in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. numbered 60. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 60, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 552, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. . mr. broun: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. broun: we have heard a thousand times that every vote counts. if we allow for the use of the practice known as statistical

sam knowledge as this bill -- sampling, as this bill clearly allows, every vote may not be counted. maybe some votes may be counted more often than others. the administration have made it known that they will politicize this. at a time when the federal government is endlessly enacting unconstitutional laws and executive orders, it is incumbent on this body to safeguard at least one obligation that is required of us by the constitution of the united states. the constitution requires the government to take an actual head count, not a guess, not an estimate, but a physical head count. statistical sampling, however, simply recrates profiles and assumes how many people live in various parts of our country. and it does not actually do any counting.

in other words, sampling makes people up. it even guesses their age, sex, their race and even their background. implementing this process would undoubtedly leave the census open to massive amounts of fraud and political tinkering. with groups out there like a corn, allowing sampling to be used in addition to their already known shady practices, we might as well just say, we don't care in the least about getting accurate results. mr. speaker, enough is enough. we must take legitimate steps to ensure the integrity of next year's census. but i believe there was another amendment made by my friend, mr. henry from north carolina, that would have done even more to ensure the integrity of this process.

mr. mchenry and my friend and colleague, have worked tirelessly on this very issue. they know more than any other members in this chamber the pitfalls and constitutional concerns that come with the use of statistical sampling, both as it relates to the census and to the apportionment process of this very body. but because of this gag rule that the majority has imposed upon us, mr. mchenry's amendment will not be eligible to be debated, which is shameful. this is just one example of how the democrats' decision to completely close off the amendment process for this bill is ending up shutting out meaningful debate. the tactics employed yesterday in the dead of the night are completely against the promise of openes and integrity this

body is supposed to stand for. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. mollohan: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mollohan: i want to assure the gentleman that the census bureau will not use sampling to the extent of apportionment. i want to extend that purpose. the supreme court has already ruled and will play no role in the apportionment. existing law prohibits apportionment. this amendment would prohibit the census bureau from completing important aspects of the census that are related to apportionment such as coverage measurement. and that is used to measure the undercount and thus assure the quality, provides the performance measure, if you will, mr. chairman, for the activities.

the bureau needs this data in order to identify gaps in coverage and improve its processes so americans can be assured of the best possible census in the future. now, i have heard this debate for the last several censuses, sitting on this committee, we deal with this issue every 10 years. sampling is a statistically sound methodology in and of itself. it will not be used for apportionment, assuring the gentleman. but it is a statistically significant and accurate way to have a better count. it's sound and it achieves accuracy. that's the whole point through a scientific method. now, i didn't take statistics, so i have to rely upon the scientists to tell you this, but i have listened to enough of them, assure us that that's the

way they get a better count, a more accurate count. and isn't that tremendous that we have these sophisticated methods to achieve that? to oppose sampling in and of itself i think is to disagree that sampling does, in fact achieve a greater accuracy. and i think that is disagreed with by -- by the scientific community. mr. chairman, at this point, i reserve the balance of my time. i ask how much time i have, please. the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. and reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i ask the speaker how much time i have. the chair: one minute, 15 seconds.

mr. broun: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mollohan: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from new york, mr. towns. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. towns: i thank mr. mollohan for yielding. i believe that this is an amendment that tries to solve a problem, but instead, it creates a problem that does not exist, but is written so broadly that it creates all kinds of other problems. i understand that the gentleman from georgia opposes the use of statistical sampling for the apportionment of seats in the house of representatives. the supreme court has already ruled that this is not allowed. so you can forget about that. there is a federal statute that already prohibits it. and the administration has repeatedly stated that it will not be used.

sampling will not be used to adjust the 2010 census. so this amendment is not necessary. this is a blocking amendment. this is an in the way amendment. this amendment is written so broadly that it would also prohibit commonly accepted techniques that the census bureau uses for quality control and other surveys. next year the census bureau will use sampling as a part of its coverage measurement program in order to escalate how well it counted the enre country. this amendment interferes with that. the census bureau uses sampling for other statistical work, including the american community survey. it provides congress and the public with specific and valuable data about our nation's population. that is what states and local governments need in order to

make the best decisions they can make. it is important, too, for policy making at the federal level. we want to make sure that the bill can still provide this necessary information. please do not tie their hands. as chair of the committee that has oversight of this, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. this is an awful amendment. it does not do anything to help to get to where we need to go. on that note, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: how much time is on the other side. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia has 30 seconds remaining. the gentleman from georgia has one minute and 15 seconds. mr. broun: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mollohan: mr. chairman, i reserve my time.

the chair: the gentleman from west virginia reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. broun: i respectfully disagree with my friends on the other side. this doesn't have to do with the american community survey, but with the census and that's the way the amendment is written. it says the census and census only. it has to do with the census. it has to do with the apportionment just based on the census and actual counting, not statistical surveys or statistical sampling. and it is to ensure integrity that we know who's here and what they're all about. and that's what this amendment is all about. ry reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia.

mr. mollohan: mr. chairman, i don't have any other speakers. if the gentleman wants to yield back, i'll certainly yield back. i won't yield back until he yields back. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: this whole amendment process is flawed. we had other amendments that were maybe considered better. and because of these flaws, the american people surely will not receive the accurate census that the constitution requires that they receive next year. we have had many efforts to cut spending and they were ordered out of order. this is a flawed process that is deplorable and let the process go on. but because of this process, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman withdraws his amendment.

the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mollohan: yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, number 79. the chair: is the gentleman the designee of mr. lewis of california? mr. hensarling: yes, i am. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 79 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. hensarling of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment that would strike an earmark in the bill for the art center of the grand prarie in stutgardt, arkansas.

i'm not a big fan of earmarks. it's not to say all earmarks are bad. the gentleman from texas to my left here has proposed several very worth while earmarks. but, mr. speaker, we aren't living in normal times. we are in severe economic stress in our nation today. and as i look at what has happened in the united states congress, what have i observed, is that in the history of congress, never have so few voted so fast to indebt so many. already on top of a staggering, staggering national debt, we have seen a $700 billion bailout program that continues today, a

$1.13 trillion government stimulus bill. does nothing to help our economy. $400 billion omnibus bill, choke full of even more earmarks. all of this is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to hard-working american families. so, mr. chairman, the president himself has said that he is losing sleep at night over the national debt. well, i would love for the president to sleep better at night and maybe he could quit proposing the bailouts. maybe members of congress could quick proposing all of the earmark spending. now, this is relatively small as far as the dollars are concerned. $155,000 apparently to fund after-school and summer arts programs. but, mr. chairman, under this democratic congress, the national debt will triple,

triple in 10 years. the federal deficit has gone up ten-fold in just two years. we are borrowing 46 cents to spend a dollar here. 46 cents. we are borrowing money from the chinese and sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren. which causes me to question, is this the best expenditure of $155,000 of the taxpayer money? mr. chairman, i'm a veteran of many of these earmark battles. they have been going on for years. i know from history what we'll hear. number one, we'll hear nobody knows my district like i do. i can see the point. i do not know the gentleman's district from arkansas as he does. i suspect good things can be done with the money. i see the point.

the arts center of grand prarie, i guess they do wonderful work, but i don't know how it's related to juvenile justice. congress has the authority to spend the money. doesn't mean it's smart, doesn't mean it's wise, doesn't mean it's helpful. but, yes, congress has that power. . my complaint is twofold, number one, when we are borrowing money from the chinese, sending the bill to our children and grandchildren, spending more -- encountering more debt in the next 10 years than the previous 220 combined, we have never seen levels of debt since world war ii. is there any time that we decide maybe something isn't a national priority? as good a work as they do at the art center of the grand prairie, i would submit to you there are

alternative uses for this money that would help families in america and it is not a priority. we must start this spending discipline somewhere. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. mollohan: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mollohan: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, member of the appropriations committee, mr. berry. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. berry: mr. speaker, i thank the chairman, the gentleman from west virginia. and congratulate him for putting together a good bill and bringing it to this house floor and moving it forward. my colleagues across the aisle as they have suffered in the minority, talked more trash than a $3 radio.

and it's amazing it would actually almost be funny if it were not so serious. but they took over this country in january of 2001 with a balanced budget, a $5 trillion surplus, and the voteso pass anything they wanted to pass. and they did. and they imposed their will on the american people. and their idea of how to grow an economy is give as much money as you can to the rich people, don't regulate them at all. let them do anything they want to, and hope wall street takes care of you. we all see what happened.

this year we find ourselves in the worst economic circumstance that anyone can imagine. it's happened one other time in this country. as i have listened to the debate it sounds like the ghost from the hoover republicans trying to stop franklin d. roosevelt from rebuilding this country and making it a great nation again and putting it in a position where it could fight and win world war ii. what he did was invest in the people and invest in the country and we did it and it worked. and i make no apologies for our attempt to invest in the children of the grand prairie in stuttgart, arkansas. so i rise today in support of the funding for the art center of the grand prairie. the art center is a nonprofit organization that provides after

school and summer programs for troubled youth. while the art center provides valuable artistic instruction and activities, we don't need to turn this into an argument over whether the federal government should be a patron of the arts. we need to look at the real point of the program. engaging at-risk youth and preventing crime. this is the benefit the federal government and society as a whole will derive from this project. it is a worthwhile investment in our children. the funds for this project come from the department of of justice. specifically the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention program. according to d.o.j.'s own description of the program, juvenile justice grants support for prevention and early intervention programs that are making a difference for young people and their communities. the art center of the grand prairie is a perfect example of

this type program. during the school year the art center after school programs can serve as a valuable supplement to each child's education by emphasizing task oriented intrucks, learning to create a project from start to finish, and supplementing critical reading and writing skills in the process. most importantly these programs engage children off the seets during the afternoon hours between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m. they are primarily staffed with many good hardworking people that volunteer their time. it's well-known by law enforcement that this is a prime time for juvenile crime, vandalism, and violence. outside the school year, the art center summer art program provides week-long programs for youth engaging them with positive educational activities that stimulate creative

thinking, get children reading and writing, stem the summer brain drain, and these summer camps are opened to youths would -- who would not ordinarily get the opportunity to attend this type of program or any other program as evidenced by the fact that approximately 65% of the attendees are on full scholarship. federal funding for the art sent er of the grand prairie will ensure these programs can continue and grow. make a positive impact on the lives of even more young people. the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas would not save the taxpayers a dime. i ask that this amendment be defeated. i thank the gentleman from west virginia for his time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: the time has expired on the majority side.

30 seconds remaining for the gentleman. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm certainly am not equipped to mr. speaker to the $3 radio generation. i think can i speak somewhat to the $50 ipod generation because $155,000 to be used for the gentleman's earmark will be borrowed from the chinese and sent to that generation. now, when the republicans were in control and we had a $300 billion deficit, the now majority leader steny hoyer called that fiscal child abuse. now we have a $1.8 trillion deficit. this earmark makes it $155,000 worse, fiscal child abuse for the ipod generation. it should not be accepted. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the

gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: i rise as the designee of mr. lewis of california to offer amendment number 76 as printed in the congressional record. the chair: the gentleman is the designee of mr. lewis of california and the clerk will designated the amendment.

the chair: amendment number 76, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. hensarling of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 552, the gentleman from texas, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would strike $200 expenditure, another earmark, for the maine lobster research and in shore trol survey. mr. speaker, i believe if we have counted properly there's roughly 1,100 different earmarks contained within this appropriation. again i want to make it very clear that all earmarks are not bad. but i am not a fan of earmarks be they congressional or

administration. too often in the earmark process what we observe, what the american people observe, is a triumph over special interest or local interest over the national interest or the public interest. too often we see a triumph of seniority and political considerations over merit. too often we see the triumph of secrecy over transparency and all too often, all too often, mr. chairman, for this body the american people believe they see money coming in on one end of capitol hill and earmarks coming out of the other. the system is broken. the system must be reformed. again, mr. chairman, relative to the federal budget it may be a small portion of the total spending. it is a huge portion of the culture of spending. we need a culture of saving.

you cannot earmark, bail out, borrow, and spend your way into prosperity no matter what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe. it cannot be done. we have seen no example in history. whatsoever. mr. chairman, i have no doubt, i have no doubt that this maine lobster research and in shore trol survey is very important to the state of maine. i have no doubt about that. i wonder, though, how much federal money is already going into lobster research. i wonder if it is truly a federal priority. how about catfish? how about pecans? how about research for i yield myself such time as i may consume and sweet potatoes? are those indeed national priorities? if it's not a national priority. if it's important for the state of maine, why didn't the state

of maine pay for it? if it's important to these local communities, why don't the local communities pay for it? why didn't the chamber of commerce pay for it? why don't commercial companies pay for it? why don't co-ops pay for it? somebody needs to explain to me why the dublin family in texas that needs money to pay their mortgage, why do they have to pay for it? why does the morning family in athens, texas, when they need this money to put gas in their car, why do they have to pay for it? why does the lily family in coughman, texas, that need money to pay health care premiums on their insurance, why do they have to pay for it? i don't understand that, mr. chairman. and i don't think it's right. i don't think it is right at a time of economic crisis. we are losing small businesses by the thousands. the average small business is capitalized by $25,000.

this $200,000 expenditure right here, that could mean the difference of saving eight small businesses and the jobs they represent in this great nation of ours. but instead it's going to be spent on the maine lobster research and in shore troll survey. no doubt it's important to maine. no doubt they are doing good work. but, mr. chairman, again is it worth borrowing money from the chinese, sending the bill to our children and grandchildren, and maybe being the first generation in america's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living? it's not fair. it's not smart. it's not right. it needs to be rejected. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. mollohan: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mollohan: mr. chairman, i yield four minutes to the gentlelady from maine,