[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3630-3637]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              2000 CENSUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, every 10 years, we take a national census 
to count the number of people in this country. The 1990 census was the 
most expensive in the history of the United States. It was also the 
worst. The 1990 census missed an estimated 4.7 million people, 1.58 
percent of the total population.
  Some undercount is expected. What makes it wrong is the undercount of 
minorities and the inner city population is way out of proportion to 
the national average.
  For minorities, the undercount was nearly tripled. The census missed 
4.4 percent of the African-American population and 4.9 percent of the 
Hispanic population. Those individuals that were missed were also poor. 
We need to have a more accurate census, one that does not leave 
minorities and poor and inner city populations behind.
  The census data is used to draw, not only electoral districts, but 
also to determine distribution of local and Federal program dollars and 
to plan public works projects. Without accurate census information, 
minorities and the poor do not receive equal political representation 
or distribution of government resources. State and local governments 
with missed populations lose millions of dollars in Federal aid.
  The Supreme Court has allowed for the Census Bureau to use sampling 
data for redistricting and Federal funds distribution. The Census 
Bureau has found such a solution to be appropriate. Yet, we find that, 
on the other side, the Republicans in Congress are trying to block this 
process.
  Sampling is a simple way of being able to get a more accurate census 
from available information that exists. Everyone says that they want a 
more accurate count. But as we can see, what we really need to look at 
is to make sure that everyone gets counted but, at the same time, look 
at the disparities that exist within that and go with it, with the 
scientific recommendations, and that is to provide some degree of 
sampling.
  We must let the Census Bureau do its job and use the method that is 
most accurate and that avoids unfair undercount in this country.
  I want to take this opportunity to just mention to you some specific 
statistics on the study that was done in Texas. Texas lost almost $1 
billion in Federal aid because of the 1990 census.
  I will continue to mention some additional data for my colleagues as 
I go on, but I want to take this opportunity to yield to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Rodriguez) for yielding to me. (The gentleman from Illinois spoke in 
Spanish).
  What I said there, Mr. Speaker, is my name is hard to pronounce, but 
I hope it is easy to remember. Am I right?
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for 
coordinating this very important discussion on the 2000 census.

[[Page 3631]]

  I think we can all admit that the census issue is not one of the most 
exciting issues that is out there. Most Americans are unaware of it. It 
is very technical. To the extent that people even think about it, they 
do not think that the census has any real impact on their lives.
  Yet, the reality is that that is not at all the case. How the census 
is conducted is in a very real sense, something that has a real impact 
on ordinary Americans.
  In a larger sense, this issue is really about basic fairness. It is 
about the fundamental concepts that we here in America take for 
granted, one person, one vote, as well as the issue of how we equitably 
distribute Federal resources. Both of these concepts are predicated 
upon a fair and accurate census.
  Each year, more than $100 billion in Federal money is allocated to 
States and localities. That money is distributed based upon census 
data. Census data determines how much funding States and municipalities 
receive for schools and for roads and for health care and for a host of 
other important programs that we here at the Federal level fund.
  Census data is also used by private industry in determining where to 
locate factories and stores. Even McDonald restaurant franchises are 
based upon the use of census data. We also use census data to determine 
political representation, in fact, that representation including also 
the representation that we here enjoy in Congress.
  So the facts are undisputable. It is very clear, I think, to say 
that, if one is not counted in the census accurately, one does not 
count. One does not count when it comes to Federal dollars for public 
schools. One does not count when it comes to Federal dollars for 
fighting juvenile crime. One does not count when it comes to Federal 
dollars for road repair and mass transit.
  If one is not counted, one does not count when it comes to getting 
Federal funding for things like Meals on Wheels for senior citizens and 
Head Start for our children.
  According to the Census Bureau, despite its $2.6 billion price tag, 
the 1990 census, the last census that was conducted was the first 
United States census to be less accurate than the one before it.
  In 1990, one in 10 African-American males were not counted. In 1990, 
one in 10 Asian males were not counted. In 1990, one in 15 Latino men 
were also not counted. Overall, 10 million Americans were not counted 
in the 1990 census.
  For many of us, it hits close to home. That undercount included more 
than 110,000 people in my home State of Illinois and 68,000 people in 
my hometown, the city of Chicago.
  Let me put that in perspective. Sixty-eight thousand people is the 
equivalent of a standing-room-only crowd at a Bears game in Chicago's 
Soldier Field.
  Officials in my city, the city of Chicago, estimate further that the 
census undercount was even higher than the 68,000 that the Federal 
Census Bureau declared as undercounted. The city of Chicago's figures 
have it as much as a quarter of a million people were not counted in 
the last census of Chicago, which means four Soldier Fields would be 
filled with undercounted people.
  Let me illustrate my point. This undercount meant that, between 1990 
and 1996, the city of Chicago lost approximately $200 million in 
Federal aid. Just to give my colleagues a couple of examples, that 
means that, in 1997, Chicago should have received $3.9 million more in 
Federal Community Development Block Grants than it received.
  Chicago should have received $1.7 million that year for the Head 
Start education program. The city should have received $300,000 more 
for programs under the Older Americans Act to ensure that senior 
citizens in Chicago have nutritious meals.
  The problem is not just limited to Chicago. States and municipalities 
across the country have suffered the same consequences because of the 
1990 undercount.
  We can avoid a repeat of this undercount, and we can ensure a fair 
distribution of Federal resources if we find other methodology to count 
people. Just as we do when we determine unemployment statistics in the 
Gross Domestic Product, we need to find and use the most modern 
scientific methods available.
  We are on the eve of the 21st Century, and, yet, the majority here in 
Congress wants us to count people in the next census in the same way 
that we counted them back in 1790. The realty is obvious, we do not 
count the same way in 1990 as we did in 1790.
  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Statistical 
Association, and the National Association of Business Economists have 
all endorsed the use of modern scientific methodology as a way of 
counting.
  Our crime statistics, our economic statistics, our labor statistics, 
all of these figures are determined using modern scientific 
methodology. Incorporating these statistical methods into the 2000 
census will help us avoid the kind of census undercount we had in 1990.
  So in closing, let me say that, let us, all of us, let Republicans 
and Democrats alike, join together and put politics aside, and let the 
professionals at the Census Bureau do their job.
  April 1, 2000, just about a year from now, is census day for the 2000 
census. Let us take politics out of the census and ensure that every 
American is counted.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
especially appreciate the leadership of the gentleman in bringing this 
matter forward at this time.
  The census controversy continues unabated. We are about to 
precipitate a constitutional crisis because we have got to have an 
accurate count. The reason we do not have one is because we are so late 
in getting our act together and we are keeping Census from doing what 
it is supposed to be doing because we cannot agree among ourselves on 
what that should be. One of the reasons we cannot agree is we do not 
know what that should be as a technical matter.
  We asked the court to decide the apportionment issue. It decided the 
apportionment issue. Census has said we abide by the apportionment 
issue when it comes to apportionment for this House. Census continues 
to have the same interest that every Member of this body, I would hope, 
has in an accurate census.
  If the way to get the most accurate census for the distribution of 
Federal funds and for offering the States data is to use sampling, then 
it seems to me that there is no further question about what should be 
done.
  With the apportionment issue settled, we are now at a point where, 
because sampling cannot be used, there will be the need for thousands 
and thousands more census takers than would otherwise have been the 
case.
  So we are deeply into having to spend money, which, according to all 
the experts, one might have spent if this were the turn of the last 
century, but not the turn of this century given what we know about 
sampling.
  This is a stalemate that must be broken. Offering an adjusted census 
after the traditional census has been taken, offering the States census 
figures adjusted by sampling is consistent with the Supreme Court 
decision. It is up to the States to decide how they do their own 
redistricting.
  The court has spoken as to our apportionment. The vested interest of 
us all in sampling techniques, to make sure that the maximum in Federal 
dollars becomes available, should need no elucidation. There is not a 
Member who has minorities or pockets of poor in his or her State or 
city which will not want the maximum feasible count. If that is by 
sampling, we would find it acceptable.
  The court has settled the toughest issue. Let us come together to 
make sure that we do not have another extended fight on how we are to 
count ourselves.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee).

[[Page 3632]]


  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas for bringing this special order, along with the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mr. Speaker, we have worked long and hard to define accurately the 
question regarding the census. I am certainly disappointed that it is 
now broken down along the lines, seemingly, of Democrats and 
Republicans.
  I serve on the Census Task Force. I did so in the 105th Congress. 
Likewise, I was a plaintiff or a part of the litigation that argued for 
articulating how we could interpret fairly the census statute and how 
we could avoid the undercount that we saw in 1990.
  In my community alone, there were 67,000 undercounted in the city of 
Houston, some 400,000, almost a Congressional District, in the State of 
Texas.
  It is imperative on the census that we come together in a manner that 
this Congress stands up for, not denying any single person the right to 
be counted. Let me make it as clear as I can. We count every one.
  This is not a question of citizenship as much as it is a question of 
determining how many people are within our boundaries. I think that 
should be made very clear. There is no doubt that, despite the Supreme 
Court ruling, I believe the Supreme Court has given us some latitude of 
which we will continue to discuss, debate, and argue about.
  I hope the administration makes it very clear on their position that 
some statistical methods can be used. But I think the point that should 
be made is none of us should stand up on the floor of the House and 
deny that anyone within the boundaries of this country be left out and 
not counted.

                              {time}  1415

  And it is well documented by the National Science Foundation that 
that statistical methodology is the most accurate of ensuring that all 
individuals are counted.
  I am fearful that we will see an impact in Social Security, an impact 
in the AFDC payments needed for our children to survive, that we will 
find an impact on educational dollars. And whenever I go home, there is 
not one single citizen that would concede the point that they are 
gleefully looking forward to not being counted.
  Now, I will say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that our citizens are 
looking not to be intruded upon. They are also looking to make sure 
that we do not have a set of circumstances in which their privacy is 
invaded. And I clearly would like to say that we need to look at those 
issues. We need to refine those census forms. But I want to argue for 
the enumeration, the counting, rather, of every single one that can be 
done best by statistical methods.
  I want to applaud the work of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney), both in her ranking member position but as well as the head 
of the Census Task Force that must be ongoing. And I want to commit all 
of us to reckoning that if there are those in the House that would 
distract away from the full counting, then we must address their 
concerns, but we will not give up the fight for empowering all people 
within these boundaries to be acknowledged.
  I want to add an additional point, Mr. Speaker. We must have diverse 
members of this process. All of those census-takers, whether used in 
the statistical methodology or otherwise, must come from all 
backgrounds. It is imperative. They must be bilingual. They must reach 
out.
  Most of all, we cannot be intimidated. I am ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and for too long we have not recognized the value of 
ensuring that we have the right information, that we do not 
characterize by a negative something that is positive.
  I will not characterize immigration as a negative, because we are a 
country of immigrants, but we are a country of laws. I will not 
characterize census taking as a negative because it may intrude upon 
someone's privacy, but I will balance the privacy with the need to 
count people, the need to be accurate, the need to use statistical 
methodology, the need to be diverse, and to ensure that I do not 
unempower those in the State of Texas and in this Nation.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Rodriguez) for his kindness and for his leadership and the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney), as well I see my good colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), who is here. And it seems Texas is 
on the rise. We know we need to be counted, and I know we are going to 
work together in Texas and get every single person counted.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Sheila Jackson-Lee), and I now want to yield to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
yielding to me and for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, it was not long after the Republicans took over Congress 
that they reached the conclusion that they did not like the use of 
modern scientific methods in the counting on the census. I am not sure 
how they reached that decision, having abolished the committee and 
subcommittee with jurisdiction over the census. I am fairly certain 
that that conclusion did not come through oversight. In fact, they gave 
jurisdiction over the census to the Subcommittee on National Security, 
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice of the Committee on 
Government Reform, where it languished.
  The full committee did hold a couple of hearings on the census, but 
they were halfhearted events. There certainly is no record to support 
their conclusions. In fact, the only report issued by the Committee on 
Government Reform stated that sampling and the use of scientific 
counting methods was unscientific, a conclusion they were later forced 
to repudiate.
  Given the lack of evidence to support their position, one might 
question their motives. However, there is no need to do that. We only 
have to look at their tactics to understand where they are coming from. 
At every turn they have come and tried to use some back-room maneuver 
to push their agenda.
  Two years ago, House Republicans added language to the Flood Relief 
Bill to make the census less accurate. They thought the President would 
not dare veto the Flood Relief Bill. But, to their surprise, not only 
did he veto it, but he won overwhelming editorial support clear across 
this country. Faced with this opposition, they backed down.
  The next effort to force a less accurate census on the American 
public came as part of the 1998 appropriations bill. Not only did the 
Republicans add language to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations 
bill that would have prohibited the use of statistical methods in the 
census, but they also rejected a genuine compromise offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). They even added language 
requiring a two-number census.
  And I would like to add to the record the language from the 1998 
appropriations bill which the Republicans put in the budget requiring 
the two-number census.
  To hear them talk today, one would think a two-number census was on 
the same order as high crimes and misdemeanors. But I learned long ago 
not to expect the opponents of a fair and accurate census to be 
consistent.
  Last September, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Census of the 
Committee on Government Reform called the Census Bureau's plan for a 
one-number census irresponsible. This week, in a hearing, he called a 
two-number census irresponsible. Perhaps the chairman believes that all 
numbers are irresponsible.
  It was not until February of 1998, a little more than 2 years before 
the 2000 census, that the majority created the Subcommittee on Census 
of the Committee on Government Reform and 2 years after the plan for 
the 2000 census was announced. For 3 years they ignored their oversight 
responsibility and tried to bludgeon the Census Bureau through the 
appropriations process. Having repeatedly failed at those attempts, 
they decided to harass the Census Bureau into submission.
  With a staff of 12 and a million dollar budget, the majority was able 
to field

[[Page 3633]]

six hearings over the first 11 months of the subcommittee's existence, 
but they peppered the Census Bureau with requests for meetings, 
documents and data. One day recently, the Census Bureau director got 
eight, and I repeat, eight separate letters requesting documents.
  Despite receiving boxes and boxes of documents, the subcommittee 
complains that the Census Bureau is operating in secret. Despite being 
briefed and briefed and briefed, they complain that the Census Bureau 
will not tell them what they are doing. Despite the lack of evidence, 
they continue to claim that the Census Bureau plans to manipulate the 
census, and they have come forward with many attacks on the career 
professionals at the Census Bureau.
  There are 394 days until April 1, 2000. Census day. It has been 3 
years since the Census Bureau released its plan for the 2000 census and 
over 8 years since the planning for the 2000 census began. In fact, the 
plan for this census was shaped during the Bush administration under 
the direction of Dr. Barbara Bryant. With a little more than a year to 
go, the Republicans have just come up with a legislative agenda for 
changes they want to make to the census plan.
  We marked up one of these bills today in the subcommittee. It was a 
bill that the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Carrie Meek) introduced in 
1996, and I am pleased that the subcommittee chairman is joining her, 
and I hope that this bill will pass.
  However, there may be something very much more sinister afoot. Having 
failed repeatedly to legislate the census plan through the 
appropriations process, they are now trying to pass legislation that on 
the surface looks benign, but it is designed to throw a monkey wrench 
into the census process.
  Earlier this week, the Census Bureau director warned Congress that 
legislating major changes in the census at this late date will 
jeopardize the accuracy of the census. He offered to work with Congress 
to achieve its goal within the context of the operational plan but 
warned that procedures created by Congress that require reworking and 
an operational change would result in major disruption.
  The time for legislation has passed. The opponents of a fair and 
accurate census spent their time trying to bully the Census Bureau with 
threats and busy work instead of helping them with a comprehensive 
plan.
  The opponents of a fair and accurate census seem to be getting 
desperate; and the more desperate they get, the louder they yell. But 
all of the yelling in the world will not change the facts. They 
provided taxpayer dollars to finance a partisan Republican suit against 
the Census Bureau. The Supreme Court ruled that the use of statistical 
methods was prohibited for apportionment but required, I repeat, 
required for all other purposes, if feasible.
  Democrats accept the court's judgment. But the opponents of a fair 
and accurate census continue to yell, and each yell is more desperate 
than the last. Why? Because they believe that a fair and accurate 
census is a threat to their majority.
  I would remind my colleagues of one other fact. The last time the 
Republicans controlled Congress during a census was in 1920. That was 
the only time in the history of this country that Congress has refused 
to reapportion the seats in Congress. Why? Because they did not like 
the facts that were revealed in the census counts. The population had 
shifted from the rural south to urban areas, and they simply refused to 
acknowledge the census numbers. It was 10 years later that Congress was 
finally able to apportion the seats. I hope we are not on the way to 
another failed census, as we were in 1920.
  The 1990 census missed 8.4 million people and counted 4.4 million 
people twice. Most of those missed were the urban and rural poor and 
minorities. The opponents of a fair and accurate census want to make 
sure that those 8.4 million poor and minorities are left out of the 
census forever. They want to make sure that those 4.4 million people 
who were counted twice, who are mostly suburbanites, are forever left 
in. In fact, now they want to force the Census Bureau to do a second 
mailing, because it has been shown in their dress rehearsals and in 
their research that it will create more duplicates that are difficult 
to remove.
  Now, I ask my colleagues, who is trying to cook the books? Is it the 
professionals at the Census Bureau and the experts brought together by 
the National Academy of Sciences, who want to use modern scientific 
methods to correct the errors in the census; or is it those fighting to 
keep the census full of mistakes?
  The 1990 census missed 1 in 10 adult black males, 1 in 20 Hispanics 
and 1 in 8 American Indians living on reservations. But the 1990 census 
only missed 1 in over 142 nonHispanic whites. Now, I ask my colleagues, 
why does the Grand Old Party want to make sure that these errors are 
not corrected? Is it because they believe that modern scientific 
methods are not scientific? I do not think so. Is it because they 
believe that the professionals in the Census Bureau will manipulate the 
numbers? I do not think so. Is it because they believe that the 
director of the Census Bureau is a statistical shill? I do not think 
so. I do not believe they believe their own rhetoric. But I do know 
that they can count, and they like the odds of suburbanites being 
counted and minorities being missed.
  The fight over a fair and accurate census is the civil rights fight 
of the 1990s, and it is a fight that we must win.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, we all know that Texas lost an estimated 
$934 million since 1990, or about $1,922 in federal aid for each of the 
persons who was not counted. In my particular district, the 28th 
Congressional District, we lost approximately $40 million from an 
estimated 20,714 people that were not counted.
  I take pleasure now in recognizing the gentleman from the city of San 
Antonio, Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, the issue that we address today will 
affect every constituent in every congressional district throughout the 
Nation. You will hear us repeat numbers, facts and figures but truly 
what we are trying to emphasize, that these are just not facts and 
figures but real people. The 2000 census is just around the corner and 
if we do not stop the partisan rhetoric which has clouded this issue 
for far too long, we will once again keep millions of Americans from 
having a voice. As Chair of the Census and Civil Rights Task Force for 
the Hispanic Caucus and Co-Chair of the Census Task Force for the 
Democratic Caucus, I am committed to achieving a fair and accurate 
census. The impact of a fair and accurate census will be felt across 
the Nation in every community and in the lives of every American. The 
information gathered in the census is utilized in many ways. It is used 
by States and local governments to plan schools and highways, by the 
Federal Government to distribute funds for health care and countless 
other programs. It is used by businesses in creating their own economic 
plans.
  Our last census, in 1990, was the first time in history that the 
count was less accurate than the one before. In 1990, more than 8 
million Americans were not counted and more than 4 million were counted 
twice. In Texas, as already indicated, over 500,000 were not counted. 
In my own home city of San Antonio, as referred to earlier, 40,000 were 
not counted.
  In a report released by the General Accounting Office this past week, 
it is reported that 22 of the 25 large formula grant programs use 
census data as part of their allocation formula. Those 25 formula grant 
programs distribute approximately $166 billion in Federal funds to the 
States. The 22 formula grant programs that utilize census data account 
for 97 percent of the total. That is $161 billion. These are Federal 
tax dollars that citizens across the Nation have paid, Federal dollars 
that should come back to the community in the form of improved 
infrastructure, better neighborhood schools,

[[Page 3634]]

health care for the poor and the elderly, local economic development 
and much more.
  In my State of Texas, where over 500,000 were not counted, it is 
estimated that we lost close to $1 billion in Federal funding over the 
past 10 years. We were second only to California in the harm caused by 
an inaccurate count. This astronomical loss of funding breaks down to 
$1,992 per missed person. It is estimated that if we utilize the same 
inaccurate enumeration methods for the 2000 census, Texas will stand to 
lose $2.18 billion in Federal funds.
  We must realize that this is not a political issue. This is an 
economic issue. It is an education issue. It is an infrastructure 
issue. And most importantly, it is about fairness. It is about time 
that we stop the partisan rhetoric and choose people over party 
politics. Every person in this Nation counts and every American 
deserves to be counted.
  It is important to point out exactly who was missed in the 1990 
census. It is really no surprise, because the very people who were not 
counted in the last census are those communities who are typically 
overlooked. Of the 8 million Americans not counted, minorities, 
children and the poor were disproportionately represented. Nationally, 
5 percent of Hispanics, 4.4 percent of African Americans, 2.3 percent 
of Asian and Pacific Islanders, and over 12 percent of Native Americans 
living on reservations were undercounted. In Texas, the net undercount 
from the 1990 census was 2.8 percent, almost twice as high than the 
national average of 1.6 percent. The percentage of Hispanics and 
children missed in Texas were all greater than the national average. Of 
the 500,000 Texans missed, over half were of Hispanic origin. 
Statewide, 3.9 percent of African Americans, 2.6 percent of Asian and 
Pacific Islanders, and 2.8 percent of Native Americans were 
undercounted.
  While missing or miscounting people is a problem for the census, the 
fact that particular groups, children, the poor, people of color, city 
dwellers and renters were missed more often than others produced census 
data that underrepresented these particular groups. Each of us should 
be outraged by these types of inaccuracies. The Census Bureau and other 
experts have told us that the most accurate census can be obtained by 
utilizing modern and proven scientific statistical methods. These are 
proven methods, proven to be the most accurate system to obtain the 
census.
  Now, we know that the Constitution calls for an enumeration. I agree. 
We should try to count as many people as we possibly can. I also 
realize the obstacles that face us if we rely on this head count alone. 
Today society is highly mobile. Most households are two-income 
families. There are language barriers. And there are people who have a 
distrust of government. These are just some of the obstacles facing us 
if we choose to continue to employ a head count system alone. Proven 
scientific statistical methods can overcome these obstacles and will 
give us the more accurate count. Over and above the accuracy, we know 
that this system is cheaper than the actual head count.
  The Supreme Court recently ruled that these scientific methods can 
only be used for redistricting and distribution of Federal funds and 
that a head count must be done for the purpose of apportionment. If we 
know we can get the most accurate census through these methods and that 
they will save us money, we must utilize them. The gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney) who just preceded me has introduced legislation 
that will amend the census act so that scientifically proven 
statistical methods can be used for every purpose of the census, 
apportionment, redistricting and distribution of Federal dollars. I 
believe in this bill and urge all of my colleagues to support it so 
that every American will be counted and have a voice. We must stop the 
partisan bickering over the census. We must put people first. We must 
put people over party politics. We must and should be dedicated to 
obtaining a fair and accurate census in 2000.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gonzalez) for his remarks. I know Texas has been hard hit and we all 
recognize the loss in Texas. We have been shortchanged. With the 2000 
census upon us, we recognize the importance of assuring that we get a 
good, accurate count. Let me recognize my fellow Congressman also from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have an important point I would like to make today. 
Our Nation must have a fair and accurate census in the year 2000. In my 
State of Texas, the 1990 census resulted in the second highest 
undercount of any State. Not only in 1990 but for a full 10 years after 
that, almost half a million Texans have been inadequately represented 
in their government and received only a fraction of the Federal funds 
that they were due. The undercount meant that the State of Texas alone 
was deprived of over $1 billion in Federal funds. As the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) said earlier, an equally inaccurate census in the 
year 2000 could result in the loss of over $2 billion to our State. 
Nationwide, the Commerce Department estimates that several million 
people were overlooked. While these figures represent the 
disempowerment of a shocking 1.6 percent of the total American 
population, the figures for minorities are significantly worse. A full 
5 percent of Hispanic Americans were simply overlooked, 4.4 percent of 
African Americans were never counted, 4.5 percent of Native Americans 
were ignored. These communities of minority Americans have been denied 
the representation that is their birthright. Representation in American 
government cannot be contingent on the affluence of your neighborhood, 
nor the color of your skin. This is a sanctioned disempowerment of 
American minorities and cannot be allowed to continue. We must have a 
census 2000 that not only attempts to count all Americans but one that 
makes people, all people, count. To allow our underserved populations 
to become third-class citizens without a voice in their own government 
is to deny the most basic principles of democracy. This is the only way 
in which they are going to be able to get the additional Federal funds 
to improve their schools, to modernize their schools, to be able to 
improve health programs, to be able to improve their infrastructure so 
that they too can have an interstate highway and be able to be 
connected to the rest of the country. This is the only way in which 
they are going to be able to improve the quality of life of their 
people. This must change. I stand here today, and I say, the year 2000 
census must be fair. To be fair, it must be accurate.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hinojosa) for his remarks. I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss this issue 
because it is indeed an issue that should have a lot more attention in 
this Nation at the local level than it has been getting. The battle 
here in Washington seems to be a partisan battle. The battle of getting 
an accurate census is really a community-based value. Let me tell why. 
If you undercount California where one out of every 10 people in the 
United States lives, it has been estimated that just the 1990 census, 
what we did 10 years ago when there was no dispute about how to do it, 
that that undercount will cost California $2 billion. Why? Because the 
money is subvened back to the States based on population. So the census 
in 1990 missed 838,000 people living in California. That 838,000 people 
is larger than the individual populations of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, 
North Dakota, South Dakota and Vermont. So if you do not think that 
counting is important, then let us just eliminate those States from the 
count, because that is the amount of people that we are talking about. 
What that means is that in a single year California loses $197 million 
in Medicaid funding, that is funding for people with illnesses; 
$995,000 in adoption assistance, $1.8 million in child care and 
development, $3.6

[[Page 3635]]

million in prevention and treatment of substance abuse, $9.4 million in 
foster care, $4.7 million for rehabilitation services, the list goes on 
and on. What you are seeing is that all of those people out there who 
are asking for help from government, because the programs just do not 
go far enough, could be receiving that help automatically if the census 
was correct.
  So I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to do one thing, to challenge the 
mayors of this great country, to challenge the county commissioners and 
supervisors of this great country, to challenge the municipal 
governments of this country to rise up and take notice as to what is 
happening with the census, because it is going to affect their 
communities. This issue is not a partisan issue. It should not be a 
partisan issue. It should be a scientific issue: What is the best and 
most accurate way that we can guarantee a full count.
  The National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce and a 
vast majority of the professional scientific community all recommended 
that we use modern scientific methods to have the count in the year 
2000. The United States Supreme Court recently held that the 1976 
Census Act requires the use of modern scientific methods for all 
purposes other than just reapportionment of Congress, which is the 
method where we determine how many people live inside a congressional 
district and from there draw the district boundary lines. That is what 
is of interest to Washington, to Congress, to the House of 
Representatives. But let us not forget that the real impact of the 
census is upon our neighborhoods, our schools, our health care centers, 
our hospitals, our police and fire, and people who reach out and do 
services to our community such as foster parents and others.

                              {time}  1445

  Equity demands that more than scientific methods be employed to 
determine the population so that California and every other State are 
not deprived of their fair share of Federal funding. If indeed those 
communities care about this, rise up, take notice and petition our 
government in Washington.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). I am 
very pleased that he mentioned California because California was the 
hardest hit in terms of the loss of resources. It was estimated by the 
GAO report that approximately $2.2 billion was the biggest loser on the 
fact that we did not utilize sampling during the 1990 census. The 
Census Bureau estimated that 835,000 people were not counted in 
California. Of those, it is also interesting to indicate that over half 
of those individuals not counted in California were Hispanics, and the 
population figures are used again. It is important to note that the 
population figures are used by 22 of the 25 biggest Federal grant 
programs.
  So if people are not counted, such as Medicaid, then they will not be 
able to receive those resources. If people are not counted such, we 
will not be able to use the resources for how reconstruction. So it is 
important for us to recognize that it is key and it is important that 
everyone. It is hard to think that if 5 percent of the Hispanic 
population is not utilized, that Hispanics are only worth 95 percent 
instead of a hundred percent, and we also recognize that there is an 
overcount, and we have a large number of individuals that are the rich 
that are being overcounted because they have several households.
  So we ask, as we move forward, that we get an accurate count.
  I wanted to just mention in terms of the GAO report that it was 
requested by the leaders of the House Subcommittee on Census and to 
determine how much each State would have received from these programs 
by using adjusted figures for the 1990 head count, and this GAO report 
is the one that I have been mentioning. The Supreme Court ruled in 
January the statistical methods known as sampling could be, and I read 
again, could not be used for determining population figures for 
allotting congressional seats. In response we recognize that it can be 
utilized for all the other areas, and that is what we are talking 
about.
  So, it becomes important that we recognize the importance of making 
sure that everyone gets counted.
  I was also very pleased, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) was here earlier, and she talked about the importance and had 
to submit some record for the Record because she recognized that 
California was the biggest loser, and in her comments she also 
addresses the importance that in California the statistics were 
alarming and had far-reaching consequences. Mr. Speaker, 2.7 percent of 
the people in California were missed in the 1990 census. There is much 
at stake in this process for California, for Texas and for the entire 
Nation to make sure that everyone gets counted.
  In the 1990 census it showed that 27 States and the District of 
Columbia lost $4.5 billion over the decade in Federal funds due to the 
failure of a corrected census in 1990. California was the State most 
harmed by these inaccuracies. One State would have received $2.2 
billion more in Federal funds during that period, and that is $2,660 
for a person that was missed. So for each one that is missed, in Texas 
we lose a little bit over $1,900; in California they lost over $2,600.
  So it is important for us to recognize that every effort needs to be 
made to assure that we get everyone counted.
  In the year 2000 census I also want to assure my colleagues that the 
Census Bureau is there to do an accurate count, and they are willing to 
move to make sure that the 2000 census is an accurate count. Scientific 
methods, and we got to remember that since the 1950s we have recognized 
that there has been a problem in terms of how people are counted, and 
since then and up to the present, even in the 1980 census, and 1990, 
there were attempts and there were utilized methods. They were 
recognized to best identify those people that are missing, and that 
does not mean that we will not be going house to house, that does not 
mean that we will not try and make sure that everyone gets counted.
  In fact, as we look at the scientific methods that have been used by 
the Bureau for decades, it is indicated that they have been extremely 
helpful to be able to get a more accurate count. The Census Bureau has 
used scientific methods to be more accurately measured and correct and 
to make sure that we get that undercount, because as my colleagues well 
recognize, there is also an overcount on the other side with the rich 
that have several households.
  In the year 2000 the Census Bureau will, No. 1, mail the census form 
to each household so that that effort will be there again and will 
continue to be there, and it will also go door to door to follow up on 
those homes that do not respond. So we are going to go out there to 
make sure that everyone, No. 1, gets some mail; No. 2, if they do not 
send it back, we are going to go out there to make sure and knock on 
their door to make sure that that mail and that census data comes back.
  Secondly, we are going, for the first time in history the Bureau will 
put on a national advertising campaign urging everyone to participate, 
and this effort is an effort to make sure that everyone recognize that 
they have a responsibility to be counted and an obligation.
  Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, they will use special outreach to contact and 
encourage everyone to return their census forms, including people who 
do not have a fixed address, and this is where the problem lies. There 
is a lot of individuals or families that live together, and we do not 
have a fixed address for them, and those are the individuals that get 
miscounted, and that is why, in order to carry that out, aside from all 
those things that we are going to be doing, we are going to be pushing 
on the utilization of sampling which will allow us to have a more 
accurate count.
  To carry out the accuracy coverage evaluation, which is called ACE, a 
quality check which completes the census by evaluating accuracy and 
correcting any undercount. Methods very similar used by ACE were used 
in the 1980 and 1990 census, and this will allow an opportunity to make 
sure everyone gets counted. When we look at Americans, I know that 
during the Civil War we counted African Americans less

[[Page 3636]]

than. We do not want to do this at this time. We want to make sure that 
everyone gets counted. Again, if 5 percent of Hispanics are not 
counted, that means that I am only counted at 95 percent, while other 
people are counted at a hundred or even beyond if they are overcounted.
  So there is a need for us to look at that disparity that exists there 
and make every effort to make sure that everyone gets counted.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on April 1, 2000, as mandated by 
the U.S. Constitution and the Census Act, the decennial census will 
take place. People want an accurate census that includes everybody. 
Unfortunately, the U.S. Census Bureau has missed millions of persons in 
conducting each decennial census, especially minorities, the poor, 
children, newly arrived immigrants, and the homeless. Our goal for 
Census 2000 must be the most accurate census possible. To accomplish 
this, the Census Bureau must use the most up-to-date methods as 
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences and the vast majority 
of the professional scientific community.
  The importance of the census is monumental. The census has a real 
impact on the lives of real people. Information gathered in the 
decennial census is used by states and local governments to plan 
schools and highways; by the federal government to distribute funds for 
health care and other programs; and by businesses in making their 
economic plans. An accurate census is vital to every community. Last 
year, census data was used in the distribution of over $180 billion in 
federal aid. Accurate census data is the only way to assure that local 
communities receive their ``fair share'' of federal spending; an 
inaccurate count will shortchange the affected communities for an 
entire decade.
  Census data also forms the basis for which Congressional seats are 
apportioned among the states. Within states, census data is used to 
draw Congressional and other legislative districts. Inaccurate data has 
far-reaching consequences for political representation by decreasing 
the influence of those persons who are less frequently counted. We must 
not allow this to occur in 2000.
  Allow me to give you some pertinent statistics. The population 
undercount for minorities is a long-standing problem for the Census 
Bureau, a problem which was even worse in the 1990 census. The 1990 
Census contained 26 million mistakes. About 4.4 million people were 
counted twice and 8.4 million people were missed. The net undercount 
was 4 million people, approximately 1.6% of the population. Another 13 
million people were counted in the wrong place. About one-third of all 
households failed to respond to mailed questionnaires.
  The undercount of minorities was much worse than the 1.6% national 
average. The Census Bureau estimates that 4.4% of African-Americans, 
5.0% of Hispanics, and 4.5% of Native Americans were not counted. The 
1990 census missed 7% of African-American children, 5% of Hispanic 
children, and over 6% of Native American children. In fact, as the 
Secretary of Commerce noted on January 25, 1999, the 1990 Census was 
the first in 50 years that was less accurate than its predecessor. It 
is critical that this census is a fair census. Because the census is so 
important, we must do everything we can to ensure that everyone is 
included in the count. We know that previous censuses overlooked 
millions of people, especially children and minorities. That's not 
fair, it's not accurate, and it's not acceptable. We are determined to 
do better.
  A complete census must include modern scientific methods which will 
provide an essential quality check for Census 2000. Such a plan fully 
complies with the Supreme Court's ruling that the law requires that the 
Census Bureau use modern methods such as statistical sampling for all 
other purposes of the census other than apportionment. This issue 
should rise above partisan politics. It's not a partisan issue. It's an 
American issue. As President Clinton stated:
  ``Improving the census should not be a partisan issue. It's not about 
politics, its about people. It's about making sure that every American 
really, literally counts.'' President Clinton, June 2, 1998.
  The stakes of an inaccurate census are very high. Over 164 federal 
programs use some aspect of census data to determine the amount of 
funds that are distributed to qualified applicants. From the allocation 
of transportation funds and the building of roads and bridges, to the 
determination of housing units and the distribution of program funds, 
census data plays a critical role in determining the amount of federal 
dollars disseminated in our local communities. The decennial census is 
the basis for virtually all demographic information used by educators, 
policy makers, journalists and community leaders. America relies on 
Census data everyday--to determine where to build more roads, 
hospitals, and child care centers.
  The extent of the problem should be clear. Poor people living in 
cities and rural communities, African-Americans and Latinos, immigrants 
and children were disproportionally undercounted. In Florida, the 1990 
Census missed more than 258,900 people. Like the national results, a 
disproportionate number of undercounted Florida residents were 
minorities--4% (73,319 people) of African-Americans were missed; 1.8% 
(2,881 people) of Asians in Florida were undercounted, 5.3% (87,654 
people) of Hispanic origin were missed; and 2.7% (1,006 people) of 
native Americans were undercounted.
  In Miami, an estimated 18,831 (4.99%) people were not counted. This 
is the 3rd highest undercount rate among major cities (behind Newark, 
NJ, and Inglewood, CA). We must do better.
  We should allow the Census Bureau to do its job. The professionals at 
the Census Bureau are continuing their preparations to produce the most 
accurate census permitted under the law. Our goal must be the most 
accurate census possible, using the most up-to-date scientific methods 
and the best technology available.
  Allow me now to turn your attention to the controversial issue of 
statistical sampling. Advertising and promotional campaigns targeted to 
minority communities and directed by minority advertising firms are 
essential. Easy access to census materials in languages other than 
English is also critical. However, the National Academy of Science, the 
General Accounting Office, the Inspector General of the Commerce 
Department and the academic and statistical community all have 
concluded that the undercount and the differential undercount among 
minorities cannot be solved without the use of modern statistical 
techniques known as ``sampling.''
  On January 25, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Census Act 
prohibits the use of sampling for apportioning congressional districts 
among the states. However, the Court also held that the 1976 revisions 
to the Census Act ``require'' the use of sampling for all other 
purposes, including the distribution of federal aid to states and 
municipalities and for redistricting, if the Secretary of Commerce 
determines its use to be ``feasible.''
  The Secretary of Commerce has already announced that he considers the 
use of sampling to be feasible. Given the Supreme Court's ruling, a 
2000 census plan must be a two-number plan under the law that uses 
traditional counting methods to arrive at a number for apportionment 
and modern statistical sampling techniques for all other purposes. 
Simply put, the Court's ruling did not bar the use of modern scientific 
methods. It required sampling's use for all census purposes except 
apportionment.
  In order to eliminate the undercount for all other purposes beyond 
apportionment of congressional seats among the states, Census 2000 will 
be completed using modern scientific methods. The Census Bureau has 
determined that it is feasible to use modern scientific methods and 
will use these methods to produce the most accurate census permitted 
under the law.
  Scientific methods have been used by the Bureau for decades. 
Statistical methods disclosed that in the 1950 census, minorities were 
undercounted at much higher rates than non-minorities. Since then, the 
Census Bureau has used scientific methods to more accurately measure 
and correct for this unfair undercount.
  What steps will the Census Bureau take to ensure an accurate and fair 
census? In 2000, the Census Bureau will:
  Mail census forms to every household and do door-to-door follow-up to 
the homes that did not respond to the mailing;
  For the first time in history, the Bureau will put on a national 
advertising campaign urging everyone to participate;
  Use special outreach to contact and encourage everyone to return 
their census forms, including people who do not have a fixed address; 
and
  Carry out the Accuracy & Coverage Evaluation (ACE), a quality check 
which completes the census by evaluating accuracy and correcting any 
undercount.
  Methods very similar to ACE were used in the 1980 and 1990 censuses 
to improve accuracy.
  If we use the most up-to-date scientific methods as recommended by 
the National Academy of Sciences and the vast majority of the 
professional scientific community, America can have a Census 2000 where 
all Americans count. Let's make Census 2000 a census that all Americans 
can be proud of.

[[Page 3637]]


  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, does the census count?
  Yes, the Census counts for every American and it should be as 
accurate as possible.
  The Census Bureau has devised a plan to increase the accuracy of the 
ten-year count. We should listen to the experts on this issue and leave 
the decisions to the experts who know how to determine the best means 
for accomplishing the best count.
  What are our choices?
  In all of the talk about the census and its fairness, the 
interpretation of the Supreme Court decision and the debate on methods, 
our choices really are very simple.
  We can use the ``old'' methods, or we can use the modern methods 
recommended by the Census Bureau. We can have an inaccurate census 
using the ``old'' method, or we can have a more accurate census using 
updated techniques for counting, recommended by the Census Bureau.
  The 1990 census failed America's minority communities. Almost 9 
million people were not counted in the process, including one in ten 
African-American males, one in twenty Hispanics and one in ten young 
Asian males. To make matters worse, there were 26 million errors in the 
census with 14.5 million people counted twice and another 13 million 
people counted in the wrong place. In fact the 1990 census was the 
first census in 200 years to be less accurate than the census preceding 
it.
  This approach is unacceptable. Why would we retrace our steps down a 
failed path AGAIN? We owe it to all segments or our communities to make 
the strong effort to keep the census fair, accurate and representative 
of our diverse population.
  In California, the statistics were alarming and had far-ranging 
consequences. 2.7% of the people living in California were missed in 
the 1990 count. There is much at stake in this process for California 
and its communities--to be counted, to be represented and to reap the 
federal benefits intended to spring from the best possible census 
numbers. In San Francisco alone, African Americans were undercounted by 
13% and Hispanics by 16%.
  The 1990 census showed that 27 states and the District of Columbia 
lost $4.5 billion over the decade in federal funds due to the failure 
to correct the 1990 census. California was the state most harmed by 
these inaccuracies. Our state would have received $2.2 billion more in 
federal funds during this period--$2,660 for each person missed.
  The Republican majority has proposed a $400 million ad campaign to 
highlight the census. Why spend almost half a billion dollars and do 
nothing to correct the inaccuracies of the past. Under this plan, we 
will get even less for our money than ever before. What kind of goal is 
that?
  If there is a move to restrict the Census Bureau in its plans and the 
process is thwarted, we could be faced with a partial government 
shutdown with funding cut off for the departments of Commerce, Justice 
and State under the June 15 deadline. This crisis is avoidable and 
should be entirely unnecessary under the Supreme Court decision.
  The Supreme Court decision supports the current efforts of the Census 
Bureau--to use the ``old'' method for the purposes of state 
apportionment in Congress under the law and to use methods recommended 
by the census experts to use improved counting to redistrict within 
each state and to distribute federal funds. This is a fair compromise. 
The Supreme Court agrees.
  The Census Bureau is committed to producing the most accurate numbers 
possible for all uses other than for apportionment, and the Republican 
majority wants to prevent it from doing its job.
  The rich ethnic diversity of our urban and rural areas should not be 
under-reported, underpresented and under-funded under a failed system. 
We must have a more fair process for counting our nation's minority 
communities under a process that brings the greatest number of people 
into the headcount.
  Yes, the Census counts. Every American should be concerned about a 
fair count and support the work of the experts at the Census Bureau in 
giving them the tools they require to do the best job for the best 
money. The American people deserve the best.

                          ____________________