[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.

                          ____________________