[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 105 (Thursday, July 22, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8982-S8985]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY AND RELATED 
              AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--Continued


                           Amendment No. 1217

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. What is the business of the Senate now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the Gregg amendment No. 
1217.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I understand I have a few minutes to speak, 
and I will take only a few minutes right now and reserve the remainder 
of the time when I have completed.
  I want to be very brief at this point. Mr. President, I want to 
separate out two aspects of the Gregg amendment: One I wish to 
compliment him on, and one I am going to remain silent on. The one part 
I want to compliment him on is that I think the reauthorization of the 
violent crime trust fund for another 5 years is the single-most 
significant thing we could do to continue the war on crime.
  In 1994, when we introduced the Biden crime bill, which eventually 
became the crime bill of 1994 which had the 100,000 cops in it, the 
Violence Against Women Act, and many other things, toward the end of 
that debate, with the significant help of the senior Senator from 
Texas, Mr. Gramm, who didn't like many aspects of my bill, and the 
senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, who did like the bill, we 
all agreed on what was viewed as sort of a revolutionary idea--that 
crime control was the single-most undisputable responsibility of the 
Federal Government domestically. We can argue about whether there 
should be welfare. We can argue about whether we should be involved in 
education. But no one can argue about the requirement of the Government 
of the United States to make the streets safe. That is the starting 
point for all ordered society.
  So we had an idea, and the three of us joined together to set up a 
violent crime trust fund. The way we did that was not to raise taxes 
for America because everybody kept saying: Biden, your bill, over the 
next 5 years, is going to cost over $30 billion. They were right. 
Putting 100,000 cops on the street costs a lot. Building thousands of 
new prison cells costs a lot. Spending money on prevention costs a lot. 
The total of the Biden crime bill was about $30 billion over 5 years in 
1994 when I introduced it.
  They said: How are we going to pay for it? None of us likes telling 
the citizens the truth. We all like lying to you, telling you we are 
going to find a magic way to do this that is not going to cost you any 
money. The American public wants safer streets, and they have gotten 
them, I might add. Crime has gone down significantly every year since 
the crime bill was introduced. I am not claiming it is only because of 
that, but it is in large part because of that.
  So the way we reached this accord was Senator Gramm, who wanted to 
see the size of the Federal Government cut even more urgently than--I 
will speak for myself--even more urgently than I did--we codified, as 
part of this deal, the agreement that we would let 250,000 Federal 
employees go. We would shrink the size of the Federal Government. And 
we did.
  The second part of the agreement I wanted was that the paycheck we 
used to pay the person working in the Justice Department or in the 
Defense Department or at IRS, who was not going to be rehired, we take 
John Jones' paycheck and put it into a trust fund to do nothing but 
deal with violent crime in America. Not an innovative notion--that 
concept of a trust fund--but it is fairly radical in terms of applying 
a Social Security-type trust fund--only this does have a lockbox--a 
trust fund of dedicated revenues to deal with nothing but crime.
  The good news about that and the reason I felt so strongly about that 
at the time I wrote the bill was it is the one place no one can 
compete. If it is in general funds--and to people who don't share my 
view about the single-most important responsibility of Government is to 
maintain order--it is in competition. If it is general revenues, the 
COPS Program or the prevention programs or building prisons is in 
competition with money for education, money for the space program, 
money for the Defense Department, and money for every other function of 
the Government. By having this trust fund, though, it is not in 
competition with anything. It is there. It is set aside. It is similar 
to a savings account to fight crime.

  I respectfully suggest that it worked. Now, under the Biden crime 
bill, which is due to expire this year, the trust fund will end. This 
special, dedicated pot of money that nobody can compete for, which is 
not paid for by raising taxes, is paid for by not lowering taxes 
because it is legitimate to say: Biden, if you eliminate the trust 
funds, you can take John Jones' paycheck, the guy who left the Treasury 
Department in 1997, and you can give it back to the taxpayers as a tax 
cut.
  That is true. But I choose safe streets over tax cuts. The tax cut 
would be minuscule, I might add.
  So when I heard that my friend from New Hampshire was taking language 
essentially the same as the Hatch-Biden bill that passed out of here in 
juvenile justice, the same as the language I have been reintroducing 
everywhere I can and in every bill I can in the last 4 years, I thought 
not only is he an enlightened fellow but there has been a bit of an 
epiphany, that, my Lord, the powerful chairman of the subcommittee of 
the Appropriations Committee has seen the Lord, has seen the light, and 
I was overjoyed.
  So I said to my staff: I am going to go up there and compliment him. 
Literally, I said this this morning. They said: Don't be so quick. I 
said: Why? They said: There is a little kicker here. The kicker is once 
this amendment that you, Biden, have fought so hard for over the last 
12 years, even before the crime bill was passed--once it is adopted, 
there will be a little amendment attached to it that has to do with the 
way this place functions procedurally, affecting how we can move 
substantively.
  I will not speak to that. I will only say and plead with my friend 
from New Hampshire, if and when the second issue is resolved, however 
it is resolved, that he not walk away from the substantive beauty of 
his amendment as it relates to the trust fund. I don't want to get into 
a fight with him about

[[Page S8983]]

legislating on appropriations and second amendments and the rest. I 
want to say to him publicly that I truly appreciate the practical 
impact of reestablishing the violent crime trust fund, if we can do it.
  I hope in this procedural fight that is above my pay grade right now, 
which is about to take place, that a casualty of this fight will not 
end up being us committing for another 5 years to do what we did in the 
last 5 years--bringing crime in America down. The way to do that is to 
guarantee that the law enforcement agencies of the United States for 5 
years do not have to compete with anybody, and we don't have to raise 
anybody's taxes. We are taking those old paychecks, and we are going to 
continue to make a deposit, similar to a trust fund in a family, for 
cops, for prisons, and for prevention.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield, I appreciate the kind words of 
the Senator, and I am duly thankful for those words. As a result, I can 
tell the Senator I am committed to trying to get this authorization, in 
some manner, in this bill when it returns to Congress--should this bill 
ever make it to conference, which is very much an issue at this time.
  Mr. BIDEN. I truly appreciate that because I, quite frankly, think--
and this is presumptuous of me to say because you know as much about 
these issues as I do, clearly--this is the single-most significant 
thing we can do to continue the successful fight against crime. I 
authored it, so you might say there is pride of authorship here. But I 
didn't do this alone. The distinguished Senator from Texas and the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia were really the ones who made 
it happen. I hope, in a bipartisan way, we can continue the funding 
mechanism. I thank him for his comments. If I have any time, I reserve 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
continue to run on this amendment equally divided, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time is left on the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Approximately 5 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at the end of that 5 minutes, I understand 
there will be 20 minutes, 10 minutes for the Senator from South 
Carolina and 10 minutes for myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Alpert, 
who is a fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor during 
the consideration of S. 1217.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about 
what I see as a funding shortfall for the 2000 census.
  First, I compliment Chairman Gregg and Senator Hollings for their 
work on this bill. I fully appreciate the very tight budget constraints 
under which they have been working. However, I want to make sure all 
Senators also know that, even though we will soon pass this 
appropriations bill, our work is not yet finished.
  Census day, which is April 1 of the year 2000, is less than 9 months 
away. Still today, at this late date, this bill lacks sufficient 
funding to adequately conduct the 2000 census.
  The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of a fair and accurate 
count of the population. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution 
provides that Congress is to conduct a decennial census ``in such 
Manner as they shall by Law direct.'' In fact, the census is one of the 
few actions that is mandated by the Constitution.

  Let me take a few minutes to discuss the importance of a full and 
accurate census for all Americans.
  Data from the 2000 census will be used to apportion House seats among 
the States for the 108th through the 112th Congresses. The States also 
use census data to draw legislative districts for congressional seats 
as well as for State and local representatives. In addition, Federal, 
State, and local governments use census information to guide annual 
distribution of the $180 billion of Federal funds for critical services 
such as child care, Social Security, Medicare, education, and job 
training.
  By now, we have all heard details of the serious shortcomings of the 
1990 census. In fact, at the time of the 1990 census, many of us spent 
many days and hours trying to ensure that a fair census was taken. Mr. 
President, 8.4 million people were missed in that census, and 4.4 
million were counted twice.
  In my State of New Mexico, we suffered the highest undercount of any 
single State. There were nearly 50,000 New Mexicans left out of the 
census in 1990 and 20,000 of them were children. The worst undercounts 
were among our Native American and Hispanic communities. A recent 
General Accounting Office estimate found that the 1990 census 
shortchanged my State of New Mexico at least $86 million in much-needed 
Federal grants.
  The Census Bureau has made substantial efforts to avoid a repetition 
of the undercounts that have hurt my State in the past decade. I 
applaud the Bureau's efforts to reach out to every resident in New 
Mexico, particularly the extra efforts they have made to count everyone 
in the Hispanic and the Native American communities. In Spanish, the 
motto is: ``Hagarse Contar!''--``make yourself count.'' For Native 
American communities, I cannot give you the Navajo or Taos version of 
that, but clearly the slogan is ``generations are counting on this; 
don't leave it blank.''
  So I think everyone agrees that a full and fair census must be our 
goal. Congress must appropriate all of the funds necessary to produce 
that full and fair census. The census is not a place where we should be 
cutting corners. It is time to put partisan politics aside to give the 
professionals in the Census Bureau the resources they need to get the 
job done.
  Indeed, the appropriations bill on the floor today does provide 
nearly $2.8 billion for the 2000 census. This is the full amount in the 
President's original budget. I thank the chairman for providing the 
Census Bureau's full initial request.
  However, as all Senators know, the Supreme Court ruled that under 
current statutes only a traditional head count may be used for 
apportionment of House seats among the States. In response to the 
ruling, the Census Bureau requested an additional $1.7 billion to 
provide the best census possible using only the traditional method.
  The additional funds were requested to cover the Bureau's additional 
workload, advertising, staffing, and data processing required to 
perform this actual head count which the Supreme Court has interpreted 
the Constitution to require.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a detailed list of the 
additional costs for a head count be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit No. 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, at this point this appropriations bill 
does not provide any of the additional funding that the Census Bureau 
has requested in response to the Supreme Court's January ruling. In 
fairness to the chairman and the ranking member, and the members of the 
committee, the Census Bureau's revised request did not arrive until 
very late in the process. Consequently, the subcommittee may

[[Page S8984]]

not have had sufficient time to review the supplemental request and 
conduct the normal oversight hearings. I understand the subcommittee 
intends to consider the Census Bureau's supplemental funding request in 
the near future. I thank the chairman for moving forward promptly and 
for working on this issue in a spirit of bipartisanship.
  What worries me is that even with the additional funds required for a 
head count, in all likelihood we will still fall well short of counting 
everyone and, as in the 1990 census, the undercount will hurt certain 
population groups the most. However, I have not come to the floor today 
to debate which enumeration method the Census Bureau should use. Except 
for apportionment, the Bureau will alleviate the undercount problem by 
using modern scientific methods. This is the only way to assure that 
States such as New Mexico will not be shortchanged again.
  The Supreme Court ruled the 2000 census must include a full head 
count. I believe Congress has an obligation to provide all the funds 
required.
  I appreciate the very tight budget situation in which we find 
ourselves. Time is getting short. Again, I thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for their continued bipartisan work on this 
appropriations bill, and I hope that they can move quickly to provide 
the supplemental funds required for the 2000 census.

                             Exhibit No. 1

               Additional Costs for a Non-sampling Census

       On January 25, 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that the 
     Census Act bars the use of statistical sampling for purposes 
     of apportionment. Additional funds are therefore needed to 
     cover the increased workload of a non-sampling census, 
     principally follow-up visits to an additional 16 million 
     households (50 percent more than under the sampling design).
       The President's Budget requests $2.8 billion in FY 2000 to 
     conduct a sampling-based decennial census. The budget 
     amendment will request $1,723 million. Major elements of the 
     $1,723 million are discussed below:
       $954M for non-response follow-up.--To get responses from 
     all households that do not answer the mail survey, Census 
     will hire more enumerators and will expand non-response 
     follow-up to ten weeks, four weeks more than expected in the 
     previous census design. Training will be increased by half a 
     day to sustain quality with a larger workforce, and each of 
     the 520 Local Census Offices will be provided additional 
     staff. For purposes of quality control, Census will randomly 
     re-interview addresses to verify the data gathered during 
     non-response follow-up.
       $268M for data collection infrastructure.--The larger 
     workforce also requires that Local Census Office have 
     additional space, phone lines, information technology 
     support, supplies, recruiting materials and advertisements, 
     and related items.
       $229M for coverage improvement efforts.--The Census Bureau 
     will conduct coverage interviews where forms appear to have 
     deficiencies (e.g., forms lacking complete information on all 
     household members reported) as well as a program to recheck 
     approximately 7.6 million vacant housing units initially 
     classified as vacant or nonexistent and new construction.
       $219M for a variety of data collection operations, 
     including:
       $96M in rural areas without street addresses (where surveys 
     are delivered to households by Census rather than the Postal 
     Service) for quality checks before the census date and 
     related activities. Census has learned through its address 
     listing program that this workload will be five million 
     household units larger than originally estimated.
       $56M for activities including special enumeration methods 
     in remote areas and field verification for the ``Be Counted'' 
     program (which distributes census forms in post offices and 
     other public places) to reduce duplicate and erroneous 
     responses.
       $42M for enumerating soup kitchens, shelters, and similar 
     facilities. This work will require advance visits as well as 
     two enumerators per facility at census time.
       $25M to redeliver questionnaires where the Postal Service 
     designated forms as undeliverable (e.g., areas where zip code 
     boundaries have changed recently). The Census Bureau 
     anticipates a workload of five million addresses.
       $14M to keep all the data processing centers open longer.--
     The four data processing centers will remain open through 
     September 30, 2000, and process a higher volume of data.
       $89M for advertising and promotion efforts.--Additional 
     advertising and promotion, including more materials for 
     schools, non-profits, and Sate and local governments, are 
     intended to increase the speed and rate of response and 
     public cooperation.
       Offsets from reduced sample size.--Because the sampling 
     portion of the census will now be based on larger geographic 
     units, the sample size for the Accuracy and Coverage 
     Evaluation (A.C.E.) program (i.e., sampling) can be reduced 
     without compromising accuracy. Reducing the sampling size for 
     A.C.E. will save $214M relative to the request in the 
     President's Budget.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my concerns 
about appropriations for the census--an issue that is critical for the 
State of California and for the Nation.
  The Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill for FY 2000 
allocates $2.8 billion for census operations. It does not include the 
additional $1.7 billion that the Administration requested to pay for 
its revised census plan. This funding shortfall will certainly result 
in an undercount in the 2000 Census.
  In the 1990 Census, California lost $2.2 billion because not everyone 
was counted, and that's not fair. Although the Administration's request 
was submitted late in the appropriations process, it is crucial that we 
equip the Census Bureau with the funds necessary to make the Census 
2000 as accurate as possible. How can the Census Bureau do its best to 
carry out an accurate census in 2000, if they do not have the 
appropriate resources? We can be sure that the Census 2000 will fail if 
the Census Bureau does not have the extra $1.7 billion it needs for 
this operation.
  The census has real impact on the lives of people across the Nation. 
Information gathered from the census count determines how nearly $200 
billion of federal funds are allocated. In addition, census information 
is used by states and local governments to plan schools and highways, 
and by businesses in making their economic plans.
  The 1990 Census undercounted the U.S. population by more than eight 
million Americans (mostly children, the poor, and communities of 
color), and more than four million Americans were counted twice. In 
California alone, the 1990 Census missed more than 834,000 people. A 
disproportionate number of those undercounted in California were 
minorities: Nearly half the net undercount--47 percent--were Hispanic-
American. Twenty-two percent were African-American and eight percent 
were Asian Pacific-American. Such differences in census coverage 
introduce inequities in political representation and in the 
distribution of funds. Communities from these undercounted ethnic 
minority populations have been disadvantaged by not receiving the 
resources they need for various government programs.
  A recent study by the General Accounting Office estimates that the 
economic consequences of the undercount in California caused my state 
to lose over $2.2 billion in federal funds, more than any other state 
and more than the additional appropriations requested by the 
Administration. As a result, the state did not get its fair share of 
funds for Medicaid, Child Care and Development, Rehabilitation 
Services, Adoption Assistance, and Foster Care, to mention only a few 
of the federal grant programs affected. Each person missed in the 
census cost California $2,660 in Federal funds over the decade.
  Some of the top 10 undercounted cities in the 1990 census, two of 
which are from my state, include:
  Los Angeles (138,808); San Diego (32,483); Chicago (68,315); Houston 
(66,748); Dallas (37,070); Detroit (28,206); and Philadelphia (23,365).
  Unless the Census Bureau is allowed to carry out its plan to produce 
a more accurate count than that which was produced in 1990, California 
and other states will again lose billions of dollars in federal 
assistance and will again have to subsidize federal programs with state 
and local tax dollars.
  Since the flawed 1990 population count, the Census Bureau has worked 
with experts from across the country to design a more accurate census 
for 2000. The National Academy of Sciences, in three separate reports, 
concluded that the key to improving accuracy in the census is the use 
of sound statistical methods. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court 
ruled that the Census Bureau could not use statistical sampling for 
apportionment purposes.
  Because the Census Bureau cannot use sampling, it has revised its 
census plan and requested additional appropriations to carry out a full 
enumeration census, using mail-back census forms and employing an army 
of bureau workers to personally and repeatedly visit those who do not 
respond. The Census Bureau's operational plan for carrying out the 2000 
Census will be the largest peacetime effort in our nation's history, 
and will employ more than 860,000 temporary workers.

[[Page S8985]]

  Mr. President, Congress must make every effort to support the Census 
Bureau's plan to count all Americans in 2000. The census should not be 
about politics. This is an issue of fairness, that impacts Americans 
nationwide. I urge my colleagues to support the additional $1.7 billion 
appropriation that the Census Bureau needs to carry out an accurate 
census in 2000. We must do everything we can to ensure that everyone is 
included in the count, and that our communities are provided with the 
resources we need.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________