Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. STEVENS. That is correct, because we still have to ask for unanimous consent, Senator, and we have not gotten that. I stated that is our intent not to have a vote tonight. We will try to work out this triangle and see if we can get the other amendment in before the vote, and if we can, we will do our best.

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the proponents of amendments Nos. 95 and 96 agree to this language. This new language is to be a substitute for the proposals before the body regarding international flight user fees. It has been agreed to by both sides and, therefore, is ready for passage.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. We have other agreements we may get tonight pertaining to other Members. I will go back to a quorum call if everybody is finished. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. I would be delighted. I shall convey that to the leader. That will not be a vote; that will be continued debate.

Mr. STEVENS. May I inquire if the Senator would agree that we could come in and start the debate earlier? I know the Senator didn't want to vote until later because of other Senators' arrival. Would the Senator agree that we could come back on the bill before 10? We are trying to finish by 6 o'clock tomorrow night. So the proceedings at that time could start.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the pending business, S. 672, and that Senator Warner be recognized at that time in order to call up an amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:15 a.m. on Thursday, May 8. I further ask unanimous consent that, on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and there be a period for morning business until the hour of 10 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Feingold will be allowed 20 minutes; Senator Domenici, or his designee, 15 minutes; and Senator Gorton, 10 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill. At 10 a.m. Senator Warner will be recognized to offer his amendment. It is the intention of the manager--myself--that a vote to table the Warner amendment occur sometime around 10:30 a.m. Senators should be prepared to vote on the Warner amendment at 10:30 a.m. There is not a time agreement on that. But when this Senator can get the floor, I will make a motion sometime around 10:30 to table the Warner amendment. Following the disposition of the Warner amendment, it is our expectation to continue to debate the Byrd amendment. And additional votes will occur on Thursday. It is the intention of the leadership still to try to finish this bill. I felt we could finish it by tonight, but it will be finished by the time we close tomorrow night because there are events planned for the weekend. We will finish the bill tomorrow night.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous request, I ask that the Senate stand in adjournment.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now go into a period for routine morning business.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute. Alaska has not even been surveyed yet. There aren't many surveyed section-lines in my State yet, except in very few portions of the State. The Nation's national parks have coexisted safely under Revised Statute 2477 for over 100 years. Our wilderness areas have not been paved, despite all the threats we have had. We have had 30 years of the Wilderness Act under Revised Statute 2477 and there has been no complaint at all. Last fall, we put in the appropriations bill for the Interior Department this section: No final rule or regulation of any agency of the Federal Government pertaining to recognition, management, or validity of a right-of-way pursuant to Revised Statute 2477 shall take effect, unless expressly authorized by an act of Congress subsequent to enactment of the date of this act. That was agreed to by the administration. The President signed that bill. It came about after negotiation with the President, as a matter of fact. Now, by edict, the Secretary of the Interior has determined a new policy will go into effect and he will make property laws for the Federal Government establishing how rights-of-way are created on Federal lands throughout the West. It should not happen. I yield to the Senator from Arizona. Mr. McCain. Mr. President, we have heard a very spirited debate on the issue of rights-of-way across Federal land today. Both sides are passionate. On one hand, States worry that the Federal Government will exercise their authorities to invalidate, bona-fide historic rights-of-way. On the other hand, the Interior Department worries that States will liberally define their rights-of-way which could pose environmental threats to Federal lands, including parks and wildlife refuges. Mr. President, I believe that there is ample room for principled compromise in this dispute. States should not be denied their bona-fide rights-of-way, nor should excess or unreason be permitted to threaten our Nation's parks and pristine areas. Clearly this situation must be resolved, because if this stalemate persists, and the Secretary is precluded from proceeding under reasonable parameters, I don't believe we will have any official process or method for administratively assessing a claim. Such a stalemate serves the interest of no one and cannot stand. I've been engaged in an effort to find a process by which the Secretary, Governors, and local officials can work together to determine what constitutes a valid right-of-way; what methods and standards will be used to recognize the claim, and how such rights will be managed. I believe we can achieve a reasonable compromise and an appropriate process. While time does not permit us to reach an agreement before we must vote now, I will continue to work with the Senators from Alaska, Senator Bumpers, and the Interior Department to try and reach some agreement that we can all be proud of, one which will protect States rights, Federal interests and most of all the public interest. I appreciate the Senator from Alaska's support for that effort and I look forward to working with him to resolve this matter before the conference.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider that action.

Mr. STEVENS. What was the request?

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the amendment that Senator Hollings has presented is acceptable, and I am pleased to cosponsor it. It is a provision that I put in the bill, or I offered as an amendment to the bill when it was in committee. A full count of the population for the purpose of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives is required by the Constitution. Article I calls for an ``actual Enumeration * * * '' and section 2 of the 14th amendment reads: ``Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State * * *''. Title 13 U.S.C. section 195 states: ``Except for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the use of the statistical method known as ``sampling'' in carrying out the provisions of this title.'' When the Secretary of Commerce declined to approve a statistical adjustment to the 1990 census, at least 50 law suits were filed. The Supreme Court upheld the Secretary's decision in one of these cases, Wisconsin versus City of New York. The Court held that the Constitution ``vests Congress with virtually unlimited discretion in conducting the `actual Enumeration' * * * Through the Census Act, 13 U.S.C. section 141(a), Congress has delegated its broad authority over the census to the Secretary.'' The Court noted that the adjustment being recommended to the Secretary in 1990 differed from other statistical adjustments used in 1970 and 1980 because it ``would have been the first time in history that the States' apportionment was based upon counts in other States.'' If a sample is employed for the 2000 census, endless litigation challenging the constitutionality of using this technique is likely. By directing the Census Bureau today to employ a full count, we are giving the Bureau sufficient time to redirect their efforts before 2000. The additional cost of a full count is estimated to be $400 million. The increase is bound to be less than the Government's cost of defending against lawsuits which will result from using a sample. There is also an issue of fairness. The Census Bureau will get a 90- percent count of a census tract and use sampling to determine the remaining 10 percent of the population in that census tract. An estimation does not seem to be a fair way of determining the population. The Census Bureau has claimed a full count of the population without sampling will cost an additional $400 million. As soon as this amendment prohibiting the use of sampling appeared, the cost went up to $1 billion. I have reviewed the most recent Census Bureau cost sheet, and it seems to me the Census Bureau can do a full count well within the range of $400 to 500 million. Any attempt to claim it will cost a billion dollars is a red herring to deflect attention away from the real issue, and that is the constitutionality of conducting the count by sampling. The cost of the census should not be an issue. Under the Constitution, Congress has the duty to direct an ``actual Enumeration'' of the American public for purposes of apportionment. When carrying out our constitutional responsibilities, cost is immaterial. In 2000, The Census Bureau wants to estimate 10 percent of the population of this country. In 2010, the Census Bureau may want to estimate 30 percent of the population. The Census Bureau claims sampling will solve the problem of undercounting. It is difficult for me to accept that an estimation will ensure everyone is counted. Concern about not counting all Americans is not a new issue. Then- Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson was in charge of the first U.S. census in 1790, and he was gravely concerned that there had been an undercount. The Census Bureau, in an effort to devise new techniques to ensure the most complete count possible, has determined that conducting a sample of nonrespondent citizens on a census tract level is the most effective means of achieving numerical accuracy. Which is more important? Numerical accuracy or distributive accuracy? On March 20, 1996, the Supreme Court held that distributive accuracy was more important than numerical accuracy in deciding Wisconsin versus City of New York. In this case, the Court upheld the Secretary of Commerce's decision not to approve statistical adjustment to the 1990 Census. The Census Bureau plans to sample in each census tract across the nation. They plan to estimate who lives in a neighborhood or village based on a sample. The Census Bureau claims the language in this bill as reported from committee will require them to send a long form to all households. The Census Bureau says sending a long form to one out of every six households is a sample, and thus the language in this bill would require them to send the long form to all homes. The language in this bill was not intended to prohibit the Census Bureau from using the short form. I would have no objection to amending the language to ensure the Census Bureau can continue to use the long and short forms. The question arose: what would happen to a census form that was mailed in late, after the Bureau had begun a post-census sampling process? The original answer was that the late response would be discarded because it would interfere with the sample established by the Census Bureau. Since the actual enumeration of citizens has a long and venerable history, this answer was a shocker. The Bureau now says that a late response will be counted, even if it came from a household that was not in the followup sample area. They admit this will complicate the estimation process. Obviously the inconvenient appearance of a real person's response does damage to a theoretical sampling construction. The Governmental Affairs Committee has held two hearings on the plans for Census 2000, including one exclusively on the legal and statistical propriety of using sampling. There are many troubling questions about the Census Bureau's plan to implement sampling techniques in the next census. The problem of undercounting in the cities has been a problem, and the Bureau says sampling will help correct this undercount. But what about the problem of undercounting in rural areas? Does the Census Bureau really know what it doesn't know? We are asking to take the remainder of this year to scrutinize the Census Bureau's plans for the next census, and particularly their plans to use sampling techniques. Sampling could well be inaccurate, illegal, or unconstitutional. Congress must decide whether sampling is consistent with the Constitution's requirement that the census should be an ``actual Enumeration'' of the American public for the purpose of providing a basis for apportioning Congressional representation among the States. In the 1990 census, the Bureau made extensive efforts to reduce the undercount of actual persons. It sought out ``traditionally undercounted populations'' and expanded assistance for non-English- speaking residents. But there was no plan to create hypothetical respondents, although there was an effort to statistically adjust the total. This adjustment was ultimately rejected by the Secretary of Commerce. That is the problem now. The sampling would be the basis for an educated guess under the proposal that was presented to us. I am pleased to see the text has been modified so what we are concentrating on is the constitutional requirement to enumerate the population for the next census, and on that basis, I support the amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we have five amendments that, as soon as Senator Feingold has presented his position on one amendment, we will be able to handle by consent. I urge Senators to come to the floor to see if we can work out these amendments. We still have some 26 eligible amendments. When I am able to confer with the Senator from West Virginia, I do want to announce a policy with regard to amendments that the Parliamentarian has indicated are not in order under cloture. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.