Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) for yielding, and would ask this question: Why would we want poor children growing up in nations that are getting only poorer? Why would we oppose family planning money which prevents pregnancies and, in some cases, abortions? It just does not seem logical to me that many on my side of the aisle would oppose family planning money which actually prevents abortions. Family planning money is not used for abortions or even to promote abortions. It is used to help women have the number of children they want and can afford. When my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, talks about a compromise, I think the compromise was struck a long time ago. That compromise was the pro-life movement won. Federal dollars could not be spent worldwide for abortions. But under this compromise, it seems logical to me that family planning funds can be used to prevent abortions. I think in the pro-choice movement, there is an extreme group that opposes the ban on partial birth abortions. The pro-choice movement opposes the ban on partial birth abortions and uses it as a litmus test. If you vote for the ban, you are not pro-choice. But I think there is also an extreme in the pro-life movement that opposes family planning. I just hope that this Congress can get to the point where we can have the extremes fall by the wayside and we can have a sensible policy. I strongly support family planning money being used for family planning, and I believe that nations throughout the world need the help that we can provide them. As a country like Egypt sees its economy grow, it sees its population outpacing this economic growth, and it becomes a poorer and poorer nation. Why would we want children to continue to grow up in such a poor environment? They are basically the seed for the terrorists that ultimately may destroy this world. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the conference report, I think it is a mistake, and I am sad that my party has moved forward on this issue.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the first 5 minutes I have done in a very long time. I do so because I want to pay honor to the Peace Corps and to the volunteers who have served. Today is the 37th anniversary of the founding of the Peace Corps by President Kennedy in 1961, as well as the first annual Peace Corps Day. In my judgment, the Peace Corps is not a Democrat program, not a Republican program, it is a program that is bipartisan. It is a program that has served not only our country with distinction, but also the many countries that we serve. And speaking as a former Peace Corps volunteer, I know we also get so much out of this enriching, cross- cultural experience. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, the Peace Corps has done an extraordinary job, through its volunteers, in bettering the lives of people throughout this world, from providing safe drinking water to helping new businesses start up, from dealing with health care issues to establishing agricultural programs and fishery programs. I also want to commend the tremendous number of volunteers who were teachers and taught in schools throughout the world. I would like to, as well, pay my respects to the Peace Corps volunteers who happened to serve in Fiji, where I served from 1968 to 1970, who now have completed their task. We have been in Fiji for 30 years, and this past August we bid farewell to our years of service in that beautiful country. The Peace Corps has finished its responsibilities in Fiji. On August 22, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education and Technology, Taufa Vakatale, addressed the Peace Corps volunteers who were there and thanked them for their service. Mark Gearan, the director of the Peace Corps, was there as well. I would like to just read a portion of her comments to the volunteers in the closing ceremonies in Fiji. She said: The Peace Corps volunteers gave the local people in a new insight into the English language, with the variety of accents, pronunciation and spelling; they gave a new perception of what the white people or Europeans are really like. We learned they are down-to-earth ordinary people--not a class above locals. She goes on to say: The presence of the American Peace Corps volunteers in Fiji has made us in Fiji more aware of the importance of giving something back to society rather than expecting something from society. The fact that the volunteers have come from afar to give of themselves to a society they owe nothing to have made us realize that we are all a part of a global village. Thank you, Peace Corps, for that valuable lesson in the giving of oneself for the advancement of peace in this global community. We, the people of Fiji, cannot be disheartened by this departure, for were it simply a matter of choice, we the people and the government of Fiji, would always prefer to maintain our personal and close relationship with the Peace Corps. We also sincerely believe that if it weren't for existing circumstances, this longing would be reciprocated by the government and people of the United States of America. Then she concludes: To all those Peace Corps volunteers presently serving or who have graced our tropical islands in the past, words simply cannot express the gratitude our people and government would like to extend to you all, especially your having given up a specific time in your lives to spend with us. In retrospect, I can only try and fathom the sense of your leaving behind your land of skyscrapers, freeways and mega- entertainment to come down to a country such as ours with its basic facilities, unfamiliarity, food and inclement weather. Nevertheless, I can only be grateful for your courage and service towards humanity, for in your caring and hope for a more humane world, you have been great ambassadors of your great nation. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the entire statement of the Deputy Prime Minister, and once again congratulate the Peace Corps, congratulate the volunteers who served, and congratulate our country for having the foresight, and a former President, President Kennedy, for establishing the Peace Corps. The remarks of the Honorable Taufa Vakatale are as follows: Honorable Christopher Shays, Peace Corps Director Mark Gearan, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen: It is with great pleasure that I welcome you all here tonight on behalf of the government and people of Fiji to farewell from our shores of the United States Peace Corps. Pleasure, of course, not in the Corps' departure, but in your attendance here tonight to share in this rather small gesture of appreciation towards the endurance, grace, self-sacrifice, and unwavering determination the young women and men of the Peace Corps volunteers, brought with them to our islands, and have shared with us over the last 30 years. The contribution of the Peace Corps towards the socio- economic development of the country, among others in the immediate region, does not need any elaboration other than the fact that the cross-cultural exchanges since have further enriched our already diverse society. When the Peace Corps volunteers first came to Fiji, they were used mainly in teaching in the rural areas. The majority went out to remote rural primacy schools where they lived in thatched bures with no electricity, piped water and other basic facilities. They mingled with the villagers and spoke the language, are the local food and generally participated in all the communal activities such as fish-drives, Mekes, church services, etc. The Peace Corps volunteers gave the local people a new insight into the English language, with the variety of accents, pronunciations and spelling; they gave a new perception of what the white people or Europeans are really like. We learned that they are down-to-earth ordinary people--not a class above locals. Many Peace Corps volunteers, over the years, have taken part in ceremonial Mekes, one performed with the people of Cakaudrove for Queen Elizabeth II's visit in the early 70's. One notable Peace Corps volunteer was renowned for making wine from local fruit, another helped to establish a museum collection of local artifacts, etc. in a school. Another volunteer who was a teacher in an outlying island helped the islanders to develop a cheap and effective Copra drier. Yet another, Alipate of Koro, turned to music and sang many Fijian songs which have been taped and sold locally. I could go on and on, but suffice it say that they have endeared themselves to the people of Fiji. While Peace Corps volunteers have given their services in all areas of government, let me just highlight the Corps' contribution to education. In the early days the volunteers were posted to rural schools to help in the teaching of English and Math. We soon found, however, that we were wasting valuable resources and that this was not how we could use them efficiently. Hence they were posted to secondary schools to upgrade and assist in the teaching of math and science and at one stage, in the teaching of economics and accounting. We have not yet produced enough local teachers to replace the volunteers who were especially good in physics, chemistry and math, and my Ministry will certainly feel the gap left by the volunteers when they leave. The presence of the American Peace Corps volunteers in Fiji has made us in Fiji more aware of the importance of giving something back to society rather than expecting something from society. The fact that the volunteers have come from afar to give of themselves to a society they owe nothing to have made us realize that we are all a part of a global village. Thank you Peace Corps for that valuable lesson in the giving of oneself for the advancement of peace in this global community. The departure of the Peace Corps exemplifies one of the significant developments now taking place in our global community and which we developing countries will have to address immediately and effectively. That of diminishing assistance from developed countries in the North due to a general shift in foreign policy following the end of the Cold War and as their respective citizens demand improved public services neglected or overlooked prior to 1991. We, the people of Fiji, cannot be disheartened by this departure, for were it simply a matter of choice we the people and government of Fiji, would always prefer to maintain our personal and close relationship with the Peace Corps. We also sincerely believe that if it weren't for existing circumstances this longing would be reciprocated by the government and people of the United States of America. To all those Peace Corps Volunteers presently serving or who have graced our tropical islands in the past, words simply cannot express the gratitude our people and government would like to extend to you all, especially your having given up a specific time in your lives to spend here with us. In retrospect, I can only try and fathom the sense of your leaving behind your land of skyscraper, freeway and mega- entertainment to come down to a country such as ours with its basic facilities, unfamiliarities, food and inclement weather. Nevertheless, I can only be grateful for your courage and service towards humanity, for in your caring and hope for a more humane world you have been great ambassadors of your great nation. Your contribution to our nation is substantial and is gratefully acknowledged. In appreciation of your 30 years of dedication and devotion toward the progress of our nation let me say, ``Vinaka Vakalevu.'' The words of Dr. Albert Schweitzer come to mind as I try to find words to thank the American Peace Corps volunteers: ``I do not know what your destinies will be. But I know that those amongst you who will be the happiest are those who will have sought and found how to serve.'' I know you have come to Fiji to be of service and you have found how to give that service effectively to Fiji. It is thus my hope and the hope of the people and government of Fiji that you have been happy.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to say with tremendous gratitude that my predecessor, Stewart B. McKinney, cared deeply about housing issues and the provision of housing for people in need, particularly the homeless. I appreciated Congress' desire to name the McKinney Act after him, and am very supportive of what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) have done in consolidating seven programs into a single block grant, with emphasis on permanent housing and coordination among other agencies to leverage necessary supportive services and greater local flexibility. I strongly support the bill's focus on permanent housing and supportive services to help homeless families find and keep a permanent home. I appreciate the recognition on the part of this Congress that the McKinney Act is a very important part of our homeless effort, and that this act remains intact under his name.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my colleagues, I thought what a special moment this is that we get to share with each other and how grateful I am to have this opportunity to share this moment with all of you. Ron, I think of you as a very beautiful man inside and out. I think of you as a great legislator, and I do not use that word advisedly, a great legislator, an outstanding chairman, and a true friend to so many. I think you have more friends in this place than any other Member of Congress. I think of you as very gracious, highly intelligent, gentle, but very strong, and an absolute wonderful articulate spokesman for the causes you had every reason to believe so passionately in. As I was listening, I realized I had never seen you fulfill a partisan role. When you spoke, I never thought you were speaking as a partisan. Ron, you helped bring out the very best in all of us, you help bring out the very best in this institution, and you don't even ever have to wonder if you have left your mark. You have left your mark with everyone here, with so many people around this country. You left a mark that cannot be replaced.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, Representatives Price, Morella, McHale, Meehan, White and I are introducing a bill that will make CRS products available on a web site accessible by the public. Senators McCain, Coats, Faircloth and Ashcroft are introducing the same bill in the Senate. Under the bill, Issue Briefs, Reports, and Authorization and Appropriation products will be made available 30 days after the first day that the information is made available to Members of Congress through the Congressional Research Service Web site. This delay will make sure that CRS has carried out its primary statutory duty of informing Congress before releasing information to the public. Also, it will allow CRS to verify that its products are accurate and ready for public release. The bill requires the Director of CRS to make the information available in a practical and reasonable manner. In addition, the public will not be allowed to write responses or research requests directly to CRS. Members of Congress will still be able to make confidential requests which will not be released to the public. Congress has worked to make itself more open and accessible to the public. I have yet to hear of a strong policy reason why we should not allow the public to access this information. This bill will enable us to further engage the public in the legislative process and fulfill one of our missions as legislators to educate our constituents about the issues that affect our times.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this legislation and to say that, sadly, when it comes to the diagnosis and treatment and research for gulf war veterans, we find the Federal Government has too often had a tin ear and a cold heart and frankly a very closed mind. I do not view this as a political problem or a challenge that rests with one party, Republican or Democrat. Sadly, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even the Food and Drug Administration have not been responsive to our veterans. As the Chair of a panel that did 11 hearings and made recommendations on this issue, one of the key components is that we ultimately need, in my judgment, to bring research out of the control of the DOD and VA and give it to an agency that will begin to focus more on the chemical components of the myriad of illnesses that affect our veterans. I urge both the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on National Security to put even more focus on this. I know that the President's commission has come out with some recommendations. The Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has come out with some recommendations. I think we are at a point where we clearly need to recognize that our troops are not being properly diagnosed, they are not being effectively treated, and they are not being fairly compensated. But I think we are at a point where we are starting to see that change. I know that with the help of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] and the help of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans], we are going to see renewed energy in this area. I think this bill is a start in that process and for that, I am grateful. I thank both gentlemen.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Let me say to the gentleman, if he withdrew this bill, I would not oppose this bill next year if the bureau has not completed its work. I have been told they have the documentation. They can proceed, and it will be done.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to say that this is not the same BIA today that existed in 1917. It is just blatantly not a factually correct statement. The facts are that the Bureau of Indian Affairs was established and new processes were established by recent Congresses to get recognition out of the political process, which it is in right now, and give it to the experts. We had testimony before the full Resources Committee from Ada Deer, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, who has given us ample reason why we cannot recognize this tribe until we know who is actually a member of this tribe. And we have testimony from the Assistant Secretary who says that there is dispute as to who are members and who are not. I beg this Congress to take this out of the political process. Let this work be completed in the next 6 months. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is cooperating with Burt Lake. We do not have much longer to wait. But what a gross precedent we will continue to set by circumventing the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just ask the gentleman, had they submitted a petition? Had they gone through the process?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I do not think they had. The petition was just recently submitted to answer the questions the Bureau of Indian Affairs had.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is not an easy process to speak against any bill proposed by any Member, but unfortunately, the explanation we were just given is the reason why we need to clearly vote down this attempt to circumvent the Bureau of Indian Affairs, because really, then, what we are saying is it is going to be a political process. It is going to be what Congressman do you know? What Congressman has the power? It is going to also be: which Indian tribes have greater motivation to be recognized? Which tribes will be given independent status as a nation within our own country? This is an extraordinary decision. I totally concede the fact that this tribe did exist in 1917. We just do not know, and we will not know until the Bureau of Indian Affairs, with their documentation, ascertains that the tribe that existed in 1917 is the same tribe that we want to recognize, with all the same historic lineage. For us politically to make that determination, frankly, boggles my mind. Mr. Speaker, I would strongly oppose recognition. I would say to both gentlemen from Michigan that we are going to know in 6 months whether the Burt Lake Band will be recognized as a tribe. The BIA has done so much work on this application. It is likely that this tribe will be recognized. It is likely, but not certain. But there will be some stipulations along with that recognition as to who, in fact, are members of the tribe and who are not, which are not issues resolved in this legislation and will not be. We should allow the Bureau of Indian Affairs to complete their work and not do an end run around the Bureau of Indian Affairs, a system that we, the Congress, established. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I rise in strong opposition, not to recognition of any tribe necessarily, but to recognition of a tribe through a legislative process rather than through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The fact is that this bill, as it is titled, is to reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationship with the Burt Lake Band as a distinctly recognized Indian tribe and for other purposes. What we are trying to do is circumvent a process of petition before the Bureau of Indian Affairs, while the Bureau of Indian Affairs is trying to determine that while you were once a tribe, does this group of people still constitute a tribe today. That is a process that is in the works today. As the Bureau of Indian Affairs has stated, they expect to know within 6 months whether or not they can recommend that this tribe should be Federally recognized. Please know that when we recognize a tribe, we are giving them a status as an independent nation, notwithstanding the other benefit that they can establish a gaming institution. For the purposes of this debate, I would like to point out on the floor what we are deprived of hearing right now, but what the Resources Committee heard in this statement from Ada Deer, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs under the Department of Interior, supporting what basically had been told to this tribe 2 years earlier, and stated directly by the Secretary of the Interior. Her testimony before the committee on June 24 begins: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 948, a bill to ``Reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationship of the Burt Lake Band as a distinct Federally recognized Indian tribe''. The Department appreciates the interest the committee has expressed in recognition matters. And then she continues: Although we acknowledge and respect the Congress' authority to recognize Indian tribes, we have serious concerns with H.R. 948 because of unresolved questions about the group's history, community, government, and the nature of the membership to be acknowledged. These are concerns that cannot be resolved at the present time without a detailed review of the facts and documents presented by this group. Knowledgeable members of this group have raised significant concerns with the BIA concerning the membership of the band. Preliminary research indicates that while the current leadership and a substantial body of new members affiliated with them may have ancestry from the historic band in the 19th century, they may not have been part of the tribal community and have not resided close to the historic homeland of the band for over a hundred years. This raises significant questions within the BIA about how the community wishes to define itself. This has also caused political dissension within the group. A related concern is that the group's present membership criteria appear to create the possibility that a large number of individuals with no ancestral ties to the ``historic Burt Lake Band'' or no Indian ancestry at all could be added to the group's membership. The BIA believes it is premature to consider acknowledgment, until the community resolves these questions. Although the bill states that it is to ``reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationship of the Burt Lake Band as a distinct Federally recognized Indian tribe'', the fact that a recognized Burt Lake Band existed at some earlier point in time does not automatically mean that a tribe presently exists. It is the responsibility of the Department to ascertain the maintenance of tribal existence for acknowledgment, notwithstanding previous tribal recognition. Then she said, ``See the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Washington. The court rejected the argument that the group should benefit from a presumption of continuing existence, just because their ancestors belonged to tribes with which the United States had signed treaties.'' This is what we are being asked to do. ``Without question, Congress has authority to recognize Indian tribes. However, we believe recognition would be premature even for Congress if it is yet to be established that the group has continued to exist as a social and political entity, as required of all other groups petitioning under established BIA procedures. The questions concerning the present composition of the membership requires this kind of detailed review.'' Then she continues, During the 103rd Congress, legislative recognition and approval by the President ended the Department's review of certain Michigan acknowledgment cases. One of them, the Pokagon Pottawatomi, were recognized by Congress while the BIA was evaluating its petition. Stopping the administrative process has resulted in some problems for the band in defining its membership and in dealing with other issues petitioners normally resolve during the acknowledgment process. Because of the importance of Federal recognition and the rights and services acknowledgment brings to tribes, the BIA cannot, at this point, affirmatively support this legislation. It is important that the group document its existence in anticipation of adjustments to existing State- tribal agreements on treaty fishing rights under U.S. v. Michigan. ``The BIA's acknowledgment process is designed to evaluate the facts and evidence pertinent to the Burt Lake Band and its members, and to provide pertinent information for resolving questionable and conflicting claims.'' The BIA maintains cordial working relationships with the Burt Lake Band leadership and the individuals working on their petition. Extensive technical assistance from the BIA Branch of Acknowledgment and Research has enabled the group to complete the documentation of its initial petition. The petition is now fully documented and ready for review. A preliminary determination under Section 83.8 is that a Burt Lake Band was previously recognized as late as 1917. However, the historical membership issues raise questions which the BIA has not had the opportunity to fully research. The question of whether the present group's membership reflects the same tribe as the one that was previously acknowledged must be resolved in cooperation with the group. If this is the same group as previously acknowledged in 1917, it would substantially reduce the amount of work necessary to produce a decision on acknowledgment. In conclusion, the BIA has provided technical assistance and conducted on-site visits as were promised to the Burt Lake Band's Congressman in 1995. The petitioner has subsequently completed its research. Real progress has been made and the case is moving forward. The acknowledgment process should be allowed to continue. An evaluation of the Burt Lake Band's petition under 25 Code of Federal Regulations Page 83 will allow resolution of important continuing issues concerning the group, verification of the petitioner's claims, and demonstration of continuous historic existence, while taking into account past Federal acknowledgment. That concludes her statement. Mr. Speaker, I would petition and ask the Congress and the Members who are not here, and the staff that may be listening, that we defeat this bill. It certainly should not be on the consent calendar, as I would call it. It should be defeated, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be allowed to conduct its review. Their estimate is that it will take 6 more months. I know the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], who is interested in this bill and is working for his constituents, would like to move now rather than later. I appreciate that. But we should let the Bureau of Indian Affairs work its will, or we should just abolish the whole process. That, I would say, would be a disaster. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reserve my time until we hear a presentation of the bill.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, just to say that the petition is now complete and they are ready to take action. It would be a shame to now circumvent the process.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, in that case I would claim the time in opposition to the bill.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Is the gentleman from Michigan opposed to the bill?

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 518, the Boehlert substitute, I was, believe it or not, in the Capitol chapel and missed my first vote since I became a Member of this body in 1987. Unfortunately, the battery in my pager was dead, and I was unaware that there was a vote. I know, ``My dog ate it.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am not a great fan of calling amendments by Members' names. My general view is if we have campaign finance reform to call it the bipartisan bill for campaign finance reform and not attach a Member's name to it. But I want to say to my colleagues that I take tremendous pride today in having this be the Mollohan-Shays amendment. I really believe that the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] and others, frankly, on that side of the aisle are right and most of my colleagues on my side of the aisle are wrong. I believe, with all my heart and soul, that the Census Bureau needs to test intensive door-to-door surveys, it needs to test outreach programs, it needs to test advertising, it needs to test hiring practices and who they hire, it needs to test telephone responses, it needs to test multiple site form distributions, it needs to test polling by mail, and yes, it also needs to test and review the results of statistical sampling. What most on my side of the aisle want to do is deny the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau the opportunity to prove the validity of statistical sampling. The issue here is not whether we will do it for the year 2000 census, the issue is will we be able to test to prove its validity. Sadly, on my side of the aisle, too many simply do not want that to even be proven. Now, that is true because my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], has decided to come in with an amendment that, basically, says we cannot even test for statistical sampling until the court has made a decision. But it is not the same thing. Here we ask for parliamentary inquiries and the Speaker entertains it. But we cannot ask the court for a parliamentary inquiry. We cannot ask them to decide the constitutionality of a particular issue before they have a case before them. So just like the line-item veto, the court might hear something and say, ``We cannot decide, so we will never have a decision.'' In effect, my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] will have achieved his objective. Statistical sampling will not even be allowed to be reviewed for determination on whether it works. Now, the bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that the science, not the politics, but the science proves that the National Academy of Science, the Inspector General, Commerce Department, the General Accounting Office, the American Numerical Statistical Association, and others, believe, with all their heart and soul, that the best way and the fairest count is to use statistical sampling after we have gone four times into the community and after we have reached 90 percent of the households. One of my colleagues stood up and talked in great faith about how it was important to go from house to house. What do we do when someone leaves at 6 in the morning and does not get home until 12 at night? What do we do? Are we going to wait for them at 1 o'clock in the morning? No. We are just not going to count them. What are we going to do, be standing at the door? We go four or five times to that apartment and no one is there. The bottom line is we will undercount people in rural areas if we do not have statistical sampling, we will undercount people in urban areas if we do not have statistical sampling; and, yes, most of them, sadly, will be minorities. I believe that we should allow the Census Bureau to do its job, and I believe we should not interfere. I know we have the protection to make sure that statistical sampling is applied fairly. We would have an appointment from the Republican side and an appointment from the Democrat side to review this. We would have the Comptroller General, who, by the way, is appointed by the President, but only from three nominations made by four Republicans and four Democrats. I hope and pray that this amendment passes.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate I was eager to get involved in, because it is a very sensitive issue. You are always afraid you might say the wrong thing when you speak from your heart. But that is the way I want to speak. I know our children are having children. I have conducted a number of hearings on my Subcommittee on Human Resources. I know that 82 percent of all teen pregnancies are unintended. I know that more than half of the unintended pregnancies end in abortion. I know the teen birthrate in the United States is the highest of any industrial nation. I also know that I wrestle with, as I think all Members do, the issue of values. I want our children to have values and want our society to have values. I strongly disagree with people in this country who think we cannot teach values. I think a decision to not have values is a decision not to teach values. So I stand before the Members as someone who really wants our children to know what to do and what not to do. I want our Government to contribute to that, and not to be conflicting with it. But I rise in support of the Castle-Porter substitute amendment to the Istook-Manzullo parental notification amendment because, with all my heart and soul, I believe that if the amendment stands without the substitute, we are going to have more sickness, we are going to have more disease, we are going to clearly have more pregnancies, and we are going to have more abortions. I think that is ultimately the result. I support family planning assistance. The Istook amendment will not prevent young people from having sex. We are not going to outlaw sex. It is still going to happen. But the Istook amendment will deter teens from seeking contraceptive services. Approximately 86 percent of teens coming to title X clinics for family planning services have already had sex. Title X family planning clinics offer a wide range of services, including contraceptive, socially transmitted disease screening and treatment, HIV screening, and routine gynecological examinations. Requiring parental notification for contraception will deter too many teens from seeking these very important services. So I do not reluctantly oppose the Istook amendment; I strongly oppose it. I believe the Castle substitute to the amendment is essential if we want less sickness, less disease, less pregnancies, and less abortions. Mr. Chairman, I really believe that what we are trying to talk about in values really begins with what a parent teaches his or her child. And this is an area that gets a little more dicey, but frankly those children who have been involved in sexual activity are in a circumstance where they need help. Unfortunately, in many cases they do not think they can turn to their parents.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I have come to this floor on a number of issues, particularly as they relate to the budget. I think of what we have tried so hard to do, of getting our country's financial house in order and balancing the Federal budget and saving our trust funds for not just future generations but for present generations, and moving from a caretaking society to a caring society. I think of how important those things are. Yet they pale in comparison to the fact that many of the people around the world live in abject poverty. We have a population in this world of about 5.2 billion and it is climbing. I think of some societies, whose economies grow, but their population growth outstrips their economic growth and they become poorer and poorer and poorer. For the life of me, I do not know why this great country, the United States of America, would not want to help those countries become more prosperous, and I would like to understand why we would not want them to help control their population growth. This amendment does this. I just urge, with all that I could urge my colleagues to recognize that this is not the United States of America. I lived as a Peace Corps volunteer overseas. I have seen how people live. They want to live a better life. They want their children to have better lives. But they have got to have a way of knowing how to control their populations and to be able to grow in a logical way. I urge my colleagues to recognize, this is not about abortion. This is about whether we are going to allow for logical family planning so we do not need abortions and we do not have so many people living in abject poverty. I urge Members to support the Pelosi and Greenwood amendment. I urge them to allow and help other countries have logical family planning.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].