[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 5 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H221-H222]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CENSUS 2000
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) is recognized
for 60.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to introduce
myself to the American people and to all the stakeholders in the 2000
decennial census. My name is Dan Miller and I represent the 13th
Congressional District in Florida. I am the new chairman of the
Subcommittee on the Census. The task of our subcommittee is to work
with and to oversee the Census Bureau to ensure that we have a
successful 2000 census.
For many Americans listening tonight, the 2000 census may not seem
like the most interesting subject. I know it is tough to get excited
about how to count people. We do, after all, count sheep in our head to
try to fall asleep. But the census is important, and it has real impact
on us and our government.
Why do we take a census every 10 years? For two reasons. Let me
repeat that, for two reasons. First, we take the census to apportion
the Representatives, and the House Representatives among the 50 States.
As the population grows and shifts between States, the numbers of
Members each State elects to represent it in this House may increase or
decrease.
The second reason is to redraw the district boundaries of
congressional and legislative districts to equalize those districts'
populations. That is done so each Member represents the same number of
people.
This must be done for congressional, State legislative, county and
even city council districts. This is necessary to preserve the historic
gains of our civil rights laws and guarantee one person, one vote. The
census is the underpinning of our entire Federal, State and local
government systems.
There is a lot of other important data that we receive from the
census, like how many people in homes, our ethnic heritages, how many
of us are married, how many people have dependent children, et cetera.
But these issues are secondary. We must do a fair, honest and accurate
census every 10 years so every American can be represented and have a
voice in their government.
The House of Representatives, as the voice of the American people,
therefore is the preeminent Federal stakeholder in the census. The
Senate does not need a census to exist. The executive branch does not
need a census to exist, the judicial branch does not need a census to
exist, but the House of Representatives literally needs a census
conducted every 10 years to exist as a constitutional body. The
legitimacy of the House of Representatives and the American system of
democracy rests on a successful census.
So let me say what should be obvious. The House of Representatives
must have a huge say in the planning, preparation, and implementation
of the 2000 census. It would seem crazy if the executive branch would
ever consider moving forward with a plan which the majority of the
House of Representatives does not support. The President has
preeminence in conducting foreign policy, but the Constitution clearly
gives this Congress the lead in conducting the census. But crazy as it
sounds, the Census Bureau has unilaterally decided to try a radical new
approach to conducting the census. They know Congress disapproves, but
they still plan to carry out this untested, risky method that in all
likelihood will not even work. The Clinton administration has known for
at least three years now, since they released the outlines of their
unprecedented plan, that many Members of the House have serious
reservations. Chairman Clinger made it quite clear in 1996 in a report
from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. The report
stated, ``The committee is seriously concerned'' about the Bureau's
plan. Chairman Clinger added that the committee was concerned that the
Bureau's new method ``may undermine public confidence in the decennial
census and reduce public participation.'' Chairman Clinger concluded
with this serious concern: ``It appears that the fundamental
constitutional purpose for the decennial census, which is to apportion
the House of Representatives, has been deemphasized.'' In other words,
the Census Bureau seems to have forgotten what the census is all about.
The Census Bureau's own Inspector General took the Census Bureau to
task last fall for poor relations with Congress. The Inspector General
stated in clear terms, ``The Bureau needs to increase its credibility
with Congress.''
Just last November, a clear congressional majority passed the funding
bill for the Commerce Department, and in that legislation the House and
Senate made clear its position. We believe that the Census Bureau's
plan, let me quote from the legislation, ``poses the risk of
inaccurate, invalid and unconstitutional census.''
I would think that statement alone, which was included in the
legislation signed by the President, would send a strong signal to the
Census Bureau that their new plan does not have enough political
support for it to move forward. Yet, they do not seem to get the
message.
Some say Congress has delegated its authority to the employees at the
Census Bureau to conduct the census any way they choose. On the other
hand, a great number of respected legal minds believe the Clinton plan
is unconstitutional. That is an open question of both constitutional
and statutory law. The House of Representatives will soon be filing
suit as agreed to by the majority in Congress last year, to prevent the
unlawful use of the polling techniques at the heart of the Bureau's
unprecedented plan. Hopefully, the court will resolve these issues. But
no matter what they decide, the administration is wrong to try and ram
down some new plan without political consensus.
I am not a lawyer, so I will not try to make a complex legal argument
tonight. I am, however, a Member of the House of Representatives, so I
will make a civic argument. It is beyond comprehension that the Clinton
administration would move forward if it is so clear that the House of
Representatives disapproves. We are going to file suit to stop their
plan. That should give the administration a pretty strong signal that
we do not like what they are doing. It is simply bad government for the
Census Bureau to unilaterally push ahead on something that the House
does not approve and the American people know very little about.
Again, the legitimacy of the House is at stake, and with it, the
confidence of the American people and their system of representative
democracy. Our opinion, whether the Census Bureau agrees with it or
not, must carry great weight. I think it is worth pointing out that the
House, like most people, do
[[Page H222]]
not have a radical, impractical idea of how we should conduct the
census. Common sense says we simply need to count everybody. The
majority of Members simply want the Bureau to use the basic method we
have always used in this country. We want to make some common sense
improvements and spend enough money to make sure we count all
Americans, but we are not trying to push an unprecedented, untested
method on the Bureau, nor are we advocating an approach that will not
work.
In fact, it is the administration that has the unprecedented and
highly complex idea of how to conduct the census. They have
unilaterally decided to abandon the method we have used in this country
for 200 years because they have a new academic theory. If the Clinton
administration believes they have a better method, they should present
the plan to Congress and get our approval, but the simple fact that
they want to try an untested, unprecedented method, the burden of proof
is on them. The burden of receiving explicit congressional approval is
on them. The burden of convincing the American people to pay for this
extravagant experiment is on them.
The House has wisely formed a subcommittee to conduct oversight on
the census, and I am honored to serve as its chairman and we will have
a very successful committee. I believe the Census Bureau wants to work
with us, but at the moment they do not have a leader. Martha Riche, the
Director for the past several years, left office last week. This is a
difficult time to lose a census director. The Commerce Inspector
General and the General Accounting Office have made clear that the
census is not in great shape at this moment. In a few months, they will
be conducting some important dress rehearsals in Sacramento,
California, and Charleston, South Carolina and in South Dakota.
Simultaneously, they must continue ramping up for the 2000 census. The
Bureau is in dire need of leadership and organization, and they need a
director as soon as possible.
I want to make my position clear about the qualifications needed for
the next census director. First, Mr. President, do not play political
games with the legitimacy of the House of Representatives. Do not send
up a political spokesperson who is not committed to faithfully carrying
out the intent of the law. I have said I have no litmus test, but, Mr.
President, you better not have a litmus test either. Your nominee must
be prepared to plan and carry out a full enumeration, because that is
the will of the majority of this Congress.
Article I of our Constitution requires Congress to conduct the
decennial census to apportion Representatives among the States. We take
it very seriously. I believe, therefore, that it would be wise to
consult the House extensively before we nominate a new census director.
We cannot risk the people's confidence in the 2000 census. The next
census director must not be a political lightning rod for untried
ideology. In no measure a successful census is defined by the people's
confidence and its fairness and accuracy. The majority of the
Representatives and Senators oppose the administration's new untested
methodology of how to conduct the 2000 census. It would be a tragic
mistake to put forward a nominee who the congressional majority views
as unwilling to work with us.
{time} 1845
Over the next several months, our subcommittee plans to hold a series
of hearings to learn more about the status of the planning for the
census. We intend to examine the design flaws in the Bureau's
complicated plans. We will make sure that the Bureau moves forward with
planning for a new numeration as the recent legislation signed by the
President requires.
I hope to offer constructive and practical ideas of how we can
improve on past censuses without risking a failed census. I do not
believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water. We have a great
deal of work to do to save the census. Let us get started.
____________________