[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 51 (Wednesday, April 14, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1996-H2031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     LOCAL CENSUS QUALITY CHECK ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 138 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 138

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     472) to amend title 13, United States Code, to require the 
     use of postcensus local review as part of each decennial 
     census. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. 
     The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Government Reform; (2) a further amendment 
     printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant 
     to clause 8 of rule XVIII, if offered by Representative 
     Maloney of New York or her designee, which shall be 
     considered as read and shall be separately debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 138 is a fair structured rule providing 1 hour 
of debate in the House divided equally between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Government Reform.
  Mr. Speaker, upon adoption of the resolution, the amendment printed 
in the Committee on Rules report is considered adopted.
  The rule also provides for the consideration of amendment numbered 1 
printed in the Congressional Record if offered by the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney), or her designee, which shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled between the proponent and the 
opponent.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 472, the, Local Census Quality Check Act, builds on 
Republican efforts and fulfills our constitutional duties by carrying 
out a quality census that counts every single person. Post census local 
review was used effectively in 1990 to add 124,000 households to the 
nationwide count. By using the knowledge, list management and mapping 
skills of local authorities, post census local review improved the 
accuracy of the 1990 census. This improvement will increase 
exponentially with the 2000 census as advancements in information 
technology will allow local authorities to provide better information 
which includes adding people to the census at the exact location where 
they live.
  Specifically, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for a post census local 
review which will allow local governments to review household counts, 
boundary maps and other data that the Secretary of Commerce considers 
appropriate in order to identify discrepancies in housing unit counts 
before they release the final count of the census. Additionally, the 
Secretary of Commerce would submit the appropriate block level maps and 
list of housing units to local governments for their review. The local 
authorities would then be given 45 days to review the census data and 
submit any challenges to that data. The Secretary would then 
investigate, correct any miscounts and notify local governments of any 
action or correction that was taken.
  This is a commonsense piece of legislation that works. The results 
are not debatable. In 1990, post census review made for more accurate 
census counts.
  Local groups across the political spectrum, including the National 
League of Cities, the National Association of Towns and Townships and 
the National Association of Developmental Organizations have endorsed 
this legislation because it works. It is a part of a process to count 
every single person in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, appearances can be deceiving. At first blush H.R. 472, 
the Local Census Quality Check Act, appears to be a bill that will 
ensure a more accurate census count by enhancing local government 
participation in the 2000 census. But, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 472 is really 
a Trojan horse because it will, in fact, do nothing to enhance or 
ensure a more accurate count of Americans next year.
  Let me tell our colleagues what it will do, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 472 
will impose an operational field plan on the Census Bureau that will 
actually, according to the Director of the Census, decrease accuracy 
levels in the count. H.R. 472 will extend an already lengthy process by 
requiring a post census local review program very similar to the one 
conducted after the 1990 census. H.R. 472 would extend the period of 
the head count by nine weeks, which would effectively prevent the 
Census Bureau from scientifically determining how many people had been 
missed in the head count. If H.R. 472 were to be enacted, it would 
ensure that the Census Bureau would not have enough time to correct 
errors in the census to ensure that each and every American has been 
counted.
  Mr. Speaker, such an outcome is totally unacceptable. H.R. 472 is 
unacceptable to Democrats because its real purpose is to prevent the 
Census Bureau from using the modern statistical methods that experts 
agree are the only way of conducting a census that

[[Page H1997]]

does not miss millions of Americans, particularly children, minorities 
and the urban and rural poor.
  This is not a new fight, Mr. Speaker, but it is one that sets out 
quite clearly the differences between the Republican majority in 
Congress and the Democratic party. It is our unified and solid position 
that every single American counts and every single American should be 
counted.
  It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker. Yet my Republican colleagues 
have erected roadblocks, gone to court and drafted legislative 
impediments all designed to keep the Census Bureau from conducting the 
most accurate and complete census as possible.
  The Republican National Committee and other Republican leaders fear 
that counting every American will damage their hold on political power, 
but let me close by offering my friends on the other side of the aisle 
some advice:
  In the face of opposition from the experts, from a unified Democratic 
party and from local governments and civil rights groups around the 
country poorly disguised attempts to influence the outcome of the 
census do not reflect well on the Republican party. As I have said many 
times, ensuring that all Americans are counted in the census is not and 
should not be a partisan issue. I sincerely hope that my Republican 
colleagues will put away their partisan fears and join us in working to 
ensure that the 2000 Census counts every single American.
  Mr. Speaker, I obviously oppose the bill, but I also oppose this 
rule. The Republican majority has seen fit to only make in order the 
amendment to be offered by the subcommittee ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and then to only allow 1 hour 
of debate on this serious and substantive alternative to the Republican 
bill.

                              {time}  1345

  Given the magnitude of the issue, Mr. Speaker, this is a wholly 
inadequate rule. Therefore, it is my intention to oppose the previous 
question in order that the House might have the opportunity to consider 
an open rule with 2 hours of general debate. The time restrictions 
imposed by this rule do not give Members enough time to thoroughly 
debate this most important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Census.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the time and I thank the Committee on 
Rules for bringing forth this rule which allows us to have a full 
debate on post-census local review and allows for the amendment by the 
ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the rule. I will be supporting the 
bill and opposing the amendment.
  In less than 12 months we will be conducting the 2000 decennial 
census. We all share a common goal, everybody in this room and 
everybody in America should, that we want the most accurate census 
possible. It has to be a legal census and it should not be a political 
census.
  The census is so fundamental to our Democratic system I call it the 
DNA of our democracy, because most elected officials in America are 
dependent upon the census. It affects the number of congressional seats 
each State receives. It affects the size and shape of our districts. It 
affects State representatives and State senators, their districts. It 
affects school boards, county commissions, city council members.
  Essentially, most elected officials are going to be impacted by this 
because this is how we make sure there is equal and fair distribution 
of the political process in this country.
  Unfortunately, the political process has been brought to bear on this 
census and that is too bad that the President has chosen to introduce 
politics into the census because we do not need a political census.
  Since Thomas Jefferson conducted the first census, we have gone out 
and counted everybody. It is hard work and we as Republicans have been 
putting forth the ideas but also the money and resources to make sure 
we do get the best possible census.
  The President has proposed originally a census where only 90 percent 
of the population is counted and uses sampling or polling techniques to 
come up with the balance. That was a very political process. The Census 
Bureau wasted a billion dollars and 6 or 7 years planning for this. We 
told the Census Bureau, we told the President, this is illegal and yet 
they continued in effect to spend this money, waste this money and 
prepare for an illegal census.
  Finally, the Supreme Court ruled in January of this year that it was 
illegal. Six Federal judges had already ruled last year it was illegal, 
and now the Census Bureau is behind because they have been so 
concentrating on this 90 percent plan that unfortunately they are not 
as prepared as they should be today.
  We all need to work toward getting that best, most accurate census 
possible. So now they have come up with a new plan, even though all the 
details have not been forthcoming yet, and the new plan is a two-number 
census. We will have one number that is approved by the Supreme Court 
and that will be a full enumeration as required by our Constitution, 
and then the President wants to adjust all those numbers, I mean all 
those numbers. There are census block numbers for all five or six 
million census blocks in this country. The President wants to adjust 
that and have an adjusted census.
  So we will have the Supreme Court-approved census and we will have 
the Clinton-approved census. Wow. What a public policy disaster we are 
heading for with a two-number census.
  The Census Bureau was right in arguing against it for the past 
several years. Now they flip-flopped and think the two-number census is 
a good idea. It is unfortunate because they want to use the second 
adjusted set of numbers for redistricting.
  Well, I say today that it is going to be declared illegal again. It 
is going to go back to the courts, and the courts will say we are going 
to have to use the same number for apportionment that we use for 
redistricting. We cannot use two numbers for redistricting and 
apportionment. It will not work.
  So now what do we do? We need to do the best job we can on a full 
enumeration. That is what is required by the Supreme Court. So we have 
proposed some ideas on how to improve on getting the most accurate and 
legal census possible.
  The Census Bureau has come up with some good ideas on this census and 
I have to commend the Census Bureau for the innovations and ideas they 
have put forth for the 2000 census. They are doing things. For example, 
the address list was a major problem in 1990 and they are making a 
major effort getting the addresses as correct as possible. That is a 
good program.
  We are going to go to paid advertising. I think that is important 
rather than relying just on the donated advertising by television. 
There will be census in the schools trying to get young people involved 
because young people are some of the ones that are most undercounted. 
There are a lot of ideas that are good. We have come up with some ideas 
too, and today we are going to debate one and that is post-census local 
review.
  Now this is not a new idea. This was used in 1990 and it is simply to 
give local communities one last chance to look at the numbers before 
they become official because once they become official they are stuck 
with them for 10 years. It is hard for me to understand why someone 
would object to this. Again, it is not a new idea. It was used in 1990 
and added about 125,000 people. Secretary Daley says that is not very 
many people. I say if it is a small community, every thousand people 
makes a difference. One hundred twenty-five thousand may not be a big 
deal in New York City or another city, but it is important that we 
allow communities to add people if they were mistakenly missed.
  That is all this is about, giving one last chance to add people if 
they were missed and not included.
  To assume that the Census Bureau does not make any mistakes is that 
trust-me attitude; trust me, I am from the Federal Government and I 
never make mistakes.
  Well, there are mistakes made; not intentional mistakes. There are 
computer errors, and so all we want to do is give that opportunity. 
This is widely supported by elected officials. The National League of 
Cities is supporting it. The National Association of Towns and

[[Page H1998]]

Townships are supporting it. Planning organizations are supporting it, 
and we have heard from dozens and dozens of local officials that say we 
need this program because it gives us that one last chance to make sure 
there are no mistakes. That is all it is.
  It improves accuracy and it improves trust in our census, and trust 
is something we need on this census because it has been politicized too 
much.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disturbed that the Committee on Rules did 
not issue an open rule on H.R. 472. Many of my colleagues have asked to 
speak on this bill and the limited time allowed by the committee will 
not allow for a full and open hearing on this bill.
  As the majority has reported, there is not much business scheduled 
for the House this week. So far this week we have put in less than a 
day's work. The only reason to limit debate on this bill is to silence 
the opposition.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has not been carefully considered by either 
the Subcommittee on Census or the Committee on Government Reform. The 
only hearing on this legislation was held in conjunction with the 
markup on the bill. The administration was not invited to that hearing 
and I was out of the country as part of an official U.S. delegation to 
the International Conference on Population and Development.
  An open rule would give all Members a better chance to evaluate the 
bill. Just yesterday, I met with the League of Cities and they still 
did not understand the full implications of H.R. 472. For example, they 
were not aware that the bill adds over 9 weeks to the census process.
  I will offer an amendment to H.R. 472. I am committed to a fair and 
accurate census. As everyone should know, the errors in the 1990 
census, according to a GAO report, misallocated billions of dollars to 
localities. If H.R. 472 passes and degrades the overall accuracy of the 
census 2000, as it will, then we will have an injustice as well as bad 
public policy for the next decade.
  H.R. 472 calls for a post-census local review. The question is not 
whether or not we should have local review, of course we should, but 
whether we should do it in a way that improves overall accuracy.
  What H.R. 472 does is make taking the census, the task of taking it, 
more difficult. It delays the time for correcting the census for 
persons missed and persons counted twice.
  H.R. 472 requires the Census Bureau to repeat work that has already 
been done. Following the bipartisan direction from Congress, written in 
the Address List Correction Act of 1994, the Census Bureau has 
developed a program to work with local governments to make sure they 
agree on the number of addresses within the Government's jurisdiction. 
If they cannot come to an agreement, there is an appeals process 
through the Office of Management and Budget.
  So far, this program has covered 86 percent of the addresses in the 
United States. What H.R. 472 does is require that this work be done 
again. Those who are not familiar with the census believe that this 
post-census check will catch errors made in the census. In fact, it 
will not.
  There is no reason for a second check on something that has not 
changed unless there is an ulterior motive.
  There are two areas of concern raised by local governments that could 
legitimately be addressed by this bill. One is new construction and 
boundary checks. Between the time the census address list is finalized 
and census day, there will be some boundary changes and some new houses 
under construction will be finished.
  My amendment calls on the Census Bureau to develop a program to 
address these legitimate concerns. It further calls for any new program 
to be coordinated with all the other activities that must go on for the 
census to be successful.
  H.R. 472, as written, does not give the Census Bureau the latitude it 
needs to address these issues. In 1995, long before the 2000 census 
became a do or die issue for the Republican Party, the National Academy 
of Sciences issued a report called Modernizing the U.S. Census. This 
report was written in response to a bipartisan request from Congress.
  The central conclusion of this report was, and I quote, ``It is 
fruitless to continue trying to count every last person with 
traditional census methods of physical enumeration. Simply providing 
additional funds to enable the Census Bureau to carry out the 2000 
census using traditional methods, as it has in previous censuses, will 
not lead to improved coverage or data quality.''
  The facts that led to that conclusion have not changed. H.R. 472 is 
seriously flawed and will ultimately make the census less accurate and 
make it impossible for the Census Bureau to meet the statutory 
deadlines of delivering apportionment counts on December 31, 2000, and 
final population counts on April 1, 2001.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the assistant majority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the 
legislation. This really is largely about whether we are going to have 
a one-number census or a two-number census and all of the things that 
surround that. How many Members of this body would want us to have a 
two-number election result and then decide after the election what 
would have happened if somebody's speculation of what was going on on 
election day somehow could have been fulfilled?

                              {time}  1400

  How would we want to serve if we had not just the number that was 
certified as the actual count of the election, but if we had the number 
that was certified as somebody's idea of what might have happened if 
the election had been done in some scientific laboratory?
  This is about counting people. This bill is about counting people in 
a way that involves local governments. It is about counting people in a 
way that involves the Census Bureau with local governments, because so 
much of what happens at the local level for a decade is determined by 
their numbers; not just how they are represented in this body, but how 
they are represented on their county council, how they are represented 
in their city council, how they are represented in the State 
legislature.
  Missing a block, forgetting a thousand people or even a hundred 
people, can be a significant factor in all of those determinations. In 
the past, the Census Bureau has seen this as one of the important 
principles of coming up with an accurate number that stands the test of 
time, that local governments rely on for the better part of that 
decade.
  I think this bill has been carefully considered. It is also the way 
the Census has been conducted. In fact, in 1990 the Census Bureau said 
that what is most important about this review is that local officials 
have an opportunity to review the maps and counts while the Census is 
still in progress. Possible errors identified and reported at this 
stage, according to the Census Bureau, are relatively easy to check and 
correct if necessary. Once this stage is passed, once the Census is 
finalized, once local governments have somehow not had this 
opportunity, it is awfully hard to come back and solve those problems.
  The substitute today, the amendment today, would leave this up to the 
Secretary of Commerce, who has already said in writing that he is not 
supportive of this legislation, and it is questionable without his 
support, a post-Census review.
  Of course we want to have a local review. Of course we want a Census 
that is the best possible. Of course we want to correct this process 
before it is finalized, not after it is finalized. That is what this 
bill does. It is what it does, creating the best cooperation between 
local officials and the Census Bureau. I support the legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members of this House to oppose this rule 
and oppose H.R. 472. To me it boils down to a

[[Page H1999]]

very simple question, do all Americans count. If we believe they count, 
then listen to some of the statistics from our last Census in 1990. 
More than 4 million people in this country were not counted. In my 
State of California, almost 1 million people did not get included in 
the 1990 Census.
  In terms of dollars, that cost my State somewhere close to $2.3 
billion over these last 10 years. My city of Los Angeles, the second 
largest undercount of any State in the Nation to have occurred was in 
Los Angeles. Some 140,000 people in my city of Los Angeles did not get 
counted.
  That cost the city of Los Angeles and its residents about $120 
million over the last 10 years: $120 million of police officers, 
teachers, firefighters that were not put on the ground because we had 
an inaccurate Census for the entire Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, the director of the Census Bureau, Mr. Ken Prewitt, has 
said that H.R. 472 will have ``consequences for an orderly, timely, and 
accurate Census in 2000 that are just short of disastrous.'' He is 
saying that because we are tinkering with it in ways we do not need to.
  If we are all concerned about having every American count, then let 
them be counted using the best, most modern, and expert methods 
available. If we believe all Americans count, then vote against the 
rule and vote against H.R. 472, because we do not need to go through 
the mistakes of 1990. We have the technical abilities, we have the 
modern technology to get the most accurate count possible. That would 
require that we oppose H.R. 472.
  I urge all Members to vote against this rule and against H.R. 472.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Pryce), one of my colleagues on the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. I 
rise in support of this rule and the Local Census Quality Check Act. 
Simply, this legislation is designed to improve the accuracy of the 
Census by giving our local officials, who know their communities best, 
a chance to review census data before it is finalized.
  Local review is not a new idea. It was used in 1990 with the support 
of Republicans and Democrats, and it succeeded in adding thousands of 
overlooked households to the Census Bureau's original count.
  Local review is especially useful in fast-growing neighborhoods and 
communities, or ones that are being rebuilt after fires or natural 
disasters, where it is very possible that the Census Bureau will miss 
some new homes. In fact, this was the experience in 1990. And who 
better than the people living in the community to recognize oversights 
and errors in Census numbers?
  I have to say that I find the objections to this bill very curious. 
My friends on the other side of the aisle claim they need statistical 
sampling to make a guess about how many households may exist which the 
Census might miss. They support this method of estimation in the name 
of improved accuracy.
  Yet, they reject a program that allows local officials to look at 
Census data and point to actual existing households with addresses 
where real people with names and faces live which do not appear on the 
Census Bureau's list. How can my colleagues argue that a system of 
adding invisible statistical households is preferable to adding real 
homes and people to the Census count?
  Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record a letter that I received from 
the Ohio Township Association, representing more than 1,300 townships, 
in support of H.R. 472.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                                    Ohio Township Association,

                                     Columbus, OH, April 12, 1999.
     Hon. Deborah Pryce,
     U.S. Congress,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Pryce: On behalf of the Ohio Township 
     Association, I am writing to express our support of H.R. 472. 
     This legislation, as written, would provide a 45 day period 
     of review to local governments of the Census 200 figures.
       Without this legislation, local governments would have no 
     opportunity to review the Bureau of Census' count of their 
     communities before the census data is finalized. Local 
     governments must have a voice in the census process to ensure 
     they are not undercounted. Local governments, especially 
     townships, rely on the census to determine their eligibility 
     for state and federal funding. Local leaders and planners use 
     the census figures to choose the best location for building 
     roads, hospitals, schools, libraries, playgrounds, day-care 
     and senior citizen centers. Businesses use census numbers to 
     determine the location of new housing, shopping centers, 
     offices and factories. Most importantly, in the case of an 
     emergency, census figures aid emergency and safety 
     personnel's rescue efforts by telling them how many people 
     live in a certain area. In light of last week's tornado and 
     storms in Cincinnati, Ohio, this especially true.
       Again, on behalf of the 1309 townships in Ohio, I urge you 
     to support HR 472 without amendment. If you have any 
     questions or if I may be of assistance to you and your staff, 
     please do not hesitate to contact me.
           Very truly yours,
                                               Michael H. Cochran,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. Speaker, some of my Democratic colleagues regret the fact that 
the local review process would be time-consuming and delay the Census 
Bureau's work. I would suggest to my colleagues that they look to the 
Census Bureau itself if they are concerned about delays. We are less 
than 12 months away from Census day, and the Bureau has failed to 
provide Congress with its estimated budget or its plan for conducting a 
legal count.
  Mr. Speaker, any Member who is genuinely concerned about the accuracy 
of our Census should support this legislation. The Local Census Quality 
Check Act gives us one more tool to ensure that every American is 
counted, as the Constitution envisions. I urge a yes vote on both the 
rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  (Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I find it very curious that 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would make the argument 
that this is not political, that they say they do not want politics in 
this. Hello, everybody. This is the most political issue we will 
probably face in the next 2 years of this session, okay? This goes to 
who is going to control this House for the next 10 to 20 years.
  So I do not want to hear my colleagues disingenuously represent this 
bill as simply about counting, because that is hogwash. The fact of the 
matter is the census is about who has got the money and who has got the 
power.
  It should be very curious to the Republicans that the Congressional 
Black Caucus, that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, that the 
Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus, all three of them, every minority 
caucus in this Congress, are against their sampling proposal and their 
Census proposal. Why? Because they say that in the effort to get 
accuracy, they want to delay the Census process. Well, delay equals 
death for accurate counting.
  Mr. Speaker, this is about the heart of government. It is about the 
distribution of money and power. There is nothing more fundamental to 
this debate for the next 2 years than this Census. Bridges, roads, 
education, law enforcement, health care, all of that will be decided by 
how many people exist in each State and in each city across this 
country.
  If we undercount people, and I have to say, traditionally, there is a 
reason why the Hispanic Caucus, there is a reason why the Black Caucus, 
and the minorities are against this, because minority people of color 
historically get undercounted.
  If my colleagues would yield for a question, I would like to ask them 
to answer why they are delaying this process.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In response to my colleague, I would like for it also to be noted on 
the record that the Republican Black Caucus is 100 percent for this 
bill that we are supporting on the Floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  When we mention the caucuses, the Hispanic Caucus, the Black Caucus, 
he is talking about Democratic members of those caucuses.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman,

[[Page H2000]]

how many Members are members of the Republican Black Caucus?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. We have one.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. How many do we have?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. They are all Democrats.
  I thank the gentleman very much. My friend has made the point, he has 
tried to place color where politics is. He is the one who has said this 
is all about politics, not us.
  What we are trying to do is assure a fair count for groups that have 
traditionally been undercounted. That is why this legislation moves 
from six languages that are included in the Census surveys to 33 
languages, including braille, so that we can get at these hard-to-count 
populations that have traditionally been undercounted. If they can read 
the forms, if they can read them in their own language, they are much 
more likely to answer them.
  Although it is only 1.3 percent of the population that are included 
in these additional languages, these are groups who have been 
traditionally undercounted that we are trying to get at. The 33 
languages come from the Census department's own advisory committee, in 
terms of what these languages are. That is why we are increasing the 
advertising.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I am not arguing about the gentleman's efforts to make sure we 
count everyone accurately. My argument is with the delay. With their 
delay, they are effectively delaying the numbers being reported, which 
in essence means we cannot get an accurate count.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Not at all.
  Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think what is important to note 
here is we are allowing local governments to come in who feel they have 
been undercounted, to come in with a post-Census sampling and start 
adding their input into that process. So if they are being undercounted 
in their cities, if they are going to be punished if it comes to 
Federal aid or punished in redistricting, they will have an opportunity 
at that point to have their say before the final count goes forward.
  That is fair to these localities, many of them that are traditionally 
undercounted. That is why we put more money for the advertising budget 
increases, that is why this legislation puts more enumerators in hard-
to-count areas, that is why we have extended the census in the schools, 
and we have moved it up from 20 percent, which is what the 
administration offered, to 100 percent of the classrooms in America. 
Many times you reach the parents with the best count going through the 
classrooms and the kids in the schools.
  That is why this legislation asks that AmeriCorps volunteers be 
empowered to help in hard-to-count areas, so we can get to a solid 
count. That is why the governments and the NGOs are going to be given 
additional grants to assist in hard-to-count populations, and that is 
why this legislation allows Federal retirees, welfare recipients, not 
to be punished if we empower them and help them to get the most 
accurate count in history.
  All of these are very, very important. It is ironic that people who 
claim they are being undercounted would oppose these measures.
  On January 25 the Supreme Court ruled that sampling could not be used 
in the 2000 Census for purposes of reapportionment of the House of 
Representatives. But let me read what the Congressional Research 
Service report says.
  It says, ``A closer examination of the other parts of the court's 
opinion indicates that it did not interpret those other purposes as 
necessarily including at least interstate redistricting.'' That is why 
my friends on the other side of the aisle oppose this. They lost this 
at the Supreme Court level, and now they want to go for it with an 
illegal funding mechanism for the census.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would point out to the previous speaker what happened at the 
Supreme Court level. There have been several misstatements on the other 
side. I assume those misstatements were not intentional.
  What the Supreme Court did was to decide that a statistical 
adjustment could not be used for apportionment among the States. The 
Supreme Court specifically said that adjusted figures should be used 
for redistricting within States and for the allocation of Federal 
funds.
  I have read the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court only spoke 
to the apportionment among the States, and that was a matter of 
construction of statutory law. They did not decide that on a 
constitutional basis.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, a fair and accurate census is in the 
best interests of our Nation. I therefore rise in opposition to the 
rule and to H.R. 472. H.R. 472 is nothing more than an unnecessary 
delaying tactic to prevent the Census Bureau from using modern 
statistical methods, methods that the National Academy of Sciences and 
the National Academy of Statisticians have said are necessary to obtain 
an accurate count of the American people.
  We must not let H.R. 472 repeat the mistakes of the past. The stakes 
are simply too high. In California, for example, as a result of the 
1990 undercount, 835,000 Californians essentially became invisible. 
Half of those missed were Latinos, and tragically, over 40 percent were 
children.

                              {time}  1415

  Due to this undercount, the hardworking people of California lost 
$2.2 billion in Federal funds for transportation, schools, housing, 
health services, and valuable programs over the past 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, counting every American is an issue of social justice. 
My Republican colleagues must put the interest of the country first and 
stop trying to micromanage the census. Let the experts at the Census 
Bureau do their job to ensure an accurate 2000 census. I ask my 
colleagues to defeat the rule and H.R. 472.


                Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind 
Members on both sides of the aisle who wish to engage in a dialogue 
with the Member under recognition that they must first gain the 
yielding of the Member under recognition before engaging in the 
dialogue.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has 
10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis) to respond.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Frost), I would hope that he would put in the Record 
the specific language he claims that would mandate that the intrastate 
redistricting is mandated to use these other numbers he talks about.
  Looking at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, CRS-5, and 
I will ask unanimous consent that this report be put into the 
Congressional Record, they note that for the purpose of intrastate 
redistricting, ``the Court's opinion indicates it did not interpret 
those other purposes as necessarily including, at least, intrastate 
redistricting. It refers to these other purposes, noting that the 
census serves as the `linchpin of the federal statistical system by 
collecting data on the characteristic of individuals, households, and 
housing units'.''
  The document referred to is as follows:

                      Ramifications and Reactions


                  sampling in intrastate redistricting

       Almost immediately after the Supreme Court issued its 
     decision, the opponents of sampling were claiming victory, 
     but at the same time, the supporters of sampling were 
     downplaying the impact of the decision, by emphasizing the 
     narrowness of the holding. The Court held that the census 
     statute prohibited the use of sampling for the apportionment 
     of the House of Representatives, but declined to reach the 
     constitutional question. The Court had even stated that 
     section 195 required the use of sampling for purposes other 
     than apportionment. Slip opinion at 23. The proponents of 
     sampling viewed this as supporting the position that sampling 
     techniques were not only permissible, but were required, in 
     the taking of the census for the purposes of intrastate 
     redistricting and federal funding allocations.\4\ However, a 
     closer examination of other parts of the Court's opinion 
     indicates that it did not interpret those other purposes as 
     necessarily including, at least, intrastate redistricting. It 
     refers to these other purposes,

[[Page H2001]]

     noting that the census serves as the ``linchpin of the 
     federal statistical system by collecting data on the 
     characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units 
     throughout the country [cities omitted].'' Slip opinion at 
     24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       As discussed above, Justice O'Connor based her standing 
     analysis, at least in part, on the ``expected effects of the 
     use of sampling in the 2000 census on intrastate 
     redistricting.'' Slip opinion at 14. Her discussion of these 
     expected effects appears to indicate that the Court assumed 
     that the federal decennial census figures for apportionment 
     would be the figures used by the States for congressional 
     redistricting and, in many cases, for state legislative 
     redistricting. The Court seems to think that the references 
     to the federal decennial census data in state legislative 
     redistricting statutes and state constitutional provisions 
     are references to the data for apportionment of the House of 
     Representatives. Otherwise, the threatened injury to the 
     plaintiffs would not be redressed by the Court's decision. 
     Certainly, the position of sampling proponents, if officially 
     adopted and carried out, would mean that the threatened 
     injury to voters in state and local elections had not been 
     eliminated by the Court's decision. The issue of 
     redressability and the possibility of a two-number census was 
     raised during oral argument.\5\ However, the analysis in this 
     part of the Court's decision deals with standing and not with 
     the merits, therefore, technically, the position of sampling 
     proponents, that sampling in intrastate redistricting is 
     required, is not inconsistent with the Court's holdings on 
     the merits, but is arguably inconsistent with the apparent 
     assumptions and larger scheme underlying the holdings.


                               footnotes

     \4\ Since the required taking of a traditional headcount for 
     apportionment of the House of Representatives would make the 
     non-response follow-up sampling moot, presumably any 
     contemplated sampling for intrastate redistricting and 
     funding allocation data would be similar in concept to the 
     ICM for the undercount or the Post Enumeration Survey 
     conducted after the 1990 Census.
     \5\ Oral Argument Transcript, found at 1998 WL 827383 on 
     Westlaw (oral argument of Michael A. Carvin on behalf of the 
     appellees in No. 98-564).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 
13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I do 
that because I support achieving the most accurate census count, and 
H.R. 472, as written, will delay and destroy our chance to achieve the 
most accurate census count possible.
  Mr. Speaker, an accurate census does matter. It affects our 
communities, our families, and our children. In fact, inaccurate 
figures cost the State of California $2.2 billion in Federal aid during 
the 1990s.
  It cost my district $29 million in Federal aid by missing over 10,000 
people in the 6th Congressional District of California. Ten thousand 
people were not counted. I happen to believe that every one of those 
10,000, and 100 percent of the people nationwide, deserve to be counted 
and included in our census.
  An inaccurate count costs all of our communities literally millions 
of dollars for Federal highways, for child care, for foster care, for 
education, for aid to women and infants and children.
  We cannot make the same mistakes with the 2000 census that we made 
with the 1990 census. Our democratic system demands fair representation 
for all constituents and all constituent groups. This can only be 
achieved through the most accurate census possible.
  Fear is what really is stopping the opponents of an accurate census, 
fear that an accurate census will affect the political makeup of the 
House of Representatives. We should not play politics by blocking an 
accurate census. Vote ``yes'' on the Maloney substitute, ``no'' on the 
rule, and ``no'' on H.R. 472.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, 
and I congratulate him on his superb management of this rule.
  I rise in strong support of the rule. We have a very simple and basic 
goal here. It is to subscribe to those two words in the U.S. 
Constitution, ``actual enumeration.'' In so doing, we want to make sure 
that every single American is counted.
  I thought we had started to win this war on the issue of local 
control. We in a bipartisan way passed the Education Flexibility Act. 
What did it say? It said decisions would be made at the local level. 
What is it that H.R. 472 says? Basically the same thing it did back 
when the 1990 census was conducted. It said that there should be post-
census local review. There should be some kind of local input for this 
process. Frankly, I believe that it is the most responsible thing to 
do. It is by far and away the most balanced thing.
  I think organizations have recognized that. We have heard that we 
have got the National League of Cities, the National Association of 
Towns and Townships, the National Association of Developmental 
Organizations, I mean, they are supportive of this measure because it 
is fair and it is the right thing to do.
  I know that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have 
raised questions about this rule. I will tell my colleagues, I am 
looking at the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who reminded 
me yesterday that I had said to her last month when we had this hearing 
in the Committee on Rules that we wanted to make her amendment in 
order. In fact, that is exactly what we have done.
  On March 18, I announced right here that we were in fact going to 
have preprinting. We have made with this rule every single amendment 
that has been submitted to the Committee on Rules over the last month 
in order. That basically consists of an amendment from our side by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the amendment by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). We had an interesting hearing 
on this issue upstairs. So we have in fact done exactly what it is that 
they requested.
  We will have, if there is a recommittal motion, a grand total of 3 
hours and 10 minutes of debate, including this debate which is taking 
place right here. So I think that we have moved ahead with this, with 
what is a very, very balanced, fair rule on this question. At the same 
time, we have given more than an adequate amount of time for debate and 
again have made every Democratic amendment in order that they 
requested.
  So I urge my colleagues to, in light of that, support this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could believe in the 
sincerity of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on this issue 
because, in fact, census should be a collaborative and bipartisan issue 
and response.
  But when they cite H.R. 472, the same process that was used in 1990, 
let me tell my colleagues why I have a problem. That is because Texas 
lost $1.87 billion in Federal funds, likely to lose $2.8 billion in 
Federal funds with the same use of H.R. 472 now.
  In 1990, it was estimated that 28,000 children in my district were 
missed, almost 5 percent of all African Americans and Hispanics were 
not counted in 1990. So for me it is a life and death matter in terms 
of ensuring that all of the people are counted but that the resources 
go back to the State.
  The Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt says that the H.R. 472 
proposal that we are now discussing will disrupt the census and put it 
at risk.
  This rule does not allow us to discuss fully at length how to resolve 
this problem. The National Academy of Sciences said we should have a 
Martin statistical method.
  I am dealing with some of the largest cities in Texas who are opposed 
to H.R. 472, the City of Houston, the City of San Antonio, the City of 
Austin, the City of Laredo.
  Local officials do not understand what we are doing to them. What we 
are doing to them is we are forcing them to have to take the time with 
meager resources and one's tax dollars to take in a long period of time 
to count numbers after we have counted it.
  I do not believe those organizations who are supporting H.R. 472 know 
the financial burden that they are putting on local government. I 
served in local government. I served as a member of the city council. I 
can tell my colleagues right now, I would much rather provide for 
health services and sanitation services and environmental services than 
to sit around putting staff on

[[Page H2002]]

counting people that the Federal government can do.
  Martin statistical sampling is what we need. We also need to follow 
H.R. 472, as amended by the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney). It needs to be changed because what we have here is a 
burdening of local officials and a bad census and the denial of the 
count of the United States people, people in the United States.
  I come today to oppose the modified closed rule for H.R. 471, the 
Local Census Quality Check Act of 1999. This modified closed rule 
impedes the amendment process that could improve this legislation.
  The Census is one of the most significant civil rights issues, 
especially as we approach the 21st Century. For the year 2000 the 
Census must be accurate to ensure equal representation of all 
Americans.
  This bill in its present form would not improve the accuracy of the 
census count. Instead it would repeat the method used in 1990 that 
increased the involvement of local governments by allowing them to 
review census housing units numbers.
  The process used in the Census missed 8.4 million people, 4.4 million 
people were counted twice and 13 million people were counted in the 
wrong place.
  Because of the undercount in 1990, Texas lost almost $1.87 billion in 
federal funds. A recent article in The Houston Chronicle estimated that 
Texas could lose $2.8 billion if a similar undercount takes place.
  Children, people of color, and the rural and urban poor were most 
likely to have been missed. In my district in Houston, close to 500,000 
people were missed.
  It is estimated that 28,554 children in my district were missed. 
Almost 5 percent of all African-Americans and Hispanics were not 
counted in 1990, and these groups constitute almost half of the 
population of the city!
  Although H.R. 472 purports to increase the involvement of local 
government in the census, it really acts to slow down and delay an 
accurate count. This bill repeats the ineffective program that was used 
in 1990, and it would delay the census by an additional nine weeks.
  The Census Bureau plan already provides for review as the count 
occurs instead of after the fact. This is more efficient and it is a 
better use of resources.
  The modified closed rule does not allow us to offer amendments that 
would actually make improvements in the counting methods.
  Census undercounts translate into communities losing out on federal 
and state funding for schools, crime prevention, health care and 
transportation.
  I urge my colleagues vote against this modified closed rule to 
support an open rule so that we may prevent an unnecessary delay in the 
census. The method advocated in this bill did not prevent an undercount 
in 1990, and we must not make the same mistake for the year 2000.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I want to 
talk about some other communities, Litchfield, Illinois; Salem, 
Illinois; and Carlyle, Illinois, small rural America who support H.R. 
472 and the Local Census Quality Check Act.
  I would like to share with the House some feedback I received from 
these communities and my constituents about the 2000 census. I am 
finding that the localities in my district are supporting our efforts 
to provide them about post-census review mechanism.
  In fact, the Mayor of Litchfield, William Cornman, wrote me on March 
24, 1999, and stated, ``We feel that in order to have an accurate 
Census, we must reinstate the post-Census Local Review program. If a 
mistake is made with the oversight of subdivisions and newly annexed 
areas, the Census count is not accurate.''
  He continues, ``We feel that we cannot properly evaluate the Bureau's 
Partnership Program as it relates to our community. Thus far, all that 
they have provided us is a bulging packet of information and very 
little direction.''
  I believe Mayor Cornman has made two critical points: one, that the 
local authorities cannot challenge and review the final census numbers, 
even if they are incorrect, and, two, the current Local Update of 
Census Addresses, the LUCA program, which my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle praise, and the Census Bureau claims is working 
efficiently, appears in the eyes of my constituents as just a bulging 
packet of information and very little direction. Clearly, this is not a 
sign that we are on the road to an accurate census.
  The City of Salem in my district felt so strongly about this issue 
that they passed a resolution which states, among other things, the 
following: ``Whereas, one of the most vital parts of the American 
Counts Today is reinstatement of the Post-Census Local Review Program, 
that provides a procedure for local public officials to review and 
challenge the Census Bureau determinations before counting is final; 
and Whereas, a Post-Census Local Review is based upon the premise that 
local officials know their own communities better than statisticians 
and pollsters in Washington, D.C.''
  I think the City of Salem hits the nail on the head with this 
resolution. They say exactly what Republicans in Congress have been 
saying about the census and Federal Government in general; local 
officials know how to run programs the best, not bureaucracies in 
Washington.
  Additionally, the City of Salem points out that post-census local 
review provides a procedure for local officials to challenge Census 
Bureau findings before they are final. I do not see the harm in 
allowing the Census Bureau's conclusions from being challenged. I 
suspect the challenge is what the Census Bureau fears. It would be an 
easier job for the Census Bureau if nobody was able to question their 
conclusions. The foundations of democracy rely on the voice of the 
people. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Census Bureau is muzzling 
our localities.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring up the correspondence 
which I have received from the City of Carlyle. Mayor Schmidt wrote me 
in support of the post-census review and included a memorandum from one 
of his staff Ms. Jean Parson which discusses this issue in detail.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record letters from the mayor of 
Carlyle, and from the cities of Salem and Litchfield.


                                              City of Carlyle,

                                      Carlyle, IL, March 29, 1999.
     Congressman John Shimkus,
     Springfield, IL.
       Dear Congressman Shimkus: I have shared your letter 
     concerning the post-census review process with my office 
     manager. She has been the most active member of my staff in 
     regard to the Census 2000 project. As you will note in her 
     enclosed memo, she feels very strongly that the post-review 
     process remain in place. I feel her concerns are legitimate 
     and encourage you to pursue this matter further.
       Please phone 618-594-2468 if you have any questions, or 
     would like to discuss this matter further with either Ms. 
     Parson or myself.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Don W. Schmitz,
                                                            Mayor.
       Enclosure.
                                                   March 17, 1999.
       Mayor: I agree with Representative Shimkus on the 
     importance of the post-census local review program. This is 
     something I have been concerned about all along.
       In the old program, they conducted the census and then we 
     had the opportunity to review the count and challenge 
     anything that didn't look quite correct to us. Under this 
     program, as I understand it, our only input is in the 
     formulation of the address list. I have spent many, many 
     hours reviewing their list. I spent time with the post master 
     comparing our lists, and then made corrections to the census 
     list. The entire process was extremely confusing and I have 
     had my doubts if my changes will even be made. I also am sure 
     that I didn't pick up every problem in the list. It is just 
     too complicated and time consuming.
       They have given us time schedules as far as different 
     reports and mailings are concerned and I don't believe they 
     have been completely accurate. I am still waiting for a 
     report where we can be sure all ``special places'' are 
     included in their count. These include the nursing home, 
     group homes, the jail, etc. I don't believe I have seen this 
     report.
       I guess I'm getting old, but the old way seemed to work. If 
     we have no opportunity to review the final count, there is 
     basically no one watching to see that the census takers 
     actually do their job and that the information submitted is 
     processed correctly.
       I strongly feel that he should continue his efforts and get 
     this process changed. it is a very critical part of our 
     financial future to have the ability to challenge their 
     counts. We are basically stuck with these counts for ten 
     years. It could mean thousands and thousands of dollars to us 
     if the counts are incorrect.
       The other thing that should be noted is that there appears 
     to be little involvement from most communities. We have been 
     participating with our best efforts, but I don't believe that 
     is the case with most communities. Communities were not well 
     represented at the meetings I attended, and I have spoken to 
     many community leaders who were not even aware of the 
     changes. I'm sure this is because of mailings not reaching

[[Page H2003]]

     the appropriate people. Anyway, this process could be very 
     damaging to those communities who did not participate in the 
     address review process. It is possible that they will have 
     changes in administration and interest could increase between 
     now and census time, and it will be too late for them to have 
     any input.
       Let me know when you want to call him, and I will be happy 
     to help.
     Jean Parson.
                                  ____



                                           City of Litchfield,

                                   Litchfield, IL, March 24, 1999.
     Hon. John M. Shimkus,
     House of Representatives,
     Springfield, IL.
       Dear Representative Shimkus: The City of Litchfield is very 
     much interested in the 2000 decennial Census that is fast 
     approaching. We realize that not only does the Census count 
     benefit the City of Litchfield with local planning of 
     schools, transportation and business but also the State of 
     Illinois for Congressional representation.
       We feel that in order to have an accurate census count, we 
     must reinstate the post-Census Local Review program. If a 
     mistake is made with the oversight of subdivisions and newly 
     annexed areas, the Census count is not accurate.
       We feel that we cannot properly evaluate the Bureau's 
     Partnership Program as it relates to our community. Thus far 
     all that they have provided us with is a bulging packet of 
     information and very little direction. We sought out the 
     availability of workshops after discussing our lack of 
     knowledge about the process with neighboring communities.
       The City of Litchfield thanks you for your participation 
     with ACT in making sure that this historical event proceed as 
     it always did and not be changed. If we can be of any other 
     assistance, please call me at 217-324-5253.
           Sincerely,
                                                  William Cornman,
     Mayor.
                                  ____


                      The city of Salem, Illinois


                          resolution no. 99-8

       Whereas, the 2000 decennial Census is the method upon which 
     state and federal authorities rely when apportioning funding 
     and representation among local communities throughout the 
     United States; and
       Whereas, the Bureau of the Census is charged by Congress 
     with developing procedures to efficiently and effectively 
     take this national population count each decade; and
       Whereas, the Honorable Congressman John M. Shimkus, 20th 
     District, Illinois, has notified City of Salem Officials that 
     the Bureau of the Census intends to make certain rule changes 
     in its census program that among other things, eliminates the 
     Local Review Process; and
       Whereas, Congress has decided that it is now time to act in 
     order to assure that the 2000 Census will be a successful 
     count, and will consequently be considering a package of 
     bills to improve the accuracy of the 2000 Census collectively 
     known as ACT--America Counts Today, said bills being intended 
     to improve the accuracy of the 2000 Census; and
       Whereas, one of the most vital parts of ACT, is 
     reinstatement of the Post-Census Local Review program, that 
     provides a procedure for local public officials to review and 
     challenge Census Bureau determinations before counting is 
     final; and
       Whereas, the Post-Census Local Review is based upon the 
     premise that local officials know their own communities 
     better than statisticians and pollsters in Washington, DC, 
     and;
       Now, therefore be it resolved by the Mayor and City Council 
     of the City of Salem, Illinois that it supports and endorses 
     the efforts of Congressman John M. Shimkus and his colleagues 
     in the United States Congress in enacting into law the 
     package of bills collectively known as ACT--America Counts 
     Today, and be it further resolved that this Resolution be 
     filed with the appropriate congressional offices so that this 
     Council's official stance will be made a part of the official 
     record relating to the 2000 decennial Census.
       In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused 
     the seal of the City of Salem, Illinois, to be affixed this 
     5th day of April, 1999.
     By: Leonard E. Ferguson,
       Mayor.
     Attest: Jane Marshall,
       City Clerk.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Velazquez).
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
rule and H.R. 472. This is a bill that hurts the communities. It 
pretends to help. It represents another attempt by the majority party 
to railroad the census and keep minority populations in this country 
hidden and powerless.
  The 1990 census missed 5 percent of Hispanics, 4.4 percent of blacks, 
2.3 of Asians, and 4.5 of American Indians. To any American who 
understands the meaning of democracy and fairness, these facts 
represent an injustice, an injustice that should be made right.
  But Republicans know that giving voice to the voiceless will spell 
trouble for them. So their response is to create the illusion of 
fairness while carrying out a program of injustice.
  It is not only Democrats in Congress who feel this way. Local 
officials are already worried that this bill will make the problem of 
undercounting worse. Republicans, who frequently talk about smaller 
government, want to micromanage the census. They want to force the 
Census Bureau to jump through bureaucratic hoops. This will not serve 
the people, and this will not ensure fairness. This plan will make the 
census a logistical nightmare and cause even greater undercounting 
among minorities.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill that is motivated by Republican fear. 
They know that the 1990 undercount was unfair, and they are frightened 
that an accurate count will give voice to those who might speak against 
them. Perhaps they are right. But this is America, and all voices 
should be heard.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder), who sits on the Subcommittee on the Census of the 
Committee on Government Reform.
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first off, this is not a question of an 
accurate count, it is a question of an accurate count versus a possibly 
inaccurate guess or, more likely, a probable inaccurate guess.
  We hear all this talk about wanting to count people. The difference 
here is we would like to count people; the other side would like to 
estimate. They would like to guess where the people are, guess which 
city they are, take samples here and there from past experience and 
guess.
  The Constitution says we have to count. And that is really what this 
debate is about. Are we going to count real people, make every effort, 
spend whatever is necessary to count real people, or are we going to 
have imaginary people?
  There is not a lot of confidence right now in this country that 
either side would not attempt to cheat if they could do the estimating, 
because estimating depends on our assumptions. If it is not a real 
count, and we keep hearing there was an undercount last time, well, 
where they really counted, and they fixed the undercount, they can fix 
it. But if we are guessing what the undercount is, we will not really 
know because we are estimating.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a business degree and a Master's degree, and I 
know my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer), is a big 
supporter of estimating and the mathematical science of estimating, as 
is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on the Census, but the fact is it is still a guess and it 
is not accurate at the local level.
  I want to illustrate one point that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Shimkus) was also making. Councilwoman Rebecca Revine, in Fort Wayne, 
has signed on a letter of Republican mayors and local officials 
supporting this bill because they are worried that without post-census 
local review they will not be counted accurately. Here is why:
  In Fort Wayne, Indiana, my hometown, the census liaison sent this fax 
to his superiors in Washington:
  ``As of today, Groundhog Day 1999, despite being promised the address 
list in November 1998, over a dozen calls to the Bureau, the 
involvement of the Chicago Bureau supervisor, finger pointing by the 
Bureau among Chicago, Jeffersonville and Suitland, Maryland, and the 
involvement of our U.S. congressional office, me, we still do not have 
a printed address list and instructions for completing the process.
  ``The maps already provided are seriously out of date. No annexation 
and boundary study for 1999, combined with Fort Wayne's aggressive 
annexation policy, will mean the geography used by the Bureau will be 
inaccurate and incomplete.
  ``No local review of information provided or aggregate results from 
the Bureau prior to release will mean no external check of accuracy or 
`completeness'.''
  Is it any wonder that Fort Wayne, Indiana, is worried and why they 
want to have post-census review? What mayor,

[[Page H2004]]

what city council, what county council in America would not want to 
look to see if the maps were accurate, to see if the information the 
government based it on is accurate?
  That is all this bill does. We will debate sampling plenty, but this 
bill says the people in Fort Wayne ought to be able to see the maps, 
the assumptions, and whether they got the boundaries right. How can 
anyone be against that? No mayor that does not want to do it has to do 
it, no county council that does not want to do it has to do it, no city 
council that does not want to do it has to do it. Why in the world 
would anybody be against giving Fort Wayne or other cities the right to 
look at the results?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask the time remaining on our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time.
  I come before my colleagues today as the Vice Chair of the Women's 
Caucus to speak out against H.R. 472 and to oppose this rule, which is 
no more than another roadblock by the majority to prevent a fair and 
accurate census count in the year 2000. Having talked with women 
leaders across this country about the need for an accurate count, I 
know just how critical an inclusive census will be for women and their 
children in 2000.
  In 1990, half of the 4 million people that were missed were children, 
our most vulnerable constituency. The majority of those children that 
were undercounted and missed were minorities. In fact, 7 percent of 
black children were missed, 5 percent of Hispanic children were missed, 
and more than 6 percent of Native American children were missed.
  In my district alone, Mr. Speaker, more than 30,000 people were not 
counted.
  As a former mayor, I certainly understand the critical need for local 
involvement in the census, but there is a right way and a wrong way to 
do it. H.R. 472 is the wrong way. Local involvement cannot be conducted 
at the expense of accuracy. H.R. 472, a wolf in sheep's clothing, 
actually jeopardizes the count under the auspices of accuracy.
  Local involvement must come before the census, when the Bureau is 
compiling address lists, as my colleague the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) has suggested. Her amendment wisely focuses on the few 
situations where post-census local review would be useful, such as an 
account for boundary changes and new construction.
  Post-census local review, as defined by the bill offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), however, would waste critical time 
and money in the census count. In fact, the plan offered by the 
gentleman from Florida may prevent the census numbers from being 
compiled and completed on time.
  We simply cannot, Mr. Speaker, jeopardize a fair and accurate count. 
It is too important to America's families and children.
  Mr. Speaker, not only do I stand here today to oppose this bill on 
behalf of the 37th Congressional District of California, but I also 
oppose this bill on behalf of the women of America who know full well 
how important the need for a truly fair and accurate count is.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Sometimes we believe that 
we have reached a point where people can put politics aside and just do 
the right thing. But we find ourselves confronted with a bill here 
today that would simply complicate the count and mess up the census. We 
find ourselves with a bill being proposed, H.R. 472, that would force a 
delay in the census of an additional 9 weeks, a disruption which will 
undermine an accurate count.
  The 1990 census was the first in this Nation's history to be less 
accurate than the preceding census. In my own State of California we 
lost $2.2 billion in funding because of an inaccurate census in 1990. 
In 1990 about 4.5 million people were counted twice and 8.5 million 
were never counted. The undercount, of course, fell hardest on the 
poor, children and minorities. Monies allocated for schools, school 
lunches, Head Start, senior citizens, all never reached the communities 
where people were not counted.
  A recent GAO study concluded that had an accurate counting method 
been employed in the 1990 census, the State of California could have 
received $2.2 billion in Federal funds. We have missed out on the 
sampling, but we can do a better count if we are allowed to just get 
about the business of doing it and not put on an extra layer of work by 
local municipalities who do not have the resources and who do not want 
to do it.
  Take the politics out of it. Let us all be the Americans that we say 
we are. Let us count the people, let us show that we respect our 
citizens enough to simply do the right thing and make sure we do the 
best job that we can do.
  I am out recruiting, holding town hall meetings, getting people 
signed up, getting welfare recipients to work so that they can be out 
there doing this count. Do not mess it up. Let us do what we can to 
count all of the people.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, the 2000 Census, like all the ones 
preceding it, will have an impact on the lives of real people.
  Federal money is dispersed amongst the States on the basis of 
population. Population is determined in the census. Funding for so many 
important Federal programs that so many Americans and New Jersians care 
about will be in jeopardy. The Federal dollars for housing assistance 
for seniors, small business loans, Head Start programs, Pell Grants, 
school lunches, and so many more are determined by the census count.
  In the 1990 Census, 34,000 children in New Jersey were not counted. 
In the 1990 Census, 2 million children across the country were not 
counted. So how can my friends on the Republican side of the aisle want 
us to continue an ineffective, inaccurate census program? I do not know 
how they can do it, but what we can do in the Congress is to vote 
against the rule and vote against H.R. 472. Otherwise, Americans all 
over this country will be shortchanged for all of these programs and 
others if we do not use accurate methods.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the rule on H.R. 472 and, 
if the rule is passed, to adopt the Maloney amendment which will 
maintain local government involvement without hampering the Census 
Bureau's ability to carry out an accurate census.
  Everyone counts in America. Let us make sure the census counts them. 
Let us approve the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the previous question. If 
the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule that will make in order an open rule for H.R. 472 and will 
increase general debate to 2 hours.
  The rule that is currently before us severely limits amendments as 
well as the time that they may be considered. The time restrictions in 
this rule will not provide Members with enough time to thoroughly 
debate this most important issue.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can amend this rule and 
make it completely open without limiting debate on important 
amendments. Make sure no Member of this House is shut out of the 
debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to insert for the Record at this point a list of 
local governments, local officials and organizations opposed to H.R. 
472, and the text of the amendment and extraneous materials related to 
this debate.

                 Local Governments Opposed to H.R. 472

       State of Hawaii, State of South Carolina, State of North 
     Carolina, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, City of Detroit, 
     Michigan, City of San Francisco, California, City of New 
     York, New York, Miami-Dade County, Florida, City of Houston, 
     Texas, City of Los Angeles, California, Cook County, 
     Illinois, City of Denver, Colorado, City of Hialeah Gardens, 
     Florida, City of West Hollywood, California, City of San 
     Antonio, Texas, City of

[[Page H2005]]

     Austin, Texas, City of Hartford, Connecticut, City of San 
     Juan, Texas, City of Jersey City, New Jersey, City of Laredo, 
     Texas, City of Cudahy, California, and City of San Fernando, 
     California.

                  Local Officials Opposed to H.R. 472

       County Commissioner Katy Sorenson (FL), County Commissioner 
     Barbara Carey-Shuler (FL), State Senator Gwen Margolis (FL), 
     State Senator Miguel del Valle (IL), State Representative 
     Rebecca Rios (AZ), Chicago Alderman Ricardo Munoz (IL), 
     County Supervisor Gloria Molina, Los Angeles (CA), Council 
     Member John Castillo, Houston (TX), Othello City Councilman 
     Samuel Garza (WA), County Commissioner Javier Gonzales, Santa 
     Fe (NM), Councilman John Bueno, Pontiac (MI), Council Member 
     Bobby Duran, Taos (NM), Councilwoman Debra Guerrero, San 
     Antonio (TX), State Assemblyman Peter Rivera (NY), State 
     Representative Sally Ann Gonzales (AZ), and Councilmember 
     Martin Samaniego (AZ).

                   Organizations Opposed to H.R. 472

       United States Conference of Mayors, National Association 
     for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, National Asian 
     and Pacific Legal Foundation, National Congress of American 
     Indians, National Black Caucus of State Legislators, National 
     Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, NALEO, 
     National Education Association, NEA, American Federation of 
     State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, Consortium of 
     Social Science Associations, Laredo Chamber of Commerce, and 
     American Association of University Women, AAUW.
       United Automobile Workers, UAW, Leadership Conference on 
     Civil Rights, LCCR, American Federation of Labor and Congress 
     of Industrial Organizations, AFL-CIO, American Federation of 
     Teachers, AFT, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education 
     Fund, MALDEF, Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, National 
     Council of Negro Women, Black Leadership Forum, Blacks in 
     Government, National Urban League, Religious Action Center of 
     Reform Judaism, and American Federation of Government 
     Employees, AFGE.
                                  ____


   Text of Previous Question for H. Res. 138 H.R. 472--Local Census 
                           Quality Check Act

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``That at any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 472), to amend title 13, United States Code, to require 
     the use of postcensus local review as part of each decennial 
     census. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.''
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Miller), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Census.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that there is so much 
opposition to this proposal. It was used in 1990, and it is about 
getting the most accurate, trusted and legal census possible.
  In 1990 it addressed 400,000 mistakes. It corrected 400,000 mistakes. 
Everybody wants to say we are undercounted. Well, this is one way to 
help correct the undercount problem.
  It is a voluntary program. No one is mandated to do it. It is the 
smaller communities and towns that feel the greatest interest in even 
doing this, because big cities have full-time people working on the 
census.
  Now, let me make sure we understand what the Supreme Court did say. 
The Supreme Court said that we must have a full enumeration for 
apportionment, and they also indicate, in my opinion, though it is 
going to have to go back to the court, that it is going to apply to 
redistricting.
  In fact, CRS issued a report in February of this year, and let me 
read the sentence: ``However, a closer examination of all other parts 
of the Court's opinion indicates that it did not interpret those other 
purposes as necessarily including at least intrastate redistricting.''
  This is a good commonsense idea. It helps address the undercount, and 
that is what we want to do is address the undercount, get everybody 
counted. It makes a better census.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
I urge support of the previous question, a vote of ``yes''.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair announces that he will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote 
by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 207, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 86]

                               YEAS--220

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss

[[Page H2006]]


     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--207

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (CA)
     Hastings (FL)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Napolitano
     Weller

                              {time}  1502

  Mr. KLECZKA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 86, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 205, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 87]

                               AYES--219

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver

[[Page H2007]]


     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brown (CA)
     Clayton
     Ewing
     Hastings (FL)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Meek (FL)
     Ryun (KS)
     Watkins

                              {time}  1512

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 138, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 472) to amend title 13, United States Code, to 
require the use of postcensus local review as part of each decennial 
census, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Pursuant to House Resolution 138, 
the bill is considered as having been read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 472 is as follows:

                                H.R. 472

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Local Census Quality Check 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. POSTCENSUS LOCAL REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 13, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding after section 142 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 143. Postcensus local review

       ``(a) Each decennial census taken after the date of 
     enactment of this section shall include an opportunity for 
     postcensus local review, similar to that afforded as part of 
     the 1990 decennial census, so that local governmental units 
     may review household counts, jurisdictional boundaries, and 
     such other data as the Secretary considers appropriate for 
     the purpose of identifying discrepancies or other potential 
     problems before the tabulation of total population by States 
     (as required for the apportionment of Representatives in 
     Congress among the several States) is completed.
       ``(b) Any postcensus local review afforded under this 
     section in connection with a decennial census shall be 
     conducted in conformance with the following:
       ``(1) Not later than February 1st of the year in which such 
     census is taken, the Secretary shall notify local 
     governmental units as to the guidelines for, and shall 
     furnish them with any other information pertinent to, their 
     participating in the upcoming postcensus local review.
       ``(2)(A) Not later than 30 days before submitting to a 
     local governmental unit the data subject to its review under 
     this section, the Secretary shall furnish to such unit the 
     appropriate block level maps and lists of housing units.
       ``(B) Not later than August 1st of the year in which such 
     census is taken or, if earlier, the 30th day after the date 
     on which the nonresponse followup process for such census is 
     completed, the Secretary shall submit to each local 
     governmental unit the data which is subject to review by such 
     governmental unit under this section.
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B), the date on which 
     the nonresponse followup process for a census is completed 
     shall be as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(3) A local governmental unit shall have 45 days 
     (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) to 
     review the data submitted to it under paragraph (2)(B), and 
     to submit any challenges relating to such data.
       ``(4) The Secretary shall investigate all challenges timely 
     submitted under paragraph (3), recanvass such blocks or other 
     units as the Secretary considers appropriate in connection 
     with any such challenge, and correct any miscounts identified 
     pursuant to any such challenge.
       ``(5) Not later than November 1st of the year in which such 
     census is taken, the Secretary shall, with respect to each 
     challenge timely submitted under paragraph (3)--
       ``(A) complete the measures required under paragraph (4) 
     with respect to such challenge; and
       ``(B) notify the local governmental unit that submitted 
     such challenge as to the measures taken in response thereto.
       ``(c) As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `decennial census' means a decennial census 
     of population conducted under section 141(a); and
       ``(2) the term `local governmental unit' means a local unit 
     of general purpose government as defined by section 184, or 
     its designee.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 5 of title 13, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 142 the 
     following:

``143. Postcensus local review.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in House Report 106-93 
is adopted.
  The text of H.R. 472, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 138, is 
as follows:

                                H.R. 472

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Local Census Quality Check 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. POSTCENSUS LOCAL REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 13, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding after section 141 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 142. Postcensus local review

       ``(a) Each decennial census taken after the date of 
     enactment of this section shall include an opportunity for 
     postcensus local review, similar to that afforded as part of 
     the 1990 decennial census, so that local governmental units 
     may review household counts, jurisdictional boundaries, and 
     such other data as the Secretary considers appropriate for 
     the purpose of identifying discrepancies or other potential 
     problems before the tabulation of total population by States 
     (as required for the apportionment of Representatives in 
     Congress among the several States) is completed.
       ``(b) Any postcensus local review afforded under this 
     section in connection with a decennial census shall be 
     conducted in conformance with the following:
       ``(1) Not later than February 1st of the year in which such 
     census is taken, the Secretary shall notify local 
     governmental units as to the guidelines for, and shall 
     furnish them with any other information pertinent to, their 
     participating in the upcoming postcensus local review.
       ``(2)(A) Not later than 30 days before submitting to a 
     local governmental unit the data subject to its review under 
     this section, the Secretary shall furnish to such unit the 
     appropriate block level maps and lists of housing units.
       ``(B) Not later than August 1st of the year in which such 
     census is taken or, if earlier, the 30th day after the date 
     on which the nonresponse followup process for such census is 
     completed, the Secretary shall submit to each local 
     governmental unit the data which is subject to review by such 
     governmental unit under this section.
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B), the date on which 
     the nonresponse followup process for a census is completed 
     shall be as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(3) A local governmental unit shall have 45 days 
     (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) to 
     review the data submitted to it under paragraph (2)(B), and 
     to submit any challenges relating to such data.
       ``(4) The Secretary shall investigate all challenges timely 
     submitted under paragraph (3), recanvass such blocks or other 
     units as the Secretary considers appropriate in connection 
     with any such challenge, and correct any miscounts identified 
     pursuant to any such challenge.
       ``(5) Not later than November 1st of the year in which such 
     census is taken, the Secretary shall, with respect to each 
     challenge timely submitted under paragraph (3)--
       ``(A) complete the measures required under paragraph (4) 
     with respect to such challenge; and
       ``(B) notify the local governmental unit that submitted 
     such challenge as to the measures taken in response thereto.
       ``(c) As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `decennial census' means a decennial census 
     of population conducted under section 141(a); and
       ``(2) the term `local governmental unit' means a local unit 
     of general purpose government as defined by section 184, or 
     its designee.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 5 of title 13, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 141 the 
     following:

``142. Postcensus local review.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed 
in the Congressional Record numbered 1, which shall be considered read 
and debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H2008]]

  Mr. Speaker, post-census local review is a very straightforward, 
commonsense idea used by the Census Bureau in 1990. It is a voluntary 
program that allows local governments to check for mistakes by the 
Census Bureau that may have left households in their communities 
uncounted. If a local government does not want to participate in the 
program, nothing in the legislation would make them.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. Post-census local review is in no way 
designed to criticize the Census Bureau. Rather, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 472 
is designed to recognize an indisputable fact. As the Census Bureau 
attempts to enumerate 275 million people residing in America on Census 
Day, which is April 1, 2000, it is going to make some mistakes. Post-
census local review is designed to find and then correct these errors.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1990 post-census local review corrected close to 
400,000 errors. Eighty thousand households were added to the count, and 
another almost 200,000 were moved to their correct block. Another 
100,000 households were removed from the census count because they did 
not belong.
  Mr. Speaker, this program is designed to make the census more 
accurate, and that is exactly what it does. Who here can argue that 
catching 400,000 errors before they become final is not a worthwhile 
goal?
  My colleagues on the other side will argue that post-census local 
review is not needed. They argue that the Census Bureau's pre-census 
programs are doing an adequate job. Well, first of all, there are some 
21,000 local governments that are not participating in the pre-census 
programs. Do these local governments not matter? Many have limited 
resources, and, given a choice, would understandably want to dedicate 
these resources towards a final check at the end of the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that there are two words that local government 
officials hate to hear from the Federal Government and they are:
  ``Trust us.''
  That is what this administration is telling the local government:
  Trust us. The Federal Government does not make mistakes. We can count 
275 million people without a mistake in the lot. After all, we are the 
Federal Government, and we do not make mistakes.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing I have learned during my time in 
this fine institution, it is that the government does make mistakes, 
lots of them; some of them honest mistakes, and some of them not so 
honest. There were almost 400,000 errors in 1990 during the 1990 
census, and the post-census local review, H.R. 472, is designed to 
catch these mistakes.
  The ironic thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the Census Bureau has made 
much acclaim about their efforts to reach out to local governments and 
to build a trusting relationship, but do they really trust local 
governments? Well, I will let my colleagues be the judge.
  Mr. Speaker, in a recent New York Times article Census Bureau 
Director Ken Prewitt said the following quote. This is referring to 
post-census local review:
  It invites 39,000 independent jurisdictions to tell us that they have 
more people than we found. It is an incentive for anyone to try and 
boost their numbers for either economic or political gain.
  Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that this is a terrible thing to 
say about our local government partners, partners that Census Bureau 
needs to work with in order to ensure that we have an accurate count in 
the 2000 census.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a far cry from what the Census Bureau said about 
post-census local review and local governments during the 1990 census. 
In 1990 the Census Bureau said, quote:

       A considerable amount of goodwill and understanding of one 
     another can develop between governmental units, the State 
     agencies assisting the governmental units and Census Bureau 
     personnel as a result of the interaction during the local 
     review process.

  Sadly, Mr. Speaker, we have moved from a time of building goodwill 
and understanding to one of distrust and alienation.
  Mr. Speaker, the strongest supporters of post-census local review are 
those groups who are most intimately involved in the Census Bureau's 
pre-census programs and understand their deficiencies. Listen to what 
the National League of Cities, which represents 135,000 mayors and 
council members in 17,000 cities said about H.R. 472. Quote:

       The National League of Cities enthusiastically supports the 
     Local Census Quality Act, H.R. 472. This bill will provide 
     our Nation's cities and towns with the much needed post-
     census local review process.

  Listen to what the National Association of Towns and Townships which 
represents 11,000 towns and townships nationwide, has to say. Quote:

       The 45-day post-census review, as proposed in H.R. 472, is 
     one way to help assure that our smaller communities are more 
     accurately accounted for.

  And the National Association of Developmental Organizations supports 
this legislation. I quote:

       We strongly urge you to support H.R. 472 which reinstates 
     the post-census review program for local governments. There 
     are too many consequences from inaccurate counts whether in 
     urban or rural areas for local governments to be prohibited 
     from double-checking their count.

  Mr. Speaker, even the Commerce Secretary's own census advisory 
committee has recommended that he reinstate post-census local review, 
and they have been studying this issue for most of this decade. Quote:

       The Commerce Secretary should direct the Census Bureau to 
     develop a post-census local review operation for Census 2000. 
     This review would be of housing units only, not population, 
     and also would identify special places which have been 
     enumerated. Participating governments can work in partnership 
     with the Census Bureau to assure that the entire population 
     of the community has been contacted and received the 
     opportunity to participate in the census.

  Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation. This legislation will help 
reduce the minority undercount.
  Mr. Speaker, we worked very closely in the development of this 
legislation with a number of different local government groups. I would 
like to thank the National League of Cities, the National Association 
of Towns and Townships, the National Association of Developmental 
Organizations and others for their support in crafting this important 
legislation. It represents their desire to have a successful and 
accurate census in 2000 and ours as well.
  I urge passage of H.R. 472 without the Maloney amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 472. This bill, should it pass, 
will seriously damage the quality of the 2000 census. It may create so 
much disruption that the Census Bureau will miss the statutory 
deadlines for delivering apportionment counts to the President.
  To make matters worse, this bill will do absolutely no good. It will 
not increase the accuracy of the census. It will not reduce the high 
undercounts for minorities and children.
  The 1990 census was fundamentally unfair. That census missed 8.4 
million people who were mostly minorities and the poor in urban and 
rural areas. It also counted twice 4.4 million people, mostly white 
suburbanites. Over all, the total error rate was over 10 percent. The 
1990 census missed 1 in 10 African American males, 1 in 20 Hispanics, 1 
in 8 American Indians on reservations, 1 in 16 white rural renters.
  During the decade, as a result of these errors, millions of people 
went unrepresented. The supporters of 472 want to repeat the errors of 
1990. In fact, they went so far as to put in the legislation that all 
] future censuses would have to repeat the procedures that brought us 
this seriously flawed 1990 census, the first census in our history to 
be less accurate than the one before it.

  Post-census local review is a review of the housing counts, the 
counts of housing units. It does very little to reduce the undercount 
of people, the big problem that the Census Bureau is trying to correct 
in the present census. In 1990, 70 percent of the people missed and 80 
percent of the African Americans missed lived in households that were 
counted. The Census Bureau counted the households but missed the people 
in them. For 2000 the Census Bureau moved local review to the front end 
of the census.
  Mr. Speaker, let us get it right the first time, not fix it later, 
and that is what the Census Bureau is doing.

[[Page H2009]]

  In 1990, post-census local review was a failure. Eighty-four percent 
of the local governments did not participate. For the last year, the 
Census Bureau has been working with local governments to make sure that 
there is an agreement with the local governments on the number of 
housing units before the census begins. So far that program has covered 
86 percent of the addresses in the United States, and they are still 
working. That is far, far better than 1990.
  Why then does the majority want to repeat the 1990 census? In fact, 
it is not just local review they want to repeat from 1990. The majority 
has repeatedly said, in fact it has been said on the Floor today, that 
the 1990 census was not all that bad. They want to repeat as much of 
1990 as possible.
  Why? Why does the majority want to repeat 1990 with all those 
undisputed errors? Because they believe that the errors in the census 
are to their political advantage.
  Just recently one Republican operative was quoted as saying in the 
paper that this was a, quote, do or die issue for the Republican party.
  The former Speaker said in his book that winning the census fight was 
about preserving the Republican majority in Congress. It was not about 
getting an accurate count. He said it was about preserving the 
Republican majority in Congress.
  The head of the RNC sent out a memo soliciting contributions to fight 
the census in the courts, and the majority here made sure that those 
lawsuits would be paid for with taxpayer dollars.
  The litany goes on and on, but the tune is the same. The supporters 
of this bill, the opponents of a fair and accurate census, are willing 
to do anything to make sure that the next census repeats the mistakes 
of the past. H.R. 472 is just one more salvo in that continued assault 
on a honest and accurate census.
  Let us remember what happened in the last Congress. The Republican 
majority attached to the disaster relief bill, the flood relief bill, 
language that would have prevented the use of a modern scientific 
count. They thought the President would not veto it because so many 
Americans were suffering. The President vetoed it and received 
editorial support across this Nation for standing up for what was 
right. Twice they held up the budget over it. And now, they complain 
that the Census Bureau is partisan and trying to rig the census for the 
Democrats.
  The Census Bureau has no political agenda. In fact, the Director, 
when he testified before us, implored the Congress to keep the Census 
Bureau out of the line of fire. The response by the majority has been 
to put the Census Bureau between the cross hairs.
  The Census Bureau put forward the best plan it could develop for the 
2000 census, one that has been supported by many professionals in the 
scientific community, Republican and Democrat alike. It is time to stop 
trying to destroy the census and let the professionals do their work.

                              {time}  1530

  We should not be trying to micromanage the Census Bureau. We should 
let the professionals go out and conduct an accurate count.
  The partisan agenda is not at the Census Bureau; it is here on 
Capitol Hill. It is being managed out of the Speaker's office and the 
RNC down the street.
  H.R. 472 is just one more item in that agenda and it must be 
defeated. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about doing is the most accurate 
census possible and we need to put all the resources into it. We have 
to follow what the Court says, what the law says. The Supreme Court 
ruled.
  If they want to have a constitutional amendment and change things, 
that is another route to go, but it is not going to happen. Follow the 
law. Let us get the best count we can.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished majority leader, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Miller) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker from the Democrat side of the aisle 
was most unsettling. The rules of discourse that we follow in this 
House, the protocols that we try to honor for one another in this 
House, are commonly understood that we do not assail one another's 
motives.
  I have just listened to what is as malicious a diatribe regarding the 
motives of the majority in this matter as I have ever heard on the 
floor of this House, and it is not necessary.
  Should I try to refute point by point the allegations about our 
motives, political motives? No, of course not.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, suffice it to say that it is commonplace 
among the Democrats for them to accuse us of what they themselves are 
doing. What we are asking is not to repeat the census of 1990. What we 
are asking is for Congress to listen to the Constitution and to the 
chief institutional defense of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and 
count the American people, enumerate.
  The Constitution says and the Supreme Court says, count. Every 
American deserves to be counted. We are prepared to make whatever 
obligation of funds and efforts is necessary to count every person. I 
deserve to be counted. My son and daughter deserve to be counted. If 
you live in Bemidji, Minnesota, you deserve to be counted, not 
estimated, not guessed at and not eliminated because you did not fit in 
somebody's statistical model.
  Now, we are making that commitment. The Census Bureau needs to make a 
plan to count the American people, a plan that conforms with the 
directives of the Supreme Court of the United States as they have lent 
interpretation to the Constitution of the United States. When they make 
that plan to count the American people, wholly, totally, completely, we 
will fund it; we will support it. We will provide the resources to 
count the American people.
  We do not believe that the census of the United States should be done 
by polling. We do not believe that you, Mr. and Mrs. America, should be 
found in your place within a standard deviation. You should be counted 
in your home. You should not be estimated.
  Finally, we have already seen at the local level that local review 
reveals where the count was not complete and accurate. Every community 
wants that. It is a simple matter. It is a simple matter. If we make 
our best effort to go out and have a decent, honest count of every 
single person as, in fact, the Constitution and the Supreme Court 
directs us, and we then want to check that, should we relegate our 
checking of that to a bunch of guesstimators holed up in Washington, 
D.C. with some abstract mathematical model, replete with its standard 
deviations? Or should we go to the local community and say to the 
mayor, were we inclusive, did we count everybody?
  Who knows better, the mayor and the community government in Bemidji, 
Minnesota, or somebody holed up behind some statistical model in 
Washington, D.C.?
  Now, I am sure before this debate is over I am going to hear more 
diatribes about our motives here, but I am content to let the American 
people listen to this debate and judge for yourselves.
  Mr. and Mrs. America, read the Constitution. Remember what you have 
been through in the census decade after decade after decade in America. 
Did we count you, or did we estimate you, in accordance with a model 
that was defined by the Clinton administration that has politicized 
every other thing they have ever touched in this government?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is 
remaining on our side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller) has 20\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Government Reform.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is for one purpose 
only. It would delay the Bureau of the Census from getting the report 
to the States in time for them to redistrict using the most accurate 
statistically

[[Page H2010]]

approved methods to get the count that will be the one that should be 
achieved in a census.
  Now we are really looking at an Alice in Wonderland situation. I have 
a chart. Maybe we can get this chart up. This chart shows those groups 
that believe using modern statistical methods will give us the most 
accurate census: The National Academy of Sciences, the American 
Statistical Association, even President Bush's Census Bureau director, 
all the experts.
  Let me have the chart of those who think that statistical methods are 
unconstitutional, inappropriate: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller 
) and the Republican leadership.
  Are we supposed to believe that all of these people from the Academy 
of Sciences are doing something for partisan purposes but the 
Republican Party is out to get us the most accurate census? Well, I 
think if we want to look at their motives we ought to look at the 
statements of some of their leaders.
  In a refreshing moment of candor, one Republican strategist said that 
this is a do or die issue for the Republican majority in the House, 
because what the Republicans really fear is that a more accurate count 
will include more African Americans, more Hispanics and that they will 
in turn elect more Democrats to Congress.
  Alice in Wonderland told us that up is down, down means up, and here 
what we have is when the Republicans say they are nonpartisan, they are 
accusing everybody else of being partisan.
  The fact of the matter is that there will be local participation in 
making the census as accurate as possible. That is really not the issue 
involved. The issue involved is that this legislation would make it 
impossible for the Bureau of the Census to do their job in a 
professional way, as has been recommended by every nonpartisan 
organization.
  I urge a defeat of this proposal and an adoption of an amendment that 
will be offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the thing missing on that list besides Dan Miller are 
two Federal courts, six Federal judges and the United States Supreme 
Court. They all oppose sampling.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan), and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control 
that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth).
  (Mrs. CHENOWETH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Maloney substitute which 
would allow the Secretary of the Census to decide in what manner local 
governments may participate in the census count.
  By requiring post-census local review, H.R. 472 is at the heart of 
the differences between many of us in Congress. The issue is very 
simple. Who knows better how to minister to the people, the small local 
governments familiar with their communities or an overburdened Federal 
bureaucracy that takes its marching orders from Washington, D.C.?
  Post-census local review makes good common sense. How can this 
heavily centralized Federal Government possibly justify its assertion 
that it is better equipped to verify a local census count than the 
locals themselves?
  In Idaho, where I am from, there are a great deal of rural areas, 
pocket communities, tucked in the mountains away from cities and towns. 
These areas must be counted, and no one is better equipped to ensure 
that they are counted than the people of Idaho themselves. The local 
government interacts with these citizens on a daily basis. They deliver 
the mail. They provide utilities. They help children get to school. 
They establish voting packages and provide emergency and rescue 
assistance.
  To expect the Federal Government to have the same level of 
familiarity, the same ability to account for each family and community, 
is ludicrous. Why is the government attempting to reinvent the wheel at 
taxpayers' expense?
  We already have the resources in place to make this census an 
accurate count and yet the administration does not want to make use of 
these resources. The government wants to hire so-called experts in 
Washington to determine whether or not the census is accurate for a 
community they have never seen.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of partisanship here on the floor 
tonight but that is not necessary. This is not about Republicans or 
Democrats. It is at getting the best possible count we can achieve.
  We know the Supreme Court has caused this ruling. We know we have to 
engage in enumeration. That is what we are here talking about. This has 
nothing to do with sampling, to be quite honest. This has everything to 
do to make sure we get the best enumeration possible.
  Rather than quoting Republicans, rather than engaging in a partisan, 
vitriolic speech, I would like to quote some Members of Congress. I 
would like to quote the dean of Congress, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell), and I quote, ``The local government officials have 
labored tirelessly for 2 years that ensure that each home and every 
person is included in the final census tally. They understand the 
importance to themselves, the communities they serve and the people.''
  Actually, we have been hearing from the Commerce Department that 
Secretary Daley will be encouraging the President to veto this 
legislation, but I would like to ask the Secretary of the Commerce to 
talk to his own brother, the mayor of Chicago, a Democrat mayor of 
Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley, who said, ``They, the Census Bureau, 
should come with the inclination to work closely with the mayors. We 
are the ones who are in the trenches. We are there. We know our cities. 
There should be an effort of cooperation and partnership.'' That is a 
Democratic mayor of Chicago.
  I would like to quote from the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Census in 1990, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer), a 
Democrat. ``Local review presents the last chance for local officials 
to have an effect on the completeness of the census counts. In some 
ways, it is the final opportunity to share observations gathered 
throughout the entire census operation this year.''
  Lastly, I would like to talk about one of our fantastically 
successful mayors, a mayor of Detroit, Michigan, Dennis Archer, who 
said just this year at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, this is Dennis 
Archer, mayor of Detroit, Michigan, a Democrat, ``We, as cities, need 
to have the opportunity, before the census count is in cement, given to 
the President, for the President's review by the end of the year 2000, 
so we can evaluate and say, `Here is where you are wrong, and here are 
the changes we would like for you to consider.' I think that we ought 
to be given that.'' That is the Democratic mayor of Detroit.
  In my district, I actually did a survey of all of the elected 
officials, town board chairmen, mayors, county executives.

                              {time}  1545

  I have here all of the petitions, all of the surveys from those 
locally-elected officials in the first Congressional District of 
Wisconsin, Independents, Democrats, Republicans. Here is what they 
said.
  This is the Mayor of Racine, Jim Smith: ``We would anticipate it 
would be very beneficial to both the Census Bureau and the city of 
Racine to have an opportunity to review maps and addresses after the 
count has been completed and prior to the Census Bureau submitting its 
final account.''
  Sheila Siegler, from the town of Wheatland in Wisconsin: ``I believe 
the very best attempt should be made to get an accurate account, and 
local review would aid that process.''
  Mr. Speaker, our efforts are to get a better number, are to improve 
the Census. This should not be about Republicans or Democrats. We are 
going to engage in enumeration, we know that, the Supreme Court has 
said just that. So let us work together and get the best count we can 
possibly get.

[[Page H2011]]

  These gentlemen, the Independents, the Democrats, the Republicans 
from Wisconsin at local units of government, the Democrats in Congress, 
in the cities across our Nation, they know the benefits of local 
government involvement. This is not and should not be about politics.
  We are not advocating a method that will cause a manipulation of the 
numbers, we are advocating a method to improve the count. Local 
governments, combined with Federal governments and State governments, 
can do just that.
  Lastly, I would like to talk about one issue that has been mentioned 
by some of the minority today, that this is a delaying tactic, a tactic 
to try and frustrate the efforts of statistical adjustment. That is 
simply not the case. They had a statistical adjustment in 1990, and 
they had a post Census local review. It can be done. It was done in 
1990. They did a post Census local review. They did engage in a 
sampling adjustment. They did not use it, but they did engage in it.
  This is not a delaying tactic, this is simply embodying the principle 
that governments can work together at all levels of government, the 
Federal Government, local government, State government. The mayor of 
Detroit, the mayor of Chicago, Congressmen and Senators from both sides 
of the aisle, the Democrats, the Republicans, have over the last 10 
years advocated postcensus local review.
  This is not about politics, it is about doing what the Constitution 
has asked us to do.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke quoted Mayor Archer of 
Detroit. Let us hear the rest of the story. Mayor Archer said, and I 
quote, ``This bill prevents Census counts from being tracked for the 
undercount by April 1, 2001, which is critical for distribution of 
Federal funds. I cannot support H.R. 472 in its current form.''
  Going on, we have all agreed that the last Census was inundated with 
millions of errors. It is our duty to fix this problem. I am dismayed 
that H.R. 472, the Post Census Local Review Act, is still being 
considered as a solution to the miscount. The bill will continue a 
thoughtless practice of requiring the Census Bureau to set aside 9 
unnecessary weeks after the field work is done to review the count of 
local addresses a second time.
  Most mayors who participated in this program in 1990 thought it was a 
disaster. Why are Republicans pushing to repeat the same mistakes? As a 
lawmaker, I have a responsibility to focus my energy on the impact this 
legislation will have on the people whom I am accountable to.
  As a result of the 1990 Census, 21,000 of my constituents were 
excluded from Federal funds for health care, education, transportation, 
economic development, and even child care. This must not happen again.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the State of California has almost 1 in 
9 of all American citizens that live in it. An accurate census count is 
very, very important. We are a donor State in transportation. We are a 
donor State in education. The formulas that devise the amount of 
dollars that come out of the Federal Government to California is very 
important. That is why I want to a good, accurate count of every person 
that comes in.
  Take the case of the Title I education program, for example. In 1991 
when I came here, its state allocation was based on the previous Census 
in 1980. Most of the immigration that came into California was during 
that time between 1980 and 1991. We were getting cheated. The gentleman 
from Massachusetts in the other body did not want the money coming from 
out of Massachusetts, so he actually added money to the program when 
the Democrats were in the majority. So an accurate count is important 
for education. The Census should not be a guess. An accurate 
statistical system of guessing, as my friend, the gentleman from 
California, said, is an oxymoron. It is not possible. We cannot do 
that.
  Let me give a little statistic. California has more illegals than all 
the population in Kosovo. If I had my way, only people that are in the 
United States of America legally would be counted in the Census--not 
illegal aliens. We cannot do that, but I think it would be the right 
thing to do.
  The mayor of San Diego, Mayor Susan Golding whose city has a 
population that is bigger than many of the States, supports this issue 
of local post-Census review very strongly.
  My question is this: If we talk about the 1990 Census being so poor, 
why did they mess it up so bad? The liberal Democrats had control of 
the House and Senate in 1989. Why did they mess it up so bad? I would 
say they messed it up so bad maybe because they were following the 
Constitution of the United States that says actual enumeration which, 
in modern times, is very difficult to do well--but very important to do 
well. We must count everyone. We must not guess in our Census. What we 
are trying to do is add local adjustment to solving that problem.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1990 the Census was the first Census that we had that 
was less accurate than the one before it. We have been conducting the 
Census since 1790, and only one time in our history has it been less 
accurate than the one before it.
  Because of the 1990 Census, 10 million Americans were undercounted. 
In the city of Chicago, my hometown, 68,000 Chicagoans were not 
counted. That is enough Chicagoans to fill Soldier's Field completely 
at a football game where the Bears were playing. I know the Bears have 
a bad record, and they may not always sell out, but 68,000 people is a 
lot of people to not be counted.
  Federal resources are predicated upon the counts. All the 
statisticians, the National Academy of Scientists and others, indicate 
that statistical methodology in the 21st century is the way to go, not 
the 1990 version, where we undercounted people by 10 million.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 472, the Local Census 
Quality Check Act. My hometown of Corona, California, has been 
voluntarily working with the Census Bureau to review and compare maps 
provided by the Census Bureau to ensure accuracy in the 2000 Census 
count.
  Growth in Riverside County, California, has soared in the last 
decade. From 1991 to 1998 the city of Corona added 36,000 new 
residents, more than any other community in California's inland empire. 
An accurate Census count is absolutely vital.
  During this review, the city found that additions are not always 
incorporated in a timely manner by the Census Bureau. Local governments 
are the best source to verify where residential addresses are located 
within their boundaries. Therefore, it is critical that cities have the 
opportunity to review the final addresses.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 472 is a sound piece of legislation which restores 
and improves upon a program begun by the Census Bureau. As we work 
toward enumeration of the 2000 Census, we will continue the 
implementation of improved methods and ensure all persons are counted.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds for 
a point of clarification.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 1990 Census it was the Secretary of Commerce in 
the Bush administration that refused to allow the use of modern 
scientific methods to correct the undercount that caused the 1990 
Census to be less accurate than the one before it, not the House and 
Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford), an outstanding member of the subcommittee on the 
Census.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me,

[[Page H2012]]

soon to be chairwoman of the subcommittee, no disrespect to our current 
chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 472, and would take the 
liberty to ask all of my colleagues to support the Maloney amendment. I 
have heard nothing, Mr. Chairman, since being a member of the 
committee, but lip service paid to this notion of an accurate count.
  While many of the independent experts, including those mentioned by 
the committee ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman), tell us that the key to an accurate Census is the use of 
modern statistical methods, whether the majority leader likes it or 
not.
  We have not been able to count all the folks in this great Nation. 
There were 8 million missed in 1990; in my district alone 20,000, and 
in my State of Tennessee, 8,000. Had we counted all of them, that would 
have been the fifth largest city in the State. The 20,000 missed in my 
district, 10,000 of them were children; 17 new schools, 530 new 
teachers, according to children's organizations who have done some of 
the numbers.
  Census data, Census data, is used to determine the amount of funding, 
Federal funding for education, for health care, for transportation 
projects, as my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Duke 
Cunningham) just talked about.
  But the bill that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and my 
friends and others are putting up would not accomplish the goals they 
seek to accomplish. If we allow local governments to work with the 
Census Bureau, if we follow them, the Maloney model, that is consistent 
with what these guys want to do.
  Do the right thing, allow the money to get to Members districts, my 
district, all of our districts.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time to me.
  Like many grandmothers, my granddaughter Isabel and I read books 
together, and some of them are counting books. There is one where there 
are these hidden butterflies. The trick is to find the hidden 
butterflies.
  The children in our country are those hidden butterflies. It is not 
as simple as one, two, three. In fact, in the Census we found that 52 
percent of those 8 million that were not counted were children. This 
H.R. 472 is simply not intended to count the children. It is aimed at 
identifying not people but housing units.
  The fact is that 70 percent of the undercounted people, most of them 
children, were in housing units that had already been identified. What 
we need to be about is counting children.
  I want to say to my colleague on the other side of the aisle, there 
is no way that the mayor of my city, Mayor Daley, is supportive of H.R. 
472. He, like the New York Times, feels that House Republicans are up 
to their usual mischief on the Census. One of their worst proposals is 
H.R. 472. Let us get about counting the children.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a former mayor and 
outstanding member of our Task Force on the Census.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the legislation that 
has been put on the agenda today. I happen to disagree with it. If I 
listen to those people who have been in support of this legislation, we 
could have worked out a compromise on this. That is the sad part about 
it.
  To imply that Democrats are against local review is simply 
untruthful. What we are saying is that this local review must be done 
at a specific time so that there is time for the Census under the law, 
under the law, and under the Constitution of the United States to do 
scientific methodology. That is what this debate is all about.
  My city in 1995 was one of three in the entire Nation that dealt with 
the scientific foundation of what we are debating today. It worked. 
Each one of those towns had their populations increased because of the 
state of the art of scientific sampling. It was not polling and it was 
not guessing, and it was accurate.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), the former mayor of Fort Worth.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 472, the 
Local Census Quality Check Act of 1999. This important legislation will 
reinstitute the highly successful Post Census Local Review Program used 
by the Census Bureau in 1990.
  Post Census local review is a program both parties have supported in 
the past. I hope both parties will support it in the future. In short, 
it is a commonsense way to ensure that our Census is accurate, fair, 
and constitutional.
  Let me say at the onset that as a former mayor of a major city, I 
appreciate and I support the need for an accurate count of all of our 
citizens. That is why I believe the post census local review is the way 
to go. Post Census local review is not a new idea, it is a proven 
product that works. In fact, post Census local review is a Census 
Bureau program. That is right, the Census Bureau formulated this plan. 
They used it in the 1990 Census.
  Here is how it works. Post Census local review gives local and tribal 
governments a review of housing counts in their area prior to 
finalization of Census numbers. After all, who knows these areas 
better, government officials in Washington, or local officials in these 
jurisdictions?

                              {time}  1600

  Post-census local review in the 1990 census was highly successful. 
But do not take it from me. Just look at these facts. A 1990 post-
census local review added 80,929 housing units to the census count.
  It also relocated 198,347 housing units to the right block and 
removed 101,887 housing units counted in error. This all equates to 
around 400,000 mistakes corrected as a direct result of post-census 
local review.
  Over 124,000 people were added to the census count. For example, in 
the City of Detroit, they added over 47,000 people, mostly inner-city 
residents, to its total. Cleveland added more than 10,000 people.
  Mr. Speaker, these are real people in real cities who are added to 
the census, not hypotheticals, not guesses. Mr. Speaker, the census is 
too important to mess around with. Let us do this right.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  I want to join the mayor who spoke in saying that this is not about 
local involvement, it is about the timing of local involvement. Why is 
it about the timing of local involvement? Because I suggest to my 
colleagues, if they involve the local governments late in the process, 
they deny the opportunity for sampling to be used.
  Speaker Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, in 1991 said that 
sampling ought to be used, because if it was not used minorities in 
Georgia would be undercounted. That was Speaker Gingrich in a letter of 
1991.
  The fact of the matter is, if we delay, as H.R. 472 will inevitably 
require, the involvement as opposed to having it early, as the mayor 
and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) suggest, then we will 
preclude what I suggest the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) said in 
a statement would be, not only allowed, but the sense that I took from 
his statement was might be preferable.
  Furthermore, Dr. Bryant, George Bush's census director, says that we 
ought to utilize sampling. If that is the case, we ought not to adopt 
legislation which will delay it.
  In a report of the panel on census requirements in the year 2000, the 
National Academy of Sciences said we ought to use sampling because it 
more accurately counts.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), former mayor, said that we 
counted some 124,000 people in a post-census review. Yes, we did. But 
guess

[[Page H2013]]

what, we did not count 8 million people. In other words, while we got 
124,000, we left out 7,896,000 people. That does not seem to me to be a 
good trade-off if we really care about counting every person for the 
purposes of making an accurate census.
  I refer to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), my 
friend who serves with me on the Committee on Appropriations. In 
quoting him, he says ``I have chosen these words carefully. The issue 
of sampling is an issue of apportionment of representatives, not, I 
repeat, the distribution of Federal aid.''
  Now, if it is all right to use sampling for the purposes of 
distributing over $187 billion of taxpayers' money, presumably because 
we think that is more accurate and will more accurately target where 
the funds are supposed to be, then I would suggest to the gentleman it 
is equally applicable to making sure that people who are getting money 
are represented accurately as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The Chair notes that the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  It is amazing that we keep talking about sampling. The Supreme Court 
settled the issue. The issue of distribution of funds is not a 
constitutional question. We are talking about apportionment and 
redistricting. That is the constitutional question. That is what the 
Constitution mandates us to do in Article I of our Constitution, to do 
a full enumeration. That is what they are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I really want to underscore what the gentleman said. They ruled on a 
statutory issue, not the Constitution. It referred only to 
apportionment and specifically said that one could use modern 
scientific counts and should use it for all other purposes, 
redistricting and distribution of Federal funds.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. 
Underwood), my dear friend and colleague.
  (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 472 has a goal. But that goal is not 
to achieve a fair and accurate census count, and it is not to use the 
best scientific methods available. It is to derail the Census Bureau's 
plans of using statistical sampling, the only method which would remedy 
the undercount of minorities, children, and the rural and urban poor. 
By instituting a post-census check, not only will the Census Bureau's 
work be set back for more than a month, the Bureau would miss its 
apportionment deadline set by December 31, 2000, and deplete funds 
necessary for statistical sampling. I do not know whether this is the 
intent, but this is clearly the effect.
  Both Democrats and Republicans in the past have acknowledged that a 
post-census local review such as H.R. 472 mandates will not work. It 
was clearly demonstrated in the 1990 census, and that is why the Bush 
administration's director of the Census Bureau stated that the post-
census local review in 1990 was a well-intentioned but ineffective 
operation.
  We support local government participation, but not as a mechanism to 
delay and divert the basic intent of the census.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 472, the Local Census Quality 
Check Act, calls for a post-census local review by local governments of 
the census population numbers before they become official.
  We already have done that. We found out, though, that it does not 
work. We still lose over 8 million people. So this bill is not the 
solution that we need to do. The 1990 census was the least accurate of 
all our censuses. It missed or double counted over 8 million people.
  We have used the post-census reviews in 1990, and the gentleman from 
Guam (Mr. Underwood) mentioned the quote from Dr. Barbara Bryant about 
how this post-census review in 1990 was well-intentioned but 
ineffective.
  Rather than repeat the post-census local review with its 
disappointing and miniscule results, the Census Bureau determined to 
find a better way for local governments to fully participate. They are 
doing that now.
  In 1990, Texas was undercounted substantially. Houston alone was 
undercounted by thousands. So by doing this in 1990, it was broken, but 
we need to fix it. This bill will not fix it, Mr. Speaker, unless we 
attach the Maloney amendment to it.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Maloney amendment. The Census 
Bureau estimates the post-census review will add an additional 9 weeks 
to the count which will also increase our costs.
  H.R. 472, the Local Census Quality Check Act, calls for a Post Census 
Local Review by local governments of the census population numbers 
before they become official.
  The 1990 census was the least accurate of all of our censuses and it 
missed or double counted over 8 million persons. We used a Post Census 
Local Review during the 1990 Census. However, Dr. Barbara Bryant, 
Director of the Census Bureau during the Bush Administration, has 
testified before the Census Subcommittee that

       Post Census Local Review in 1990 was a well intentioned, 
     but ineffective, operation. . . . Rather than repeat 
     postcensus local review, with its disappointing and minuscule 
     results, the Census Bureau determined to find a way for local 
     governments to more fully participate in the census.

  Texas was undercounted in 1990 in Houston alone by thousands.
  The Census Bureau has done just that. They have established The 
Census 2000 Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) which vastly 
expands both the interaction between local governmental units and the 
Bureau, and it extends the time local governments are given to verify 
and correct addresses and boundaries. To date, twice as many local 
governments are participating in Local Update of Census Addresses 
compared to the Post Census Local Review in 1990. Notably, these 
governments cover 85 percent of all addresses in the country.
  The Census Bureau estimates that a post census review will add an 
additional nine weeks to the count which would increase cost, increase 
delays, and effectively hinder the operations of the Census Bureau. 
Instead of wasting time, we should be using the most modern and 
scientifically accurate methods of counting in order to take the 2000 
census. Without it the miscounting of minority populations will 
persist.
  H.R. 472 is a bad attempt at correcting the miscounting of over 8 
million persons in our country during the 1990 census. We should not be 
wasting our time and taxpayer dollars on an operation that has proven 
to be at best ineffective.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 472, unless the Maloney 
amendment is adopted.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who has been an outstanding 
participant in this census task force.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. I have worked with both 
of them. They are both able and capable leaders.
  I happen to have a difference of opinion on the bill than the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has, and that time is the thing in 
this entire thing. Time is very, very important.
  The whole concept philosophically may be good, but what will happen 
in the end is this post-census review will not be done in a timely 
manner. There is too much at stake, Mr. Speaker, too much at stake.
  The people I represent have been undercounted for the last two 
censuses. Data will show that the post-census review and the pre-
census, none of them did the job of giving us the count that we need.
  All I am saying is people want to be counted. I cannot go back to 
Miami and say to the minorities I represent, the Hispanics, the African 
Americans, all of this people who make up this beautiful pattern of 
color we have in this country and say to them we are not doing 
everything that we can do to be sure that each one of them is talented.
  So today I want to say to this particular House, we cannot go with 
the bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), with all of his 
good intentions, because the time is too short. He

[[Page H2014]]

is extending the time of the bill's implementation.
  Mr. Speaker, There are some in Congress who are intent on making sure 
that we do not have a fair and accurate census count in 2000. H.R. 472, 
introduced by Representative Miller, requires the Census Bureau to 
provide local governments with an opportunity to review the housing 
counts from the 2000 census.
  There is little difference between Mr. Miller's proposal and the 
post-census local review conducted as part of the 1990 census. This 
procedure didn't work in 1990 or 1980, consequently, Congress replaced 
it with a precensus local review that is more simple and easier for 
communities to handle.
  Rather than adding another program, we should be working to make the 
precensus local review work.
  H.R. 472 has as its purpose to keep the Census Bureau from doing its 
job. This will not do anything to improve the accuracy of the 2000 
Census. This bill could even cripple the Census Bureau's efforts to 
conduct the most accurate census possible. Micromanagement of the 2000 
Census, at this late date, is absolutely the wrong thing to do. We need 
to get out of the way and let the Census Bureau do its job.
  It is interesting to note that Mayor Penelas, the mayor of Miami, FL, 
as well as several local Commissioners, forwarded letters to my office 
outlining their opposition to H.R. 472.
  Additionally, Dr. Barbara Bryant, the former Director of the Census 
Bureau, testified before Congress that the 1990 local review was a 
logistical nightmare and a public relations disaster. Most of the 
communities that participated were displeased with the process, and 
less than 20 percent of the governmental units participated.
  The program as laid out in the Miller bill essentially duplicates 
activities in the precensus local review. Although the desire on the 
part of local government officials to get one last chance to increase 
their counts is understandable, any such program should complement 
rather than duplicate other census activities.
  The Census 2000 is one of the most divisive and partisan issues that 
we will face in this session of Congress. At stake are billions in 
federal funds, as well as control of state legislatures throughout our 
country. The main effect this bill would have would be to delay, past 
the statutory deadline established in P.L. 101-174 (April 1, 2001), the 
release of corrected totals at the geographic level suitable for 
redistricting. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 472.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) for the time and also for her hard work to make sure that all 
people in this country are counted.
  I rise today to strongly oppose H.R. 472. There are 352 days until 
April 1, 2000, census day. Preparation for this constitutionally 
mandated national head count has been in the works for years. Now, in 
the eleventh hour, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
proposing legislation that seeks to change procedures, add costs, and 
most importantly a timetable to an already tight time schedule.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to consider how best to 
correct the undercount of low income people, minority groups, and 
children. The undercount has been the practice of the Census Bureau in 
recent decades. If you are not counted in, you are counted out. That is 
fundamentally undemocratic. It is wrong.
  H.R. 472 appears to be harmless. But the post-census local review 
strategy used in 1990 failed miserably. We must not dismiss the views 
of the Census Bureau Director, who calls this bill just short of 
disastrous. Let us not repeat these mistakes. I ask for a ``no'' vote 
on H.R. 472.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will take just a moment, and it is just to reinforce 
the importance of preserving the process for a post-census local review 
on the part of local governments.
  I have a community in my district that sent a letter out. It was 
actually to all of the Congressional Members from our Illinois 
delegation, but it is a village in my district, Elk Grove.
  Back in 1990, Elk Grove village reviewed the Census Bureau's 
preliminary count, they say, and village staff found that a newly 
constructed subdivision had failed to be counted which included 349 
residents.
  Furthermore, based on the per capita revenue dispensed by the State 
of Illinois, Elk Grove village would have lost over 35,000 in annual 
revenue, almost 250,000 in total, had the review process not existed. 
To be sure, that sounds nickel, dime in this town and in this body, but 
it is vitally important to local communities.
  For that reason, I urge that we follow the process of continuing that 
but simultaneously expanding to 45 days the consideration for review.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise against House 
Resolution 472 unless we adopt the Maloney amendment. This amendment is 
a logical and effective means to include local governments, produce an 
accurate count in the 2000 census, and it gives the Census Bureau 
ability to use statistical sampling to validate traditional census data 
without unnecessary interference.
  We need to do everything we can to make sure that everyone is counted 
in this census by using all the technology and tactics that we have 
available to us.
  Undercounting in the 1990 census cost the State of Texas a total of 
$1 billion from a variety of Federal programs for which we would 
otherwise have qualified. According to the Census Bureau, nearly half a 
million Texans were missed in the last census, most of whom were inner 
city minorities and most especially children. So we are not talking 
about voters here.
  While this country is using science and technology to find a cure for 
many diseases, to expand opportunities in education and employment, and 
even to build better buildings and bridges, the Republican majority 
refuses to allow the use of science and technology to help us count the 
people.
  Why should not our government be allowed to use this technology. Why 
must we retreat back a century rather than forward.
  I rise in support of the Maloney amendment to H.R. 472. This 
amendment is a logical and effective means to include local governments 
to produce an accurate count in the 2000 census.
  Further, it gives the Census Bureau the ability to use statistical 
sampling to validate traditional census data without unnecessary 
interference. We need to do everything we can to make sure that 
everyone is counted in this census by using all the technology and 
tactics we have at our disposal.
  Undercounting in the 1990 census cost the State of Texas a total of 
$1 billion from a variety of federal programs for which we would 
otherwise have qualified. According to the Census Bureau, nearly half a 
million Texans were missed in the last census, most of whom were inner-
city minorities and most especially children.
  While this country is using science and technology to find a cure for 
many diseases, to expand opportunities in education and employment and 
even to build better buildings and bridges, the Republican majority 
refuses to allow the use of science and technology to help us count 
those who need to be counted the most.
  Why shouldn't our government be allowed to use this technology? Why 
must we retreat in the 20th century on this important issue?
  Unfortunately, the antiquated and inaccurate means we use to count 
our citizens will continue to be used.
  Not only will our constituents lose out on federal funds they 
deserve, but we are quietly eroding the principle of one person--one 
vote. The recent Supreme Court decision on statistical sampling ties 
the hands of state legislatures who depend on census data to draw fair 
and competitive congressional districts.
  This decision and the Republican majority's embrace of its effects on 
voting rights will greatly reduce the electoral opportunity for 
minority and women candidates to win office and represent their 
concerned constituents.
  Further, this decision acts to disenfranchise poor and minority 
citizens, those who are traditionally missed using traditional census 
data.
  It is time to stop ignoring the facts! Traditional headcounts do not 
work. How many times does it need to be proven? Mayors know this. So 
many are in support of using statistical sampling.
  Congress knows this. Otherwise, how can you explain the utter fear of 
the Republican

[[Page H2015]]

majority to the use of sampling? Let me give it a try. Sampling will 
work. It will work well. It will work too well for them. Undercounts in 
the nation's inner cities consistently help Republicans stay in and 
gain new entry to elected office.
  Be fair to the citizens of the United States and let the Census 
Bureau do their jobs the best way they can--through traditional methods 
supported by statistical sampling.
  Vote ``yes'' to the Maloney amendment.

                                                     May 20, 1997.

                 Important Notice to all State Chairmen

     From: Jim Nicholson, Chairman, Republican National Committee.
     Re: The Clinton Census.
       I am contacting you to recruit your assistance in 
     addressing an issue of unusual importance to the future of 
     Republican Party. At the heart of the matter is one of the 
     federal government's most fundamental Constitutional 
     functions: the United States census. At stake is our GOP 
     majority in the House of Representatives, as well as partisan 
     control of state legislatures nationwide.
       The Clinton Administration is implementing a radical new 
     way of taking the next census that effectively will add 
     nearly four and one-half million Democrats to the nation's 
     population. This is the political outcome of a controversial 
     Executive decision to use a complex mathematical formula to 
     estimate and ``adjust'' the 2000 census. Using this process 
     Democrats gain a critical advantage in the next redistricting 
     that will undermine GOP efforts to elect Republicans to both 
     federal and state offices.
       A reliable analysis done for the RNC by Polidata Political 
     Analysis reveals that a statistically altered census will 
     have a sweeping political impact that clearly imperils the 
     Party's present congressional majority. The GOP would suffer 
     a negative effect in the partisan makeup of 24 Congressional 
     seats, 113 State Senate seats and 297 State House seats 
     nationwide (a state-by-state summary is attached for your 
     reference). Many of these legislative districts are in states 
     where majorities are held by only the narrowest of margins. 
     An adjusted census could provide Democrats the crucial edge 
     needed to prevail in close contests to control several state 
     legislative chambers.
       The census does have problems and improvements are needed 
     to insure a successful effort, but an adjusted census ignores 
     the Constitution's call for an ``actual enumeration''. 
     Republican leaders are committed to providing the needed 
     resources for a complete count as directed by the founders. 
     Census adjustment raises many legal, ethical, and technical 
     concerns, yet Democrats faithfully promote it as the 
     solution. Don't be fooled. An adjusted census is part of a 
     long-term Democrat strategy to regain control of Congress and 
     elect more candidates at all levels.
       I regard it my duty as Party Chairman to alert you to the 
     consequences on this front, and to request your assistance in 
     stopping a census adjustment. Congress has the ultimate 
     Constitutional authority to decide how the census is 
     conducted, and federal appropriators have moved to halt 
     funding for an adjusted census. Conference review of this 
     issue is scheduled to begin today as part of a Supplemental 
     Appropriations bill (H.R. 1469 fiscal year 1997 Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act). We anticipate an attempt to strip this 
     legislation of language that prevents the use of estimates 
     and sampling in taking the census. Despite the concerns 
     outlined here, adjustment proponents have been successful in 
     exploiting Members' local concerns related to federal funding 
     and legislative representation. A census adjustment could 
     shift some federal funding levels, but it should be stressed 
     that the language coming out of conference is planned to be 
     specific for apportionment, and not funding distribution 
     purposes.
       It is vital that Republicans be united in opposing an 
     adjusted census. Therefore, I am calling on each state 
     chairman to urge your congressional delegation to support 
     legislative restrictions, and to vote against any amendment 
     that removes such language from the Supplemental 
     Appropriations bill.
       Thank you, and please do not hesitate to contact me should 
     you need further information regarding this matter.

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) 
has 7\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Miller) has 7\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer), former chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Census and an outstanding leader on this issue.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
those kind comments.
  I, too, rise in opposition to H.R. 472 based on that kind of 
experience that I have from 1990. The 1990 post-census local review was 
a well-intentioned but ultimately flawed program to tap the knowledge 
of local officials in the final stages of the census.

                              {time}  1615

  Now, that knowledge ought to be a key element in any orderly count, 
but in reality in 1990 it became a frantic attempt to make up for 
deficiencies in traditional counting methods. Unfortunately, the 
shortcomings of those methods were widespread and systemic. Trying to 
find missing housing units and determine who lived there 6 months 
earlier was like looking for a lot of needles already long gone from a 
very large haystack.
  Dr. Bryant has been widely quoted on this floor. On this specific 
subject she said that the post-census local review was a logistical 
nightmare and a public relations disaster. The depth and the breadth of 
the undercount was an obstacle that desperation in the guise of 
persistence could not overcome.
  Recognizing that its counting efforts were falling short, the Census 
Bureau that year initiated a recanvass of a selected 20 percent of all 
blocks in the country. That combined effort, put together with the 
post-census local review, increased the final census count by one-tenth 
of 1 percent. PCLR was less than one-twentieth of 1 percent.
  The decision not to conduct this style of-post census local review in 
2000 was neither arbitrary nor isolated. It simply was not a cost 
effective activity. The GAO concluded that extended reliance on field 
follow-up activities represents a losing trade-off between augmenting 
the count and simply adding more errors.
  An accurate address list is clearly a critical part of an accurate 
census. We were amazed in our census review, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Tom Petri) and I, to find that every 10 years the Census 
Bureau starts from scratch to build a new address list. So involving 
local governments in the development of an address list was critical. 
It was an equally clear fact that involving them at the end of the 
process in a frantic effort to close out the census was a failure for 
both the Bureau and for local officials.
  Involving local governments early in the process of developing the 
lists was better for both the Bureau and for local officials. So we 
developed the Address List Improvement Act to address those legal 
constraints, and in 1994 we enacted permission allowing the Bureau for 
the first time to share address information with the U.S. Postal 
Service and with local governments ahead of time.
  Using this new authority, the Bureau's redesigned census relies on 
the knowledge of local governments to compile and verify ahead of time 
a master list file of all housing units before the census starts, when 
it can do the most good.
  We also have to face a difficult fact. Some local governments, not 
all but some, are not well positioned to provide reliable data on their 
housing stock. They may lack fiscal resources or technical expertise. 
The GAO observed that, on balance, local address lists add more error 
than they correct. There simply comes a time when too many cooks 
stirring the pot spoil the porridge.
  I have discussed this with Director Prewitt at some length, and we 
agree that a more constructive approach would be for the bureau to 
provide local governments with frequent reports and up-front 
involvement in the progress of the address list development and in the 
count itself as it unfolds.
  The legislation of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) is a well-
intentioned effort to bring the knowledge of local officials to the 
census process, but I must strongly counsel against tying the Bureau's 
hands with specific operational requirements, particularly ones that 
run against the professional judgment of the Bureau's staff, and is 
clearly not wise in the light of past experience.
  The 1990 Post Census Local Review (PCLR) was a well-intentioned, but 
ultimately flawed, program to tap the knowledge of local officials in 
the final stages of the census. The Bureau hoped that mayors, county 
supervisors, and other local officials could help identify obvious gaps 
in the census counts and direct enumerators to specific neighborhoods 
where housing units may have been missed.
  In reality, as time wore on, PCLR became a frantic attempt to make-up 
for deficiencies in traditional counting methods. Unfortunately, the 
shortcomings of these methods (later documented by independent 
evaluators such as the General Accounting Office and National Academy 
of Sciences, as well as the Bureau

[[Page H2016]]

itself) were widespread and systemic. Trying to find missed housing 
units and determine who lived there six months earlier (on Census Day) 
was like looking for a lot of needles already long gone from a very big 
haystack.
  Dr. Barbara Everitt Bryant, Census Bureau director during the 1990 
count, told a congressional oversight panel in 1998 that PCLR was ``a 
logistical nightmare and a public relations disaster.'' As summer 
faded, local officials in the hardest-to-count areas saw the writing on 
the wall as traditional methods failed to reach large numbers of 
households. They viewed PCLR as a final chance to make-up for 
disappointingly low mail response and painstakingly difficult follow-up 
efforts that would doom their communities to inaccurate counts. But the 
depth and breadth of the undercount (more than 8 million people were 
missed in 1990, according to Census Bureau evaluations) was an obstacle 
that desperation in the guise of persistence couldn't overcome.
  The hard facts about PCLR tell the story. At a cost of $9.6 million, 
PCLR added about 125,000 people living in 81,000 housing units. 
Subsequent evaluations estimated that 11.7 percent of the households 
added should not have been included. Of all local governments invited 
to participate in PCLR, only 25 percent (about 9,800 of 39,000) did so. 
Recognizing that its counting efforts were falling short, the Census 
Bureau also initiated a recanvass of selected neighborhoods in late 
summer and early fall of 1990. In all, the Bureau revisited 20 percent 
of all blocks in the country. The combined effort increased the final 
census count by one tenth of one percent.
  The decision not to conduct a 1990-style Post Census Local Review in 
2000 was neither arbitrary nor isolated. The Bureau's own evaluations 
clearly showed that PCLR was not a cost-effective activity. In its 
comprehensive assessment of the 1990 census, the General Accounting 
Office concluded:

       During the final stages of data collection the Bureau 
     expends considerable effort to increase the population count, 
     with limited success. The coverage improvement programs 
     provide a vivid illustration of this problem. . . . The 
     results from 1990 also demonstrated that spending more time 
     on fieldwork has questionable value. Extended reliance on 
     field follow-up activities represents a losing trade-off 
     between augmenting the count and adding more errors.

  Altogether, the coverage improvement programs accounted for only one 
percent of the 1990 census count (or 2.4 million persons). Clearly, any 
redesign of the census process had to consider alternatives to lengthy 
and costly field operations that did little to reduce the chronic 
undercounting that plagued poor rural and urban communities and people 
of color overall.
  As Tom Petri and I conducted our evaluation of the 1990 census we 
quickly came to the conclusion that building an accurate address list 
was an essential element to an accurate census. Frankly, we were amazed 
that each 10 years the Census Bureau starts from scratch to build a new 
address list. It was clear from the two hearings we held on post-census 
local review that involving local governments in the development of the 
address list was critical. It was equally clear that involving them at 
the end of the process in the frantic efforts to close out the census 
was a failure for both the Census Bureau and local officials.
  Working with the Census Bureau, we came to the conclusion that 
involving local governments early in the process of developing the 
address list was better for both the Census Bureau and local officials, 
but that the confidentiality provisions of Title 13 U.S.C. made that 
very difficult. In addition, the Postal Service told us that the 
statutes governing their operations complicated providing addresses to 
the Census Bureau. At the request of the Census Bureau and the Postal 
Service we developed the Address List Improvement Act to address these 
legal constraints.
  At the request of Congress and the Bureau itself, the National 
Academy of Sciences convened two expert panels to conduct a 
comprehensive review of the census process. Legislation mandating one 
of those reviews asked the panel to study ways to improve direct 
enumeration methods, alternative methods for collecting the basic 
population data, and the appropriateness of using sampling methods in 
combination with direct counting techniques. In relevant part, the 
Panel on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond concluded 
that: ``It is fruitless to continue trying to count every last person 
with traditional census methods of physical enumeration. Simply 
providing additional funds to enable the Census Bureau to carry out the 
2000 census using traditional methods . . . will not lead to improved 
coverage or data quality. . . . [P]hysical enumeration or pure 
`counting' has been pushed well beyond the point at which it adds to 
the overall accuracy of the census. Moreover, such traditional census 
methods still result in a substantial undercount of minority 
populations.''

  With guidance from the Academy panels, the GAO, the Commerce 
Department's Office of Inspector General, and congressional oversight 
and funding committees, the Census Bureau re-engineered the census 
process to meet the overarching goals of increased accuracy and cost 
containment. The Census 2000 plan it unveiled in February 1996 
incorporates new approaches for developing a complete file of the 
nation's residential addresses and as I mentioned earlier, legislation 
enacted in 1994 allowed the Bureau, for the first time, to share 
address information with the U.S. Postal Service and local governments. 
Using this new authority, the Bureau's redesigned census relies on the 
knowledge of local governments to compile and verify a Master Address 
File of all housing units before the census starts. Unquestionably, an 
accurate address list will substantially increase the likelihood that 
all households will receive a census form and that enumerators will 
visit all households that fail to respond by mail. Equally important, 
shifting a thorough review of address lists to the front of the process 
will promote a higher quality census, since information collected late 
in the census is unquestionably less reliable. As the GAO and other 
evaluators discovered, as the information-gathering moves further away 
in time from Census Day, more and more mistakes are made, and the 
quality of the data greatly diminished.
  We also have to face a difficult fact. Some local governments are not 
well-positioned to provide reliable data on their housing stock. They 
may lack fiscal resources, technical expertise, or accurate 
administrative records. As recently as March 1998, the Commerce 
Department's Acting Inspector General observed that ``on balance, local 
[address] lists add more error than they correct.'' There simply comes 
a point when too many cooks are stirring the pot, and the Census Bureau 
must be able to exercise its professional judgment in deciding how best 
to compile a comprehensive address file that follows consistent 
definitions of what constitutes a housing unit.
  For jurisdictions that have the capacity to review and confirm a 
large set of address information, the pre-census activities offer the 
best opportunity to get it right. Once they do, a 1990-style review 
after non-response follow-up is completed will do little to address the 
problem of undercounting that experience tells us in inevitable. If the 
Bureau starts with an address file that incorporates as much knowledge 
as local governments can offer, there is no reason to believe that 
these same governments can improve the search for housing units six 
months after Census Day. A more constructive approach in my opinion, 
would be for the Bureau to provide local governments with frequent 
reports and upfront involvement progress of address list development 
the count itself as the census unfolds. That way, working together, the 
Bureau and local officials can pinpoint neighborhoods where response is 
low and develop targeted efforts to reach those unresponsive 
households.
  I understand that Chairman Miller's legislation to require a 1990-
style post-census local review in every census is a well-intentioned 
effort to bring the knowledge of local officials to bear on the census 
process. That is an admirable goal and one that should run through all 
stages of census planning, preparation, and implementation.
  But I must strongly counsel against tying the Bureau's hands with 
specific operational requirements, particularly ones that run against 
the professional judgment of Bureau staff and is clearly not wise in 
light of past experience. In 1990, post census local review held out 
great promise for local governments to improve the accuracy of a census 
that more and more Americans shunned. In the end, the program didn't 
meet expectations. But even if it had, we cannot automatically assume 
that a repeat ten years later is justified.
  This country is changing, more profoundly and rapidly than we are 
able to measure. We will not be the same country in 2000 that we were 
in 1990, and we must be able to adapt our tools of measurement to 
accommodate that change. That is why the Census Act (title 13, United 
States Code) gives the Secretary of Commerce wide latitude in 
determining how best to conduct the census.
  Congress still bears the constitutional responsibility for taking the 
census, and I do not mean to suggest that we should look the other way 
while the Census Bureau plans each decennial count. Perhaps the most 
constructive role for Congress is ensuring that the Bureau is guided by 
sound scientific and operational knowledge, generated both from within 
the agency and from outside experts and stakeholders.
  Following the 1990 census, the Secretary of Commerce established an 
advisory committee comprised of a wide range of stakeholder 
organizations. Local and state elected officials, civil rights 
advocates, scientific disciplines and data users, community service 
providers, veterans and senior citizens, educators, and the business 
community and all represented on the committee. These stakeholders have 
worked tirelessly over the course of this decade to master the 
intricacies of census-taking and recommend ways to improve the process

[[Page H2017]]

based on their own unique perspectives of the diverse nation we are 
trying to measure.
  The 2000 Census Advisory Committee has prepared a final report that 
includes recommendations for improving the accuracy of the address file 
before the census and housing unit coverage during the census. The 
committee unanimously endorsed a focused local review program that 
gives local governments an opportunity to review housing unit counts at 
various levels of aggregation, depending on their ability to 
participate in the pre-census address compilation program. The 
committee also endorsed a large post-enumeration survey that can serve 
as the basis for correcting overcounts and undercounts in the census. 
Clearly, this diverse group of stakeholders recognized both the 
potential contribution of local governments in improving the coverage 
of households, and the limitations of this effort with respect to 
addressing the persistent problem of differential undercounting.
  This committee and other advisory panels focusing on populations of 
color and relevant scientific disciplines have provided a valuable and 
necessary check on the Census Bureau's work. Their continual oversight 
and guidance ensures that the 2000 census plan represents the 
collective knowledge of the broad community of stakeholders. Congress 
should encourage the Bureau to incorporate as many recommendations from 
these key stakeholders as is operationally and technically possible. 
But we should not second-guess the advice this broad group has issued, 
nor should we render their substantial effort meaningless by negating 
or modifying key elements of their proposals.
  The subcommittee can make a further contribution to the process, I 
believe, by encouraging the Bureau to consider the feasibility of these 
stakeholder recommendations quickly and to implement those proposals 
that are likely to improve the accuracy of the census. Tying the 
Bureau's hands with specific statutory requirements for a housing unit 
check may irreversibly damage a process that by its very nature must be 
as pliable as it is intricate, and as forward-thinking as it is 
grounded in experience and history.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, may we have a time status?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Miller) has 7\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) has 3\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the vice chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Census.
  (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am not a supporter of the disastrous 
proposal by the Clinton administration and the minority party in this 
House to do statistical sampling, for a number of reasons.
  I think it is clearly unconstitutional. I think we have a recent 
Supreme Court decision handed down at the beginning of this year, a 
fair reading of which would be to conclude that it prohibits both 
sampling for apportionment of representatives as well as for 
redistricting purposes within the States.
  I think, in the effort to make a more accurate count, in fact it 
introduces a high degree of subjectivity into the process, and in fact 
would be less accurate. And even if we accepted the fact that somehow 
this might be valid, we would have to have it with an administration 
that we could trust, and this administration is the most partisan one 
in history.
  This is an administration that we cannot trust on the issue, for 
example, as they have proven with the manipulation of campaign finance 
laws or of the immigration procedures, all designed to affect the 
outcome of an election. So the trust threshold is low here.
  But let me just say to those that do support sampling that I do not 
believe this bill, H.R. 472, deters them from their goal. Let me just 
quote from the committee hearing here that the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Miller) conducted.
  A question was posed by the chairman to Dr. Prewitt, the census 
director. ``Does post-census local review impact sampling, because I 
have heard that one of the reasons you are opposing it is that it will 
make it harder to do the sampling adjustment?'' And Dr. Prewitt 
answered: ``No, sir. I do not know on what basis that would have been 
suggested to you.'' And then the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) 
replied, ``So the post-census local review has no impact, to your 
knowledge, on the 300,000 sampling process; right?" Dr. Prewitt 
responded: ``No.''
  So I think it is clear that the Clinton administration's census 
director does not believe that this is going to threaten sampling, 
which we oppose, but which I submit this bill does not impact.
  I would, though, like to draw my colleagues' attention to the fact 
that there is strong support for the post-census local review. Now, we 
can all understand that, can we not? Yes, the U.S. Government, through 
the Census Bureau, is charged with doing the census every 10 years. But 
we also have a principle in this country that we all know called 
federalism, and post-census local review is perfectly consistent with 
this principle.
  Even from Thomas Jefferson forward we have known that the government 
which governs least governs best, and that government should occur at 
the most local level. Now, my Democratic colleagues claim Thomas 
Jefferson. I claim him, too. I have never understood why we did not 
have him in the Republican Party. In fact, I think he was a member of 
the Democratic/Republican Party, so we could have a Jefferson Day 
Celebration, too.
  But look at this. This is the testimony of Alex G. Feteke, who is the 
mayor of Pembroke Pines, Florida. This was testimony for the National 
League of Cities before the Subcommittee on Census given earlier this 
year. Here is what he had to say: ``The National League of Cities 
enthusiastically supports the Local Census Quality Control Act, H.R. 
472. This bill will provide our Nation's cities and towns with the 
much-needed post-census local review process.''
  And then we have here the testimony of Lanier Boatwright, President 
of the National Association of Developmental Associations, representing 
77 million Americans: ``The precensus activities, such as local update 
of census addresses program, are not adequate substitutes for post-
census local review. Local governments should have an opportunity to 
ensure the accuracy of the census numbers before they are final.''
  And I would like just to conclude with this thought, Mr. Speaker. In 
1990, there were 400,000 errors that were corrected as a result of 
this, and they only had 15 days to check it over. This bill gives them 
45 days. We believe there will be an exponential increase.
  In 1990, we added 80,000 housing units, 198,000-some housing units to 
the right block, and 101,000 housing units were counted in error and 
were removed. A correction in either direction assures accuracy and 
fairness, and that is what we seek: accuracy and fairness, consistent 
with the Constitution of the United States.
  I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote for H.R. 472.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The gentleman quoted Dr. Prewitt from the Census Bureau. I request to 
put in the Record a letter of April 12 to me, and I would like to quote 
and put in the Record directly his response. He said, ``The operation 
proposed in H.R. 472 will harm the ability of the Census Bureau to 
carry out its basic mission of providing the most accurate census 
counts for all purposes.'' And to end his quote, he says, ``It would 
put the census at risk''.
  Mr. Speaker, I provide for the Record the letter I just referred to.
                                      U.S. Department of Commerce,


                                          Bureau of the Census

                                   Washington, DC, April 12, 1999.
     Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Maloney: I apologize if my responses to 
     the question(s) regarding H.R. 472 have left any 
     uncertainties about its impact on the overall accuracy of the 
     census. I welcome this opportunity to make the record clear, 
     especially because the amount of time available during the 
     hearings to address H.R. 472 was limited by the need to 
     respond to the full agenda of issues of interest to the 
     Subcommittees.
       In assembling the plan for a census, the U.S. Census Bureau 
     reviews the strengths of a large number of operations, first 
     considering each on its own merits. We then assess the 
     relative effectiveness of each operation, for the final 
     design is of course an integrated set of operations. It is 
     this integrated set that constitutes the design that in the 
     professional judgment of the Census Bureau will provide the 
     best census results within the available time.
       In assembling the final design, the Census Bureau did not 
     exclude the Post Census

[[Page H2018]]

     Local Review in order to include the Accuracy and Coverage 
     Evaluation procedure. Decisions on the desirability of these 
     operations were mutually exclusive. In 1990, the Post Census 
     Local Review process proved to be so cumbersome that 75 
     percent of all local governments did not participate in the 
     exercise, resulting in the addition of only one-twentieth of 
     one percent to the overall count, or about 125,000 persons. 
     Census Bureau professionals, relying on a decade of 
     experience, analysis and testing, designed a new and better 
     way to involve local governments in the effort to count 
     everyone. This new operation, called Local Update of Census 
     Addresses, or LUCA, enables local governments to verify the 
     addresses in their communities before the census is 
     conducted.
       Similarly, the Census Bureau included the Accuracy and 
     Coverage Evaluation on its merits. It is the only effective 
     procedure that will inform the Census Bureau and the country 
     about the accuracy of the original count based on the 
     mailback, telephone/interview operations, and nonresponse 
     follow up. The accuracy measurement represented by the 
     Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation will provide the greatest 
     level of accuracy for census data for uses other than 
     reapportionment, such as redistricting, federal funds 
     allocation, and population estimates. It is designed 
     specifically to address the differential undercount 
     experienced in prior censuses and anticipated in 2000.
       In making these determinations, there was no trade-off 
     between the two programs, just as there was no specific 
     trade-off between any of dozens of other operations excluded 
     and included. Census 2000 represents an integrated set of 
     operations that was selected over many alternative sets.
       At this late stag in the decennial cycle, any new operation 
     of the magnitude of the Post Census Local Review would 
     adversely affect the timing and quality of census operations, 
     including the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation. I have 
     testified, and here reemphasize, that an integrated operation 
     of the complexity of the census--correctly described as the 
     largest civilian mobilization in the country's history--
     cannot now be redesigned without degrading accuracy and 
     placing timely completion at risk.
       In conclusion, to directly address your question, the 
     operation proposed in H.R. 472 will harm the ability of the 
     Census Bureau to carry out its basic mission of providing the 
     most accurate census counts for all purposes. More 
     specifically, H.R. 472 as proposed would obligate the Census 
     Bureau to send to all cooperating jurisdictions an incomplete 
     household file; or, if we delayed sending it until we had 
     completed that work our ability to produce apportionment 
     counts by December 31, 2000, as required by law, would be put 
     at risk.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Kenneth Prewitt,
                                                         Director.

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  (Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
me this time, and I want to commend her on the outstanding work she has 
done on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of every U.S. citizen, 
black and white, old or young, rich or poor, city dweller and rural 
resident. Every U.S. citizen is important to the very fabric of our 
Nation and deserves to be counted, not ignored. Unfortunately, this is 
the overall effect of H.R. 472, the bill that my Republican colleagues 
want to pass.
  I live in a city that still suffers from the 1990 census undercount. 
Chicago's undercount is the third highest among America's cities, with 
an estimated 68,000 people missed. A disproportionate number of those 
undercounted citizens were minorities. This is wrong and must be 
corrected.
  In a bipartisan manner we must include every American, we must vote 
in opposition to 472. Any other vote is wrong, wrong, wrong.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 472.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the way we ought to go in terms of doing the 
most important job we have, which is counting the American public. 
Obviously, the census determines the allocation of resources across our 
country.
  What do we know? We know the last time we tried to do this we had 
numerous mistakes. We missed 8 million people. We double counted 4 
million people. We are trying to correct this, and the scientific 
community says that the most accurate method for counting Americans is 
through statistical sampling.
  Why is that relevant today? Because this bill, sometimes described as 
a Trojan horse, will say that we will give local communities 
opportunity for participation. The effect of this bill is to deny the 
Census Bureau the opportunity to conduct statistical sampling. What 
happens is the resources needed in time for sampling are drained away 
by local participation. But because local participation always sounds 
like a good idea, they think they can get away with it.
  Under current law we can have local participation, and we should have 
it. Enhanced participation is provided for under current law. In 
addition, the Democrats are supporting the Maloney amendment which 
would provide enhanced local participation.
  We can have local participation, we should have statistical sampling, 
we should not have this bill.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has 
2\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring up correspondence 
which I received from the City of Carlyle. Mayor Schmitz wrote to me in 
support of the post-census review and included a memorandum from one of 
his staff, Ms. Jean Parson, which discusses this issue in detail.
  Ms. Parson, in her memo to Mayor Schmitz writes: ``In the old 
program, the Census Bureau conducted the census and then we had an 
opportunity to review the count and challenge anything that didn't 
quite look correct to us. Under this program, as I understand it, our 
only input is in the formulation of an address list.''
  She goes on, ``I have spent many hours reviewing their list. I spent 
time with the postmaster comparing our lists, and then made corrections 
to the census list. This entire process was extremely confusing and I 
have had my doubts if my changes will even be made. I also am sure that 
I didn't pick up every problem in the list. It is just too complicated 
and time-consuming.
  ``I guess I'm just getting old, but the old way seemed to work. If we 
have no opportunity to review the final list, we will not have an 
accurate count.''
  One final quote from Ms. Parson: ``Communities are not well 
represented at the meetings I attended, and I have spoken to many 
community leaders who were not even aware of the changes.''
  ``I'm sure this is because of mailings not reaching the appropriate 
people. Anyway, this process could be very damaging to those 
communities who did not participate in the address review process. It 
is possible that they will have changes. . . . and interest could 
increase between now and census time, and it will be too late for them 
to have any input.''
  Mr. Speaker, the localities in my district are confused. It appears 
that many have not even heard about LUCA and by the time they do they 
aren't even sure that their changes are being recorded.
  Let's listen to our local governments and give them the right to 
challenge the census bureau.
  I plan on supporting H.R. 472 today and I urge my colleagues to 
support this common sense legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this. Our small 
communities are begging for the ability to be involved in this process.

                              {time}  1630

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no rocket science in this. The Federal 
Government since history has been required to do a census every 10 
years. We do not need to pass any law to do that. We created the Census 
Bureau to do it. So if we are going to pass a law at this stage, we 
really are going to pass a law to restrict how we do the census, and 
that is what this bill does and that is why it should be rejected.
  Essentially, no bill is necessary. So this bill comes along and it 
only addresses post-census review, which is

[[Page H2019]]

letting local governments review it. But then if we read the bill, 
throughout the bill, on page 2, line 23; page 3, line 3; page 3, line 
19; page 4, line 5, all those times and dates restrict the ability of 
local government to have a review of the process. And, essentially, if 
we restrict local governments, we restrict local voices to comment on 
what is going to affect the revenues that they are going to receive 
because of the undercount that occurs.
  Basically, we know there is a partisan battle going on here. The more 
people that are counted in this country, the more people that are 
probably Democrats, the less people that are Republicans. So let us 
quit this partisan fight and have no bill at all.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the record is clear. We need to defeat this bill. The 
U.S. Conference of Mayors in a letter this week said, ``A lengthy 1990 
style post-census local review will do very little to address the 
persistent undercount problem. We urge you to oppose any legislation 
that places at risk the Census Bureau's ability to conduct a timely, 
post-enumeration survey.''
  We should let the professionals at the Census Bureau do their job. We 
should stop trying to micromanage the census. We should support an 
accurate census and defeat H.R. 472.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, during the debate the other side kept referring to 
sampling, sampling, sampling, and I keep saying the Supreme Court ruled 
it illegal. So we just need to do the best job we can and address the 
undercount.
  Yes, there was an undercount. We need to do everything we can to 
eliminate that undercount, and post-census local review is one way to 
help eliminate the undercount. It solved 400,000 mistakes back in 1990. 
They added 125,000 people. Those people count. So why can we not use 
it? Why would we even be opposed to it?
  Now, the two criticisms I have heard today was, one, it was going to 
delay the process by 45 days, by 9 weeks. This takes place parallel at 
the same time as the sampling plan or the Census Bureau is proposing to 
use a sample of 300,000. So it should not delay it. It was used in 
1990. It did not delay the census in 1990. And so it should not delay 
it this way around.
  The other argument is that we have this LUCA program that we allow 
people to get involved in before the process. That is good. We want 
people to be involved. But every community is not involved in that. So 
the idea is that is a before, this is an after. It is kind of like an 
audit of the books.
  What is there to be afraid of? It is just a chance to check it. I 
know it is a pain, and maybe it is a lot of trouble for the Census 
Bureau. It is not like it is a huge sum of money. It was $7 million in 
1990. So it is not the money issue, when we are spending billions of 
dollars on this issue. What it is is it is an issue of trust and 
accuracy, accuracy because we can add people.
  Because mistakes are made. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) 
said, in Elk Grove village in Illinois they missed a whole subdivision 
they were able to catch before it was too late. That is getting 
accuracy. And then we get back to the issue of trust. Let the local 
officials have one final shot to say, were there any mistakes? Were 
there any subdivisions missing? That is all we are talking about. It is 
a good piece of legislation.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 472, the 
Post Census Local Review Program. This program which was dropped by the 
Clinton administration has strong support from my local government 
officials and needs to be reinstated.
  In Arizona, we have experienced unprecedented growth during the 
1990's. Small towns like Oro Valley have quadrupled in size between 
1990 and 1999.
  The following is from a letter written by Mayor Paul Loomis of Oro 
Valley.

       Because of this rate of growth and our changing community 
     we feel the Post Census Local Review program is very 
     important in order for Oro Valley to receive our fair share 
     of State and Federal funds. The town of Oro Valley does want 
     the opportunity to correct mistakes before the Bureau of the 
     Census finalizes the year 2000 count.

  Pima County wants the opportunity to make sure the families in houses 
occupied in the last few months before the census are included in the 
count and to verify that areas containing concentrations of ``hard to 
count'' populations are counted. In some areas we have 6,000 
residential building permits outstanding and many of these 
``addresses'' will become valid after the local update of census 
addresses is completed.
  In Cochise County, we are finishing a decade long addressing project 
during which we named or renamed 3,000 road and addressed more than 
85,000 parcels. In Bisbee, the city is worried that due to the unique 
and difficult topography, many small neighborhoods and small enclaves 
of homes in side canyons and hidden basins will be missed.
  Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has ruled that we must have an actual 
count; that is not the issue here. The Post Census Local Review Program 
is merely an opportunity for the local officials who know their 
communities to look at the census results and verify their accuracy. 
Calling such a program ``unfair'' stretches the credibility of any 
thinking person.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Maloney amendment 
to H.R. 472, the Local Census Quality Control Act.
  The Maloney amendment would allow local governments to get involved 
in reviewing census plans in their area in a fashion which will allow 
the Census Bureau to execute its plan on schedule. The Census Bureau 
studied its 1990 procedures and have proposed updated methods which 
will be more accurate and more efficient. The Maloney amendment is 
compatible with these recommendations, and will allow the Census Bureau 
to produce the most accurate count possible of American citizens.
  An accurate count is critical to every state, district, and town in 
this country--including my own district in Pennsylvania. As my 
constituents know, an inaccurate count has real effect on real people.
  In the Norristown Area School District, inaccurate procedures 
employed during the 1990 census undercounted the number of poor 
children by 60 percent, dropping the count of impoverished students 
from 1,375 in 1980 to 541 in 1990.
  But Norristown administrators experienced a different reality: not 
541, but 3,348 kids received free and reduced lunches each day--that's 
1 out of every 2 students.
  This undercount resulted in real budget cuts for Norristown schools: 
Federal assistance to Norristown dropped each year from $1.4 million in 
1992-93 to $652 thousand in 97-98. That's only 47 percent of the 
original budget--less than half.
  These cuts have resulted in actual reductions of Title I services to 
students. The Norristown school district was forced to reduce its 
number of Title I teachers, and the number of students they served. 
Title I programs provide special instruction in reading and math to the 
kids most in need of help, so they have a chance not to fall behind, 
but to excel.
  So the end result of the 1990 census' undercount: If we cut out 
disadvantaged children from the census, we cut out their opportunity to 
get a solid education and a promising future. Congress should not allow 
this to happen.
  H.R. 472 ignores the expert advice of the Census Bureau and keeps the 
same 1990 procedures, which unfairly excluded these impoverished 
children in my District. I cannot support the underlying measure.
  What should our criteria be for a good census?
  The census should be accurate: Congress allow the Census Bureau to 
use the methods that produce the most accurate results: statistical 
sampling. The Bureau is following the recommendations of the scientific 
community and other experts.
  The census should be efficient: The 2000 census will cost $4 billion 
with modern statistical methods, and $7.2 billion without them. H.R. 
472 would also add at least nine weeks to the counting process. That 
doesn't make sense.
  Most importantly, the census should be fair: In our democracy, to be 
uncounted is to be voiceless, and to be voiceless is to be powerless. 
We should not overlook children, minorities, and the poor. In 1990, the 
undercount of African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans was 
three times that of the general population. Congress can and should 
correct this.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Maloney Amendment to H.R. 472.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong and stringent 
opposition to H.R. 472, the so called Local Census Quality Check Act. 
The bill is more properly titled the Local Census Quality Destruction 
Act. This bill which Republicans argue allows local governments to 
participate in the results of the Census is a deceptive trick by the 
Republican Majority intended to delay the Census results solely--let me 
repeat--solely for political gain. The enactment of this legislation 
could add up to 9

[[Page H2020]]

weeks to a complex process that must be completed in the short span of 
a year. H.R. 472, will extend the completion of the Census so that 
there will not be enough time to make statistical corrections. Local 
government participation is extremely important, however, the Bureau 
has already recognized this fact. The 2000 Local Update of Census 
Addresses (LUCA) already gives local governments an important and 
expanded role in enumerating their populations by assisting the Census 
Bureau to accurately verify local addresses prior to the mailing of 
census questionnaires. In fact, twice as many local governments have 
taken advantage of this aspect of the 2000 census as compared to the 
Post Local Census Review of the 1990 Census.
  Today you will hear the majority argue extensively that modern 
scientific methods are unconstitutional, or that modern statistical 
methods are inaccurate or wasteful. Do not be fooled. Most Republicans 
who oppose this bill could care less about the accuracy of the Census. 
They take comfort in knowing that the Census will be conducted in a 
manner similar to the way it has always been conducted because it 
serves their political ends.
  In 1990, the traditional head count missed 8.4 million Americans--4.4 
million Americans were counted twice for a net undercount of 4.0 
million people--52 percent of this undercount, 52 percent were 
children. In my home state of Michigan, almost 1 percent of all 
minorities were undercounted. Most of those not counted were the poor 
and underserved. In 1990, the undercount averaged 1.6 percent of the 
population. The under count of minorities was far worse--4.4 percent of 
African-Americans were not counted; 5.0 percent of the Hispanic 
community was not counted and 4.5 percent of our nation's Native 
Americans were not counted.
  Republcans in Congress who oppose this measure do so for very 
specific reasons. It is rumored that the Republican leadership believes 
that they could lose between 12 to 24 seats in the House of 
Representatives if modern scientific methods are allowed. In light of 
this possibility they have amassed an all out offensive to redirect or 
derail the use of modern statistical methods in the Decennial Census. 
In addition to bills like this one here today, keep your eyes peeled 
for the massive media campaign that the leadership is planning to use 
to obstruct the benefits of modern statistical methods.
  If I still have not convinced you of the misguided intent behind this 
bill, let me point you to the opinions of others. Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, 
the Director of the Census Bureau, who was appointed by the Republican 
Bush administration, supports the use of modern scientific methods. He 
has also stated that the enactment of H.R. 472 is neither timely, 
effective, nor cost efficient. The American Statistical Association, 
the Population Association of America, the National Academy of 
Sciences, the Cities of Los Angeles, Houston and my home city, the city 
of Detroit all support the use of modern scientific methods for the 
census. There are even a few Republican members here in the Congress 
who recognize the importance of using modern scientific methods to 
enumerate our population.
  There is too much riding on the accuracy of the Census. The accuracy 
of the count is fundamental to the very concept of a government for, of 
and by the people envisioned by our Constitution's Framers. More than 
$100 million in federal grants is distributed based upon census 
numbers. This money goes to state and local governments for the 
programs that benefit roads, schools, job training, medicaid, and other 
important social services. It is only right that all Americans be 
accounted for in our Decennial census process. Delaying the Census, as 
H.R. 472 does will only ensure that this is not the case.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to 
support H.R. 472, The Local Census Quality Check Act. This bill was one 
of seven pertaining to the Census that were recently reported out of 
the Government Reform Committee. This series of commonsense Census 
bills will help to ensure the most accurate count for the year 2000 
Census.
  I want to congratulate the Census Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Miller, 
for putting together this very positive legislative package. Chairman 
Miller is the author of H.R. 472. He has done an excellent job under 
very difficult circumstances and is to be commended for his efforts.
  Some of my Democratic friends have accused us of micro-managing the 
Census. Well, there are some real problems over at the Census Bureau, 
and we need to take a hard look at them. That's not micro-managing, 
that's responsible oversight, which is our job. The voters didn't send 
us here to sit around and twiddle our thumbs. When there are problems, 
they expect us to solve them.
  One of the problems that we have is that it doesn't look like the 
Census Bureau is doing everything they can to count every American. The 
Supreme Court has ordered them to do a full enumeration for 
reapportioning congressional seats. They may very well order them to do 
only a full enumeration. That remains to be seen. They do not appear to 
be taking the steps they need to count the hard to count populations, 
which is why this bill should be passed.
  H.R. 472, The Local Census Quality Check Act is designed to get more 
people to participate in the Census. It will help to get a more 
accurate count and reduce the undercount. Local and tribal governments 
are the ones who need accurate Census data the most, and it is 
important that they are able to trust the Census counts. Post Census 
Local Review provides the opportunity for local governments or their 
designees to review official Census household counts in their 
jurisdictions before the Census numbers are final. Under this bill, 
local governments would be given 45 days after the completion of the 
nonresponse followup stage of the Census to review the official housing 
counts noting discrepancies for possible challenges. Post Census Local 
Review added 124,000 people to the final count of the 1990 Census.
  I just can't understand why anyone would be opposed to consulting 
with local governments to make sure that the numbers are right. This 
just makes common sense. The Census Bureau used this Post Census Local 
Review program in both 1980 and 1990 Censuses. For the 2000 Census, the 
Census Bureau has decided not to provide local governments with this 
opportunity, which is wrong.
  This bill shows that we're committed to counting every single 
American, whether they're a minority or not, whether they live in the 
inner city or the suburbs. I believe this bill will pass on its merits. 
We want everyone to be counted, and I wish the Clinton administration 
would join us in that commitment.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call for the use of modern 
statistical methods in order to assure an accurate census in the year 
2000. Without this, the undercount of the urban and rural poor and 
minorities will persist.
  H.R. 472, the Local Census Quality Check Act, would prevent the use 
of statistical methods by requiring the use of a postcensus local 
review as part of each decennial census.
  Representative Dan Miller's bill would require the Census Bureau to 
review the count of local addresses a second time--nine weeks after the 
census field work is done. This new requirement will consume so much 
time that the Census Bureau will be unable to carry out its plans to 
use modern statistical methods. The 2000 census will suffer from the 
same flaws as the 1990 census--millions of people missed and millions 
of others counted twice.
  Mr. Speaker, an accurate count is essential to California. The 
population in the 13th district of California was undercounted by 
11,857 for the years 1991-1999. This translated into nearly $32 million 
in lost federal funds. In addition to formula funds, hospitals and 
community clinics which provide vital services in our communities use 
census data to determine where to build and whom to serve. Without an 
accurate count, our citizens will again be denied essential services.
  This legislation is opposed by the National Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People, the National Asian and Pacific Legal 
Foundation, and the National Association of Latino Elected and 
Appointed Officials, and for good reason. The 1990 Census missed 8.4 
million people, miscounting children, the poor, and people of color. 
The requirements in H.R. 472 would further undermine the accuracy of 
the next census, and would compromise our constitutional assurance of 
``one American, one vote.''
  It is critical that we put partisan policies aside and work to ensure 
an accurate census in 2000--for poor and minority Americans in 
California and throughout the nation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
  It is now in order to consider an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.


 Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mrs. Maloney 
                              of New York

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mrs. Maloney of New York:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Local Participation in the 
     Census Act''.

     SEC. 2. CENSUS LOCAL PARTICIPATION.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 13, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 142. Census local participation.

       ``(a)(1) The 2000 decennial census shall include the 
     opportunity for local governmental

[[Page H2021]]

     units to review housing unit counts, jurisdictional 
     boundaries, and such other data as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate for the purpose of identifying discrepancies or 
     other potential problems before the tabulation of total 
     population by States (as required for the apportionment of 
     Representatives in Congress among the several States) is 
     completed.
       ``(2) Any opportunity for local participation under this 
     section shall be provided in such time, form, and manner as 
     the Secretary shall (consistent with paragraph (1)) 
     prescribe, except that nothing in this section shall affect 
     any right of local participation in the 2000 decennial census 
     otherwise provided for by law, whether under Public Law 103-
     430 or otherwise.
       ``(b) Any opportunity for local participation under this 
     section in connection with the 2000 decennial census should 
     be designed with a view toward affording local governmental 
     units adequate opportunity--
       ``(1) to assure that new construction, particularly any 
     subsequent to April 30, 1999, and before April 1, 2000, is 
     appropriately reflected in the master address file used in 
     conducting such census;
       ``(2) to verify the accuracy of those units or other 
     addresses which the United States Postal Service has 
     identified as being vacant or having vacancies; and
       ``(3) to assure that the Secretary has properly identified 
     the jurisdictional boundaries of local governmental units, 
     consistent with any measures taken under Public Law 103-430 
     and any other applicable provisions of law.
       ``(c) Any opportunity for local participation under this 
     section shall be afforded in a manner that allows the 
     Secretary to derive quality-control corrected population 
     counts (as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences in 
     its final report under Public Law 102-135 and as proposed in 
     the census 2000 operational plan as part of the Accuracy 
     Coverage Evaluation program) on a timely basis, but in no 
     event later than the date by which all tabulations of 
     population under section 141(c) (in connection with the 2000 
     decennial census) must be completed, reported, and 
     transmitted to the respective States.
       ``(d) As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `decennial census' means a decennial census 
     of population conducted under section 141(a); and
       ``(2) the term `local governmental unit' means a local unit 
     of general purpose government as defined by section 184, or 
     its designee.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 5 of title 13, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 141 the 
     following:

``142. Census local participation.''.

       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to amend title 13, 
     United States Code, to require that the opportunity for 
     meaningful local participation in the 2000 decennial census 
     be provided.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  My amendment will fix some of the underlying problems of the bill 
that is before us. But, in the final analysis, this is a very bad bill 
and should be defeated.
  There are three things wrong with H.R. 472. First, it calls for a 
repeat of a failed program in the past. Second, it does not address the 
fundamental failure of the 1990 census, the large undercount for 
minorities. Third, this bill will prevent the Census Bureau from being 
able to correct the final population counts for the millions of errors 
that are inevitable.
  The supporters of this bill have proudly claimed that it makes 
permanent the local review program from the 1990 census. Why would we 
want to make permanent a program that failed miserably in 1990?
  Let us look at the record on post-census local review. Only 16 
percent of local governments participated. The additions to the address 
list amounted to less than one-tenth of 1 percent. That means that more 
than 99.9 percent of the address lists went unchanged. Local review had 
a nearly 20 percent error rate. That means that one out of every five 
addresses added to the census was wrong, thus making the census less 
accurate.
  In simple language, local review, as it was done in 1990, did not 
work for the census and it did not work for the local governments. The 
good thing about the Census Bureau is that they work very hard at 
trying to fix the things that do not work in the census, and that is 
just what they are doing now with local review.
  For 2000, the Census Bureau, spurred on by Congress, decided that it 
would be better to work with local governments before the census rather 
than to try to fix it afterwards, and that is exactly what they are 
doing.
  The 1990 local review covered less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all 
addresses. The 2000 local review has already covered 86 percent of all 
addresses, and they are still working. This is an improvement of over 
1,000 percent.
  Why do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to go back 
to a system that is 1,000 times less effective? The Republicans claim 
they are trying to help local governments, but a large number of mayors 
and other local officials oppose H.R. 472.
  The mayor of Dade County, Florida, said, ``I urge you to oppose H.R. 
472.'' The mayor of Detroit, the mayor of San Francisco, the City 
Council of New York and Los Angeles all are opposed to this bill. And 
let me share with my colleagues just a few of the editorials around the 
country.
  The Sacramento Bee says, and I am quoting from an editorial since my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying that I am 
partisan, let us go to a nonpartisan, independent opinion molder. The 
Sacramento Bee says, ``At the eleventh hour, Republicans in Congress 
are proposing legislation that seeks to significantly change census 
methodology and procedures, adding costs, confusion and, most 
critically, time to an already tight schedule. Post-census local review 
was tried in 1990 and 1980 and, according to a Republican former Census 
Bureau director, turned out to be a logistical and public relations 
nightmare. The real Republican goal here seems obvious, delay.''
  According to the Houston Chronicle, ``One side is so clearly wrong. 
Republicans fear the more accurate numbers will give Democrats an 
advantage. But Texas GOP lawmakers ought to put their constituents 
above narrow partisan interests.''
  The Miami Herald says, ``Republicans will prevent an accurate census 
at any cost. The House Government Reform Committee voted to throw as 
many monkey wrenches as needed into next year's count with bills that 
will delay a true count, delay it until all those initially overlooked, 
black, brown and other minority faces, no longer count. When these 
bills get to the House, common sense should trump partisan politics.''
  And I could put in many, many more. But, Mr. Speaker, what is most 
disturbing about this bill is that it will prevent the Census Bureau 
from being able to correct the census for the millions of people missed 
or the millions of people counted twice. It is those errors that make 
the census blatantly unfair. It is those errors that will leave 
millions of people unrepresented in Congress and left out when Federal 
funds are distributed.
  My colleagues across the aisle want to make sure that these millions 
are permanently left out of the census and to make sure that the 
millions counted twice are forever left in. Why?
  This bill will do nothing to make the census more accurate. My 
colleagues want the errors left in the census because they believe that 
these errors create for them a political advantage. Remember the 
Republican spokesperson who was quoted in the paper who said that this 
is a ``do or die'' for the Republican Party? Not ``do or die'' for the 
American people. Not ``do or die'' for democracy. Not ``do or die'' for 
our country. Not ``do or die'' for accuracy. But the quote from the 
Republican spokesperson was, ``do or die'' for the Republican Party.
  The supporters of H.R. 472 cannot hide from the fact that their 
entire census agenda is aimed at making sure that millions of 
minorities are not counted in the next census.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment in the form of a substitute is 
specifically drafted at two areas that were of concern that was raised 
by local governments; and these concerns can legitimately be addressed, 
and they are new construction and boundary problems.
  In addition, my amendment calls for any program on new construction 
or boundaries to be coordinated with all of the other parts of the 
census to assure that we get the most accurate count possible.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment and save us from the 
disaster awaiting if H.R. 472 is passed without change.

[[Page H2022]]

  The Conference of Mayors agrees. The overwhelming majority of the 
editorial boards across this country agree. Defeat 472 and vote for my 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
Maloney amendment. It is, basically, a gutting amendment. It just guts 
the whole idea of post-census local review.
  We know in 1990 there were 400,000 errors that were determined. We 
added 125,000 people. I think those are important people. We need to 
count people. We need to get the most accurate census, and this helps 
make it more accurate and builds trust. That is what this is all about.
  What, basically, the Maloney amendment does is it defeats the very 
nature of H.R. 472 by requiring that all local review take place prior 
to census day. This is called post-census local review. It prevents the 
possibility of doing it afterwards.
  The amendment affords the Secretary of Commerce the ability to 
exclude any post-census local review. Well, he has already stated he is 
opposed to it, so we are basically doing away with it by giving him the 
power to say, ``well, we do not want it.''
  This is really getting politics more involved in it. We need to trust 
our local communities to know the right way to do it, be part of the 
process. It worked in 1980. I am amazed that somebody said it was a 
failure in 1990. If we added 125,000 people, are they not real people? 
Is that not really important? And we corrected these other mistakes.
  So I urge opposition, that we have a ``no'' vote on the Maloney 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

                              {time}  1645

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, never have the Republicans looked worse than 
they look today in their support of H.R. 472. Because for the first 
time in American history, the Republicans are trying to force an 
inaccurate census on the American people. Bad enough that H.R. 472 is 
the opposite of what all the census professionals, all the statistical 
experts, what the National Academy of Sciences say gets you accuracy. 
But what is worse is who H.R. 472 would keep from being counted. I am 
going to call the roll for you. Because they are first and foremost 
children, then they are people of color, then they are immigrants, and 
they are people from big cities, and they are people from rural areas. 
I am going to call their names out because that is who they are. 
Undercounting at the Federal level means higher taxes at the local 
level, because somebody is going to pay for the services for these 
people.
  The way in which this bill makes the Republicans look, even if that 
is not your motive, it makes you look as if there are some people you 
want to be counted and some people you want to be discounted. Let us 
look at who gets counted twice and who does not get counted at all. 4.4 
million people got counted twice in 1990. Do you know who they were? 
They were affluent people who had two homes, or whose children were 
away at colleges. They mostly live in suburbs, God bless them. Let us 
look at who did not get counted. Almost twice as many people did not 
count at all. There were 8.4 million of them. And let us see who they 
were. They were kids. They were black people. They were Hispanic 
people. They were Asians. They were hard-to-reach people in big cities 
and in rural hovels. That is who they were. This time they demand to be 
counted.
  We know what to do this time. Two things: Involve local communities 
early, rather than post-census when it is too late to do anything about 
it. Two, use modern scientific methods that all the experts say are the 
only way to get a more accurate census. Why do the Republicans, instead 
of doing what the experts say, hinting at closing down the government, 
why do the Republicans want to spend $7.2 million on a census the way 
they would do it while the Census wants to spend only $4 million? Do 
you want this result or do you want this result? Because this is the 
result the census would get us, five times as many people were 
uncounted in 1990.
  All three minority group caucuses, the Black Caucus, the Hispanic 
Caucus and the Asian Caucus, we rarely get together on one press 
conference, we work on the same issues often but we do not usually get 
together at the same time. We are working as one on this because we 
have the most to lose. This, my friends, this issue, H.R. 472, is the 
most important civil rights issue that will come to the floor of the 
House in the 106th Congress.
  So all three caucuses have come forward to put you on notice, we 
cannot give this one up, because to do so is to give up our entire 
community. We have the most to lose. That is why we want local import. 
H.R. 472 makes a mockery of local import. Give us a colorblind census 
by counting people of every color. Count everybody. Support the Maloney 
amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a former Omaha City Council 
President.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 472 and against the 
Maloney amendment. I feel particularly strongly about keeping this 
initiative in place because of my background as an 8-year member of the 
Omaha City Council. Post-census local review is a highly successful 
program which affords local and tribunal governments the opportunity to 
review housing counts in their jurisdiction and challenge those counts 
before the census numbers are made final.
  When local officials in my district and across the country learned of 
the administration's plan to replace the post-census local review with 
an estimated second number, they objected, including the mayor of 
Omaha, Nebraska, Mayor Hal Daub, who submits here today that if the 
Census Bureau misses a zip code or a housing development, which does 
happen, we must be provided the opportunity to review and correct that 
error.
  At the city level, we feel very strongly that everyone counts in our 
community and everyone must be counted. It is the local leaders, the 
mayors, the city council members, the school boards, who know which 
neighborhoods have grown and which ones have been left out. These local 
officials must be empowered.
  Doing away with the post-census local review would have serious 
consequences for the Second District of Nebraska. We have seen 
explosive growth in our district since 1991 because of the high-tech 
and information industries as well as the transportation and ag 
industry. In fact, since about 1991, our Hispanic and Latino population 
has grown from about 2 to 3 percent to 10 to 12 percent by estimate 
now. These people deserve to be counted.
  Nationally, post-census local review added over 80,000 housing units 
to the count in 1990. The program relocated nearly 200,000. Total 
corrections as a direct result of the post-census local review totaled 
nearly 400,000. We cannot argue with those figures.
  We cannot ignore local and tribunal officials. These officials know 
their jurisdictions best and they want post-census local review. If 
local governments and cities do not want to participate, they are under 
no obligation to do so. It is a voluntary program.
  It is imperative that we allow local officials from smaller cities a 
voice in how their communities are counted. Communities like the ones I 
represent fear that without this formal mechanism for local review, 
only the biggest cities in the Nation with political clout will be 
heard and those from cities with populations in the thousands instead 
of the millions will not be heard and our people will not be counted 
accurately.
  Unfortunately, this administration is setting America on a divisive 
course, pitting small States against large States, small cities against 
large cities. We depend on an accurate census for our fair share of the 
representation and our fair share of vital public services. Without 
giving local communities like ours in Nebraska a voice, the methods the 
administration plans to use and enabled by this amendment would make 
cities and counties like those in my district in Nebraska the losers. 
We cannot allow this to happen.
  Mr. Speaker, local governments place their trust in us to assure a 
fair census, that we in fact count everyone. Post-census local review 
is a small but vital way to live up to that trust.

[[Page H2023]]

  I urge all to vote against this amendment and for H.R. 472.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record:
                                                 Republican Mayors


                                          and Local Officials,

                                   Washington, DC, March 18, 1999.
     Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
     President of the United States of America, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: It is time to place policy over 
     politics and save the 2000 Census from failure. The recent 
     announcement by Census Bureau Director Ken Prewitt, that the 
     Administration is going to attempt a two-number census causes 
     us great concern.
       For the first time in history, Americans will be presented 
     with two numbers measuring the same population: the Supreme 
     Court number as mandated in the January 25th decision and the 
     confusing and admittedly estimated second number supported by 
     your Administration given to the states for purposes of 
     redistricting and other functions. The U.S. Constitution is 
     clear in calling for an ``actual enumeration'' of individuals 
     residing within our borders.
       In addition, cities have been told that your second number 
     will serve to replace worthwhile and legitimate improvement 
     measures such as Post Census Local Review. It won't. The 
     National Academy of Sciences has said your sampling proposal 
     will have ``considerable variability.'' With all due respect 
     Mr. President, ``considerable variability'' is not good 
     enough. Our communities rely on decennial census for their 
     fair share: fair share in political representation and public 
     monies for vital public services. Post Census Local Review 
     doesn't yield variability--it yields accuracy. If the Census 
     Bureau misses a zip code or housing development, Post Census 
     Local Review will provide local governments with an 
     opportunity to notify the Census Bureau and have the error 
     corrected. Under your sampling proposal, adjustments are 
     distributed throughout a state or across state lines, so 
     cities don't necessarily get the specific adjustments they 
     deserve.
       As mayors and local officials, we represent the true 
     stakeholders in the 2000 Census, the American people. We urge 
     you to cleanse the census and drop the second number being 
     proposed by your Administration. We also urge you to 
     reinstate Post Census Local Review so that we can help the 
     Census Bureau count our cities accurately.
       Do it for the American people.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,
         Mayor Hal Daub, City of Omaha, Nebraska, President; 
           Councilwoman Beulah Coughenour, City of Indianapolis, 
           Indiana, Vice President; Vice Mayor Michael Keck, City 
           of Little Rock, Arkansas, Secretary/Treasurer; Mayor 
           Neil Giuliana, City of Tempe, Arizona, Executive 
           Committee; Mayor Rita Mullins, City of Palatine, 
           Illinois, Executive Committee; Mayor Ralph Moore, City 
           of Union City, Georgia, Executive Committee; Councilman 
           Chuck Mosher, City of Bellevue, Washington, Executive 
           Committee; Mayor Lou Ogden, City of Tualatin, Oregon, 
           Executive Committee; Councilwoman Rebecca Ravine, City 
           of Fort Wayne, Indiana, Executive Committee; Councilman 
           Patrick Tuttle, City of Joplin, Missouri, Executive 
           Committee; Alderwoman Lisa Walters, City of Ridgeland, 
           Mississippi, Executive Committee.

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 472, the Local 
Census Quality Check Act. This legislation is a key element of our 
commitment to assure that every single American is counted in the year 
2000 census.
  Post-census local review gives officials in every city, county, 
township and village the opportunity to review the initial results 
before they become official. This only makes sense. These officials 
approved the new subdivision that is not on the map. They know the 
places that mailed forms or a manual count would not reach. They are 
the best editors that the Census Bureau could ever ask for. This bill 
empowers them to speak out for their local citizens and prevent 
mistakes before they occur.
  Some of my colleagues across the aisle have argued that local 
officials are already being consulted. I support those efforts, too. 
But today less than half of the Nation's local governments have 
participated in the precensus programs.
  Unfortunately, some are using this important legislation to fight old 
battles that were resolved by the Supreme Court earlier this year. As 
much as my colleagues across the aisle may disagree, this debate is not 
about sampling, it is about getting it right the first time. The 
National League of Cities, the National Association of Towns and 
Townships, the National Association of Developmental Organizations have 
asked Congress for this legislation, to be an opportunity to be a 
partner with the Census Bureau. I urge us all to support this and make 
sure that the first check of our census occurs on Main Street, not 
Pennsylvania Avenue.
  I must ask the question, what are we trying to hide? What are we 
trying to slide by? We do not want them participating? This 
administration cheated with the INS for political purposes in the last 
election by registering a million new citizens before they had 
background checks. I would not put it past them to use this method to 
statistically sample, to manipulate the numbers. What are you trying to 
hide?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Maloney amendment to 
the Local Census Quality Check Act. The Maloney amendment has nothing 
to do with local review and has everything to do with establishing a 
dictator of the census. Before a local community is allowed to review 
and comment on census data, they must ask ``Mother may I?''
  For Members who may not believe me, let me read the amendment itself:
  ``Any opportunity for local participation under this section shall be 
provided in such time, form and manner as the Secretary shall 
prescribe.''
  Let me read further from the Maloney amendment:
  ``The 2000 decennial census shall include the opportunity for local 
government units to review housing unit counts, jurisdictional 
boundaries and such other data as the Secretary considers 
appropriate.''
  This amendment would be nothing more than a ``Mother may I'' 
amendment. Under this amendment, the rights of the local communities 
would be ceded to the Secretary of Commerce. This might be the norm in 
Third World dictatorships, but it has been soundly rejected by the 
United States.
  The Maloney amendment guts the very rights of local communities that 
this bill would protect. The Maloney amendment would force local 
communities to beg the Secretary of Commerce for permission to comment 
on census figures. We do not need a sovereign rule over local 
communities on this census issue. We rejected a sovereign 200 years 
ago. The Maloney amendment gives the Secretary the authority to dictate 
whether or not local governments have any meaningful input in the 
process.
  We all know the Secretary of Commerce has publicly opposed post-
census local review. How fair a card will he deal to local communities? 
It is imperative that we have input and oversight from local leaders at 
every stage of the census. H.R. 472 is designed to improve the accuracy 
of the census. It helps pinpoint such problems as clusters of missed 
housing units or incorrectly displayed jurisdictional boundaries. H.R. 
472 protects the rights of local governments to review data before the 
census is final.
  The Maloney amendment should be rejected because it denies local 
communities this right unless the President's political appointee gives 
his stamp of approval. Local governments know their jurisdictions 
better than Washington bureaucrats.
  It is time for the Democrats to stop putting politics before the 
truth and to protect the rights of our local communities. Make no 
mistake about it, the Maloney amendment is a muzzle on local 
communities, clear and simple.
  Reject the dictator of the census amendment. Vote ``no'' on the 
Maloney ``Mother may I'' amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Maloney 
amendment and in opposition to H.R. 472, for three basic reasons.
  First of all, the director of the Census Bureau testified before the 
Subcommittee on Census that this bill in its current form, if passed, 
would put at risk the accuracy of the 2000 census. This bill not only 
puts at risk the accuracy of the census count but it adds additional 
time which further delays taking the census.
  Secondly, I oppose this bill because I have heard from local 
governments,

[[Page H2024]]

such as the Cook County Board in Illinois and others, who have 
complained that local census review did not work well in 1990 and will 
not work well today. Even the U.S. Conference of Mayors has stated that 
a lengthy 1990 style local review will do little to address the 
persistent undercount problem.

                              {time}  1700

  This bill is a wolf masquerading in sheep's clothing. It looks good, 
it sounds good and can even make us feel good. But it really is no good 
and could even bite.
  In fact, it is not timely, nor is it cost efficient. It simply serves 
the goal of tying the hands of professionals at the Census Bureau.
  Finally, I oppose this bill because it duplicates what the Census 
Bureau is already doing. The Census Bureau is already involving local 
governments in the process on the front end as opposed to the back end 
through a process known as pre-census review.
  I urge that we listen to the wisdom of Dr. Barbara Bryant, who served 
as Census Bureau Director under the Bush administration in 1990, when 
she said that post-census local review was a failure. I urge that we 
listen to the wisdom of Dr. Ken Prewitt, who has said that this bill 
could derail the accuracy of the census. I urge that we listen to the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors and others who agree that this bill will do 
little to address the undercount.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I urge that we listen to the wisdom of the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who has amended this bill so 
that we can make sure that we get about the business of counting the 
people.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 472, the Local Census 
Quality Review Act, and in very strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). I think indeed 
the amendment may be well-intended, but I suggest that its author does 
not understand the problem faced by western States with vast rural 
areas.
  Let me begin by pointing out this is not a debate about sampling. 
Rather, this is a debate about creating the most accurate census, 
indeed a census that counts every single American.
  I strongly support, everyone on this side strongly supports, a census 
that counts every single American, and precisely because we want to 
count every single American, we believe that a post-census review is 
critically important.
  The efforts which have been discussed on the other side to consult 
with local government before the census are indeed good and worthwhile 
and supported by this side. But why? Why would anyone say, having 
consulted with local government before the census, before Census Day, 
we will not talk to them afterward? I suggest we cannot possibly get as 
accurate a count if we only talk with local officials before and not 
after the census.
  And let me point out exactly, and that is what the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) does, but let me point 
out the proponents of the Maloney amendment say, well, it is focused on 
new construction, and it is focused on addresses which are in dispute. 
Let me point out that in Arizona we have unique problems. In my State 
we have tens of thousands of voters who register without an address, 
who live in such a rural location, many of them Native Americans, that 
they register by reference to a map like this showing that they live 2, 
or 3, or 5, or 20 miles north of a given dirt road and 8, or 10, or 12 
miles west of a stream, or of a ridge, or of a mountain top. Now that 
kind of rural situation is not repeated in the State where the author 
of this amendment comes from. I suggest that when we have those kind of 
rural conditions as we have on Arizona's Native American reservations 
and throughout all parts of rural Arizona, it is critically important 
that we talk with local officials, not just before the census to tell 
them what they ought to do, to tell them where there are pockets that 
they ought to go talk to people, but that we talk to them after the 
census.
  Now my colleagues should ask themselves, if the goal here is to 
produce the most accurate census, why would we want to tie one hand 
behind our back and say we will not talk to local officials, we will 
not talk to tribal officials about whether we have found people who 
register 8 miles north of a dirt road and 20 miles west of a particular 
stream as their home and identify that is where they live? Why would we 
not want to talk to them after the census is conducted to see if, in 
fact, the information we gathered is accurate?
  I suggest that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) indeed will not produce a more accurate census. It may 
produce a more political census, but it will hurt rural voters across 
America who desperately depend upon local consultation for an accurate 
census.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 472.
  The proponents of H.R. 472 will tell us that post-census local review 
will produce a more accurate count by receiving local input. What they 
will not tell us is that post-census local review failed in 1980 and 
again in 1990 to reduce the undercount of our Nation's minorities. The 
1990 census missed 8.4 million people, counted 4.4 million twice and 
put 13 million people in the wrong place. Minorities were the majority 
of those not counted by the 1990 census which missed 4 percent of all 
African Americans but only seven-tenths of 1 percent of non-Hispanic 
whites.
  Mr. Speaker, the undercount continues to unfairly deny full 
representation and equitable services to millions of minorities in 
America. That is why the professionals at the Census Bureau have 
already begun a form of pre-census local review called the local update 
of census addresses. The Bureau is working hand-in-hand with localities 
to ensure that its address list is as accurate as possible before the 
census begins, rather than waiting until after it is nearly completed 
to correct any mistakes.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to reject H.R. 472 unless 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) 
is adopted.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), my colleague from the Subcommittee 
on Census.
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Miller) for his leadership on this issue. It is a very complicated 
and difficult issue in the middle of a very partisan atmosphere. 
Clearly, whether or not we are able to get an accurate count may have 
an impact on how Congress is distributed, and that is why we see much 
of the debate here.
  I believe we have to have a real count and not an estimate or a 
guess. Estimating has real problems, and I want to illustrate why local 
communities, mayors, city councils and county councils are so concerned 
about having the ability to review this, because our assumptions when 
we estimate are critical.
  Mr. Speaker, let me illustrate by using fantasy baseball. I love to 
play fantasy baseball. I have a team, and it is based on real daily 
statistics.
  Imagine what baseball would be like if the Census Bureau was in 
charge of baseball:
  Fantasy owners of Mark McGwire would be crushed because he would hit 
only 36 home runs this year, which is his yearly average. Unless, of 
course, we use his average for 162 games, in which case he hit 48 home 
runs. But we could use his 3-year average, which is 60 home runs. But 
anybody who has Mark McGwire in fantasy baseball is really hoping for 
more than 60 home runs, so they would not want the Census Bureau 
statistic.
  Then take Sammy Sosa. His Census Bureau number this year would be 27. 
That is his average yearly number. Who would want Sammy Sosa at 27 home 
runs if he has got the potential to hit 66 home runs?
  Now I have had Andres Galarraga, and I would like the Census Bureau 
number on Andres Galarraga because

[[Page H2025]]

his 3-year average is 44 home runs, and he is out for the year.
  But, as my colleagues know, this illustrates the problem with 
estimating. Estimating for the whole United States is accurate. But the 
smaller the unit when we do estimating, the less accuracy there is and 
the more deviation there is because it is more difficult to count.
  So when we go down to a census block or the equivalent of an 
individual player, it is completely unpredictable; over 8 percent, I 
believe, is the variation, or higher. When we move to the city level or 
even a city council level to a city, then we become more like a team, 
and it is also very inaccurate and above the percentage that the 
estimates of the current census of actual numerical count, if we did it 
in not the way the Republicans are proposing, because we are proposing 
to increase the money for local groups to go out and do it, we are 
proposing to increase any way we need to to get a better real count. 
But if we just took the traditional problems that they had in 1990 and 
said this is the way we are going to do a real count, it would still be 
more accurate at the city level and the block level than estimating. 
Now when we get to the larger units, estimating starts to work better 
because we have a larger base to work off of and the people are not 
moving around.
  Now let me illustrate why that is the case, because estimating and 
the mathematical probabilities are based on very difficult things in 
this type of situation. The people who are most at risk of being 
undercounted, and I do not think there is any one of us here who 
sincerely have worked with the problem who do not believe that counting 
is very difficult in high-risk populations, which include illegal 
immigrants; it includes the homeless; it includes anybody who does not 
want to talk to somebody from the Federal Government.
  For example, in Fort Wayne we say we have 120 crack houses, but only 
20 or 30 may be operating at a given time because it is really 
abandoned homes and the people are moving between them. Illegal 
immigrants may be clustered many in a house, or there may be a couple, 
or the place may not have them at a given time.
  Now what we have proposed to do, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis) and I, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and I worked 
on an amendment in committee to make sure that we signed off an 
amendment that even said groups of color with a marketing background, 
so we can get people in the community to try to find the people who are 
hard to count because they do not trust somebody like me walking into a 
neighborhood. Looks like potentially I am going to count them and they 
are not going to trust me. We have to find groups in local communities 
who are trusted, but if we do not get real people, that is why we have 
estimates in this country, and some big cities that is there is 20,000 
homeless or there is 120,000 homeless. Quite frankly, if we estimate on 
certain assumption that there is 120,000, and there is only 20,000, we 
are depriving 100,000 other citizens, if we are wrong, of their civil 
right to vote. That is more than the cities, for example, of Muncie and 
Terre Haute in Indiana, plus Huntington combined, would be deprived of 
their right to vote because somebody made an estimate that was high on 
the homeless as opposed to low.
  It does not work. Many of the people who are hardest to count are 
moving around, and if they are moving around, unless we have a real 
name, we could quadruple count them.
  It is a difficult thing, and it is not a question of sincerity here. 
I want to get a real count, I want to do everything I can to get the 
real count, but I am not going to go in for guessing.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, we all are saying that we want an accurate 
count. It is what we do when we say that. Indeed, this bill is a fig 
leaf. This amendment really gives some substance to it. We think we can 
say anything and say it is local control.
  I was a former local county commissioner, and I am from a rural area, 
and I can tell my colleagues it makes more sense to get more engaged 
pre-census than post-census, and why would we want to institutionalize 
a method that only used 10 percent of a local government and call that 
local involvement?
  The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) 
gives some credibility to it. Yes, it does say ``if needed.'' It does 
not say, ``Mama, may I?'' It says if it is needed, every local 
government could be involved. We give that authority to the Census 
Bureau and allow them to make that determination.
  The amendment further gives opportunity for new construction, 
opportunity for change of address.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) to make this resolution which 
is very insufficient a sufficient resolution.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

                              {time}  1715

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the Maloney amendment enhances the role of 
local government in perfecting the census address list, while leaving 
the details to Census Bureau professionals. The Census Bureau Director 
Ken Prewitt has said that without the Maloney amendment, this bill, the 
Local Census Quality Control Act, will make the census 2000 neither 
timely, effective or cost efficient.
  It disrupts the Bureau's effort to complete a fair and accurate 
census on time. It prevents the use of modern statistical methods to 
count Americans that are missed by the traditional head count.
  Statistical methods cut the costs, provide for a more accurate count 
of all Americans, and we have to keep in mind in this process that in 
1990 that census missed 8.4 million people. This cannot happen again.
  Why is the census important? Why is statistical sampling important? 
Because we are talking about the distribution of billions of Federal 
dollars; road improvements, medicaid, child care, community development 
block grants, foster care grants. This is not a political issue. The 
census count should reflect the population of this great country of 
ours. Let us have an accurate count. Let us have local government 
involved. Let us support the Maloney amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) for yielding me this time and I want to congratulate her 
on her excellent work in this regard.
  Mr. Speaker, in our last census the GAO estimates that 26 million 
Americans were counted twice, counted in the wrong district or not 
counted at all. Now some in Congress say that kind of census result is 
acceptable, but I strongly disagree. When we are talking about a 
constitutional guarantee, we cannot settle for 80 or 90 percent 
correct. Our standard has to be full and fair participation for all.
  The good part is, we know how to get that 100 percent accuracy 
through modern, scientifically proven statistical methods.
  Let me just say as the former mayor of the most densely populated 
city in America I can say that by using the limited time and resources 
we have to needlessly repeat a local review process, H.R. 472 actually 
prevents us from getting an accurate count.
  Why would the Republicans not want an accurate count? Maybe it is 
because African Americans are seven times more likely to be missed than 
whites or that the difference in the undercount between whites and 
blacks in the last census was the highest ever. Or maybe it is because 
1.5 million Hispanic Americans were not counted at all.
  Maybe it is because people of color are denied equal representation 
at every level of government because of an inaccurate count. Maybe 
Republicans know that the Democratic agenda has far greater appeal to 
these Americans and they will not vote for them so let us not count 
them.
  Republicans are in the act of a raw political power play that will 
disenfranchise millions of Americans who are black, brown, Asian or 
rural and who, in fact, will not be counted by

[[Page H2026]]

their methods. We are not just talking about numbers here. We are 
talking about people, though, who can least afford not to be counted. 
These people undercounted may be single mothers who work two shifts to 
put food on the table and send their children to day care and families 
just struggling to get by, those barely above the poverty line or new 
citizens who came to America fleeing oppressive regimes and are fearful 
of government authorities knocking on their door.
  The Maloney amendment gives these people a voice. H.R. 472 strips it 
a way. Let us count everyone regardless of their color. Let us vote for 
the Maloney amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, we all want to count everyone. We do not want to have an 
undercount. We need to put all the effort and resources to do the hard 
work. The Supreme Court has ruled that sampling and polling cannot be 
used for purposes of apportionment. So let us do the job right. This is 
what post-census review is, giving the chance to have the most accurate 
census that can be trusted.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan), a colleague who is on the Subcommittee on Census.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, as we know from studies from the 
Census Bureau themselves, populations of under 100,000 are underserved 
under sampling. So if someone represents a district that has less than 
100,000 inhabitants, every city in the district I represent in 
Wisconsin, we are going to be hurt under sampling. That is very 
important to note.
  I would like to take a look at some of the quotes that we have seen 
as this census debate has occurred. From a Congressman from New York at 
that time, Charles Schumer, then Democrat from New York, commenting on 
post-census local review and I quote, this is a Senator from the other 
body at this time, ``Certainly post-census local review is not a 
panacea but we urge the Bureau to treat it with the gravity it deserves 
and to truly try to cooperate with the localities in the endeavor to 
help secure an accurate count.''
  Right now, post-census local review is simply aimed at missing 
households. So in New York or Albany or any other locality, housing 
units have post-census local review. They could say, well, we missed 
this House or we missed that block or we missed this apartment 
building.
  This kind of information should be made available to the Census 
Bureau in post-census local review and they should be able to 
incorporate it as they go over things, end of quote by Democrat Member 
of Congress from New York, Charles Schumer.
  The point is this: We want to get an accurate count. This is not 
about Republicans and Democrats. This is about fulfilling the 
Constitution, carrying out the Supreme Court ruling and doing the best 
job we can to count everyone, everyone in every apartment building, in 
every urban center, and if we do pass the Maloney amendment it is to 
take away the very rights of local government officials to participate 
in the census, to catch the glitches that occur after the census is 
taken. It is not a delaying tactic to stop sampling. We had post-census 
local review in 1990 and sampling in 1990.
  The Census Bureau can engage in this. They simply have to go through 
the work to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a killer amendment. A vote for the Maloney 
amendment is to dilute the vote in all those cities that are under 
200,000 in population.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Maloney amendment, 
and in doing so to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) 
for her exceptional leadership on this issue.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) knows the high esteem with 
which I hold him but I disagree completely with his bill and I take 
great issue with its title, Local Census Quality Control Act.
  What kind of quality control is it to exclude minorities in our 
society from being counted accurately? What kind of quality control is 
it to deny them their due representation in this governing body? What 
kind of quality control is it to deny the proper funding to States 
based on an unenlightened process? This bill should pass only if the 
Maloney amendment is included.
  The Maloney amendment will allow the Census Bureau, an entity known 
to be able to do this, to be left to do their job and provide the most 
accurate count of all of America's peoples.
  The delay proposed by H.R. 472 undermines the Bureau's efforts to 
provide an accurate count by derailing the process in an attempt to 
invalidate the best possible census count.
  It denies fairness to people and it denies fairness to communities. 
As a Californian, I appeal to my colleagues from the State of 
California to support the Maloney amendment and to defeat H.R. 472 
without the Maloney bill.
  This will do great harm to California. It certainly does to my City 
of San Francisco and I will submit that testimony for the record. Our 
country, as I say in California, the beauty is in the mix. We are 
blessed with a great and diverse population. That diversity is our 
strength. We must not undermine it by under counting it in the census 
and therefore undermining the representation that the beautiful 
diversity should have in this great legislative and deliberative body.
  So I again salute my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) for her outstanding leadership on this and urge my colleagues 
to vote yes on the Maloney amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the only ``quality'' in H.R. 472 is poor quality.
  What kind of ``quality control'' is it to exclude minorities in our 
society from being counted accurately? What kind of ``quality control'' 
is it to deny them their due representation in this governing body? 
What kind of ``quality control'' is it to also deny the proper funding 
to states based on an unenlightened process?
  H.R. 472 is not about ``quality control.'' H.R. 472 is about delaying 
the process and denying representation. H.R. 472 is about denying the 
civil rights of individuals who deserve to be included in an accurate 
account.
  A post-census review was ineffective in the 1990 census; what makes 
it effective in 1999? H.R. 472 sends us on a retreat to 1990 methods 
which failed. There is a lesson to be learned here but, instead, H.R. 
472 places us on a proven path of failure. Involving local government 
too late in the count is 1990 dejavu. The problems which occurred in 
1990 with only 25% of local governments participating in the 
traditional local review has been addressed by the Census Bureau's 
Local Update of Census Addresses which is well underway and has already 
doubled local participation.
  The Maloney amendment would let the Census Bureau do what it is 
charged to do--use the best, modern techniques to provide the best 
census count possible.
  Individually, an undercount using outdated methods, can be damaging 
and an undercount also has a tremendous effect collectively--on entire 
communities. In the U.S. Conference of Mayors report on the fiscal 
impact of an undercount, this effect is noted: ``. . . the formulas 
used by the federal government to allocate funds in various programs 
include the number of people who are part of a socioeconomic group--for 
example, those living in poverty. Since such groups are the ones that 
historically are the most likely to be undercounted, the loss of 
federal funds in a city with large portions of such populations is 
particularly profound.''
  Specifically, the report identifies San Francisco in stating: ``The 
impact of the undercount will be greater in the next decade if the 
Census 2000 reflects the same inaccuracy. The City is more likely than 
many other areas of the United States to be adversely affected if 
sampling is not used in Census 2000.'' The report continues in 
addressing the immigrant population in San Francisco: ``Studies have 
shown that communities having a large, relatively recent immigrant 
population, as well as those with a relatively large proportion of 
their households living in rental units, are especially prone to 
undercounts.'' From the time between the 1980 census and the 1990 
census, 54,000 immigrants came to San Francisco and the net increase 
through 1997 has been 66,000.
  In addition to the undercount of the immigrant population in cities, 
there is also a concern which San Francisco shares with other urban 
areas in an undercount of the homeless population. In a year's time, 
11,000-16,000 San Franciscans experience at least one episode of 
homelessness. Almost a third of this number is comprised of families 
with children which translates into a large potential undercount of 
children in urban areas.
  These are the individuals who will suffer from a delay that attempts 
to subvert the Census Bureau's efforts to provide an accurate count. 
Entire communities will also suffer as a

[[Page H2027]]

result. All members of the California delegation should be particularly 
concerned about this delay and its impact on federal funding to 
communities throughout the state. The loss to California from the 1990 
census undercount was $2.2 billion in lost revenue. As Governor Davis 
has stated, ``We can ill afford to lose another $2 billion over the 
next ten years.''
  The Census Bureau is a known entity which employs experienced census 
experts. They should be left to do their job and provide the most 
accurate count of all of America's people. The delay proposed in H.R. 
472 undermines the Bureau's efforts to provide an accurate count by 
derailing the process in an attempt to invalidate the best possible 
census count. It denies fairness to people and it denies fairness to 
communities. This should not be allowed to happen.
  H.R. 472 provides no ``quality control'' on the undercount; it is 
simply an attempt to continue the inequities of an undercount.
  Vote ``yes'' on the Maloney amendment and ``no'' on H.R. 472 without 
it.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues today to join me 
in supporting the amendment to H.R. 472 offered by the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney). This amendment succeeds where 472 fails. It 
allows for local government participation without jeopardizing 
inaccurate census. It includes local governments in the Census Bureau's 
plan. It makes them a vital part of it by including them in the process 
of building and checking the list utilized by the Census Bureau when it 
conducts the census.
  That is the participation that local governments want. They want to 
be part of the process now, not later. Let us not be fooled. Whether 
intentionally or unintentionally, the end result of H.R. 472 will be 
another inaccurate census. The voiceless will continue to have no 
voice. The unrepresented will continue to be unrepresented, and the 
American dream will remain just that, just a dream, never a reality for 
those who are not counted. We must vote for the Maloney amendment. Vote 
yes.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, how anyone can support a bill that will 
result in delaying, in obstructing and politicizing the next census is 
beyond me, and that is exactly what H.R. 472 would do.
  This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. While its benign language 
may make it seem like local government will have more of a say in the 
census outcome, the reality is that the bill imposes requirements 
designed to undermine the census accuracy and opens the door to 
political meddling.
  I intend to support the Maloney amendment. Why? Because the Maloney 
amendment allows local government to be involved in the census, to 
review and participate honestly in the development of the census from 
the onset, not after the fact. Vote for the Maloney amendment. Vote to 
let the experts do their job and do it right.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few of 
the points made by our distinguished colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, specifically my friend from Texas, who I think is a very 
good man and an honorable person.
  The point is we want everyone to be counted. We want to make sure 
that every person in this country is counted, and by voting for the 
Maloney amendment we will effectively be voting to deprive local 
government officials from having the ability to take a look at the 
data, to simply say after the numbers have been counted let us pour 
over the maps and make sure nothing was missed.
  Now the last speaker just said that this is delaying, this is 
obstructing, this is politicizing. It is nothing of those kinds. We 
have quote after quote after quote of Democratic Members of Congress, 
Democratic mayors, Democratic Governors, supporting post-census local 
review. Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago; former Mayor Tom Bradley of Los 
Angeles; the Dean of Congress, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell); the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Census, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer). We have quotes from so many different 
Democratic Members of Congress who when they were in the majority were 
the strongest advocates for post-census local review.
  Now that has changed. They seem to be opposing it. If this position 
is the political position of asking local units of government to get 
involved, to make sure the data is accurate, and the position on the 
minority side where when we were debating this 10 years ago their 
position was in favor of post-census local review and now they have 
reversed their position, reversed their principles, I would suggest 
that that is a political move.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
472 and in support of the Maloney amendment. I favor local involvement 
in this process but I am opposed to anything that has any prospect of 
slowing down getting to an accurate count and frustrating that purpose, 
and I believe H.R. 472 will do exactly that.

                              {time}  1730

  It is unfortunate that this debate has evolved along partisan lines, 
because this really should not be a partisan issue. For me, it is about 
the fact that 126,000 North Carolinians were missed in the 1990 Census. 
Beyond that, it is about the fact that because of that undercount, 
North Carolina has missed $6,830,000 a year in Federal funds for each 
of those 10 years that that undercount has been in effect.
  If we do not correct the problem going forward, a growing State like 
North Carolina with a growing urban population, with a growing minority 
population, is going to suffer the consequences of that not only in 
terms of the representation that it has in the Congress of the United 
States, but in terms of the actual dollars that come to North Carolina 
for such programs as Medicaid, highway planning, the Title I reading 
programs that help our kids prepare themselves to read at grade level. 
Those are the kinds of impacts that will be had on people in North 
Carolina.
  So representatives in North Carolina can vote along party lines if 
they wish. I hope that they will vote in the interests of their States 
for an accurate count against this bill and for the Maloney amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).
  Mr. SAWYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Speaker. I cannot let this occasion pass without thanking her for her 
extraordinary leadership on this issue throughout this Congress and the 
last.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just comment on a point that the gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Miller) made during the debate earlier. He said that 
the Supreme Court will rule that the Census Bureau must use the same 
number for apportionment and redistricting. We cannot use two different 
numbers for apportionment and redistricting.
  In this I do not question his motive, but he is simply misinformed. 
The fact is that in 1990, the Bureau issued one set of numbers for 
apportionment and another for redistricting and all other purposes, 
including the allocation of Federal funds to State and local 
governments.
  The Supreme Court upheld the decision to produce two sets of numbers, 
even though it caused a seat to shift from one State to another. So let 
us not give the American people the incorrect information. There is 
ample precedent for producing different sets of numbers for 
apportionment and redistricting, and the Supreme Court has specifically 
validated that practice.
  Let me just add one point, in closing. In the immortal words of Mark 
Twain, the rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from the great State of New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the 
fabulous job she has done on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing but a poorly disguised attempt to 
undermine a full, a fair, and a complete Census. This bill would have 
the Census Bureau use counting techniques that have already failed 
twice, in 1980 and

[[Page H2028]]

1990. In using these counting techniques, Census takers missed 
completely 8.4 million people in the last Census, and at the same time 
they counted more than 4 million people twice; blind in one eye, double 
vision in the other. That is what we have here with this bill, Mr. 
Speaker, blind in one eye and double vision in the other.
  Effectively, this means that millions of American families will be 
denied their rights, their resources, and the representation that is 
theirs by law. Sadly, that seems to be the very purpose of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, a complete and an accurate Census is the foundation of 
our democracy. This bill undermines that foundation, and all across the 
country it is opposed by the very people it ostensibly aims to help, 
including the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
  They oppose this bill because all it does is introduce more 
bureaucracy, more uncertainty, more politics, more delay, and more 
inaccuracy into the Census.
  My colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Maloney) has 
offered a good substitute for this bill. Her proposal will protect the 
integrity and the input of local governments while ensuring that there 
is no delay in completing the 2000 censure.
  Even more important, the Maloney substitute will enable the Census 
Bureau to complete the most accurate count possible. It guarantees 
local review, and ensures that all Americans are counted. That is the 
right thing to do, and it is our responsibility. I urge my colleagues 
to support the Maloney substitute.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). This amendment 
ensures that local participation will occur in a manner consistent with 
existing law by requiring the professionals at the Census Bureau to 
design and carry out the most accurate Census possible, which requires 
a release of the final Census count by April 1, 2001.
  This amendment gives local governments the opportunity to assist the 
Census Bureau in perfecting the Census address list, by making sure all 
new construction is included in the Census address list, by giving 
local governments an opportunity to review the counts of vacant 
addresses identified by the Postal Service, and finally, by giving 
local governments the opportunity to make sure that the Census has 
properly identified the jurisdictional boundaries of local governmental 
units.
  Mr. Speaker, without adoption of this unit, the passage of H.R. 472 
will prevent the Census Bureau from using statistical methods to 
produce the most accurate Census possible, and the mistakes of the 1990 
Census will be repeated when 8.4 million people were missed, more than 
400,000 in my home State of New York alone, and 4.4 million people were 
counted twice.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment accomplishes the goals of enhancing local 
involvement without blocking the Census Bureau from using the best 
scientific methods available. I strongly urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the civil rights issue of the decade. We know 
what the last Census gave us. We know that millions of Americans were 
missed, and that these Americans that were missed were primarily 
minorities and the poor from both urban and rural areas. We should let 
the Census Bureau correct the undercount and give us an accurate count.
  The Republican bill is a Trojan horse. It is designed for one purpose 
and one purpose only, which is to delay and delay and delay, delay 
designed to prevent the Census Bureau from reporting the most accurate 
numbers possible to the American people by the statutory deadline.
  We must not let that happen. Support the Maloney amendment and vote 
no on H.R. 472.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield six minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to and participated in this 
Census debate now several times. I have to say that, as someone who 
believes that the arguments that we make on our side of the aisle are 
valid and felt strongly, this gentleman is getting a little tired of 
the way in which the minority seems to argue this point and others.
  A little truth in packaging: The idea that the amendment of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) somehow seeks to undermine the 
Census process by allowing locals to review what the Census does. 
Locals, for example, in El Paso, Texas, who are 72 percent Hispanic, 
locals in Gary, Indiana, who are 86 percent black should not have the 
right, the minority says, to examine what the Census Bureau has done 
because they believe Republicans are racist in the way in which we are 
making the Census arguments; that in fact the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) involves the locals in a 
responsible way.
  ``Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Maloney of 
New York. `This act may be cited as the Local Participation in the 
Census Act.' ''.
  Do Members want truth in packaging? Do Members know what Local 
Participation in the Census Act means? Section 142, beginning on line 
1: ``The 2000 decennial Census shall include the opportunity for local 
governmental units to review housing unit counts, jurisdictional 
boundaries, and other such data as the Secretary considers 
appropriate.''
  On line 17, ``Any opportunity,'' ``Any opportunity for local 
participation under this section shall be provided in such time, form, 
and manner as the Secretary shall prescribe.''
  Local Participation in the Census Act, with the permission of the 
Secretary? What we have here is the bill of the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Miller) which says the locals get to look over the shoulder of the 
Census. What we have here is a substitute which says, ``It is the Local 
Participation in the Census Act,'' but only if the Secretary lets the 
locals play. Okay?
  That has been the tenor of this debate. The Democrats have been pure 
in their motives and above politics. The Republicans have been racist 
and we are playing politics in its entirety. They are white and we are 
black. They are the good guys and we are the bad guys. Frankly, I'm 
getting a little tired of that kind of a political game.
  The only thing they have been consistent in is playing the race card. 
They have been consistent in that. They are arguing that we have to 
move forward, time is of the essence. Why, then, did they not accept 
our argument that the Constitution says enumerate, and that the statute 
based upon that portion of the Constitution says that when we apportion 
between States, we have to count?
  They did not accept that. The Clinton administration did not accept 
that. We had to go to court. We had to go to the United States Supreme 
Court and have the court tell us we were right. That ate up a lot of 
time.
  But all of a sudden, now, time is important to them. We cannot let 
the locals participate. They want to move a provision which says if the 
Secretary wants them to participate, they can do it. We want to let 
them. But somehow now time is of the essence.
  And then, interestingly, it is really fun to listen to liberal 
Democrats talk about money, talk about the fact that this is going to 
cost money. Well, listen, if we want to get it right, let us spend 
whatever is necessary to get it right. The court has said that we have 
to enumerate between States. Okay, we have to count. Let us spend as 
much money as necessary to count as best we can.
  An argument that we have heard repeated over and over again, we tried 
this local Census review in 1990, and there is a quote that they have 
used several times, that the Bush Census chief said it was well-
intentioned but ineffective. They used the same argument against the 
Census itself, but we are talking about using better methods and 
focusing better on the Census. We can do exactly the same on the local 
Census review.
  As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Sawyer, said in 
1994

[[Page H2029]]

they front-loaded the process. If in fact we front-loaded the process, 
if we got the locals involved for almost 6 years now, do we not think 
the local review will go smoother? But no, they do not want that. They 
do not want the locals participating, but they are not playing 
politics, we are. They are not racist, we are.
  Let us talk about who has been playing politics. Our argument has 
been consistent from day one. We think constitutionally we should have 
to count, we believe between States. The Supreme Court has supported us 
on that argument.
  Frankly, I believe ultimately if we get to the court on the 
constitutional argument of apportionment within a State, that in fact 
they will also argue we have to count. But let us take the January 
court decision for right now. It said we have to count between States. 
We have to enumerate. Let us spend the money for enumeration.
  The court then said we can use sampling. The gentlewoman from New 
York said we should use sampling. That is simply incorrect. What the 
court said was that the statute allows us to do that. Okay, then we 
have to spend money in terms of doing a good job on sampling. But what 
is wrong with letting the locals review what we have done? Why is that 
such a heinous crime?
  If in fact Members want minorities to be counted, what is wrong with 
the folks in El Paso for Hispanics, what is wrong with the folks in 
Gary, Indiana, or Compton, California, for blacks, to look over the 
Census officials' shoulders to try to get it right?

                              {time}  1745

  The argument that we cannot do this because we are going to lock into 
an undercount for the entire decade is to simply play a really unfair 
political argument that we cannot, given the law, sample over the 
decade to make it correct.
  It is not a black and white issue. This question of the census is 
whether or not we count all Americans. It is totally legitimate to have 
a debate about what ``enumerate'' in the Constitution means. That is 
not a racist argument. In fact, the Court supported us in that 
position.
  Obviously between censuses, there is nothing wrong with taking the 
best shot statistically one can at the population changes over the 
decade. That is appropriate. But to say that we are arguing that one 
needs to count people because we are racist is one of the most slimy 
political arguments I have ever heard. My colleagues have done it 
repeatedly and repeatedly.
  Why do my colleagues not simply say, let us come together, let us 
spend what money is necessary to follow the court's requirement that we 
count for apportionment between States, and let us spend as much money 
as is necessary to do as good a job as we can on sampling, and let us 
support the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) so 
that the locals can look over the shoulder of the census officials and 
let the locals, whether they be Hispanic, black, white, or otherwise, 
have a comfort level that they believe they are also being counted.
  So I would say that I oppose the argument of the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney) that her amendment in fact is local participation 
because it is only if the secretary considers it to be appropriate.
  I would ask my colleagues to support H.R. 472, the bill of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), because it just seems to me that 
there is more than enough money to enumerate and to do the sampling 
correctly.
  If we get on with it, there is time enough. Let us get on with the 
business of counting Americans the way the Supreme Court said we need 
to do it between States, enumerate as the Constitution requires within 
a State. If a State chooses sampling or if they choose to use the 
actual count, it would be the State decision.
  It seems to me that there has been enough discussion. Let us support 
the bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller). Let us spend all 
money necessary to do it right whether that American is black or white 
or otherwise.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The time of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) has expired.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas) have one additional minute so that we can 
have a colloquy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 472, and 
in support of the Maloney substitute.
  We are charged with the awesome responsibility of counting the 
American people as accurately as we can so we can divide up the 
resources and representation of their government. This is a complex 
matter that must be concluded in one year. As we speak here, the Census 
Bureau is planning their year-long mission, hour-by-hour, in order to 
count 120 million addresses and 275 million people.
  The most important concept that this bill contains, including the 
local governments in the effort to ensure a fair and accurate count, is 
a laudable one. It is the local governments who are the closest to the 
people we all represent, and it is the local and state governments 
which have the most to lose. But it is also the local and state 
governments which have spoken up loudly about the bill we are 
considering here today as we look for the middle ground on which we can 
conduct our constitutional responsibility of overseeing the decennial 
census.
  Including the local governments in the preparation of the census is 
not a novel idea invented by the proponents of this bill; the Census 
Bureau is already consulting with local governments to assess the 
number of addresses in each jurisdiction. Counting the addresses is 
nearly 90 percent complete.
  The requirement in this bill to set aside 9 weeks after the field 
work is complete to check the count of local addresses a second time is 
a needless waste of precious time in this endeavor. I do not believe 
that anyone in this chamber wants to waste resources in discharging our 
responsibility--but I do think that a provision of this nature does 
prevent the Census Bureau from utilizing the very best contemporary 
science we have, modern statistical methods.
  The results of not using modern methods would carry us backward a 
decade, recreating all the same mistakes we made in the 1990 census, 
missing millions of Americans and counting millions more twice. The 
Mahoney substitute allows the Census Bureau to use their own design to 
integrate the local governments in the operational plan. This will 
allow science to help us and provide a much more accurate count.
  My home state of Texas lost $1 billion in federal funds as a result 
of the 1990 census undercount. It is estimated that a faulty census 
with a similar undercount will now cost Texas $2.18 billion. The mayor 
of Brownsville, TX, has urged me to support statistical sampling to 
ensure an accurate count, as has the Nueces County Judge; their 
correspondence is attached for inclusion in the record. Those who do 
not learn from history are bound to repeat it. Let us learn from 
history.
                                  Brownsville, TX, March 17, 1999.
     Hon. Solomon Ortiz,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Ortiz: The 1990 census resulted in an 
     undercount of eight million Americans. As a result the State 
     of Texas was denied approximately $1 billion in Federal 
     funds. No other part of the country was more affected by this 
     situation than perhaps California. In the case of Texas, the 
     South Texas region which has a population that is largely 
     Hispanic and a large concentration of families with income 
     below poverty level, probably felt the brunt of the impact.
       It is my understanding that in preparation for the 2000 
     census the House Government Oversight Committee, which you 
     form part of, is presently considering legislation to require 
     post-census local review instead of a statistical sampling 
     method to arrive at an accurate census count. Our position is 
     that the proposed legislation--H.R. 472, the Local Census 
     Quality Check Act--while well intentioned, will prevent the 
     Census Bureau from utilizing effective scientific methods for 
     population counting, and may once more result in large 
     undercounts. This unfortunately will impact once more the 
     states with the larger population and larger concentrations 
     of minority groups--e.g., Texas and California.
       I therefore urge you to oppose passage of H.R. 472. I am 
     certain that allowing the use of statistical samplings will 
     result in the most accurate and timely census possible. This 
     is after all, I am sure, what we are all interested in.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Henry Gonzalez,
                                             Mayor of Brownsville.

[[Page H2030]]

     
                                  ____
                                          Richard M. Borchard,

                                   Corpus Christi, March 26, 1999.
     Hon. Solomon Ortiz,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Ortiz: The 1990 Census resulted in an 
     undercount of eight million Americans. As a result, the State 
     of Texas was denied approximately $1 billion in Federal 
     funds. No other part of the country, other than perhaps 
     California, was more affected by this situation. In the case 
     of Texas, the South Texas region which has a population that 
     is largely Hispanic and a large concentration of families 
     with low incomes below the poverty level, probably felt the 
     brunt of the impact.
       It is my understanding that in preparation for the 2000 
     census the House Government Oversight Committee, which you 
     form part of, is presently considering legislation to require 
     post-census local review instead of a statistical sampling 
     method to arrive at an accurate census count. Our position is 
     that the proposed legislation--H.R. 472, the Local Census 
     Quality Check Act--while well intentioned, will prevent the 
     Census Bureau from utilizing effective scientific methods for 
     population counting, and may once more result in large 
     undercounts. This unfortunately will impact once more the 
     states with the larger populations and larger concentrations 
     of minority groups--e.g., Texas and California.
       I therefore urge you to oppose passage of H.R. 472. I am 
     certain that allowing the use of statistical samplings will 
     result in the most accurate and timely census possible. This 
     is, after all, what we are all interested in.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                              Richard M. Borchard,
                                              Nueces County Judge.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore.All time has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended, and on the further amendment in the nature of the 
substitute offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The question is on the further amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 202, 
nays 226, not voting 6, as follows:

                              [Roll No 88]

                               YEAS--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--226

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (CA)
     Delahunt
     Hastings (FL)
     Jones (OH)
     LaHood
     Lantos

                              {time}  1809

  Messrs. SOUDER, HEFLEY, GREENWOOD, McINTOSH, DOOLITTLE, and Mrs. 
CUBIN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SHOWS and Mr. DINGELL changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 88, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The question is on the engrossment 
and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 206, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 89]

                               YEAS--223

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady

[[Page H2031]]


     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--206

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brown (CA)
     Hastings (FL)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1828

  Mr. HORN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________