[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 14 (Tuesday, February 24, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H502-H503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE YEAR 2000 CENSUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997 the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to continue the 
conversation I began a few weeks ago about the 2000 Census. As I have 
said, I believe we need to work together to ensure that we have the 
best, most honest Census possible. But I believe we are a long way from 
realizing that type of Census.
  As everyone involved in the decennial Census knows by now, I have 
concerns that we are headed for a failed Census. Today, I want to 
discuss what I believe are the serious mistakes the Clinton 
Administration has made to date, and what I believe they need to do to 
start correcting them in time to save the 2000 Census.
  The biggest mistake, indeed a colossal mistake, was made right from 
the start. They decided to ignore Congress. They thought they could 
just go ahead and design any methodology they wanted and just say to 
Congress: This is what we are going to do, and you just pay for it. 
That is not how our system works on any issue.
  Mr. Speaker, we expect the Decennial Census to cost almost $4 
billion. In other words, we spend real money on the Census. As a 
general rule, Congress does not give the executive branch $4 billion 
and say, hey, do whatever you want with it, you know best.
  Under our system, Congress controls the purse strings. So when the 
administration wants to spend tax dollars, they come to Congress and 
justify what they want to do. This gives Congress the ability to shape 
how the money is spent.
  Congress plays an even larger role in the conduct of the Census. We 
do this for one basic reason: the Constitution mandates that it is the 
Congress' responsibility to direct the manner in which the Census is 
taken. Let me quote from the Constitution itself: Quote: ``The actual 
enumeration shall be made within every subsequent term of 10 years, in 
such a manner as they, meaning the Congress, shall direct by law.'' End 
quote. In other words, the Constitution places the responsibility for 
the Census on the Congress, not the executive branch.
  For reasons I do not fully yet understand, the Clinton Administration 
used the ``Hillary Health Care Model'' for designing the 2000 Census. 
They decided to design a complicated, untested Census plan that was 
created by ``experts.'' And since the idea was sanctioned by well-
meaning experts, they just figured there was no reason to explain it or 
to sell it to average Americans and certainly no reason to work with 
the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, remember the secret health care task force that designed 
the original Health Security Act? They were all well-meaning, hard-
working individuals with great educations and they designed the 
ultimate graduate school seminar project. The plan was over 1,000 pages 
long. They had thought

[[Page H503]]

of every possible problem. And when the American people raised 
concerns, they just said do not worry, we know best. When Congress 
asked questions, the President threatened vetoes. Well, the Clinton 
health care plan collapsed.
  Unfortunately, they are headed down the same path on the Census. They 
used some legitimate problems in the 1990 Census as an excuse to 
totally redesign a 200-year method for taking the Census. But because 
they used experts, in this case statisticians, to design this 
unprecedented method, they decided they did not need approval from 
Congress. How could Congress have any legitimate concerns after all, 
because the Census Bureau used ``expert panels'' to create this new 
concept?
  Well, ``expert panels'' weren't elected by the people. Professional 
statisticians are not constitutionally responsible for directing the 
Census. Academics do not have the responsibility for deciding how 
taxpayers' dollars are spent. That is Congress' job.
  By the way, I have a Ph.D. in marketing and statistics, so I 
understand the theory behind what they are trying to pull off. I 
believe, however, that the Clinton Administration dropped the ball in 
informing the Congress, working with the Congress, and seeking approval 
from Congress.
  This serious miscalculation has placed the 2000 Census in danger and 
the institution of the Federal Government most impacted by a failed 
Census is the United States House of Representatives. Every State 
legislature, every city council, every school board needs a successful 
Census to legitimately represent the people. Let me repeat that. Every 
State legislature, every city council, every school board needs a 
successful Census to legitimately represent the people.
  If the administration fails in the implementation of their academic 
theory, all representative bodies in this country will be thrown in 
turmoil and uncertainty.
  The majority in Congress have made it very clear that we do not 
approve of the administration's current plan. What we want, or more 
precisely what we intend to pay for, is a traditional Census that is 
transparent and fair. We understand the problems of the 1990 Census and 
we want them fixed. We do not believe, however, that we need to throw 
out the baby with the bath water.
  To date, I am not satisfied they have gotten the message downtown. In 
November, Congress passed and the President signed legislation to 
continue on an actual enumeration. They have not gotten the message.
  Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the legislation--``that funds 
appropriated under this act . . . shall be used by the Bureau of the 
Census to plan, test and become prepared to implement the 2000 
decennial census, without using statistical methods. . . .''
  It seems pretty clear that the law requires them to prepare for a 
traditional Census. I don't believe that's what they are doing. They're 
budget submission hides behind legalisms and technicalities and says, 
``The Administration has not included additional funding for 
nonsampling census activities because that funding is not required by 
the agreement.''
  To me, that is yet another slap in the face to the Congress. They 
seem to have this attitude that Congress' opinion doesn't matter.
  The 2000 Census is in deep trouble at this moment. The Commerce 
Department's own Inspector General has said that. I stand ready to work 
with the Administration. We want and we need a successful Census in 
2000. But the attitude downtown needs to turnaround. They need to 
understand that we have a role to play--a very major role to play--in 
the planning, preparation and implementation of the 2000 Census.

                          ____________________