to know how well an oversight commission works, we have a recent example, the Teamsters election. The taxpayers spent $21 million on an oversight board for the Teamsters election, and what was the result? They threw out the election and they are going to start all over again, I guess. They are going to ask us to oversee it a second time. They had better ask us real hard about that. If we need any evidence about whether an oversight commission can protect the census, look to the Teamsters. We will spend $4 billion on the census, and then we will have to start all over again in 2001. It is the Congress' duty to oversee the census. It is our duty to ensure that it is fair, that it is legal, and that it is constitutional. The Mollohan amendment would have us abdicate that constitutional responsibility. At a time when the public's faith in the institutions of government is at an all-time low, we have a duty to ensure that the 2000 census is above reproach. Make no mistake about it, the very integrity of the census is at stake here, not to mention a multibillion dollar taxpayer investment. Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ROGERS. I did not have a motion. What I had attempted to do was to try to explain to the Members that the first order of business now is the consideration of the census matter, which under the unanimous consent of last week, the debate time is limited to 80 minutes. If there are no extraneous motions intervening during that period of time on either side, Members can feel free to attend to other business during that period of time without fear of a vote. I think I can assure the body that there will not be such motions on this side, and if we can have that assurance from that side, Members could have 80 minutes.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to discuss the evening schedule. Mr. Chairman, the first order of business on the consideration of this bill is the matter dealing with the census. Under the unanimous- consent agreement of last week, debate time on this amendment was limited to 80 minutes. On this side of the aisle, I do not anticipate any extraneous motions, in which case, if the other side could agree to that, we could have 80 minutes where Members would be able to attend to other business while the debate on this matter proceeds. I wonder if the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] would like to discuss that. If so, I will yield.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2267, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.