[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 146 (Wednesday, October 14, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10883-H10884]
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 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, last evening, a meeting was held 
in my office with two senior Democrats to discuss the issue of the 2000 
Census. It is unfortunate that not only was the confidence of this 
meeting broken, but my position was misrepresented. Obviously, there 
are those who would betray a confidence for what they believe to be a 
short-term political gain.
  Let me make clear what transpired at the meeting and what my position 
is on the 2000 Census. The position of these Democrats was that they 
wanted to remove Congress from the decision-making process for the 2000 
Census. I disagree. At no time did I say that there would not be 
funding for the 2000 Census. As I have said publicly before, the one 
thing we can all be sure of is there will be a 2000 Census.
  What I did say is the simple fact that if the Supreme Court might 
rule that sampling is legal, it does not automatically mean there will 
be sampling in the 2000 Census.
  Let me explain, as I did last night. The Supreme Court is going to 
rule on whether or not sampling is legal or constitutional, not if the 
Clinton sampling plan will work. That issue is very much debatable. In 
fact, even the National Academy of Sciences which has endorsed the 
concept of sampling has not endorsed this plan.
  Additionally, as I pointed out last night, the administration has 
been arguing that the Supreme Court case should not be considered on 
its merits, but rather dismissed because the House of Representatives 
lacks standing and the issue is not ripe for review. If this were to 
happen, why would Congress allow the administration to use sampling 
when the entire census would be invalidated in the future when standing 
is no longer an issue and sampling is ripe for review? We already have 
the writing on the wall. Two Federal courts and six Federal judges have 
unanimously ruled that sampling is illegal. How many judges does it 
take to get the message through?

[[Page H10884]]

  The Republican position on this issue is crystal clear and makes the 
most sense. Here are six common sense reasons why the appropriations 
language which prohibits the Census Bureau from spending money after 
March 1999 should remain as it is:
  First, six Federal judges have ruled that sampling is illegal.
  Two, there is nothing in our appropriations language which prevents 
the bureau from preparing for both sampling and a non-sampling census. 
In fact, we have worked with the bureau to make sure that they have 
more money in the first 6 months than in the second 6 months. We have 
told the bureau that they will not have any cash flow problems.
  Three, in all likelihood, the Supreme Court will have decided this by 
March 1999. The case is on an expedited track and oral arguments are 
set before the Supreme Court for November 30.
  Four, by March, the information from the dress rehearsal will have 
been reviewed and available for study.
  Number five, by March, the bipartisan Census Monitoring Board will 
have issued its report on the 2000 Census.
  And six, Congress must have a role in deciding how to conduct the 
2000 Census. Without the appropriations language, the administration is 
free to unilaterally decide how the 2000 Census is conducted.
  Our position is clear and reasonable. The Democrats fear a ruling of 
the Supreme Court against sampling will devastate the chances for its 
use in 2000. They are desperately trying to figure out a way to 
diminish the importance of the court case.
  The common sense approach is to give the Census Bureau the money to 
function for the year, restrict spending after March, and wait until we 
have all the information needed to decide how to conduct the 2000 
Census.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope in the future that these House Democrats can be 
trusted to negotiate in good faith. At this point, after the 
misrepresentations of last evening's private conversations, I have 
grave doubts.

                          ____________________