[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5038-H5039]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            A CRITICAL MOMENT FOR THE 2000 DECENNIAL CENSUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight at a critical 
moment for the 2000 decennial census. Today the President nominated Dr. 
Ken Prewitt for director of the Census Bureau.
  As everyone involved with the 2000 Census knows, the operation is at 
a high risk for failure. The Government Accounting Office has warned we 
are headed towards failure, and the Commerce Department's own Inspector 
General has warned we are headed towards failure.
  When I became chairman of the new Subcommittee on the Census, I made 
a controversial statement. I said I did not have any litmus test for 
the new census director. I said what we needed was a competent manager 
who was committed to working cooperatively with Congress.
  Unfortunately, I think the President had a litmus test. Dr. Prewitt's 
background does not have anything to suggest he can lead a huge 
organization at a time of crisis. He has admitted that he has never run 
anything of the magnitude of the Census Bureau. Basically, for a short 
time he ran a think tank, and that is it.
  The decennial census is the largest peacetime mobilization in 
American history. The Census Bureau needs a General Schwarzkopf, not a 
professor Sherman Klunk, to save the census. So why would the President 
nominate an academic? Because of politics. Dr. Prewitt supports the 
President's sampling scheme, so he received the nomination.
  Basically, while I had no litmus test, the President certainly did. 
In recent weeks I have noticed an increasing politicizing of the 2000 
census. The President tried to divide America in his most recent speech 
by promising some areas more money if they followed his plan, without 
telling the American people which communities he plans to take money 
from. It is a zero sum game. If you promise one area more, it comes 
from another part of America.

[[Page H5039]]

  I have noticed increasingly inflammatory rhetoric from my friends on 
the other side of the aisle. They have been far too quick to impugn 
motives and to try and inject divisive politics into the debate over 
the census.
  Mr. Speaker, my job as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Census 
is to reflect the interests of the entire House in an honest, reliable, 
and trusted 2000 census. We are a long way from achieving that type of 
census.
  As soon as we start talking about the substance of how the census 
will be conducted, someone else wants to talk about politics. When I 
point that the sampling failed its only test, the response is, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dan Miller) only cares about politics.
  When I point out that real Americans who took the time to participate 
in the census and filled out their forms would have been deleted under 
a sampling scheme, someone accuses the President of not wanting to 
count all Americans.
  When I point out that Pennsylvania would have lost a congressional 
seat because of a mistake in the statistical computer model, someone 
accuses Republicans of trying to deny Federal funds to urban areas.
  When I point out the serious policy implications of telling the 
American people they do not have to participate in the census anymore, 
the government will figure it out on their own, someone accuses 
Republicans of only caring about protecting House seats.
  Most recently, someone attempted to divide America along racial and 
ethnic lines. I find this very sad and very disappointing. Earlier this 
week one staff member with an impeccable record of defending the Voting 
Rights Act and working to increase minority representation in Congress, 
State legislatures, and city councils had one comment taken out of 
context, and one Member on the other side of the aisle sends out a 
letter entitled, ``GOP plays racial politics with the 2000 census.''
  Mr. Speaker, if the Congress and the administration are going to save 
the 2000 census from failure, we all need to start talking about 
substance, not politics. We need to debate the flaws in each other's 
plans for the census, not publicly guess about each other's motives. My 
objections to the President's plan are well known. I oppose the use of 
statistical sampling in the census because it has proved to be less 
accurate and less reliable.
  In 1990, the sample census was found to be less accurate for 
populations under 100,000, and would have incorrectly taken a seat away 
from Pennsylvania. Americans who filled out their census forms would 
have been deleted from the count.
  Now the Clinton administration wants to take that failed experiment 
and increase its size by 5 times, complete it in half the time and with 
a less trained work force. A less accurate, less fair method is not the 
proper way to address the serious and difficult issue of minority 
undercounts. It takes hard work, innovative thinking, and frankly, more 
resources. That is the issue that should be debated, and not the 
political motivations of some individuals on both sides of this debate. 
I hope this House quickly gets back on the track of saving the 2000 
census, and leaves the political sideshows to others.

                          ____________________