[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 97 (Thursday, June 25, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7034-S7035]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Groves Nomination

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, in the Constitution, we see laid out 
before us a framework of how our government is supposed to work, with 
three branches--legislative, executive, judicial. We also find in the 
Constitution what our relative responsibilities are, not with great 
detail but with some definitiveness.
  Ironically, one of the requirements the Constitution provides for us 
in this country is that every 10 years we try to count everybody. We 
have a census. Most nations do that. We have been doing that really for 
over 200 years. It does not get any easier. In fact, every 10 years it 
gets harder, and it also gets to be more expensive.
  The Director of the Census does not serve a finite period of time. 
The Director of the Census really serves at the pleasure of the 
President, and we have had Census Directors who have served as little 
as 1 year and some Directors who have served maybe 4 or even 5 years.
  This is particularly appropriate to speak about today because we do 
not have a Director of the Census. We had a Dr. Murdock, from down in 
Texas, who served for about the last year of the Bush administration as 
our Census Director. He did a very nice job. But at the beginning of 
this year, Dr. Murdock resigned. We do not have a Census Director. What 
we do have coming down the railroad tracks is the requirement to do the 
census.
  Next April 1--I call it a little bit like D-day. At Normandy, we sent 
all of our troops ashore, and they scrambled off of those landing 
vessels. They stormed the beaches. That took place after literally 
months of planning, months of preparation, and finally the day of 
execution came.
  In a way, the census is like preparing for the Normandy invasion. The 
efforts are underway now. They have been underway for months and will 
continue up to April 1 and beyond that day, as we try to count 
everybody. Yet, at this critical time, as we approach the need to 
conduct our census, to do it in an accurate, cost-effective way, we do 
not have a leader there. We have some good people, but they lack a 
Director.
  Last month, I held a hearing of our Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Subcommittee, and we invited people who had been 
high-level officials in, I think, every census since 1970--the 1970 
census, the 1980 census, the 1990 census, and the 2000 census. We asked 
them to come in and talk to us about how they thought we were doing in 
terms of the preparation for the 2010 census. At the end of their 
testimony, I asked each of them to give to us on our committee two 
names of people who they thought would be excellent Census Directors, 
and they were good enough to do that. I think every one of them 
included in their recommendations the name of a fellow from Michigan--I 
am an Ohio State guy, but they recommended a fellow from Ann Arbor 
whose name is Dr. Robert Groves.
  Dr. Groves is an expert in survey methodology. He has spent decades 
working to strengthen the Federal statistical system, to improve its 
staffing through training programs, and to keep the system committed to 
the highest scientific principles of accuracy and efficiency. Having 
once served as Associate Director of the Census Bureau a number of 
years ago, Dr. Groves knows how the agency operates and what its 
employees need to successfully implement the decennial census and other 
programs. He knows because he has been there. He is not just an 
academician--one of the most respected people in his field in the 
country--he actually helped run the Census Bureau at an earlier time. 
The combination of those experiences has prepared him well to lead the 
Bureau at a time when rapid developments and changes are occurring.
  As a manager, he elevated the University of Michigan's Institute for 
Social Research to a premier survey research organization, respected 
throughout the country--actually, respected around the globe. Numerous 
Federal and State agencies and policymakers have sought his expertise 
in survey design and response. His work has received professional 
recognition through awards from various professional associations, 
including the 2001 American Association for Public Opinion Research 
Innovator Award and more recently the 2008 American Statistical 
Association Julius Shiskin Award for original and important 
contributions in the development of economic statistics. Ultimately, 
his deep expertise in survey response will help the Census Bureau focus 
on the most important goal of the 2010 census, which is to encourage 
all people to respond to the census.
  Dr. Groves will undoubtedly face a host of operational and management 
challenges as we move closer to the 2010 census. However, I remain 
confident he is well equipped--remarkably well equipped--to understand 
the agency's inner workings, to lead his staff--he has led a large 
organization already; he served at a senior level at the Census Bureau 
before--and to also be a national spokesperson for the 2010 census and 
the agency's other equally important ongoing survey programs. It is for 
these reasons that I hope the full Senate will support his nomination 
and move it quickly.
  Let me just reiterate, we are now about 8 months away from when the 
first forms go out as part of the start of the 2010 census. The Bureau 
has already completed something we call address canvassing--an 
operation in which 140,000 people on the ground nationwide were making 
sure the address lists we have to do the census are accurate.
  Since the 2000 count, the population in this country is estimated to 
have increased by over 40 million people, with increased numbers of 
minorities and an increase in the number of languages spoken. Further 
complicating the 2010 decennial operations is the mismanagement and 
lack of preparation that occurred in past years, most notably in the 
failure of the field data collection automation contract, resulting in 
a last-minute decision to return to paper-based questionnaires, 
ultimately adding billions of dollars to the census budget. And it is 
only going to get harder the longer the Senate delays the confirmation 
process.
  The reason we do not have a Census Bureau Director is not because we 
do not have a qualified candidate. It is not because our Subcommittee 
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has not endorsed his 
candidacy. We have done so unanimously, and actually we have endorsed 
him with acclaim. We are just lucky, very fortunate in this country to 
have--at a time when we are about to try to meet our constitutional 
responsibility to count everybody accurately and in a cost-effective 
way--to actually have somebody with his gifts and his talents to bring 
to the job. What we do not have is the permission to bring his name up 
for a vote in the Senate. If we leave here today without having had the 
opportunity to vote up or down on the nomination of Dr. Groves, we will 
have made a very grave mistake.
  I understand our Republican friends are uncomfortable, unhappy with 
the pace for the confirmation process for Judge Sotomayor, who has been 
nominated, as we know, to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme 
Court. I voted for Chief Justice John Roberts a couple of years ago. 
The timetable for approving his confirmation was almost the very same 
from the day he was nominated by former President Bush to the day we 
voted for him here, it was almost the same number of days we are

[[Page S7035]]

talking about with respect to the Sotomayor nomination. The timetable 
on Justice Alito: almost the same from the day he was nominated by 
President Bush until the day we voted here in the Senate--at least a 
majority of our colleagues did--to confirm him. It was almost the same 
number of days. I realize some of our colleagues are unhappy that we 
are providing the same kind of timetable for Judge Sotomayor that we 
provided for Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. I, for the life 
of me, do not see what the beef is.
  Just as I believe we are fortunate to have someone with Dr. Groves' 
credentials to serve as our Census Director, I think we are lucky to 
have somebody with Judge Sotomayor's credentials to serve on the 
Supreme Court. I have had the opportunity to meet with her. I know a 
number of my colleagues have too. I must say, among the things I most 
like and respect about her: She is up from nothing. She was a kid born 
in the Bronx, raised in the Bronx, and very humble, from a humble 
setting, a humble beginning. She worked hard, won herself a scholarship 
to Princeton, went there, excelled, and later went off to law school at 
Yale--two of the finest institutions we have in our country.
  After that, she was a prosecutor for a number of years; beyond that, 
a corporate litigator; and finally nominated by a Republican 
President--George Herbert Walker Bush--to serve as a district court 
judge. By all observers, she did a superb job. She was not just so-so. 
She was an exceptional judge--so good, in fact, that a few years later, 
when there was a vacancy on the circuit court of appeals in her 
district, a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, said: I think she ought 
to get the nod. He nominated her for that position, and she was 
confirmed by a wide margin. So she has actually been through this 
process not once but twice. I think she has gone on to serve longer as 
a Federal judge--when you add together the district court time and the 
circuit court of appeals time, I think she has served longer as a 
Federal judge than anybody in the last 100 years who has been nominated 
to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

  I have read the comments some of her colleagues have to say about 
her, including colleagues who were also nominated by Republican 
Presidents. They have been uniformly complimentary, very gracious in 
their remarks, very laudatory as well.
  So I would say to my Republican colleagues, while you struggle to get 
over the fact that we are going to set the same timeline or try to set 
the same timeline for the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor that we set 
for the nominations of Judges Alito and John Roberts--I just don't 
understand the angst you feel.
  I do know this: Apparently, the nomination of Dr. Groves is being 
held up along with 25 to 30 other names, all of whom have cleared 
committees, I think, by wide margins. We can't move forward on those 
nominations. Some of them maybe are not of grave consequence. The 
nomination of Dr. Groves is of grave consequence. If we have the 
opportunity later today in the course of business to actually consider 
a number of nominations that are before the Senate, that are awaiting 
our consideration, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to allow the nomination of Dr. Groves to come here for a vote and 
to give us the opportunity to vote him up or down. I am sure we will 
vote him up, and I am equally sure he will make us proud with the 
service he will provide as the Director of the Census Bureau for our 
country in the years ahead.
  With that having been said, I yield the floor and note the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.