[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.

                          ____________________