[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 26, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13158-S13159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  OPPOSITION TO FRAMEWORKS LANGUAGE IN CONFERENCE REPORT TO H.R. 2670

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to a provision 
in the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary conference report, 
which Congress passed a few days ago, and which the President vetoed 
yesterday. As the ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on 
Proliferation, International Security, and Federal Services, with 
jurisdiction over the census,

[[Page S13159]]

I am disappointed the conference report requires that decennial census 
activities be appropriated by specific program components, known as 
frameworks.
  Appropriating by framework for the decennial census has never been 
done before and would cause serious management problems for Census 
2000. According to Census Director Kenneth Prewitt, such a change in 
funding practices would come at the same time that Census 2000 
activities are at their highest. Past congressional direction on the 
allocation of funds by framework has been in report language, which 
afforded Congress the ability to guide spending without hamstringing 
operational management of the census.
  Director Prewitt noted in a letter to the Chairman of the House 
Subcommittee on the Census, ``Congressional approval in the form of a 
reprogramming would be required for any movement of funds between 
decennial program components.'' This would necessitate obtaining 
clearance by the Department of Commerce and the Office of Management 
and Budget, as well seeking congressional approval. The Senate version 
of H.R. 2670 did not include this onerous provision, which will 
seriously impede the Census Bureau from shifting needed funds in a 
timely manner. ``A decennial census is, by its nature, an unpredictable 
exercise. Decisions must be made quickly and frequently adjusted to 
adapt to ever-changing conditions in the field,'' Director Prewitt 
said.
  In its budget presentation, the Census Bureau designed eight 
frameworks for major decennial activities, such as management, field 
data collection, address listing, automation, Puerto Rico and Island 
areas. The frameworks have been used as strong guidelines rather than 
strict appropriation limits because funds may need to be shifted 
quickly between frameworks to cover unexpected contingencies. 
Historically, the Census Bureau has been able to move funds among its 
frameworks--it is inappropriate and damaging for Congress to mandate 
reprogramming at this time.
  Any delay in census operations in order to accommodate having to wait 
for affirmation of a reprogramming request will seriously degrade the 
quality and completeness of the resulting population count that must be 
delivered by December 31, 2000. The President vetoed the conference 
report yesterday, and it is my hope this provision, retained from the 
House version of the bill, will be deleted. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent to print Director Prewitt's letter in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                      U.S. Department of Commerce,


                                         Bureau of the Census,

                                 Washington, DC, October 15, 1999.
     Hon. Dan Miller,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on the Census, Committee on Government 
         Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Miller: On Tuesday, October 12, 1999, you 
     requested a summary of the Census Bureau's views on the 
     comparative versions of the Commerce, State, Justice and the 
     Judiciary Appropriations bills for FY 2000. There is language 
     in the version of the bill passed by the House that is of 
     significant concern to the Census Bureau.
       In the House version of the FY 2000 appropriations bill, 
     funding is provided by specific program components (known as 
     frameworks). Consequently, Congressional approval in the form 
     of a reprogramming would be required for any movement of 
     funds between decennial program components. This is a 
     dramatic departure from past practices and takes place at 
     precisely the time when Census 2000 activities peak, when the 
     need for program flexibility is most crucial. If the need to 
     obtain Congressional approval significantly delays the 
     transfer of funds, Census 2000 operations could be 
     compromised. The companion legislation passed by the Senate 
     does not contain this restrictive provision and would permit 
     the timely transfer of funds, if necessary, to attain the 
     results we are all working so hard to achieve.
       In the past, formal reprogramming has only been required to 
     shift funds between different programs, accounts, and bureaus 
     within the Department of Commerce. This has allowed Congress 
     to exercise its oversight responsibility without constricting 
     the operational management of Bureau activities. The proposed 
     House provision would trigger a time-consuming reprogramming 
     process, in addition to the bill's provision that mandates a 
     delay of at least 15 days for Congressional review.
       As you know, the Census Bureau has spent literally 
     thousands of hours developing a carefully analyzed 
     Operational Plan, which we believe can achieve the most 
     accurate and complete census possible within the parameters 
     required by the recent Supreme Court decision requiring a 
     complete enumeration of all census non-respondents.
       A decennial census is, by its nature, an unpredictable 
     exercise. Decisions must be made quickly and frequently 
     adjusted to adapt to ever-changing conditions in the field. 
     One obvious example of the need for this type of flexibility 
     is in dealing with our new construction program. The Census 
     2000 New Construction procedures perform a vital role in 
     address list development after all other addressing processes 
     have concluded. If the volume of new construction listing 
     work is significantly higher than anticipated, funds must be 
     rapidly shifted from other frameworks to cover the costs of 
     investigating areas, listing households, and preparing maps 
     and other materials for enumeration. Reprogramming could 
     inhibit the timely completion of listing operations and 
     jeopardize the quality and completeness of the population 
     count in states with high rates of new construction.
       The census has the potential to be a civic ceremony that 
     celebrates participation and responsibility. It is up to all 
     of us to ensure that it is. Congress has consistently 
     expressed and demonstrated a commitment to ensure the most 
     complete and accurate census possible.
       I appreciate your support and commitment in making Census 
     2000 a success.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Kenneth Prewitt,
     Director.

                          ____________________