[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5344-5353]
[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 gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues only have to 
look at the history of the issue of the census to understand what is 
going on in the House this Congress. Tomorrow, we will begin the debate 
on the supplemental appropriations bill for the Wye River Peace Accord 
and the victims of Hurricane Mitch.
  Just 2 years ago, we were debating another supplemental 
appropriations bill. Then it was for flood victims in the Midwest. The 
waters in North Dakota had not yet receded when the Republican majority 
added language to ban the use of modern scientific methods to the flood 
relief bill. They thought the President would not dare veto flood 
relief over the census, particularly when so many people were 
suffering. They were wrong.
  The President vetoed the bill, stating very strongly that Congress 
had no business tying flood relief to anti-modern scientific counts in 
the census. The President received editorial support clear across this 
Nation, and the Republican majority backed down.
  Then, in September of 1997, the majority put language in the 
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill to ban the use of modern 
scientific methods. When the President threatened to veto that, the 
majority knew they did not dare shut down the government over the 
census, so they came to the bargaining table with 17 pages of language 
designed to tie the Census Bureau up in knots.
  The majority insisted on language that required two sets of numbers 
for the 2000 census. Now they say that two sets of numbers is 
irresponsible. They set up a monitoring board with a $4 million budget 
and complained when the President insisted that the board be balanced 
with an equal number of presidential appointments and congressional 
appointments.
  The majority tried again in 1998 to kill the use of modern scientific 
methods and failed. Then they turned to the courts. In January they 
lost that battle, too. The Supreme Court ruled that the Census Bureau 
could not use modern scientific methods for apportionment, but they are 
required to use it for everything else, if feasible. Of course, what 
the majority really cared about was keeping the Census Bureau from 
producing census counts that were corrected for those missed and 
counted twice.
  Now they are desperate again. They claim that apportioning the 435 
seats among the States is the same thing as drawing Congressional 
District boundaries, even though apportionment is done by the Congress 
and drawing district lines is done by the State legislatures. In fact, 
the last time the Republicans controlled Congress during the census was 
1920, and they so disliked the results of that census that they refused 
to reapportion the House for the entire decade.
  The fight today is about whether or not the professionals at the 
Census Bureau will be allowed to conduct the census as they see fit. 
The majority has introduced seven bills that look harmless on the 
surface but most of them are designed to make it more difficult for the 
professionals to do an accurate count.
  Several of the bills are so invasive that the Census Bureau director 
said that the effect, and I am quoting Dr. Prewitt now, the Director of 
the Census Bureau, he claimed it would be ``just short of disastrous.'' 
He said, ``It would put the entire census at risk''.
  Several are so bad that the Secretary of Commerce said that he would 
recommend a presidential veto. None of their proposals would make the 
census any more accurate. And I will insert at this point in the Record 
the letter from Secretary of Commerce Daley to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform.

                                    The Secretary of Commerce,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1999.
     Hon. Dan Burton,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Burton: Tomorrow, the Government Reform 
     Committee is scheduled to mark up seven bills related to the 
     conduct of the Decennial Census in 2000. While I know we 
     share a common goal of ensuring that Census 2000 is the most 
     accurate and cost-effective Decennial possible, the 
     Department of Commerce must strongly oppose legislation that 
     would mandate a post census local review, require the 
     printing of short census forms in 34 languages, and mandate a 
     second mailing of census forms.
       According to the Director of the Census Bureau, Kenneth 
     Prewitt, and the professionals at the Census Bureau, these 
     three bills would reduce the accuracy and seriously disrupt 
     the schedule of Census 2000. Based on the attached detailed 
     analysis of the legislation provided by Dr. Prewitt, if this 
     legislation were presented to the President, I would 
     recommend that he veto it.
       The Census Bureau is already working on many of the issues 
     that these and the other four bills address. For example, the 
     Census Bureau is not designed to manage a grant program, but 
     it is working to increase partnerships with local governments 
     and tribal and non-profit organizations to increase 
     participation in Census 2000. In addition, we expect to seek 
     additional funding for a variety of other activities. And we 
     would appreciate assistance in making it possible for more 
     individuals to take temporary census jobs without losing 
     their government benefits.
       Thank you for this opportunity to present our views on the 
     legislation under consideration by your Committee. I look 
     forward to continuing to work with you and other members of 
     Congress to ensure that Census 2000 is the most accurate 
     census possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                 William M. Daley.

  Mr. Speaker, the 1990 census was the first census to be less accurate 
than the one before it. There were 8.4 million people missed and 4.4 
million people were counted twice. The 1990 census missed 1 in 10 
African American males, 1 in 20 Latinos, 1 in 8 American Indians on 
reservations, and 1 in 16 rural non-Hispanic whites. The sole focus of 
the majority's agenda is to make sure that these people are left out of 
the next census as well.
  When the Constitution was written, there was a shameful compromise to 
the count. African Americans were counted as three-fifths of a person. 
We must not allow the 2000 census to count African American males as 
nine-tenths of a person.
  There is one clear and simple issue here. Will the next census count 
everyone or will it repeat the mistakes of 1990, leaving millions of 
people unrepresented and unfairly left out?
  The census is tied to not only accurate data but our funding formulas 
are tied to it. The census plan that the Census Bureau has put forward, 
using modern scientific counts, is supported by the entire scientific 
community.
  These are the people that support statistical methods in the Census 
2000: The National Academy of Sciences; the American Statistical 
Association; the Council of Professional Associates on Federal 
Statistics. Dr. Barbara Bryant, a Republican, President Bush's Census 
Bureau Director. She speaks out every day for a modern scientific 
count. The American Sociological Association; the National Association 
of Business Economists; the Association of University Business and 
Economic Research; the Association of Public Data Users; and the 
Consortium of Social Science Associates.
  These professionals versus the Republican majority.
  We have a number of important Members of Congress that are 
participating in this special order tonight, and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Elijah Cummings) is first, but I really would like to put 
in one of the recent editorials that have come out across the Nation 
regarding the GOP plan to undermine the census with this bill that they 
have before us.
  I would like to just quote one line out of it. And this is from the 
Washington Post. This editorial is entitled ``Census Chicken'': ``House 
Republicans are playing an indefensible game of chicken with the next 
census. To prevent the publication of accurate figures, which they fear 
could cost them

[[Page 5345]]

seats in the next redistricting, they are threatening steps that could 
disrupt the entire operation. They put themselves in an untenable 
position reminiscent of their amateurish threat of several years ago to 
shut down the government unless they got their way.''
  This editorial goes on. It is quite a lengthy one. Again, they say, 
``So some Republicans also are trying, in the name of greater accuracy, 
no less, to impose new requirements on the Census Bureau whose effect 
would be to delay publication of the adjusted numbers until after 
redistricting had safely begun.'' And it ends by saying, ``They ought 
to back off.''
  Mr. Speaker, I will submit at this point for the Record the entire 
editorial.

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 15, 1999]

                             Census Chicken

       House Republicans are playing an indefensible game of 
     chicken with the next census. To prevent the publication of 
     accurate figures, which they fear could cost them seats in 
     the next redistricting, they are threatening steps that could 
     disrupt the entire operation. They put themselves in an 
     untenable position, reminiscent of their amateurish threat of 
     several years ago to shut down the government unless they got 
     their way on the budget. The carried that threat out, much to 
     their chagrin. Their leaders--or some of their sensible 
     members; it doesn't take that many in the House these days--
     should save them from suffering a similar embarrassment this 
     time.
       The issue is whether and how to correct for the chronic 
     undercount, of low-income people and minority groups 
     especially, that has come to plague the census as it has 
     become better understood in recent decades. Disproportionate 
     numbers of such people tend to be missed in the traditional 
     head count, conducted first by mail, then by knocking on 
     doors. The administration proposes, with the overwhelming 
     support of the statistics profession, to use a system of 
     sampling--extrapolation from exhaustive counts in selected 
     census tracts--to adjust for this.
       The Republicans seek to block that, on grounds it is little 
     more than sophisticated guesswork, illegal, subject to 
     political manipulation--and, in their view, likely to benefit 
     Democrats. Last year they sought to enlist the courts. The 
     Supreme Court found the law to be mixed. It agreed that an 
     actual count had to be used for apportionment of 
     congressional seats among the states, and the bureau has had 
     to adjust its plan accordingly. There will be more of a head 
     count and less reliance on sampling; the White House is still 
     trying to figure out how to fit the additional cost of 
     perhaps $2 billion within the president's budget. The court 
     also said, however, that adjusted figures are required to be 
     used for most other purposes, including, in most cases, the 
     allocation of federal funds. It left up in the air which set 
     of figures should be used for redistricting within states.
       The administration's goal is to publish both sets by the 
     spring of 2001, when redistricting is supposed to begin, and 
     let each state choose which to use, since redistricting is a 
     state function. The Republicans have threatened to withhold 
     appropriations to prevent this, but that can get them back 
     into the business of shutting down part of the government if 
     the president makes good, as he should, on his own threat to 
     use the veto. Nor may a vote whose clear effect would be to 
     deny full political representation to significant numbers of 
     vulnerable people be a comfortable one to cast.
       So some Republicans also are trying--in the name of greater 
     accuracy, no less--to impose new requirements on the Census 
     Bureau whose effect would be to delay publication of the 
     adjusted numbers until after redistricting had safely begun. 
     Delay might serve their purpose as well as prohibition, at 
     less political cost. The bureau says on the basis of long 
     experience that the most important of these proposals--a 
     second mailing and an additional chance for local officials 
     to appeal the results of the head count--would actually 
     detract from accuracy, innocuous though they sound. Director 
     Kenneth Prewitt recently testified that they ``would disrupt 
     and even place at risk Census 2000.''
       The Republicans are contemplating mounting a national ad 
     campaign in behalf of their position. But it's an unworthy 
     cause. Nor is it clear to us that, in the complicated 
     business of redistricting, the adjusted figures even if 
     states choose to use them would necessarily work to 
     Republican disadvantage. They ought to back off.

  Mr. Speaker, I now call upon my friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding to me, and also thank her for her work with regard to this 
issue. The gentlewoman has definitely been at the forefront of this 
very important fight.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support an accurate and fair Census 
2000. Experts at the Census Bureau have concluded that only by using 
modern scientific methods for the census can we achieve this result.
  I urge my colleagues to be mindful that conducting an accurate census 
is a complex task. The 1990 census was inundated with millions of 
errors, resulting in an error rate of over 10 percent. Approximately 
101,000 Maryland residents were missed. Moreover, it is estimated that 
almost 21,000 constituents of the 7th Congressional District of 
Maryland were undercounted. This means that 21,000 of my constituents 
were not included in decisions made by the State and local governments 
that directly impact their lives, including the planning of schools, 
child care facilities, and the distribution of funds for health care. 
This is unacceptable and must be remedied.
  However, the answer is not H.R. 472, the Post Census Local Review 
Act. This bill requires the Census Bureau to set aside 9 unnecessary 
weeks after the field work is done to review the count of local 
addresses a second time.
  A local census review was conducted in 1990, and most mayors who 
participated in the program thought it was a disaster. Further, it 
would consume so much time that the Census Bureau would be unable to 
carry out its plans to use the more appropriate scientific manner to 
count our citizens.
  Because of these concerns, when the bill is considered on the floor 
tomorrow I intend to support a substitute offered by my distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn Maloney), which 
will involve local governments in various aspects of the count, while 
also allowing the Census Bureau to proceed with its established plans.
  As lawmakers, we have an obligation to focus on the impact the census 
data has on every aspect of our constituents' lives: education, health, 
transportation and economic development. As such, I believe the task of 
providing an accurate and complete census is better left to the 
statistical experts with guidance from the Congress and not its 
micromanagement.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I yield back to 
her.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
important comments.
  It is important to remember that the census has real impact on 
people's lives. Information gathered in the census is used by States 
and local governments to plan schools and highways, by the Federal 
Government to distribute funds for health care and all other government 
programs, and by businesses in making their economic plans and 
predicting the future.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Carrie Meek) is here 
to comment. We had a public hearing, actually, in her city, which she 
hosted for the Subcommittee on the Census of the Committee on 
Government Reform. If I remember correctly, everyone testified in 
support of modern scientific methods.

                              {time}  2130

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, yes, they did. I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who has worked so hard and 
assiduously toward making us have a fair and accurate count. She has 
done this against many odds and against much fight from the Republican 
party.
  I want to call to the attention of everyone and to this country that 
it appears that the Republicans would use any tactic necessary to 
dismantle the Census Department's ability to reach a fair and accurate 
count. It appears that they want to prevent an accurate census, not to 
get an accurate one. They have given much lip service to this, but all 
their efforts show that they are using all kinds of tactics to come up 
with ways to dismantle an accurate count.
  History has shown us that the 1970 and the 1990 count in the census 
undercounted minorities. They undercounted African Americans, and they 
undercounted Hispanics. This chart shows this: More blacks than non-
blacks were missed in the census. And we look at this and we can see 
here in 1940, also in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, we will see that a 
high percentage of African Americans have been missed. About 4.4

[[Page 5346]]

percent of African Americans were missed in the last census. That is a 
bad undercount. It takes away from African Americans their ability to 
be counted as a whole American.
  Our chairwoman, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), 
mentioned that. If we remember, the Constitution once had us counted as 
three-fifths of a man. And now that we are supposed to be counted as 
one person, there still is an undercount. I want to thank the 
gentlewoman for her efforts on that behalf.
  The Secretary of Commerce mentioned in his report that the 1990 
census was the first in 50 years that was less accurate than its 
predecessor. The undercount of minorities was much worse than the 1.6 
national average.
  What I see here is sort of an intramural fight between the Census 
Department and the Republican Party, and it should not be that way. 
Democrats are trying very hard to make this census accurate, to be sure 
that everyone is counted. So, then, if that is our mandate as elected 
officials, there are some people who do not feel that an accurate count 
is very vital. But it is very vital.
  Last year's census data was used in the distribution of over $180 
billion in Federal aid. Republicans know this. I do not understand why 
they are fighting an accurate count when they know the very people they 
represent will be undercut or hurt by an inaccurate count. The poor 
people, the disenfranchised people, the homeless people, the elderly 
people, veterans, everyone will pay when the census is not accurate.
  So I do not understand what the thinking is in the Republican Party 
that lets us worry only about the Congress and its apportionment. So 
that is all they are worried about? If that is the case, then that says 
to the people back home that they are not worried about them, they are 
not worried about the quality of their lives, because what they want to 
do is be sure that they do not bring any more Democrats into the 
Congress. Well, that is not fair to these senior citizens back home. It 
is not fair to people who are relying on government for all of the 
benefits that they should receive.
  All we are asking for is that local communities receive their fair 
share of Federal spending. Without an accurate count, they will not get 
their fair share. An inaccurate count will shortchange the affected 
communities for an entire decade. They have already been shortchanged 
by the 1970 census, again in 1990. So here we come again. The 
Republicans are saying, ``We do not care.'' They can be shortchanged 
for 10 more years, another decade of undercutting people who need a 
fair share.
  On January 25, 1999, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the 
Census Act prohibits the use of sampling for apportioning congressional 
districts among the States. I do not agree with the Supreme Court on 
that. We did not win that fight. But they were wrong.
  However, the Court also held that the 1976 revisions to the Census 
Act required 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.
  I just left members of the Florida legislature. I attended a summit 
there. The whole talk was the census, getting an accurate count. 
Florida is one of the States that had an undercount. We do not expect 
to have that undercount again. I hope the Republicans will understand 
that Florida is a crucial State. We have people in that State who 
demand to be treated fairly.
  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, then, must be a two-numbered plan that uses 
traditional counting methods to arrive at a number for apportionment 
and modern statistical techniques for all other purposes.
  My colleague from New York (Mrs. Maloney) has really pushed this 
point home to everyone, the fact that statistical sampling is a 
technique that we need for all other purposes. Otherwise we are saying 
from the very beginning we do not want an accurate count. We want 
guesswork to get it down. Not only do we want guesswork, but we do not 
want some people to be counted. We do not care if they are not counted.
  The Census Bureau has announced new details in their plan for a 
complete census under the law. This plan will produce counts using 
modern methods that will correct for people missed and counted twice 
and be used for all purposes other than apportionment. However, without 
using those modern methods, the 2000 census will have the same errors 
that the 1990 census had and will miss millions of people, mostly poor 
minorities, in this Nation.
  Republicans are now trying to legislate through a series of bills and 
acts and resolutions. What they are doing is, they are trying to 
legislate a faulty census. Why is it needed through legislation? Why 
cannot we depend upon the Census Bureau?
  The time for legislating how the census should be conducted has 
passed. The Census Bureau must be allowed to focus on conducting the 
census as planned and modified by the Supreme Court's decision. Let us 
allow the professionals at the Census Bureau to do their jobs and 
produce a fair and equitable Census 2000 count.
  I want to assure and say to our chairwoman, the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney), that we are going to continue to work on this, we 
are going to continue to spread the word that there are people here in 
this Congress who do not feel that all of us count. And I want to say, 
Mr. Speaker, that we do count and we will be counted.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that the 
gentlewoman knows that H.R. 472 has been pulled from the floor agenda 
for tomorrow. It will not be on the floor tomorrow. And this is very 
good because, as the gentlewoman pointed out and as the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) pointed out, it does absolutely nothing to 
correct the undercount. It does not do anything to correct the mistakes 
of the last census and, according to the professionals at the Census 
Bureau, puts hurdles and red tape in front of it that makes it 
impossible it get an accurate count.
  So we are fortunate that the Republican Party has not put it on the 
floor for tomorrow, and I hope that they will not ever put it on the 
floor, since it does not do anything to help get an accurate count.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to include for the Record an editorial from 
the home city of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), the Miami 
Herald, from March 22nd. It is entitled ``Everyone Counts. Republicans 
Will Prevent An Accurate Census At Any Cost.''
  And to read just a small portion from it, ``U.S. House should remove 
the barriers to statistical sampling.'' The editorial goes on. ``If you 
are black, Hispanic, Asian or poor, live in the city or on city streets 
and have a mind to be distrustful, you might conclude that many 
Republicans in Congress just want you to go away, at least until the 
2000 census count is over and the new congressional district lines are 
drawn.
  ``Quite unreasonable has been the Republican congressional majority's 
attempts to thwart an honest count.''
  It states that ``The House Government Reform Committee voted last 
week to throw as many monkey wrenches as needed into next year's count 
with bills that would delay a true count until the new district lines 
are drawn. In other words, delay it until all those initially 
overlooked black, brown and other minority faces no longer count.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following editorial for the Record:

                 [From the Miami Herald, Mar. 22, 1999]

  Everyone Counts: Republicans Will Prevent an Accurate Census at Any 
                                  Cost

       U.S. House should remove the barriers to statistical 
     sampling.
       If you are black, Hispanic, Asian or poor, live in the city 
     or on city streets and have a mind to be distrustful, you 
     might conclude that many Republicans in Congress just want 
     you to go away--at least until the 2000 Census count is over 
     and the new congressional districts are drawn.
       These Republicans--and South Florida Reps. Ileana Ros-
     Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz-Balart are among them--apparently 
     fear

[[Page 5347]]

     that if these minorities are counted, the Democrats will gain 
     more seats come redistricting time. It's a reasonable, albeit 
     political, fear.
       Quite unreasonable has been the Republican congressional 
     majority's attempts to thwart an honest count. Last year, the 
     party restricted Census Bureau funding and went to the 
     Supreme Court to outlaw the use of statistical sampling, 
     which would result in a more-accurate count. There, they got 
     a partial win--sampling cannot be used for apportioning House 
     seats.
       But they aren't content to leave it at that. The shame of 
     it is that Rep. Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart are in the thick 
     of this misguided effort, even though theirs were among the 
     top 25 undercounted districts in the country in 1990. Why is 
     this important? Because government aid is tied to population 
     counts. So their constituents lost federal funds because of 
     it. Why do they want their constituents cheated again?
       Government Reform Committee voted to throw as many monkey 
     wrenches as needed into next year's count with bills that 
     would delay a true count until the new district lines are 
     drawn. In other words, delay it until all those initially 
     overlooked black, brown and other minority faces no longer 
     count.
       One bill mandates a second mailing of census questionnaires 
     to all households that don't respond, even though census 
     workers will phone and visit each of those homes anyway.
       A second measure, seemingly innocuous, would allow 
     skeptical municipalities to demand that the Census Bureau 
     come back after the count and recount the number of 
     households--not the people--in a given area. The idea is that 
     there may be discrepancies between the local address lists 
     and the bureau's.
       That's unlikely to happen. So says Barbara Everitt Bryant, 
     director of the Census Bureau from 1989 to 1993. She headed 
     the 1990 count under President George Bush--a Republican 
     administration. After that count, some of the cities 
     protested so loudly that the bureau sent interviewers to 
     recanvass. Less than one-tenth of 1 percent of new households 
     were uncovered--at a cost of $10 million.
       The 2000 count will be even-more accurate because a change 
     in the law lets cities and the bureau share address data to 
     make sure questionnaires don't go to vacant lots. Yet this 
     recount could take months.
       When these bills get to the House, common sense must trump 
     partisan politics.
       Otherwise, it will be clear who really counts in the GOP's 
     America--and who doesn't.

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the Subcommittee on 
the Census, who has been a truly outstanding leader on this issue, and 
I thank him for joining us as he has so many times on the floor to 
speak up for accuracy and fairness.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding, 
and I also want to echo the sentiments of those who have already 
praised the outstanding leadership that she provided on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join in this important special order, 
which I suggest is dedicated to democracy, fairness, equity, and 
representation for all of the people in this Nation. The issue, 
obviously, to which I am referring is the year 2000 census.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on the Census, I submit that this is 
one of the most important issues of this Congress. This is not a new 
issue. In fact, it dates back some 2000 years, when a decree went out 
from Caesar Augustus that a census must be taken of all the inhabited 
earth.
  Also, it is written in the Book of Numbers that the Lord God spoke to 
Moses in the wilderness of Sinai and told him to take a census of the 
sons of Israel. And of course if it was today, he would have said the 
sons and daughters of Israel. It was just that important 2000 years 
ago, and certainly it is that important today.
  Since 1790, during the first census there was a significant 
undercount, especially among the poor and disenfranchised, and of 
course we have heard how African Americans were counted as only three-
fifths of a person. Now, here we are 200 years later, in the 1990s, and 
it is estimated that the census missed over 8 million people. Most of 
those not counted were poor people living in inner cities and rural 
communities, African Americans, Latinos, immigrants, and children. The 
City of Chicago, my city, had an undercount of about 2.4 percent, and 
the African American undercount in that city was between 5 and 6 
percent.
  Obviously, we cannot afford to have a count in the year 2000 that 
does not include every American citizen. Too much is at stake. The 
census count determines who receives billions of Federal dollars. Every 
year census information directs an estimated $170 billion in Federal 
spending. Census data helps determine where the money goes for better 
roads, transit systems, schools, senior citizens' centers, health care 
facilities, programs for Head Start, school lunches.
  In addition to money, representation is at stake, and in a democracy 
representation is just as important as the money. Congress, State 
legislatures, city councils, county boards, and other political 
subdivisions are redrawn as a result of the census count.
  There are some in this body and some in this country who would deny 
representation and resources to millions of citizens in the name of 
maintaining the status quo. It is unfortunate that we might ever 
consider a bill that purports to move us in the direction of a more 
accurate census when we know that that bill will do just the opposite.

                              {time}  2145

  I urge my colleagues not to play games with people's representation 
and resources. One begins to wonder whether initiatives 
counterproductive to an accurate census are part of a larger plan to 
delay, distort and ultimately destroy the accuracy of the 2000 census.
  Under the Census Bureau's plan, everybody counts. All Americans would 
be included in the census. If we keep taking the census the old way, we 
will obviously miss millions of people, which would cause one to wonder 
if we have learned anything since 1790. Our scientific information 
dictates that we use proven scientific efforts to maximize the accuracy 
of the census. All of the experts know that it is what works.
  Mr. Speaker, as we move to the actuality of census taking, there are 
bills that have been put before us supposedly designed to improve 
accuracy. But in reality, it seems to me that what we are doing is 
putting partisan politics ahead of the people and fair representation. 
It is my position that you can take all of these bills, apply them on 
top of a flawed census plan, and you end up with a flawed census. It is 
like saying that you really cannot get blood out of a turnip. You can 
take it and dice it and splice it. You can puree it and saute it, you 
can skew it, you can stew it, but you still will end up with turnip 
juice. I am afraid that that is how we are going to end up. If we do 
not use the most scientific method to count all of the people, I am 
afraid that we are going to miss people and rather than an accurate 
census, turnip juice will be the result of our efforts.
  I thank the gentlewoman and again commend her for her outstanding 
leadership.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for his most accurate 
statements and descriptive statements. We are not about turnip juice, 
as he says, we are about accuracy, and or goal is the most accurate 
census possible, completed using the most up-to-date methods as 
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences and the vast majority 
of the professional scientific community. We should be supporting 
science, not trying to undermine it and get a less accurate count.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for joining us. I had 
the great honor of serving with his father. He was dedicated to civil 
rights, was very proud of his role in it, and I think it is very 
appropriate that his son is here to speak on what has been called by 
many civil rights leaders the civil rights issue of this decade, making 
sure that all Americans, every single one of them, is counted with the 
most modern scientific methods.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me 
this opportunity, and I also join my colleagues in commending her for 
the leadership role that she has played in this important battle.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in hopes that history will not repeat 
itself, in hopes that we have learned by our previous mistakes. That is 
what we teach our children, that is what we have been

[[Page 5348]]

taught. You would think as leaders, elected by our constituencies, we 
come here today with those important lessons. That may not be the case.
  In the 1990 census, there were 26 million errors, approximately 8.4 
million people were missed, 4.4 million were counted twice, and another 
13 million were counted in the wrong place. Of those minorities, as has 
already been pointed out, those were minorities, they were children, 
they were poor people in the rural areas that had the highest 
undercounts. Clearly, we can do better than that. We must do better 
than that if we are to truly represent Americans of all ages and 
colors.
  In Texas alone, we had an undercount of nearly half a million people, 
and it cost our State $1 billion in Federal funds. That is $1 billion 
of our tax money. Estimates suggest that an equally inaccurate 
undercount in 2000 would cost Texas over $2 billion.
  I have already heard from several mayors in Texas, including the 
mayors of San Antonio, Laredo, Brownsville, Houston and Austin. They 
know what the 1990 census cost Texas and they are desperate to avoid 
another undercount. Even my local newspaper, the San Antonio Express 
News, has joined this all too important debate, requesting of Governor 
George W. Bush, Jr. to take a stand for Texas on the census and to 
allow and make sure that we utilize the latest proven, reliable 
scientific methods in arriving at an accurate count.
  In 2000, the Census Bureau will have to count 275 million people at 
120 million addresses. We are just over a year away from the first 
census 2000 mailing, and we must allow the Census Bureau to get on with 
their business, counting the American population.
  H.R. 472, the Local Census Quality Check Act, scheduled at one time 
to come up on the House floor this week, would require the Census 
Bureau to conduct post-census local reviews. Now, that sounds like a 
good idea. But when you look under the cover, it appears to me that the 
real goal of H.R. 472 is to postpone deadlines while making it 
impossible for the Census Bureau to use scientific methods to arrive at 
the most accurate count possible.
  Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, the director of the Census Bureau, has stated 
that H.R. 472 would mandate an operational change to the census 2000 
plan which is neither timely, effective nor cost efficient and would 
return us to inadequate 1990 operations that have now been 
substantially improved upon. It is simple. Post-census local review is 
not a new idea. The Census Bureau has used it in the past. They used it 
in 1990 and it proved to be inefficient.
  With that experience in mind, the Census Bureau developed a new plan 
for the 2000 census which would address the issue of local 
participation while utilizing modern scientific methods to produce the 
most accurate census possible.
  I support the Maloney amendment to H.R. 472 which allows the Census 
Bureau to do just that, address local participation and use proven 
statistical methods to produce the most accurate census possible. The 
Maloney amendment gives local governments the power to add new 
construction to the census address list, review counts of vacant 
addresses and to review jurisdictional boundaries as part of a local 
update of census addresses before the census is conducted and not 
after.
  It is clear to me that this amendment not only includes local 
governments in the census process, it makes them an integral part of it 
by including them in the process of building and checking the address 
list on a timely basis. After all, if what we all want is for our local 
governments to have some participation and some control or simply some 
say in the process, let us include them now and not later.
  Mr. Speaker, I respectfully would request that the following letters 
from mayors in Texas who support local participation but oppose H.R. 
472 be submitted into the Record.
                                              City of San Antonio,


                                        Howard W. Peak, Mayor,

                                                   March 16, 1999.
     Hon. Dan Burton,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Burton: I am writing you to request your 
     support for a fair and accurate census in 2000. As you are 
     well aware, the 1990 census resulted in 26 million errors and 
     an undercount of more than eight million Americans. With more 
     than 38,000 citizens not counted in San Antonio and close to 
     half a million statewide, Texas trailed only California as 
     the state with the highest undercount in the 1990 census.
       On behalf of the City of San Antonio, I am requesting you 
     to oppose H.R. 472, the Local Census Quality Check Act. While 
     I am favor in local participation and involvement to ensure a 
     quality census, the effect of this legislation would prevent 
     the Census Bureau from utilizing the most effective 
     scientific methods for ensuring an accurate census. 
     Furthermore, the Act jeopardizes the ability of the Census 
     Bureau to correct census counts for persons missed or counted 
     twice by requiring that the 9-week local review process begin 
     after all other census activities are completed. The Census 
     Bureau abandoned the post-census local review process because 
     it was found not to be cost-effective.
       As currently drafted, H.R. 472 undermines the goal local 
     officials have been working towards--the most accurate census 
     possible. Therefore, I support the amendment proposed by 
     Representative Carolyn Maloney which would coordinate local 
     review with the other census activities. San Antonio and the 
     entire state of Texas stand to lose billions of dollars in 
     federal funds allocated on the basis of the census. The only 
     way we can assure a fair and an accurate census is to allow 
     the professionals at the Census Bureau to make the many 
     critical decisions involved in taking a census based on their 
     expertise and experience.
       I ask for your commitment for a fair and accurate census in 
     2000. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Howard W. Peak,
     Mayor.
                                  ____

                                                   City of Laredo,


                                   Elizabeth G. Flores, Mayor,

                                                   March 22, 1999.
     Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     House Government Oversight Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Waxman: I am writing to ask you to join us 
     in supporting a fair and accurate census in the year 2000. 
     Twenty-six million errors and an undercount of more than 
     eight million Americans is not acceptable. Especially since 
     most of the Americans who were not counted were children, 
     poor people and minorities. As elected officials, we have a 
     duty to protect the interests of our constituents. It is 
     incumbent upon us to ensure that they are treated fairly and 
     counted equally.
       With more than 23,000 not counted in Laredo and close to 
     half a million Texans not counted in the 1990 census, Texas 
     trailed only California as the state with the highest 
     undercount. This undercount denied Texas $1 billion in 
     federal funds. If we chose not to correct the egregious 
     mistakes made in the last census, Texas stands to lose an 
     additional $2.18 billion in population-based federal funds. 
     As Mayor of Laredo, I must look out for what is best for the 
     citizens of this City. A fair and accurate census is at the 
     forefront of my agenda.
       I am also writing to request that you oppose H.R. 472, the 
     Local Census Quality Check Act. While I am in favor in local 
     participation and involvement to ensure a quality census, the 
     effect of this legislation would prevent the Census Bureau 
     from utilizing the most effective scientific methods for 
     ensuring an accurate census.
       According to current law, the census must begin on April 1, 
     2000, and report final population counts by April 1, 2001. On 
     April 1, 2000, the census takers must assign 275 million 
     people to 120 million addresses. This calls for the largest 
     peacetime mobilization in our country. The Local Census 
     Quality Check Act jeopardizes the ability of the Census 
     Bureau to correct census counts for persons missed or counted 
     twice by requiring that the 9-week local review process begin 
     after all other census activities are completed. In addition, 
     the post-census local review was found not to be cost-
     effective. For these reasons, the Census Bureau abandoned the 
     post-census local review process.
       I believe that we should be able to have both local 
     involvement and the use of the best methods to assure that 
     all people are counted. I support the efforts of 
     Representative Carolyn Maloney to alter H.R. 472. 
     Representative Maloney's amendment will address the problems 
     raised by some local governments, of new construction and 
     boundary errors in a manner that allows the Census Bureau to 
     coordinate local review with all of the other activities that 
     must take place within a limited amount of time.
       As currently drafted, H.R. 472 undermines the goal local 
     officials have been working towards, the most accurate census 
     possible. Laredo and the entire State of Texas stand to lose 
     billions of dollars in federal funds allocated on the basis 
     of the census. The census is a complex undertaking. The only 
     way we can assure a fair and accurate census is

[[Page 5349]]

     to allow the professionals at the Census Bureau to make the 
     many critical decisions involved in taking a census based on 
     their expertise and experience. I ask for your commitment for 
     a fair and accurate census in 2000.
       Warmest Regards!
           Sincerely,
     Elizabeth F. Flores.
                                  ____

                                                   City of Austin,


                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                       Austin, TX, March 23, 1999.
     Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Waxman: I am writing you to request your 
     support for a fair and accurate census in 2000. As you are 
     well aware, the 1990 census resulted in 26 million errors and 
     an undercount of more than eight million Americans. With 
     thousands of citizens not counted in Austin and close to half 
     a million statewide, Texas trailed only California as the 
     state with the highest undercount in the 1990 census.
       On behalf of the City of Austin, I am requesting you to 
     oppose H.R. 472, the Local Census Quality Check Act. While I 
     am in favor of local participation and involvement to ensure 
     a quality census, the effect of this legislation would 
     prevent the Census Bureau from utilizing the most effective 
     scientific methods for ensuring an accurate census. 
     Furthermore, the Act jeopardizes the ability of the Census 
     Bureau to correct census counts for persons missed or counted 
     twice by requiring that the 9-week local review process begin 
     after all other census activities are completed. The Census 
     Bureau abandoned the post-census local review process because 
     it was found not to be cost-effective.
       As currently drafted, H.R. 472 undermines the goal local 
     officials have been working on to get the most accurate 
     census possible. Therefore, I support the amendment proposed 
     by Representative Carolyn Maloney which would coordinate 
     local review with the other census activities. Austin and the 
     entire state of Texas stand to lose billions of dollars in 
     federal funds allocated on the basis of the census. The only 
     way we can assure a fair and an accurate census is to allow 
     the professionals at the Census Bureau to make the many 
     critical decisions involved in taking a census based on their 
     expertise and experience.
       I ask for your commitment for a fair and accurate census in 
     2000. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Kirk Watson,
     Mayor.
                                  ____

                                                  City of Houston,


                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                      Houston, TX, March 16, 1999.
     Congressman Henry A. Waxman,
     Congressman Dan Burton,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government 
         Reform, Washington, DC.
       Dear Gentlemen: I write to ask you to join us in supporting 
     a fair and accurate census in 2000. As you are well aware, 
     the 1990 census resulted in 26 million errors and an 
     undercount of more than eight million Americans. Most of the 
     Americans who were not counted were children, poor people and 
     minorities. As elected officials we have a duty to protect 
     the interests of our constituents. It is incumbent upon us to 
     ensure that they are treated fairly and counted equally.
       With more than 66,000 not counted in Houston and close to 
     half a million Texans not counted in the 1990 census. Texas 
     trailed only California as the state with the highest 
     undercount. This undercount denied Texas $1 billion in 
     federal funds. If we choose not to correct the egregious 
     mistakes made in the last census, Texas stands to lose an 
     additional $2.18 billion in population-based federal funds. 
     As Mayor of Houston I must look out for what is best for the 
     citizens of this city. We must serve our constituents and 
     demand a fair and accurate census. A fair and accurate census 
     is at the forefront of my agenda.
       I am also writing to request that you oppose H.R. 472, the 
     Local Census Quality Check Act. While I am in favor of local 
     participation and involvement to ensure a quality census, the 
     effect of this legislation would prevent the Census Bureau 
     from utilizing the most effective scientific methods for 
     ensuring an accurate census. According to current law, the 
     census must begin on April 1, 2000, and report final 
     population counts by April 1, 2001. On April 1, 2000, the 
     census takers must assign 275 million people to 120 million 
     addresses. This calls for the largest peacetime mobilization 
     in our country. The Local Census Quality Check Act 
     jeopardizes the ability of the Census Bureau to correct 
     census counts for persons missed or counted twice by 
     requiring that the 9-week local review process begin after 
     all other census activities are completed. In addition, the 
     post-census local review was found not to be cost-effective. 
     For these reasons, the Census Bureau abandoned the post-
     census local review process.
       I believe that we should be able to have both local 
     involvement and the use of the best methods to assure that 
     all people are counted. I support the efforts of 
     Representative Carolyn Maloney to alter H.R. 472. 
     Representative Maloney's amendment will address the problems 
     raised by some local governments, of new construction and 
     boundary errors in a manner that allows the Census Bureau to 
     coordinate local review with all of the other activities that 
     must take place within a limited amount of time.
       As currently drafted, H.R. 472 undermines the goal local 
     officials have been working towards--the most accurate census 
     possible. Houston and the entire state of Texas stand to lose 
     billions of dollars in federal funds allocated on the basis 
     of the census. The census is a complex undertaking. The only 
     way we can assure a fair and an accurate census is to allow 
     the professionals at the Census Bureau to make the many 
     critical decisions involved in taking a census based on their 
     expertise and experience. I ask for your commitment for a 
     fair and accurate census in 2000.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Lee P. Brown,
     Mayor.
                                  ____



                                              Brownsville, TX,

                                                   March 17, 1999.
     Hon. Solomon Ortiz,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Ortiz: The 1990 census resulted in an 
     undercount of eight million Americans. As a result the State 
     of Texas was denied approximately $1 billion in Federal 
     funds. No other part of the country was more affected by this 
     situation than perhaps California. In the case of Texas, the 
     South Texas region which has a population that is largely 
     Hispanic and a large concentration of families with incomes 
     below poverty level, probably felt the brunt of the impact.
       It is my understanding that in preparation for the 2000 
     census the House Government Oversight Committee, which you 
     form part of, is presently considering legislation to require 
     post-census local review instead of a statistical sampling 
     method to arrive at an accurate census count. Our position is 
     that the proposed legislation--H.R. 472, the Local Census 
     Quality Check Act--while well intentioned, will prevent the 
     Census Bureau from utilizing effective scientific methods for 
     population counting, and may once more result in large 
     undercounts. This unfortunately will impact once more the 
     states with the larger populations and larger concentrations 
     of minority groups--e.g., Texas and California.
       I therefore urge you to oppose passage of H.R. 472. I am 
     certain that allowing the use of statistical samplings will 
     result in the most accurate and timely census possible. This 
     is after all, I am sure, what we are all interested in.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Henry Gonzalez,
                                             Mayor of Brownsville.

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
comments and for his work in his home State on getting an accurate 
count. What he is talking about is basic fairness. Because the census 
is so important, we must do absolutely everything that we can possibly 
do to ensure that everyone is included in the count. We know that 
previous censuses overlooked millions of Americans, especially children 
and minorities. That is not fair, it is not accurate, it is certainly 
not acceptable, and we are definitely determined to do better with this 
census. That is, if the Republican majority does not put language and 
requirements that make it impossible to get an accurate count.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has been a leader on 
this issue and many issues before this Congress. I thank her very much 
for joining us in this special order and being with us tonight.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I want to thank the gentlewoman from New 
York as well for her leadership on this issue that has been constant 
and unselfish as well as her leadership as the cochair of the Women's 
Caucus, which makes her role even more important, because what we are 
talking about is an issue of counting people without political 
ramifications, unselfishly, and making sure that the people of America 
are taken care of.
  I would imagine that those who might be listening to us tonight might 
be, not confused but wondering when are we going to come together 
around this issue. May I give to them a sense of success and 
appreciation to the Republicans who have withdrawn H.R. 472 this 
evening, because maybe they too are beginning to see the light and are 
beginning to count votes and realize that all Members of this House, 
Republicans and Democrats, would do better if every American is 
counted.
  And so I rise today to support and encourage this House together to 
support statistical sampling and to let the Census Bureau do its job. 
My colleague

[[Page 5350]]

from Texas has already indicated that my State lost $1 billion. More 
importantly, my legislature is engaged in strong deliberations today to 
try and find a way to insure uninsured children. Because of the census 
of 1990, the State of Texas lost $85 million in Medicaid funds, $85 
million in Medicaid funds. They also lost prevention and treatment 
dollars for substance abuse. They could have received as much as $9 
million. This is a shameful result.
  And so it is extremely important that we move toward bringing this to 
a resolution. We must enact legislation that will guarantee an accurate 
census. The 1990 census undercounted approximately 4 million people. In 
the State of Texas, we lost a congressional district, not a 
congressional district that was going to selfishly support itself but 
one that would help bring dollars to the people of the State of Texas, 
as has occurred in other States throughout the Nation. The undercount 
in 1990 was 33 percent greater than the undercount in 1980.
  Congress must enact legislation that will help to vindicate the 
undercount in the city of Houston, 3.9 percent, some 67 to 70,000 
persons. This antiquated procedure only recorded 1,630,553 residents. 
Based on the scientific sampling method that was prepared for the 1990 
census, it is estimated that over 66,000 Houstonians were missed by the 
1990 census. Congress must be responsive. As well, we must find a way 
to break this impasse. Congress has to be able to guarantee an accurate 
census.
  Let me share with my colleagues remarks from the director of the 
Census Bureau, newly appointed, approved by both the Republicans and 
Democrats of the Senate, Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, who said this about the 
proposal of Chairman Miller. He talked about the last three items 
suggested by Chairman Miller to make the census in Chairman Miller's 
perspective better.
  He said: On three items, second mailing, the language initiative and 
local government review of mailing addresses, the Census Bureau 
believes it has already presented more efficient programs than the 
suggestions advanced by Chairman Miller. Indeed, if some of these 
initiatives were legislated in the manner now before the subcommittee, 
they would disrupt--may I say that again, Mr. Speaker--they would 
disrupt and even place at risk census 2000.
  Dr. Prewitt goes on to say, ``I will of course allocate more time'' 
as he began his presentation to refuting those three, then the other 
points of the recommendations made by the chairman.
  Does it not seem that if we can get agreement on seven aspects of 
recommendations made by the committee, but three specific points made, 
including the local government review, has been stated by Dr. Prewitt 
who has an independent responsibility to ensure America's accurate 
count, Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, head of the Census Bureau, approved by 
Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate and given the 
consent of that Senate to do his job has said, very devastatingly, that 
the procedures that Chairman Miller wants us to go under would place at 
risk the census 2000.
  It is extremely important, then, Mr. Speaker, that, one, we join with 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and support her amendment. 
I am hoping that the discussion that we are having here tonight will 
bear fruit and that there will be a possibility that we do not see H.R. 
472. I hope, in fact, that we will find a way to continue the funding 
of the Census Bureau past June in the agreement we worked out over a 
year ago, and that we will also find common ground to ensure that those 
children in Texas who lost $85 million in Medicaid dollars, those 
individuals who wanted to receive substance abuse treatment and lost $9 
million, those individuals who lost the opportunity to be represented 
in the United States Congress, the House of Representatives, one of the 
most powerful bodies in the world, would get their opportunity to be 
counted in the year 2000.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. Speaker, I would hope this Congress would come down on the side 
of ensuring that the homeless are counted, the homeless veterans are 
counted, African Americans, Hispanics and Asians, people of multi 
language who are citizens and residents of the United States are 
counted, and for sure I hope that we will join with the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and those of us who have been working with 
her, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and so many others, and 
begin to formulate a resolution that the American people can understand 
and say to us for once, or maybe once in many times, or maybe as an 
example of what is to come, that the Congress has come down on the side 
of cities like the City of Houston, of cities like San Antonio and 
Dallas, of States like California and New York and all in between: 
Florida, Iowa, Michigan Mississippi, all coming in between, to indicate 
that we want an accurate census count for the United States of America.
  With that, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for 
her leadership. She can count on me and, I know, so many others to 
continue to work to finally give to the American people the right kind 
of census count, a statistical sampling, so that we can begin the 21st 
century when everyone is both included, protected and provided for as 
they live under the flag of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to continue advocating for an 
accurate census count that will guarantee an equitable distribution of 
federal funds. I would like to first thank Congresswoman Carolyn 
Maloney for her leadership as Co-Chair of the Congressional Census 
Caucus. She has become a national leader on this issue.
  Congress must enact legislation that will guarantee an accurate 
census! The 1990 Census undercounted approximately 4 million people. 
Even more troubling, this last census was, for the first time in 
history, less accurate than its previous census. The undercount in 1990 
was 33 percent greater than the undercount in the 1980 census.
  Congress must enact legislation that will guarantee an accurate 
census! In fact, the City of Houston was undercounted by 3.9 percent in 
the 1990 Census as a result of utilizing the current ``head count'' 
method. This antiquated procedure only recorded 1,630,553 residents. 
Based on the scientific sampling method that was prepared for the 1990 
Census, it is estimated that over 66,000 Houstonians were missed by the 
1990 Census.
  Congress must enact legislation that will guarantee an accurate 
census! According to a recent GAO report Texas was in federal funding 
over the past decade because of the 1990 undercount.
  Congress must enact legislation that will guarantee an accurate 
census! Houston was entitled to additional federal funds annually but 
these monies were allocated to another city in another state because 
the census 1990 was inaccurate.
  Congress must enact legislation that will guarantee an accurate 
census! African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians were 
missed at a much greater rate than whites. Poor people living in cities 
and rural communities were disproportionately undercounted. An accurate 
census count provides an opportunity for every American to be counted 
regardless of race, geographic location and social economic class.
  Congress must enact legislation that will guarantee an accurate 
census! H.R. 472 would put at risk the Census Bureau's ability to 
correct and adjust its counts using statistical data because it 
mandates that local review process begin after all other census 
activities are completed.
  Congress must enact legislation that will guarantee an accurate 
census! H.R. 472 diminishes all efforts aimed at developing an accurate 
census count. The Maloney amendment to H.R. 472 strikes an equitable 
balance between local participation and an orderly timely accurate 
census count.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
her comments. She is always right to the point, and I would like to put 
in the Record an editorial in the Sacramento Bee that really reinforces 
many of the points that she was making. It is from March 12 of 1999, 
and it is entitled: ``More Census Mischief.'' And I would like to quote 
briefly from it, and the Sacramento Bee in its editorial says, and I 
quote:

       At this eleventh hour Republicans in Congress are proposing 
     legislation that seeks to significantly change census 
     methodology

[[Page 5351]]

     and procedures, adding cost, confusion and, most critically, 
     time to an already tight schedule. Three of the specific 
     provisions in the Republican bills threaten the process.

  The editorial ends with a very strong comment, and I quote:

       With their predictably higher numbers of poor and minority 
     residents, corrected counts are expected to benefit 
     Democrats. If Republican Members of Congress can slow the 
     census long enough to disrupt the count, corrected numbers 
     will not reach the States in time to re-draw internal 
     boundaries in 2001, thus helping Republicans. The public 
     interest is in as accurate a census as possible. The 
     Republican mischief at this late date threatens that.

  End of quote, and again I will put the entire editorial from the 
Sacramento Bee into the Record:

       There are 385 days left before April 1, 2000--Census Day. 
     Preparation for the once-a-decade national head count began 
     even before the 1990 census was over. Twenty-five major 
     software systems have been designed, linked and tested to 
     keep track of the 175 million forms printed in six different 
     languages, to pay hundreds of thousands of workers, to 
     monitor tens of thousands of partnership programs and to 
     produce 12 million maps needed to count an estimated 275 
     million residents at 175 million addresses. No small task.
       As Kenneth Prewitt, director of the Census Bureau, told 
     Congress the other day: ``Every step, every operation, every 
     procedure is on a huge scale and is interdependent with every 
     other step, operation and procedure.''
       At this eleventh hour, Republicans in Congress are 
     proposing legislation that seeks to significantly change 
     census methodology and procedures, adding cost, confusion 
     and, most critically, time to an already tight schedule. 
     Three specific provisions in the Republican bills threaten 
     the process.
       One would require the Census Bureau to print forms in 33 
     languages instead of the six already planned for. Those six 
     languages account for 99 percent of U.S. households. Using 
     translators and community liaison workers, census planners 
     already have tested and put in place procedures for reaching 
     out not just to those who speak the 27 other languages 
     Republicans want forms printed in, but to 130 other language 
     groups as well. To add more foreign language forms at this 
     late date would require new computing capacity, optical 
     scanners, renegotiation of printing contracts and a dozen 
     other changes, making an already difficult task more so.
       Republicans also want a post-census local review, in which 
     39,198 units of local government would validate the bureau's 
     housing count block-by-block. That was tried in 1990 and 1980 
     and, according to a Republican former Census Bureau director, 
     turned out to be a logistical and public relations nightmare.
       The last bad idea offered would require a second mailing of 
     the census questionnaire. Second mailings were tested during 
     dress rehearsals last year and resulted in 40 percent 
     duplicate responses, another wasteful and time-consuming 
     effort.
       The real Republican goal here seems obvious: delay. That 
     would make it harder for the Census Bureau to perform the 
     controversial post-census statistical surveys so crucial to 
     correcting for the expected undercount of poor and minority 
     residents. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal law 
     bars the use of corrected numbers to determine how many 
     congressional seats a state can have. But those numbers may 
     still be used to redraw congressional and legislative 
     boundaries within individual states.
       With their predictably higher numbers of poor and minority 
     residents, corrected counts are expected to benefit 
     Democrats. If Republican members of Congress can slow the 
     census long enough to disrupt the count, corrected numbers 
     won't reach the states in time to redraw internal boundaries 
     in 2001, thus helping Republicans. The public interest is in 
     as accurate a census as possible. The Republican mischief at 
     this late date threatens that.

  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that a new Member of Congress has joined 
us, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), and she serves on 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. She also serves with 
me on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, where she has 
already demonstrated leadership on protecting consumer rights, and I 
thank her for coming here and joining us on the floor tonight.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney). One of the reasons I really wanted to come here tonight 
was to be able to express publicly my admiration to the gentlewoman 
from New York and my gratitude for the work that the gentlewoman has 
done on this issue. It has really been an inspiration to me and a role 
model for me as a new Member.
  There was a time in the history of our Nation when certain 
individuals were not counted as whole people. Congress long ago 
rejected this kind of blatant discrimination, and every Member today 
would, I know, assert his or her abhorrence of this practice.
  But I fear, along with many of my colleagues, that in a far more 
subtle but also fundamentally destructive proposal we are again 
jeopardizing the full and fair counting of every American.
  What is especially disturbing about H.R. 472, which I was pleased to 
hear was removed from tomorrow's calendar, but what is especially 
disturbing about the legislation is that it is carefully worded to take 
on the appearance of making the census more fair when its actual intent 
and consequences are just the opposite. While H.R. 472 purports to 
double-check accuracy, its real effect is to prevent the use of 
statistical methods in the final census count.
  I come from a county, Cook County in Illinois, in a district that has 
historically been undercounted for one well-known and well-documented 
reason. We have large populations of poor, minority and immigrant 
residents. These are the people who will disproportionately suffer from 
being undercounted.
  John Stroger, Jr., the great president of the Cook County Board of 
Commissioners wrote, quote:
  ``Cook County is strongly opposed to H.R. 472. A recent study found 
that,'' and he quotes from the study, ``34 cities and counties lost 
more than $500 million in Federal and State funds during this past 
decade due to the undercount in the 1990 census. These dollars 
translate into meals for seniors, transportation and job training.''
  This bill is one of a series that was considered in the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, on which I sit along with the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), which sound good but which I 
believe have the effect of cynically stymieing the use of modern 
scientific methods for obtaining an accurate count by delaying the 
entire process.
  None of the proposals, including H.R. 472, were given proper 
hearings. Had that happened, we could have heard Dr. Prewitt, Census 
Bureau Director, tell us that H.R. 472, quote from him, would interfere 
with and put at risk, unquote, the Census Bureau's plan which already 
includes review of addresses by local officials. We could have heard 
the National Academy of Sciences explain that the key to an accurate 
census is the use of modern statistical methods, that without this the 
undercount of urban and rural poor and minorities will persist.
  In fact, all of the real experts, the American Statistical 
Association, the National Association of Business Economists, the 
Association of Public Data Users, and on and on, the real experts whose 
one and only interest is accuracy endorse statistical methods as the 
most accurate.
  I have to say that in light of the positive spirit my husband and I 
experienced last weekend in Hershey at our bipartisan retreat, this 
bill is a real disappointment, and I am hoping that the fact that it 
was taken off the calendar for tomorrow is an indication that perhaps 
there has been a change of heart. It represents to me the reasons that 
citizens grow alienated from the political process. I see it as a 
clever manipulation of the system, as cynical census mischief that just 
happens to hurt many vulnerable people. It makes me sad, and I would 
hope that if this bill does reach the floor, that my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle will join me in voting ``no''.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
her comments, and I would like to put in the record an editorial from 
the Chicago Tribune dated March 14 entitled: ``Not One Census, But 
Two,'' and I quote from this, this particular editorial. It ends by 
saying:
  ``It has not escaped the notice of either party that the people who 
are missed in the old fashioned census tend to be the kind of people, 
poor, minority, urban, who generally vote Democratic. But pretending 
they don't exist is not likely to work to the long-run advantage of the 
GOP. Now that they have won on the apportionment, fairness and 
political wisdom argue that

[[Page 5352]]

Republicans should compromise on the other census battle.''
  Is that the gentlewoman from Illinois' hometown paper?
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add this to the list of items that 
have been put in the Record:

               [From the Chicago Tribune, Mar. 14, 1999]

                         Not One Census But Two

       The decennial census of the population is one of the most 
     important tasks undertaken by the federal government--and one 
     of the hardest. A complete count is impossible, because there 
     are so many people in the United States, some of them hard to 
     find. Experts say the last census missed about 4 million 
     people, including 2.4 percent of those in Chicago.
       The Clinton administration wanted to address this problem 
     by using statistical methods known as ``sampling'' to arrive 
     at estimates of people who are omitted by the traditional 
     head count.
       But in January, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law 
     does not permit sampling for purposes of congressional 
     apportionment. It's not clear that, if obliged to decide, the 
     justices would conclude that the Constitution does either.
       The most noteworthy consequence of the verdict is that when 
     it comes time to divvy up seats in Congress, some states may 
     be shortchanged. That can't be helped. What can be avoided is 
     using a plainly faulty tabulation for other purposes.
       The court held that sampling was forbidden for 
     apportionment. For all other purposes, though, it not only is 
     permissible but may be required. So the administration plans 
     for the Census Bureau to come up with two numbers in 2000--
     one based on traditional door-to-door methods for parceling 
     out House seats and another using state-of-the-art techniques 
     for such purposes as distribution of federal money and state 
     legislative redistricting.
       That proposal is imperfect, but not as imperfect as the 
     alternative, which is to use the less accurate tally for 
     everything.
       Republicans object to spending any extra funds to 
     supplement the conventional census, and warn the public will 
     be confused. But it's hard to see the sense in refusing to 
     allocate government aid in accordance with where the intended 
     beneficiaries actually are.
       The Constitution may bar the use of estimates when the 
     sacred matter of voting is involved, but that principle 
     doesn't apply when it comes to social welfare programs.
       It has not escaped the notice of either party that the 
     people who are missed in the old-fashioned census tend to be 
     the kind of people (poor, minority, urban) who generally vote 
     Democratic. But pretending they don't exist is not likely to 
     work to the long-run advantage of the GOP. Now that they've 
     won on apportionment, fairness and political wisdom argue 
     that Republicans should compromise on the other census 
     battle.

  It is very important that the 2000 census be complete, and the Census 
Bureau will use modern scientific methods, techniques that will provide 
an essential quality check on Census 2000 to ensure a complete and 
accurate census.
  The President of the United States has spoken out in support of 
accuracy, and he has said, and I quote a statement he made on June 2 of 
1998, and I quote:
  ``Improving the census should not be a partisan issue. It is not 
about politics. It is about people. It is about making sure that every 
American really, literally counts.''
  Mr. Speaker, he has indicated on several occasions publicly and in 
meetings, and really he told me himself once in a private conversation, 
that he would veto any vehicle that in any way undermined an accurate 
count.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, some of the articles that have appeared 
in Roll Call tend to speak of partisan politics and goals, and I would 
like to put in the Record the editorial from March 15 entitled: 
``Census Summit:''

                             Census Summit

       Republicans and Democrats are at the brink of a 
     catastrophic war over the 2000 Census. It's time for a summit 
     conference between President Clinton and House Speaker Dennis 
     Hastert (R-IL) to avert a partial shutdown of the federal 
     government and, even worse, a failed census that convinces 
     the U.S. population that its government in Washington can't 
     even count.
       The issue over which the parties are fighting, of course, 
     is sampling--the use of modern polling techniques to estimate 
     the hardest-to-reach 10th of the population. The Clinton 
     administration adamantly supports sampling, backed by ex-
     President George Bush's census director and the National 
     Science Foundation, which called for it as a remedy for 
     serious undercounting in the 1990 Census.
       Republicans adamantly oppose sampling, contending that the 
     constitutional mandate of an ``actual enumeration'' forbids 
     sampling and fearing that the administration would rig the 
     count to cost the GOP House seats in the post-2000 
     redistricting.
       The Supreme Court might have resolved the conflict, but 
     didn't. It failed to rule on the constitutionality issue and 
     rendered a split decision on the 1976 census law--banning 
     sampling for purposes of apportioning House seats among the 
     states, but permitting it for drawing districts within the 
     states and for dispensing federal grants. The Clinton 
     administration wants to proceed with a dual-track census, but 
     Republicans are determined to block it.
       It's possible that the entire State, Commerce and Justice 
     departments could 
     shutdown on June 15 if no agreement on sampling is reached. 
     That's because last year, instead of resolving their 
     differences, Congress and the administration postponed their 
     day of reckoning by funding the three departments for only 
     part of this fiscal year.
       As Roll Call reported last week, Hastert is preparing for 
     war by assembling a strategy team to devise ways of 
     convincing the country that this shutdown--if it occurs--is 
     Clinton's fault, not that of the GOP. Meantime, on another 
     front, the House Government Reform Committee is set to mark 
     up legislation containing at least three provisions that are 
     likely to delay and complicate census-taking in the guise of 
     improving the count.
       One provision would require printing all census forms in 34 
     languages instead of the planned six, an enormous logistical 
     problem for the Census Bureau, which has made other plans for 
     contacting persons speaking minority languages.

  Mr. Speaker, the census is not only about counting people and the 
distribution of Federal funds, it is about accurate data, and we need 
to have accurate data in order to come forward with good policy. It is 
the basis, literally the census is the basis of all demographic 
information used by educators, policymakers, journalists and community 
leaders. America relies on census data absolutely every single day to 
determine where to build more roads, hospitals and child care centers. 
So it is important that this data be accurate so that we have long-
range, accurate policies, that we really draw upon on the information 
that is provided by the census.
  We know that we have a problem. In 1990 the census missed more than 8 
million people and double-counted more than 4 million people. Poor 
people living in cities and rural communities, African-Americans and 
Latinos, immigrants and children were disproportionately undercounted, 
and in order to correct these mistakes and in order to correct the 
undercount, we really should leave the 2000 census in the hand of the 
professionals at the Census Bureau, allow the seasoned experts to plan 
and conduct the most accurate census. The professionals at the Census 
Bureau are continuing their preparations to produce the most accurate 
census permitted under the law. Our goal must be to support these 
professionals using the most up-to-date, scientific methods and the 
best technology available.
  I must say that all of the scientific community supports the Census 
Bureau's plan. Many leading Republicans support it. My own Mayor 
Giuliani, who is a Republican, joined many of us who were opposed to 
the lawsuit that was being brought by Speaker Gingrich to really stop 
the use of modern scientific methods. Dr. Barbara Bryant, who is a 
Republican who served in the Bush administration, has testified many 
times before the committee in support of modern scientific counts.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I represent Mississippi's 
Second Congressional District. Based on per capita income, the Second 
District is the 430th poorest Congressional District in the nation. Let 
me say that again. Out of the 435 Congressional Districts, the District 
I represent ranks 430 based on per capita income.
  I know this, Mr. Speaker, because the Census Bureau extrapolated 
these statistics based on the data they compiled during the 1990 
Census. Economic, social, health, employment, housing, and other types 
of information crucial to knowing who populates not only our nation but 
our Congressional Districts can be derived from the enumeration of 
Americans taken every ten years.
  The census is important . . . extremely important. As Members of 
Congress, I think we can all probably agree on that statement. However, 
upon closer examination, the delicate balance we have managed to 
maintain begins to crumble. While Democrats admittedly want to count 
the urban and rural poor,

[[Page 5353]]

minorities, legal immigrants and children, Republicans have publicly 
stated that an accurate accounting of all Americans will jeopardize 
their ability to hold on to a majority in Congress.
  I argue that the Republicans have their priorities mixed up. Counting 
Americans is what we are supposed to be doing here, not protecting our 
political majority in Congress. What they apparently fail to realize is 
the impact an inaccurate Census count has had on the population of 
poor, rural and urban Congressional Districts, including the one I 
represent. In 1990, nearly 14,700 of my constituents were not counted, 
ironically placing my District near the top of the list at number 75 
out of many Congressional Districts that experienced undercounts. Most 
of the people who were not counted in my District were poor people, 
African-Americans, Latinos, immigrants and children living in the city 
of Jackson, Bolivar County, Madison County, Warren County, and 
Washington County.
  I am going to take a unique approach to this issue. I am going to 
admit the reason unabashedly I want all of the people in Mississippi's 
Second Congressional District counted is to increase the amount of 
federal funding received by the State of Mississippi.
  Mr. Speaker, allow me to give you some additional statistics. Of the 
fifty states, Mississippi ranks first in the percent of births to unwed 
mothers, first in food stamp recipients, first in infant mortality 
rates, last in state health rankings, fifth in percent of non-elderly 
population without health insurance, 41st in average 8th grade math 
proficiency scores, 36th in average 8th grade reading proficiency 
scores, and 50th in per capita personal income.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you that I represent 
the poorest Congressional District in the second poorest state in the 
Nation. In some places in my District federal funds are the life's 
blood of economic hope. Usually, the county tax base cannot cover the 
many needs of the area's residents. The federal government has stepped 
in on numerous occasions and filled the financial gaps that would have 
otherwise increased our state's infant mortality rate, prevented the 
basic educational needs of our children from being met, and prevented 
Mississippians from building the vital infrastructure needed to support 
businesses and to provide jobs.
  When any segment of our population goes uncounted, it jeopardizes our 
chances to receive invaluable federal funding. Some of the programs 
that rely on population-related data to allocate funds include: 1890 
Land Grant Colleges, Water and Waste Water Disposal Systems for Rural 
Communities, Community Development Block Grants, Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention, Summers Jobs, Education Block Grants, Head 
Start, and many others that have specifically benefited the District I 
represent.
  The use of current statistical methods is the only way to insure 
Mississippi receives the most accurate count possible. It is the only 
way to guarantee that our respective constituents receive their fair 
share of federal dollars.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to make the case for an 
accurate year 2000 census. We must do what we can to avoid a repetition 
of the 1990 census, which was the least accurate U.S. census this 
century. In 1990, over 800,000 Californians were not counted. 
Subsequent studies by the Census Bureau found that 17,153 individuals 
in my own district went uncounted. The 1990 census is also known for 
having done a poor job of counting minorities. This deficiency was also 
reflected in my district, where 63 percent of those not counted were 
Hispanic.
  What good is a census if it doesn't count everyone?
  We need an accurate census so that federal funds and congressional 
seats can be fairly distributed among and within the states. When I was 
Mayor of the City of Norwalk, it was blatantly clear how vitally 
important census figures were in determining my city's access to much-
needed federal dollars. Communities in my direct, my state and around 
the nation, depend on an accurate census to provide them with the 
dollars they deserve to support important education, health and 
infrastructure programs.
  Therefore I supported, and continue to support, the use of modern 
statistical methods to produce the most accurate census possible. 
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court took the position that these modern 
methods cannot be used for the reapportionment of congressional seats 
among the states--a decision that will likely leave California without 
all the representation it deserves.
  But the Supreme Court decision did affirm that these methods can be 
used in determining how to draw district lines and distribute federal 
funds. I hope that we will be able to use modern statistical methods 
for those purposes.
  I know that many of my colleagues on the other side oppose the use of 
modern methods for any purpose, and I am saddened that they lack a 
commitment to producing the most accurate census possible.
  If we are not going to be able to use the best methods recommended by 
our Census Bureau, then let us move quickly to ensure that the people 
who conduct the head count, using old and out-dated methods will, at 
the very least, have some of the tools needed to conduct a successful 
count.
  This is going to be the largest peacetime mobilization in U.S. 
history--500,000 people will be hired all across the country for 
temporary positions to count our population wherever they may be found. 
To ensure that their effort is a success, these census workers must be 
familiar with the areas in which they will be working. This will help 
minimize the expected undercount.
  Therefore, I am strongly urging the President to sign a waiver, 
authorized by the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, to allow the use of a 
supplemental, bipartisan political referral system to fill the 
approximately 500,000 temporary decennial census positions across the 
nation. This will allow for local input into who is chosen to run the 
census. It will ensure that familiarity with the local area and the 
great diversity of our communities are critical factors taken into 
consideration when hiring qualified people to conduct our census.
  Both Presidents Carter and Bush signed such waivers for the 1980 and 
1990 Censuses. This approach was determined to be a very effective 
method in attracting qualified applicants accustomed to dealing with 
the public.
  With a waiver, Members of Congress, as well as a host of state and 
local officials will be able to recommend individuals in their 
communities that are thoroughly familiar with the territory they will 
survey, including hard to reach populations. And, of critical 
importance, they will possess the sensitivity to deal effectively with 
local populations, inclusive of ethnic and racial minorities, who may 
be suspicious of unknown government workers coming into their 
communities.
  The 2000 Census is fast upon us and unfortunately the Supreme Court 
has already tied one hand behind our backs, making an accurate count 
all but impossible. We in Congress must not further hamper the Census 
Bureau in conducting the best and fairest possible count. I strongly 
urge the President to sign the waiver as soon as possible and for 
Congress to allow the Census Bureau to use the most modern statistical 
methods for determining how to disperse federal funding and draw 
district boundaries within states
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to close by 
saying that we should let the professionals do their job. We should let 
them conduct an accurate count using accurate scientific methods. We 
know what the last count gave us. It gave us an undercount that 
disproportionately hurt minorities and the poor and the children, and 
we should not let that happen again. We must correct it, and we have a 
plan that does that. We should be supporting the professionals, not 
trying to undermine their efforts in getting the most accurate count 
possible.

                          ____________________