THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

Let me emphasize the limited scope of this legislation. We do not close the courthouse door to any class action. We do not require that State attorneys general do anything with the notice they receive. We do not deny reasonable fees for class lawyers. And we do not mandate that every class action be brought in federal court. Instead, we simply promote closer and fairer scrutiny of class actions and class settlements.

[Page: S1170]  GPO's PDF

   These proposals have earned a broad range of support. Even Judge Paul Niemeyer, the Chair of the Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, who has studied class actions closely and testified before Congress on this issue, expressed his support for this ``modest'' measure, noting in particular that increasing federal jurisdiction over class actions will be a positive ``meaningful step.'' Last year, our bill passed the Judiciary Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee.

   Mr. President, right now, people across the country can be dragged into lawsuits unaware of their rights and unarmed on the legal battlefield. What our bill does is give regular people back their rights and representation. This measure may not stop all abuses, but it moves use forward. It will help ensure that good people like Martha Preston don't get ripped off.

   Mr. President, Senator GRASSLEY and I believe this is a moderate approach to correct the worst abuses, while preserving the benefits of class actions. It is both pro-consumer and pro-defendant. We believe it will make a difference.

   By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. KERRY, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, and Mr. ROBB):

   S. 354. A bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory trade status to the products of Mongolia; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

   MONGOLIA MOST-FAVORED-NATION STATUS

   Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to introduce S. 354, a bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment--formerly known as ``most-favored nation status''--to the products of Mongolia. I am pleased to be joined by Senator MCCAIN, chairman of the Commerce Committee; Senator KERRY, the ranking minority member of my subcommittee; and Senator ROBB and Senator SMITH or Oregon as original cosponsors.

   Mongolia has undergone a series of remarkable and dramatic changes over the last few years. Sandwiched between the former Soviet Union and China, it was one of the first countries in the world to become communist after the Russian Revolution. After 70 years of communist rule, though, the Mongolian people have recently made great progress in establishing a democratic political system and creating a free-market economy. Since that time, there have been successive successful national and regional elections.

   Mongolia has demonstrated a strong desire to build a friendly and cooperative relationship with the United States on trade and related matters since its turn towards democracy. We concluded a bilateral trade treaty with that country in 1991, and a bilateral investment treaty in 1994. Mongolia has received nondiscriminatory trading status since 1991, and has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements of Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974. In additions, it has acceded to the Agreement Establishing of the World Trade Organization.

   Mr. President, Mongolia has clearly demonstrated that it is fully deserving of joining the ranks of those countries to which we extend nondiscriminatory trade status. The extension of that status would not only serve to commend the Mongolians on their impressive progress, but would also enable the U.S. to avail itself of all its rights under the WTO with respect to Mongolia.

   I have another, more parochial, reason for being interested in MFN status for Mongolia. Mongolia and my home state of Wyoming are sister states; a strong relationship between the two has developed over the last four years. Many of Mongolia's provincial governors have visited the state, and the two governments have established partnerships in education, agriculture, and livestock management. Like Wyoming, Mongolia is a high plateau with mountains on the northwest border, where many of the residents make their living by raising livestock. I am pleased to see the development of this mutually beneficial relationship, and am sure that the extension of nondiscriminatory trade status will serve to strengthen it further.

   Mr. President, I introduced an identical bill in the last Congress, but Congress adjourned sine die before the bill could be acted on by both houses. I was very appreciative that last year the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator ROTH, indicated his willingness to favorably consider the legislation early in this Congress, and look forward to working with him.

   Mr. President, I ask unanimous that the text of S. 354 be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

   SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

   Congress makes the following findings:

   (1) Mongolia has received nondiscriminatory trade treatment since 1991 and has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974;

   (2) Mongolia has, since ending its nearly 70 years of dependence on the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, established a parliamentary democracy and a free-market economic system;

   (3) Mongolia concluded a bilateral trade treaty with the United States in 1991 and a bilateral investment treaty in 1994;

   (4) Mongolia has acceded to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization;

   (5) Mongolia has demonstrated a strong desire to build a friendly and cooperative trade relationship with the United States; and

   (6) The extension of nondiscriminatory trade status to the products of Mongolia would enable the United States to avail itself of all the rights available under the World Trade Organization with respect to Mongolia.

   SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO MONGOLIA.

   (a) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EXTENSIONS OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT.--Notwithstanding any provision of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may--

   (1) determine that such title should no longer apply to Mongolia; and

   (2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with respect to Mongolia, proclaim the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of that country.

   (b) TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV.--On or after the effective date of the extension under subsection (a)(2) of nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of Mongolia, title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall cease to apply to that country.

   Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to cosponsor legislation with Senators THOMAS, ROBB, and KERRY to grant nondiscriminatory trade status to Mongolia. Passage of this legislation will play an important role in aiding Mongolia's transition to a democratic government and a market-oriented economy.

   There has been a stunning political transformation in Mongolia since it broke away from Communist rule in 1990. In the past seven years, there have been two presidential elections and three parliamentary elections. All of these have been open and democratic, and have not suffered from violence or fraud.

   The most important aspect of these elections is that they show the triumph of democracy and democratic forces. In 1996, the Mongolian Social Democratic Party (MSDP) and Mongolian National Democratic Party (MNDP) joined forces to win an unexpected victory in the parliamentary elections. By fulfilling its ``Contract with the Mongolian Voter,'' this coalition is ensuring the establishment of a political system based on our cherished democratic principles. After a few months of uncertainty, the Mongolian government is now back on track and committed to continue its reforms. I am happy to say that the International Republican Institute is continuing to play a major role in showing these political parties how to establish a stable democratic government.

   This democratic transformation has established a firm human rights regime. The Mongolian Constitution allows freedom of speech, the press and expression. Separation of Church and state is recognized in this predominantly Buddhist nation as well as the right to worship or not worship. Full freedom of emigration is allowed, and Mongolia now is in full compliance with sections 402 and 409 of the Trade Act of 1974, also known as the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. An independent judiciary has been established to protect these rights from any future violation.

   Mongolia is also in the middle of an economic transformation. As part of the ``Contract with the Mongolian

[Page: S1171]  GPO's PDF

   When I was in Mongolia in 1997, I saw the effects of this economic transformation firsthand. At a town hall meeting in Kharakhorum, the ancient capital of the Mongol Empire, I met a herdsman and asked him about the economic liberalization. First, I asked him how many sheep he had under Communism. He said none, because the Communists didn't allow private property. Then I asked him how many sheep he owned after privatization. He answered that he had three sheep then, which is not much in a country with 25 million sheep. So I asked him how many sheep he has now. He answered that he now has 90 goats, 60 sheep, 20 cows and 6 horses. I asked him if that was considered successful. He replied that he was successful as were many herdsmen in this new economy. He then told me that he would never want to change the system back to what it was, because ``now Mongols have control over their own life and destiny.'' That is the new culture of a market Mongolian economy.

   There are many benefits to supporting Mongolian democracy and economic liberalization. In 1991, Secretary of State James Baker promised Mongolia that the United States would be Mongolia's ``third neighbor.'' We remain committed to that course of action to encourage Mongolia in its endeavors and promote it as an example of how nations can successfully convert from a Communist totalitarian state to a market democracy. The democratic Mongolia has already begun to promote peace and stability among its neighbors by becoming the world's first national nuclear-free zone. Furthermore, the United States will be able to count on the liberalized Mongolian economy as an important market for American goods and services.

   I hope that my colleagues here in the Senate will join me in passing this legislation to grant nondiscriminatory trade status to Mongolia to help it continue its successful democratic transformation and transition to a market economy.

   By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. BINGAMAN):

   S. 355. A bill to amend title 13, United States Code, to eliminate the provision that prevents sampling from being used in determining the population for purposes of the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States; to the Committee on Government Affairs.

   A JUST APPORTIONMENT FOR ALL STATES ACT

   Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my friend and colleague, Senator BINGAMAN, a bill to allow the use of sampling in determining the populations of the states for use in reapportionment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 1976 amendments to the Census Act do not permit sampling in determining these populations. We believe sampling is vital to achieving the goal of the most accurate census possible, and to a fair and accurate redistricting.

   The Bureau of the Census proposes to count each census tract by mail and then by sending out enumerators until they have responses for 90 percent of the addresses. The Bureau proposes to then use sampling to infer who lives at the remaining ten percent of addresses in each tract based on what they know of the 90 percent. This would provide a more accurate census then we get by repeatedly sending enumerators to hard-to-count locations and would save $500 million or more in personnel costs.

   The Census plan is supported by the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council, which was directed by Congress in 1992 to study ways to achieve the most accurate population count possible. The NRC report finds that the Bureau should ``make a good faith effort to count everyone, but then truncate physical enumeration after a reasonable effort to reach nonrespondents. The number and character of the remaining nonrespondents should then be estimated through sampling.''

   Mr. President, the taking of a census goes back centuries.

   I quote from the King James version of the Bible, chapter two of Luke: ``And it came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed (or enrolled, according to the footnote) *.*.* And all went to be taxed, everyone into his own city.'' The early censuses were taken to enable the rule or ruling government to tax or raise an army.

   The first census for more sociological reasons was taken in Nuremberg, in 1449. So it was not a new idea to the Founding Fathers when they wrote it into the Constitution to facilitate fair taxation and accurate apportionment of the House of Representatives, the latter of which was the foundation of the Great Compromise that has served us well ever since.

   The Constitution says in Article I, Section 2:

   Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years of the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall direct by law.

   Those who cite this as saying the Constitution requires an ``actual enumeration'' should consider whether the phrase is being taken out of context. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of sampling. Rather the Court has ruled on the census laws last amended in 1976.

   I also note that we have not taken an ``actual enumeration'' the way the Founding Fathers envisioned since 1960, after which enumerators going to every door were replaced with mail-in responses. The Constitution provides for a postal system, but did not direct that the census be taken by mail. Yet we do it that way. Why not sample if that is a further improvement?

   Sampling would go far toward correcting one of the most serious flaws in the census, the undercount. Statistical work in the 1940's demonstrated that we can estimate how many people the census misses. The estimate for 1940 was 5.4 percent of the population. After decreasing steadily to 1.2 percent in 1980, the 1990 undercount increased to 1.8 percent, or more than four million people.

   More significantly, the undercount is not distributed evenly. The differential undercount, as it is known, of minorities was 5.7 percent for Blacks, 5.0 percent for Hispanics, 2.3 percent for Asian-Pacific Islanders, and 4.5 percent for Native Americans, compared with 1.2 percent for non-Hispanic whites. The difference between the black and non-black undercount was the largest since 1940. By disproportionately missing minorities, we deprive them of equal representation in Congress and of proportionate funding from Federal programs based on population. The Census Bureau estimates that the total undercount will reach 1.9 percent in 2000 if the 1990 methods are used instead of sampling.

   Mr. President, I have some history with the undercount

   issue. In 1966 when I became Director of the Joint Center for Urban Studies at MIT and Harvard, I asked Professor David Heer to work with me in planning a conference to publicize the non-white undercount in the 1960 census and to foster concern about the problems of obtaining a full enumeration, especially of the urban poor. I ask unanimous consent that my foreword to the report from that conference be printed in the RECORD, for it is, save for some small numerical changes, disturbingly still relevant. Sampling is the key to the problem and we must proceed with it so that we have one accurate census count for all purposes, all uses. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD and I hope my colleagues will support it.

[Page: S1172]  GPO's PDF

   There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

   SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

   This Act may be cited as the ``A Just Apportionment for All States Act''.

   SEC. 2. USE OF SAMPLING.

   Section 195 of title 13, United States Code, is amended by striking ``Except for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, the'' and inserting ``The''.

--

   Social Statistics and the City

   FOREWORD

   At one point in the course of the 1950's John Kenneth Galbraith observed that it is the statisticians, as much as any single group, who shape public policy, for the simple reason that societies never really become effectively concerned with social problems until they learn to measure them. An unassuming truth, perhaps, but a mighty one, and one that did more than he may know to sustain morale in a number of Washington bureaucracies (hateful word!) during a period when the relevant cabinet officers had on their own reached very much the same conclusion--and distrusted their charges all the more in consequence. For it is one of the ironies of American government that individuals and groups that have been most resistant to liberal social change have quite accurately perceived that social statistics are all too readily transformed into political dynamite, whilst in a curious way the reform temperament has tended to view the whole statistical process as plodding, overcautious, and somehow a brake on progress. (Why must every statistic be accompanied by detailed notes about the size of the ``standard error''?)

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents