[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 73 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H4301]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
2000 CENSUS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker I rise today to discuss the
2000 census and in particular the two lawsuits that have been generated
because of the 2000 census.
As many of my colleagues know, Speaker Gingrich and the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Barr) each have filed a lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of the use of statistical methods when conducting a
census. What my colleagues may not know is that 25 other Members of
Congress who support the use of statistical methods when conducting a
census have joined those two lawsuits to make sure that our position is
represented in the court system.
As a Member of that group of 25, I want to give the Members of this
House a status report on the two lawsuits. On Monday, April 6, 1998,
the administration moved to dismiss both lawsuits on the constitutional
grounds that the plaintiffs, Gingrich and Barr, lack standing to sue
the Census Bureau because they will not be harmed by the proposed plan
and that the cases are not yet ripe for adjudication because the census
is 2 years away.
The rhetoric from Members opposed to an accurate census suggests that
the administration is hiding behind the procedural issues of standing
and ripeness. This is simply not the case. As everyone knows, each case
brought before a court must be reviewed procedurally before it can be
reviewed on its merits. A case cannot go forward if it is not
procedurally sound. The administration has repeatedly stated that it is
eager to argue the merits of the case; however, it believes it has a
legal obligation to also argue standing. Even if the administration did
not bring up the issue of standing, a court has an obligation to
dismiss a case if it is not procedurally sound, regardless of what the
parties to the lawsuit allege.
My colleagues should remember that standing is also a provision of
the Constitution. You cannot violate the Constitution, even with a wink
and a nod, in order to get a ruling on the use of modern technology in
the census.
What is not mentioned by my friends opposed to a fair and accurate
census is that the administration in its motion to dismiss also argued
the case on the merits, stating that the statistical method plan is
both constitutional and in accord with the Census Act. Therefore, in
addition to the procedural issues, the administration points out that
the two cases should be dismissed on substantive issues as well.
Some of my colleagues may remember that there was a court challenge
to the Line-Item Veto Act by some Members of Congress in January 1996.
Congress passed the Line-Item Veto Act effective January 1996. Within
the act, Congress created the right of expedited judicial review and
attempted to create standing for Members of Congress.
Therefore, shortly after the effective date, some Members of Congress
filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Line-Item Veto
Act. The defendants in the line-item veto case filed a motion to
dismiss on procedural grounds. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld
the Federal court's dismissal of the January 1996 Line-Item Veto Act
challenge stating that the Members did not have standing to sue.
Likewise, with regard to the 2000 census, we have the 1998 Commerce,
Justice, State Appropriations Act creating the right to expedited
judicial review and attempting to create standing for Members of
Congress to sue. Just like the January 1996 line-item veto case, these
two lawsuits are being challenged on procedural grounds.
Constitutional scholars agree that these two cases lack the necessary
procedural requirements to move forward. The courts cannot give
advisory opinions as these two cases request. My anti-accurate census
friends continually point to the Constitution when discussing the
sampling details of the 2000 census but ignore the part of the
Constitution that states that there must be a case in controversy in
order for it to proceed and considered on the merits. The Constitution
is very clear on that point.
I am as eager as anyone to have the courts review the substantive
issues surrounding the use of modern statistical methods when
conducting a census. I believe that if these cases reach the merits,
the courts will determine, and the Supreme Court will uphold, that the
2000 census plan is constitutional and in accord with the Census Act. I
would love to have these issues decided by the courts which are in the
business of interpreting statutes and the Constitution.
In the meantime, I think it is imperative to set the record straight.
Neither the administration nor the 25 Members who have joined the two
lawsuits are afraid of discussing the merits of the two cases. We have
said it before and we will say it again and again. The Census Bureau
will obtain a fair and accurate count only by using statistical, modern
methods.
This week in both the District and Virginia courts, there will be
hearings at which each side will plead its case. On Thursday, arguments
will be heard in Washington, D.C. and on Friday in Virginia. I am
confident that we will prevail in the courts and in the court of public
opinion. The American people deserve a fair and accurate census in
which every person, rich or poor, black or white or Hispanic or Asian,
is accounted for. The President has put forward a plan that will
account for all Americans. The opponents of this plan want to repeat
the errors of the past because they believe it is to their political
advantage. The President's plan is true to the Constitution in both
word and spirit, and it is the only plan that is fair to all people.
____________________