Summary:
All articles in House section
LOCAL CENSUS QUALITY CHECK ACT
(House of Representatives - April 14, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H1996-H2031]
LOCAL CENSUS QUALITY CHECK ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 138 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 138
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (
H.R.
472) to amend title 13, United States Code, to require the
use of postcensus local review as part of each decennial
census. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.
The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Government Reform; (2) a further amendment
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant
to clause 8 of rule XVIII, if offered by Representative
Maloney of New York or her designee, which shall be
considered as read and shall be separately debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker,
H. Res. 138 is a fair structured rule providing 1 hour
of debate in the House divided equally between the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Government Reform.
Mr. Speaker, upon adoption of the resolution, the amendment printed
in the Committee on Rules report is considered adopted.
The rule also provides for the consideration of amendment numbered 1
printed in the Congressional Record if offered by the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney), or her designee, which shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled between the proponent and the
opponent.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker,
H.R. 472, the, Local Census Quality Check Act, builds on
Republican efforts and fulfills our constitutional duties by carrying
out a quality census that counts every single person. Post census local
review was used effectively in 1990 to add 124,000 households to the
nationwide count. By using the knowledge, list management and mapping
skills of local authorities, post census local review improved the
accuracy of the 1990 census. This improvement will increase
exponentially with the 2000 census as advancements in information
technology will allow local authorities to provide better information
which includes adding people to the census at the exact location where
they live.
Specifically, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for a post census local
review which will allow local governments to review household counts,
boundary maps and other data that the Secretary of Commerce considers
appropriate in order to identify discrepancies in housing unit counts
before they release the final count of the census. Additionally, the
Secretary of Commerce would submit the appropriate block level maps and
list of housing units to local governments for their review. The local
authorities would then be given 45 days to review the census data and
submit any challenges to that data. The Secretary would then
investigate, correct any miscounts and notify local governments of any
action or correction that was taken.
This is a commonsense piece of legislation that works. The results
are not debatable. In 1990, post census review made for more accurate
census counts.
Local groups across the political spectrum, including the National
League of Cities, the National Association of Towns and Townships and
the National Association of Developmental Organizations have endorsed
this legislation because it works. It is a part of a process to count
every single person in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, appearances can be deceiving. At first blush
H.R. 472,
the Local Census Quality Check Act, appears to be a bill that will
ensure a more accurate census count by enhancing local government
participation in the 2000 census. But, Mr. Speaker,
H.R. 472 is really
a Trojan horse because it will, in fact, do nothing to enhance or
ensure a more accurate count of Americans next year.
Let me tell our colleagues what it will do, Mr. Speaker.
H.R. 472
will impose an operational field plan on the Census Bureau that will
actually, according to the Director of the Census, decrease accuracy
levels in the count.
H.R. 472 will extend an already lengthy process by
requiring a post census local review program very similar to the one
conducted after the 1990 census.
H.R. 472 would extend the period of
the head count by nine weeks, which would effectively prevent the
Census Bureau from scientifically determining how many people had been
missed in the head count. If
H.R. 472 were to be enacted, it would
ensure that the Census Bureau would not have enough time to correct
errors in the census to ensure that each and every American has been
counted.
Mr. Speaker, such an outcome is totally unacceptable.
H.R. 472 is
unacceptable to Democrats because its real purpose is to prevent the
Census Bureau from using the modern statistical methods that experts
agree are the only way of conducting a census that
[[Page
H1997]]
does not miss millions of Americans, particularly children, minorities
and the urban and rural poor.
This is not a new fight, Mr. Speaker, but it is one that sets out
quite clearly the differences between the Republican majority in
Congress and the Democratic party. It is our unified and solid position
that every single American counts and every single American should be
counted.
It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker. Yet my Republican colleagues
have erected roadblocks, gone to court and drafted legislative
impediments all designed to keep the Census Bureau from conducting the
most accurate and complete census as possible.
The Republican National Committee and other Republican leaders fear
that counting every American will damage their hold on political power,
but let me close by offering my friends on the other side of the aisle
some advice:
In the face of opposition from the experts, from a unified Democratic
party and from local governments and civil rights groups around the
country poorly disguised attempts to influence the outcome of the
census do not reflect well on the Republican party. As I have said many
times, ensuring that all Americans are counted in the census is not and
should not be a partisan issue. I sincerely hope that my Republican
colleagues will put away their partisan fears and join us in working to
ensure that the 2000 Census counts every single American.
Mr. Speaker, I obviously oppose the bill, but I also oppose this
rule. The Republican majority has seen fit to only make in order the
amendment to be offered by the subcommittee ranking member, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and then to only allow 1 hour
of debate on this serious and substantive alternative to the Republican
bill.
{time} 1345
Given the magnitude of the issue, Mr. Speaker, this is a wholly
inadequate rule. Therefore, it is my intention to oppose the previous
question in order that the House might have the opportunity to consider
an open rule with 2 hours of general debate. The time restrictions
imposed by this rule do not give Members enough time to thoroughly
debate this most important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Census.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the time and I thank the Committee on
Rules for bringing forth this rule which allows us to have a full
debate on post-census local review and allows for the amendment by the
ranking member.
Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the rule. I will be supporting the
bill and opposing the amendment.
In less than 12 months we will be conducting the 2000 decennial
census. We all share a common goal, everybody in this room and
everybody in America should, that we want the most accurate census
possible. It has to be a legal census and it should not be a political
census.
The census is so fundamental to our Democratic system I call it the
DNA of our democracy, because most elected officials in America are
dependent upon the census. It affects the number of congressional seats
each State receives. It affects the size and shape of our districts. It
affects State representatives and State senators, their districts. It
affects school boards, county commissions, city council members.
Essentially, most elected officials are going to be impacted by this
because this is how we make sure there is equal and fair distribution
of the political process in this country.
Unfortunately, the political process has been brought to bear on this
census and that is too bad that the President has chosen to introduce
politics into the census because we do not need a political census.
Since Thomas Jefferson conducted the first census, we have gone out
and counted everybody. It is hard work and we as Republicans have been
putting forth the ideas but also the money and resources to make sure
we do get the best possible census.
The President has proposed originally a census where only 90 percent
of the population is counted and uses sampling or polling techniques to
come up with the balance. That was a very political process. The Census
Bureau wasted a billion dollars and 6 or 7 years planning for this. We
told the Census Bureau, we told the President, this is illegal and yet
they continued in effect to spend this money, waste this money and
prepare for an illegal census.
Finally, the Supreme Court ruled in January of this year that it was
illegal. Six Federal judges had already ruled last year it was illegal,
and now the Census Bureau is behind because they have been so
concentrating on this 90 percent plan that unfortunately they are not
as prepared as they should be today.
We all need to work toward getting that best, most accurate census
possible. So now they have come up with a new plan, even though all the
details have not been forthcoming yet, and the new plan is a two-number
census. We will have one number that is approved by the Supreme Court
and that will be a full enumeration as required by our Constitution,
and then the President wants to adjust all those numbers, I mean all
those numbers. There are census block numbers for all five or six
million census blocks in this country. The President wants to adjust
that and have an adjusted census.
So we will have the Supreme Court-approved census and we will have
the Clinton-approved census. Wow. What a public policy disaster we are
heading for with a two-number census.
The Census Bureau was right in arguing against it for the past
several years. Now they flip-flopped and think the two-number census is
a good idea. It is unfortunate because they want to use the second
adjusted set of numbers for redistricting.
Well, I say today that it is going to be declared illegal again. It
is going to go back to the courts, and the courts will say we are going
to have to use the same number for apportionment that we use for
redistricting. We cannot use two numbers for redistricting and
apportionment. It will not work.
So now what do we do? We need to do the best job we can on a full
enumeration. That is what is required by the Supreme Court. So we have
proposed some ideas on how to improve on getting the most accurate and
legal census possible.
The Census Bureau has come up with some good ideas on this census and
I have to commend the Census Bureau for the innovations and ideas they
have put forth for the 2000 census. They are doing things. For example,
the address list was a major problem in 1990 and they are making a
major effort getting the addresses as correct as possible. That is a
good program.
We are going to go to paid advertising. I think that is important
rather than relying just on the donated advertising by television.
There will be census in the schools trying to get young people involved
because young people are some of the ones that are most undercounted.
There are a lot of ideas that are good. We have come up with some ideas
too, and today we are going to debate one and that is post-census local
review.
Now this is not a new idea. This was used in 1990 and it is simply to
give local communities one last chance to look at the numbers before
they become official because once they become official they are stuck
with them for 10 years. It is hard for me to understand why someone
would object to this. Again, it is not a new idea. It was used in 1990
and added about 125,000 people. Secretary Daley says that is not very
many people. I say if it is a small community, every thousand people
makes a difference. One hundred twenty-five thousand may not be a big
deal in New York City or another city, but it is important that we
allow communities to add people if they were mistakenly missed.
That is all this is about, giving one last chance to add people if
they were missed and not included.
To assume that the Census Bureau does not make any mistakes is that
trust-me attitude; trust me, I am from the Federal Government and I
never make mistakes.
Well, there are mistakes made; not intentional mistakes. There are
computer errors, and so all we want to do is give that opportunity.
This is widely supported by elected officials. The National League of
Cities is supporting it. The National Association of Towns and
[[Page
H1998]]
Townships are supporting it. Planning organizations are supporting it,
and we have heard from dozens and dozens of local officials that say we
need this program because it gives us that one last chance to make sure
there are no mistakes. That is all it is.
It improves accuracy and it improves trust in our census, and trust
is something we need on this census because it has been politicized too
much.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disturbed that the Committee on Rules did
not issue an open rule on
H.R. 472. Many of my colleagues have asked to
speak on this bill and the limited time allowed by the committee will
not allow for a full and open hearing on this bill.
As the majority has reported, there is not much business scheduled
for the House this week. So far this week we have put in less than a
day's work. The only reason to limit debate on this bill is to silence
the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has not been carefully considered by either
the Subcommittee on Census or the Committee on Government Reform. The
only hearing on this legislation was held in conjunction with the
markup on the bill. The administration was not invited to that hearing
and I was out of the country as part of an official U.S. delegation to
the International Conference on Population and Development.
An open rule would give all Members a better chance to evaluate the
bill. Just yesterday, I met with the League of Cities and they still
did not understand the full implications of
H.R. 472. For example, they
were not aware that the bill adds over 9 weeks to the census process.
I will offer an amendment to
H.R. 472. I am committed to a fair and
accurate census. As everyone should know, the errors in the 1990
census, according to a GAO report, misallocated billions of dollars to
localities. If
H.R. 472 passes and degrades the overall accuracy of the
census 2000, as it will, then we will have an injustice as well as bad
public policy for the next decade.
H.R. 472 calls for a post-census local review. The question is not
whether or not we should have local review, of course we should, but
whether we should do it in a way that improves overall accuracy.
What
H.R. 472 does is make taking the census, the task of taking it,
more difficult. It delays the time for correcting the census for
persons missed and persons counted twice.
H.R. 472 requires the Census Bureau to repeat work that has already
been done. Following the bipartisan direction from Congress, written in
the Address List Correction Act of 1994, the Census Bureau has
developed a program to work with local governments to make sure they
agree on the number of addresses within the Government's jurisdiction.
If they cannot come to an agreement, there is an appeals process
through the Office of Management and Budget.
So far, this program has covered 86 percent of the addresses in the
United States. What
H.R. 472 does is require that this work be done
again. Those who are not familiar with the census believe that this
post-census check will catch errors made in the census. In fact, it
will not.
There is no reason for a second check on something that has not
changed unless there is an ulterior motive.
There are two areas of concern raised by local governments that could
legitimately be addressed by this bill. One is new construction and
boundary checks. Between the time the census address list is finalized
and census day, there will be some boundary changes and some new houses
under construction will be finished.
My amendment calls on the Census Bureau to develop a program to
address these legitimate concerns. It further calls for any new program
to be coordinated with all the other activities that must go on for the
census to be successful.
H.R. 472, as written, does not give the Census Bureau the latitude it
needs to address these issues. In 1995, long before the 2000 census
became a do or die issue for the Republican Party, the National Academy
of Sciences issued a report called Modernizing the U.S. Census. This
report was written in response to a bipartisan request from Congress.
The central conclusion of this report was, and I quote, ``It is
fruitless to continue trying to count every last person with
traditional census methods of physical enumeration. Simply providing
additional funds to enable the Census Bureau to carry out the 2000
census using traditional methods, as it has in previous censuses, will
not lead to improved coverage or data quality.''
The facts that led to that conclusion have not changed.
H.R. 472 is
seriously flawed and will ultimately make the census less accurate and
make it impossible for the Census Bureau to meet the statutory
deadlines of delivering apportionment counts on December 31, 2000, and
final population counts on April 1, 2001.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying
bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the assistant majority whip.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the
legislation. This really is largely about whether we are going to have
a one-number census or a two-number census and all of the things that
surround that. How many Members of this body would want us to have a
two-number election result and then decide after the election what
would have happened if somebody's speculation of what was going on on
election day somehow could have been fulfilled?
{time} 1400
How would we want to serve if we had not just the number that was
certified as the actual count of the election, but if we had the number
that was certified as somebody's idea of what might have happened if
the election had been done in some scientific laboratory?
This is about counting people. This bill is about counting people in
a way that involves local governments. It is about counting people in a
way that involves the Census Bureau with local governments, because so
much of what happens at the local level for a decade is determined by
their numbers; not just how they are represented in this body, but how
they are represented on their county council, how they are represented
in their city council, how they are represented in the State
legislature.
Missing a block, forgetting a thousand people or even a hundred
people, can be a significant factor in all of those determinations. In
the past, the Census Bureau has seen this as one of the important
principles of coming up with an accurate number that stands the test of
time, that local governments rely on for the better part of that
decade.
I think this bill has been carefully considered. It is also the way
the Census has been conducted. In fact, in 1990 the Census Bureau said
that what is most important about this review is that local officials
have an opportunity to review the maps and counts while the Census is
still in progress. Possible errors identified and reported at this
stage, according to the Census Bureau, are relatively easy to check and
correct if necessary. Once this stage is passed, once the Census is
finalized, once local governments have somehow not had this
opportunity, it is awfully hard to come back and solve those problems.
The substitute today, the amendment today, would leave this up to the
Secretary of Commerce, who has already said in writing that he is not
supportive of this legislation, and it is questionable without his
support, a post-Census review.
Of course we want to have a local review. Of course we want a Census
that is the best possible. Of course we want to correct this process
before it is finalized, not after it is finalized. That is what this
bill does. It is what it does, creating the best cooperation between
local officials and the Census Bureau. I support the legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members of this House to oppose this rule
and oppose
H.R. 472. To me it boils down to a
[[Page
H1999]]
very simple question, do all Americans count. If we believe they count,
then listen to some of the statistics from our last Census in 1990.
More than 4 million people in this country were not counted. In my
State of California, almost 1 million people did not get included in
the 1990 Census.
In terms of dollars, that cost my State somewhere close to $2.3
billion over these last 10 years. My city of Los Angeles, the second
largest undercount of any State in the Nation to have occurred was in
Los Angeles. Some 140,000 people in my city of Los Angeles did not get
counted.
That cost the city of Los Angeles and its residents about $120
million over the last 10 years: $120 million of police officers,
teachers, firefighters that were not put on the ground because we had
an inaccurate Census for the entire Nation.
Mr. Speaker, the director of the Census Bureau, Mr. Ken Prewitt, has
said that
H.R. 472 will have ``consequences for an orderly, timely, and
accurate Census in 2000 that are just short of disastrous.'' He is
saying that because we are tinkering with it in ways we do not need to.
If we are all concerned about having every American count, then let
them be counted using the best, most modern, and expert methods
available. If we believe all Americans count, then vote against the
rule and vote against
H.R. 472, because we do not need to go through
the mistakes of 1990. We have the technical abilities, we have the
modern technology to get the most accurate count possible. That would
require that we oppose
H.R. 472.
I urge all Members to vote against this rule and against
H.R. 472.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Pryce), one of my colleagues on the Committee on Rules.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. I
rise in support of this rule and the Local Census Quality Check Act.
Simply, this legislation is designed to improve the accuracy of the
Census by giving our local officials, who know their communities best,
a chance to review census data before it is finalized.
Local review is not a new idea. It was used in 1990 with the support
of Republicans and Democrats, and it succeeded in adding thousands of
overlooked households to the Census Bureau's original count.
Local review is especially useful in fast-growing neighborhoods and
communities, or ones that are being rebuilt after fires or natural
disasters, where it is very possible that the Census Bureau will miss
some new homes. In fact, this was the experience in 1990. And who
better than the people living in the community to recognize oversights
and errors in Census numbers?
I have to say that I find the objections to this bill very curious.
My friends on the other side of the aisle claim they need statistical
sampling to make a guess about how many households may exist which the
Census might miss. They support this method of estimation in the name
of improved accuracy.
Yet, they reject a program that allows local officials to look at
Census data and point to actual existing households with addresses
where real people with names and faces live which do not appear on the
Census Bureau's list. How can my colleagues argue that a system of
adding invisible statistical households is preferable to adding real
homes and people to the Census count?
Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record a letter that I received from
the Ohio Township Association, representing more than 1,300 townships,
in support of
H.R. 472.
The material referred to is as follows:
Ohio Township Association,
Columbus, OH, April 12, 1999.
Hon. Deborah Pryce,
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Pryce: On behalf of the Ohio Township
Association, I am writing to express our support of
H.R. 472.
This legislation, as written, would provide a 45 day period
of review to local governments of the Census 200 figures.
Without this legislation, local governments would have no
opportunity to review the Bureau of Census' count of their
communities before the census data is finalized. Local
governments must have a voice in the census process to ensure
they are not undercounted. Local governments, especially
townships, rely on the census to determine their eligibility
for state and federal funding. Local leaders and planners use
the census figures to choose the best location for building
roads, hospitals, schools, libraries, playgrounds, day-care
and senior citizen centers. Businesses use census numbers to
determine the location of new housing, shopping centers,
offices and factories. Most importantly, in the case of an
emergency, census figures aid emergency and safety
personnel's rescue efforts by telling them how many people
live in a certain area. In light of last week's tornado and
storms in Cincinnati, Ohio, this especially true.
Again, on behalf of the 1309 townships in Ohio, I urge you
to support
HR 472 without amendment. If you have any
questions or if I may be of assistance to you and your staff,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Michael H. Cochran,
Executive Director.
Mr. Speaker, some of my Democratic colleagues regret the fact that
the local review process would be time-consuming and delay the Census
Bureau's work. I would suggest to my colleagues that they look to the
Census Bureau itself if they are concerned about delays. We are less
than 12 months away from Census day, and the Bureau has failed to
provide Congress with its estimated budget or its plan for conducting a
legal count.
Mr. Speaker, any Member who is genuinely concerned about the accuracy
of our Census should support this legislation. The Local Census Quality
Check Act gives us one more tool to ensure that every American is
counted, as the Constitution envisions. I urge a yes vote on both the
rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Kennedy).
(Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I find it very curious that
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would make the argument
that this is not political, that they say they do not want politics in
this. Hello, everybody. This is the most political issue we will
probably face in the next 2 years of this session, okay? This goes to
who is going to control this House for the next 10 to 20 years.
So I do not want to hear my colleagues disingenuously represent this
bill as simply about counting, because that is hogwash. The fact of the
matter is the census is about who has got the money and who has got the
power.
It should be very curious to the Republicans that the Congressional
Black Caucus, that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, that the
Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus, all three of them, every minority
caucus in this Congress, are against their sampling proposal and their
Census proposal. Why? Because they say that in the effort to get
accuracy, they want to delay the Census process. Well, delay equals
death for accurate counting.
Mr. Speaker, this is about the heart of government. It is about the
distribution of money and power. There is nothing more fundamental to
this debate for the next 2 years than this Census. Bridges, roads,
education, law enforcement, health care, all of that will be decided by
how many people exist in each State and in each city across this
country.
If we undercount people, and I have to say, traditionally, there is a
reason why the Hispanic Caucus, there is a reason why the Black Caucus,
and the minorities are against this, because minority people of color
historically get undercounted.
If my colleagues would yield for a question, I would like to ask them
to answer why they are delaying this process.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In response to my colleague, I would like for it also to be noted on
the record that the Republican Black Caucus is 100 percent for this
bill that we are supporting on the Floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
When we mention the caucuses, the Hispanic Caucus, the Black Caucus,
he is talking about Democratic members of those caucuses.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman,
[[Page
H2000]]
how many Members are members of the Republican Black Caucus?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. We have one.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. How many do we have?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. They are all Democrats.
I thank the gentleman very much. My friend has made the point, he has
tried to place color where politics is. He is the one who has said this
is all about politics, not us.
What we are trying to do is assure a fair count for groups that have
traditionally been undercounted. That is why this legislation moves
from six languages that are included in the Census surveys to 33
languages, including braille, so that we can get at these hard-to-count
populations that have traditionally been undercounted. If they can read
the forms, if they can read them in their own language, they are much
more likely to answer them.
Although it is only 1.3 percent of the population that are included
in these additional languages, these are groups who have been
traditionally undercounted that we are trying to get at. The 33
languages come from the Census department's own advisory committee, in
terms of what these languages are. That is why we are increasing the
advertising.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield
further, I am not arguing about the gentleman's efforts to make sure we
count everyone accurately. My argument is with the delay. With their
delay, they are effectively delaying the numbers being reported, which
in essence means we cannot get an accurate count.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Not at all.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think what is important to note
here is we are allowing local governments to come in who feel they have
been undercounted, to come in with a post-Census sampling and start
adding their input into that process. So if they are being undercounted
in their cities, if they are going to be punished if it comes to
Federal aid or punished in redistricting, they will have an opportunity
at that point to have their say before the final count goes forward.
That is fair to these localities, many of them that are traditionally
undercounted. That is why we put more money for the advertising budget
increases, that is why this legislation puts more enumerators in hard-
to-count areas, that is why we have extended the census in the schools,
and we have moved it up from 20 percent, which is what the
administration offered, to 100 percent of the classrooms in America.
Many times you reach the parents with the best count going through the
classrooms and the kids in the schools.
That is why this legislation asks that AmeriCorps volunteers be
empowered to help in hard-to-count areas, so we can get to a solid
count. That is why the governments and the NGOs are going to be given
additional grants to assist in hard-to-count populations, and that is
why this legislation allows Federal retirees, welfare recipients, not
to be punished if we empower them and help them to get the most
accurate count in history.
All of these are very, very important. It is ironic that people who
claim they are being undercounted would oppose these measures.
On January 25 the Supreme Court ruled that sampling could not be used
in the 2000 Census for purposes of reapportionment of the House of
Representatives. But let me read what the Congressional Research
Service report says.
It says, ``A closer examination of the other parts of the court's
opinion indicates that it did not interpret those other purposes as
necessarily including at least interstate redistricting.'' That is why
my friends on the other side of the aisle oppose this. They lost this
at the Supreme Court level, and now they want to go for it with an
illegal funding mechanism for the census.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would point out to the previous speaker what happened at the
Supreme Court level. There have been several misstatements on the other
side. I assume those misstatements were not intentional.
What the Supreme Court did was to decide that a statistical
adjustment could not be used for apportionment among the States. The
Supreme Court specifically said that adjusted figures should be used
for redistricting within States and for the allocation of Federal
funds.
I have read the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court only spoke
to the apportionment among the States, and that was a matter of
construction of statutory law. They did not decide that on a
constitutional basis.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, a fair and accurate census is in the
best interests of our Nation. I therefore rise in opposition to the
rule and to
H.R. 472.
H.R. 472 is nothing more than an unnecessary
delaying tactic to prevent the Census Bureau from using modern
statistical methods, methods that the National Academy of Sciences and
the National Academy of Statisticians have said are necessary to obtain
an accurate count of the American people.
We must not let
H.R. 472 repeat the mistakes of the past. The stakes
are simply too high. In California, for example, as a result of the
1990 undercount, 835,000 Californians essentially became invisible.
Half of those missed were Latinos, and tragically, over 40 percent were
children.
{time} 1415
Due to this undercount, the hardworking people of California lost
$2.2 billion in Federal funds for transportation, schools, housing,
health services, and valuable programs over the past 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, counting every American is an issue of social justice.
My Republican colleagues must put the interest of the country first and
stop trying to micromanage the census. Let the experts at the Census
Bureau do their job to ensure an accurate 2000 census. I ask my
colleagues to defeat the rule and
H.R. 472.
Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind
Members on both sides of the aisle who wish to engage in a dialogue
with the Member under recognition that they must first gain the
yielding of the Member under recognition before engaging in the
dialogue.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) ha
s
10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Davis) to respond.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Frost), I would hope that he would put in the Record
the specific language he claims that would mandate that the intrastate
redistricting is mandated to use these other numbers he talks about.
Looking at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, CRS-5, and
I will ask unanimous consent that this report be put into the
Congressional Record, they note that for the purpose of intrastate
redistricting, ``the Court's opinion indicates it did not interpret
those other purposes as necessarily including, at least, intrastate
redistricting. It refers to these other purposes, noting that the
census serves as the `linchpin of the federal statistical system by
collecting data on the characteristic of individuals, households, and
housing units'.''
The document referred to is as follows:
Ramifications and Reactions
sampling in intrastate redistricting
Almost immediately after the Supreme Court issued its
decision, the opponents of sampling were claiming victory,
but at the same time, the supporters of sampling were
downplaying the impact of the decision, by emphasizing the
narrowness of the holding. The Court held that the census
statute prohibited the use of sampling for the apportionment
of the House of Representatives, but declined to reach the
constitutional question. The Court had even stated that
section 195 required the use of sampling for purposes other
than apportionment. Slip opinion at 23. The proponents of
sampling viewed this as supporting the position that sampling
techniques were not only permissible, but were required, in
the taking of the census for the purposes of intrastate
redistricting and federal funding allocations.\4\ However, a
closer examination of other parts of the Court's opinion
indicates that it did not interpret those other purposes as
necessarily including, at least, intrastate redistricting. It
refers to these other purposes,
[[Page
H2001]]
noting that the census serves as the ``linchpin of the
federal statistical system by collecting data on the
characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units
throughout the country [cities omitted].'' Slip opinion at
24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes at end of document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, Justice O'Connor based her standing
analysis, at least in part, on the ``expected effects of the
use of sampling in the 2000 census on intrastate
redistricting.'' Slip opinion at 14. Her discussion of these
expected effects appears to indicate that the Court assumed
that the federal decennial census figures for apportionment
would be the figures used by the States for congressional
redistricting and, in many cases, for state legislative
redistricting. The Court seems to think that the references
to the federal decennial census data in state legislative
redistricting statutes and state constitutional provisions
are references to the data for apportionment of the House of
Representatives. Otherwise, the threatened injury to the
plaintiffs would not be redressed by the Court's decision.
Certainly, the position of sampling proponents, if officially
adopted and carried out, would mean that the threatened
injury to voters in state and local elections had not been
eliminated by the Court's decision. The issue of
redressability and the possibility of a two-number census was
raised during oral argument.\5\ However, the analysis in this
part of the Court's decision deals with standing and not with
the merits, therefore, technically, the position of sampling
proponents, that sampling in intrastate redistricting is
required, is not inconsistent with the Court's holdings on
the merits, but is arguably inconsistent with the apparent
assumptions and larger scheme underlying the holdings.
footnotes
\4\ Since the required taking of a traditional headcount for
apportionment of the House of Representatives would make the
non-response follow-up sampling moot, presumably any
contemplated sampling for intrastate redistricting and
funding allocation data would be similar in concept to the
ICM for the undercount or the Post Enumeration Survey
conducted after the 1990 Census.
\5\ Oral Argument Transcript, found at 1998 WL 827383 on
Westlaw (oral argument of Michael A. Carvin on behalf of the
appellees in No. 98-564).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) ha
s
13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I do
that because I support achieving the most accurate census count, and
H.R. 472, as written, will delay and destroy our chance to achieve the
most accurate census count possible.
Mr. Speaker, an accurate census does matter. It affects our
communities, our families, and our children. In fact, inaccurate
figures cost the State of California $2.2 billion in Federal aid during
the 1990s.
It cost my district $29 million in Federal aid by missing over 10,000
people in the 6th Congressional District of California. Ten thousand
people were not counted. I happen to believe that every one of those
10,000, and 100 percent of the people nationwide, deserve to be counted
and included in our census.
An inaccurate count costs all of our communities literally millions
of dollars for Federal highways, for child care, for foster care, for
education, for aid to women and infants and children.
We cannot make the same mistakes with the 2000 census that we made
with the 1990 census. Our democratic system demands fair representation
for all constituents and all constituent groups. This can only be
achieved through the most accurate census possible.
Fear is what really is stopping the opponents of an accurate census,
fear that an accurate census will affect the political makeup of the
House of Representatives. We should not play politics by blocking an
accurate census. Vote ``yes'' on the Maloney substitute, ``no'' on the
rule, and ``no'' on
H.R. 472.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time,
and I congratulate him on his superb management of this rule.
I rise in strong support of the rule. We have a very simple and basic
goal here. It is to subscribe to those two words in the U.S.
Constitution, ``actual enumeration.'' In so doing, we want to make sure
that every single American is counted.
I thought we had started to win this war on the issue of local
control. We in a bipartisan way passed the Education Flexibility Act.
What did it say? It said decisions would be made at the local level.
What is it that
H.R. 472 says? Basically the same thing it did back
when the 1990 census was conducted. It said that there should be post-
census local review. There should be some kind of local input for this
process. Frankly, I believe that it is the most responsible thing to
do. It is by far and away the most balanced thing.
I think organizations have recognized that. We have heard that we
have got the National League of Cities, the National Association of
Towns and Townships, the National Association of Developmental
Organizations, I mean, they are supportive of this measure because it
is fair and it is the right thing to do.
I know that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have
raised questions about this rule. I will tell my colleagues, I am
looking at the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who reminded
me yesterday that I had said to her last month when we had this hearing
in the Committee on Rules that we wanted to make her amendment in
order. In fact, that is exactly what we have done.
On March 18, I announced right here that we were in fact going to
have preprinting. We have made with this rule every single amendment
that has been submitted to the Committee on Rules over the last month
in order. That basically consists of an amendment from our side by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the amendment by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). We had an interesting hearing
on this issue upstairs. So we have in fact done exactly what it is that
they requested.
We will have, if there is a recommittal motion, a grand total of 3
hours and 10 minutes of debate, including this debate which is taking
place right here. So I think that we have moved ahead with this, with
what is a very, very balanced, fair rule on this question. At the same
time, we have given more than an adequate amount of time for debate and
again have made every Democratic amendment in order that they
requested.
So I urge my colleagues to, in light of that, support this rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could believe in the
sincerity of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on this issue
because, in fact, census should be a collaborative and bipartisan issue
and response.
But when they cite
H.R. 472, the same process that was used in 1990,
let me tell my colleagues why I have a problem. That is because Texas
lost $1.87 billion in Federal funds, likely to lose $2.8 billion in
Federal funds with the same use of
H.R. 472 now.
In 1990, it was estimated that 28,000 children in my district were
missed, almost 5 percent of all African Americans and Hispanics were
not counted in 1990. So for me it is a life and death matter in terms
of ensuring that all of the people are counted but that the resources
go back to the State.
The Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt says that the
H.R. 472
proposal that we are now discussing will disrupt the census and put it
at risk.
This rule does not allow us to discuss fully at length how to resolve
this problem. The National Academy of Sciences said we should have a
Martin statistical method.
I am dealing with some of the largest cities in Texas who are opposed
to
H.R. 472, the City of Houston, the City of San Antonio, the City of
Austin, the City of Laredo.
Local officials do not understand what we are doing to them. What we
are doing to them is we are forcing them to have to take the time with
meager resources and one's tax dollars to take in a long period of time
to count numbers after we have counted it.
I do not believe those organizations who are supporting
H.R. 472 know
the financial burden that they are putting on local government. I
served in local government. I served as a member of the city council. I
can tell my colleagues right now, I would much rather provide for
health services and sanitation services and environmental services than
to sit around putting staff on
[[Page
H2002]]
counting people that the Federal government can do.
Martin statistical sampling is what we need. We also need to follow
H.R. 472, as amended by the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney). It needs to be changed because what we have here is a
burdening of local officials and a bad census and the denial of the
count of the United States people, people in the United States.
I come today to oppose the modified closed rule for
H.R. 471, the
Local Census Quality Check Act of 1999. This modified closed rule
impedes the amendment process that could improve this legislation.
The Census is one of the most significant civil rights issues,
especially as we approach the 21st Century. For the year 2000 the
Census must be accurate to ensure equal representation of all
Americans.
This bill in its present form would not improve the accuracy of the
census count. Instead it would repeat the method used in 1990 that
increased the involvement of local governments by allowing them to
review census housing units numbers.
The process used in the Census missed 8.4 million people, 4.4 million
people were counted twice and 13 million people were counted in the
wrong place.
Because of the undercount in 1990, Texas lost almost $1.87 billion in
federal funds. A recent article in The Houston Chronicle estimated that
Texas could lose $2.8 billion if a similar undercount takes place.
Children, people of color, and the rural and urban poor were most
likely to have been missed. In my district in Houston, close to 500,000
people were missed.
It is estimated that 28,554 children in my district were missed.
Almost 5 percent of all African-Americans and Hispanics were not
counted in 1990, and these groups constitute almost half of the
population of the city!
Although
H.R. 472 purports to increase the involvement of local
government in the census, it really acts to slow down and delay an
accurate count. This bill repeats the ineffective program that was used
in 1990, and it would delay the census by an additional nine weeks.
The Census Bureau plan already provides for review as the count
occurs instead of after the fact. This is more efficient and it is a
better use of resources.
The modified closed rule does not allow us to offer amendments that
would actually make improvements in the counting methods.
Census undercounts translate into communities losing out on federal
and state funding for schools, crime prevention, health care and
transportation.
I urge my colleagues vote against this modified closed rule to
support an open rule so that we may prevent an unnecessary delay in the
census. The method advocated in this bill did not prevent an undercount
in 1990, and we must not make the same mistake for the year 2000.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I want to
talk about some other communities, Litchfield, Illinois; Salem,
Illinois; and Carlyle, Illinois, small rural America who support
H.R.
472 and the Local Census Quality Check Act.
I would like to share with the House some feedback I received from
these communities and my constituents about the 2000 census. I am
finding that the localities in my district are supporting our efforts
to provide them about post-census review mechanism.
In fact, the Mayor of Litchfield, William Cornman, wrote me on March
24, 1999, and stated, ``We feel that in order to have an accurate
Census, we must reinstate the post-Census Local Review program. If a
mistake is made with the oversight of subdivisions and newly annexed
areas, the Census count is not accurate.''
He continues, ``We feel that we cannot properly evaluate the Bureau's
Partnership Program as it relates to our community. Thus far, all that
they have provided us is a bulging packet of information and very
little direction.''
I believe Mayor Cornman has made two critical points: one, that the
local authorities cannot challenge and review the final census numbers,
even if they are incorrect, and, two, the current Local Update of
Census Addresses, the LUCA program, which my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle praise, and the Census Bureau claims is working
efficiently, appears in the eyes of my constituents as just a bulging
packet of information and very little direction. Clearly, this is not a
sign that we are on the road to an accurate census.
The City of Salem in my district felt so strongly about this issue
that they passed a resolution which states, among other things, the
following: ``Whereas, one of the most vital parts of the American
Counts Today is reinstatement of the Post-Census Local Review Program,
that provides a procedure for local public officials to review and
challenge the Census Bureau determinations before counting is final;
and Whereas, a Post-Census Local Review is based upon the premise that
local officials know their own communities better than statisticians
and pollsters in Washington, D.C.''
I think the City of Salem hits the nail on the head with this
resolution. They say exactly what Republicans in Congress have been
saying about the census and Federal Government in general; local
officials know how to run programs the best, not bureaucracies in
Washington.
Additionally, the City of Salem points out that post-census local
review provides a procedure for local officials to challenge Census
Bureau findings before they are final. I do not see the harm in
allowing the Census Bureau's conclusions from being challenged. I
suspect the challenge is what the Census Bureau fears. It would be an
easier job for the Census Bureau if nobody was able to question their
conclusions. The foundations of democracy rely on the voice of the
people. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Census Bureau is muzzling
our localities.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring up the correspondence
which I have received from the City of Carlyle. Mayor Schmidt wrote me
in support of the post-census review and included a memorandum from one
of his staff Ms. Jean Parson which discusses this issue in detail.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record letters from the mayor of
Carlyle, and from the cities of Salem and Litchfield.
City of Carlyle,
Carlyle, IL, March 29, 1999.
Congressman John Shimkus,
Springfield, IL.
Dear Congressman Shimkus: I have shared your letter
concerning the post-census review process with my office
manager. She has been the most active member of my staff in
regard to the Census 2000 project. As you will note in her
enclosed memo, she feels very strongly that the post-review
process remain in place. I feel her concerns are legitimate
and encourage you to pursue this matter further.
Please phone 618-594-2468 if you have any questions, or
would like to discuss this matter further with either Ms.
Parson or myself.
Sincerely,
Don W. Schmitz,
Mayor.
Enclosure.
March 17, 1999.
Mayor: I agree with Representative Shimkus on the
importance of the post-census local review program. This is
something I have been concerned about all along.
In the old program, they conducted the census and then we
had the opportunity to review the count and challenge
anything that didn't look quite correct to us. Under this
program, as I understand it, our only input is in the
formulation of the address list. I have spent many, many
hours reviewing their list. I spent time with the post master
comparing our lists, and then made corrections to the census
list. The entire process was extremely confusing and I have
had my doubts if my changes will even be made. I also am sure
that I didn't pick up every problem in the list. It is just
too complicated and time consuming.
They have given us time schedules as far as different
reports and mailings are concerned and I don't believe they
have been completely accurate. I am still waiting for a
report where we can be sure all ``special places'' are
included in their count. These include the nursing home,
group homes, the jail, etc. I don't believe I have seen this
report.
I guess I'm getting old, but the old way seemed to work. If
we have no opportunity to review the final count, there is
basically no one watching to see that the census takers
actually do their job and that the information submitted is
processed correctly.
I strongly feel that he should continue his efforts and get
this process changed. it is a very critical part of our
financial future to have the ability to challenge their
counts. We are basically stuck with these counts for ten
years. It could mean thousands and thousands of dollars to us
if the counts are incorrect.
The other thing that should be noted is that there appears
to be little involvement from most communities. We have been
participating with our best efforts, but I don't believe that
is the case with most communities. Communities were not well
represented at the meetings I attended, and I have spoken to
many community leaders who were not even aware of the
changes. I'm sure this is because of mailings not reaching
[[Page
H2003]]
the appropriate people.
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
LOCAL CENSUS QUALITY CHECK ACT
(House of Representatives - April 14, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H1996-H2031]
LOCAL CENSUS QUALITY CHECK ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 138 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 138
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (
H.R.
472) to amend title 13, United States Code, to require the
use of postcensus local review as part of each decennial
census. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.
The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Government Reform; (2) a further amendment
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant
to clause 8 of rule XVIII, if offered by Representative
Maloney of New York or her designee, which shall be
considered as read and shall be separately debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker,
H. Res. 138 is a fair structured rule providing 1 hour
of debate in the House divided equally between the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Government Reform.
Mr. Speaker, upon adoption of the resolution, the amendment printed
in the Committee on Rules report is considered adopted.
The rule also provides for the consideration of amendment numbered 1
printed in the Congressional Record if offered by the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney), or her designee, which shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled between the proponent and the
opponent.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker,
H.R. 472, the, Local Census Quality Check Act, builds on
Republican efforts and fulfills our constitutional duties by carrying
out a quality census that counts every single person. Post census local
review was used effectively in 1990 to add 124,000 households to the
nationwide count. By using the knowledge, list management and mapping
skills of local authorities, post census local review improved the
accuracy of the 1990 census. This improvement will increase
exponentially with the 2000 census as advancements in information
technology will allow local authorities to provide better information
which includes adding people to the census at the exact location where
they live.
Specifically, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for a post census local
review which will allow local governments to review household counts,
boundary maps and other data that the Secretary of Commerce considers
appropriate in order to identify discrepancies in housing unit counts
before they release the final count of the census. Additionally, the
Secretary of Commerce would submit the appropriate block level maps and
list of housing units to local governments for their review. The local
authorities would then be given 45 days to review the census data and
submit any challenges to that data. The Secretary would then
investigate, correct any miscounts and notify local governments of any
action or correction that was taken.
This is a commonsense piece of legislation that works. The results
are not debatable. In 1990, post census review made for more accurate
census counts.
Local groups across the political spectrum, including the National
League of Cities, the National Association of Towns and Townships and
the National Association of Developmental Organizations have endorsed
this legislation because it works. It is a part of a process to count
every single person in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, appearances can be deceiving. At first blush
H.R. 472,
the Local Census Quality Check Act, appears to be a bill that will
ensure a more accurate census count by enhancing local government
participation in the 2000 census. But, Mr. Speaker,
H.R. 472 is really
a Trojan horse because it will, in fact, do nothing to enhance or
ensure a more accurate count of Americans next year.
Let me tell our colleagues what it will do, Mr. Speaker.
H.R. 472
will impose an operational field plan on the Census Bureau that will
actually, according to the Director of the Census, decrease accuracy
levels in the count.
H.R. 472 will extend an already lengthy process by
requiring a post census local review program very similar to the one
conducted after the 1990 census.
H.R. 472 would extend the period of
the head count by nine weeks, which would effectively prevent the
Census Bureau from scientifically determining how many people had been
missed in the head count. If
H.R. 472 were to be enacted, it would
ensure that the Census Bureau would not have enough time to correct
errors in the census to ensure that each and every American has been
counted.
Mr. Speaker, such an outcome is totally unacceptable.
H.R. 472 is
unacceptable to Democrats because its real purpose is to prevent the
Census Bureau from using the modern statistical methods that experts
agree are the only way of conducting a census that
[[Page
H1997]]
does not miss millions of Americans, particularly children, minorities
and the urban and rural poor.
This is not a new fight, Mr. Speaker, but it is one that sets out
quite clearly the differences between the Republican majority in
Congress and the Democratic party. It is our unified and solid position
that every single American counts and every single American should be
counted.
It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker. Yet my Republican colleagues
have erected roadblocks, gone to court and drafted legislative
impediments all designed to keep the Census Bureau from conducting the
most accurate and complete census as possible.
The Republican National Committee and other Republican leaders fear
that counting every American will damage their hold on political power,
but let me close by offering my friends on the other side of the aisle
some advice:
In the face of opposition from the experts, from a unified Democratic
party and from local governments and civil rights groups around the
country poorly disguised attempts to influence the outcome of the
census do not reflect well on the Republican party. As I have said many
times, ensuring that all Americans are counted in the census is not and
should not be a partisan issue. I sincerely hope that my Republican
colleagues will put away their partisan fears and join us in working to
ensure that the 2000 Census counts every single American.
Mr. Speaker, I obviously oppose the bill, but I also oppose this
rule. The Republican majority has seen fit to only make in order the
amendment to be offered by the subcommittee ranking member, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and then to only allow 1 hour
of debate on this serious and substantive alternative to the Republican
bill.
{time} 1345
Given the magnitude of the issue, Mr. Speaker, this is a wholly
inadequate rule. Therefore, it is my intention to oppose the previous
question in order that the House might have the opportunity to consider
an open rule with 2 hours of general debate. The time restrictions
imposed by this rule do not give Members enough time to thoroughly
debate this most important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Census.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the time and I thank the Committee on
Rules for bringing forth this rule which allows us to have a full
debate on post-census local review and allows for the amendment by the
ranking member.
Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the rule. I will be supporting the
bill and opposing the amendment.
In less than 12 months we will be conducting the 2000 decennial
census. We all share a common goal, everybody in this room and
everybody in America should, that we want the most accurate census
possible. It has to be a legal census and it should not be a political
census.
The census is so fundamental to our Democratic system I call it the
DNA of our democracy, because most elected officials in America are
dependent upon the census. It affects the number of congressional seats
each State receives. It affects the size and shape of our districts. It
affects State representatives and State senators, their districts. It
affects school boards, county commissions, city council members.
Essentially, most elected officials are going to be impacted by this
because this is how we make sure there is equal and fair distribution
of the political process in this country.
Unfortunately, the political process has been brought to bear on this
census and that is too bad that the President has chosen to introduce
politics into the census because we do not need a political census.
Since Thomas Jefferson conducted the first census, we have gone out
and counted everybody. It is hard work and we as Republicans have been
putting forth the ideas but also the money and resources to make sure
we do get the best possible census.
The President has proposed originally a census where only 90 percent
of the population is counted and uses sampling or polling techniques to
come up with the balance. That was a very political process. The Census
Bureau wasted a billion dollars and 6 or 7 years planning for this. We
told the Census Bureau, we told the President, this is illegal and yet
they continued in effect to spend this money, waste this money and
prepare for an illegal census.
Finally, the Supreme Court ruled in January of this year that it was
illegal. Six Federal judges had already ruled last year it was illegal,
and now the Census Bureau is behind because they have been so
concentrating on this 90 percent plan that unfortunately they are not
as prepared as they should be today.
We all need to work toward getting that best, most accurate census
possible. So now they have come up with a new plan, even though all the
details have not been forthcoming yet, and the new plan is a two-number
census. We will have one number that is approved by the Supreme Court
and that will be a full enumeration as required by our Constitution,
and then the President wants to adjust all those numbers, I mean all
those numbers. There are census block numbers for all five or six
million census blocks in this country. The President wants to adjust
that and have an adjusted census.
So we will have the Supreme Court-approved census and we will have
the Clinton-approved census. Wow. What a public policy disaster we are
heading for with a two-number census.
The Census Bureau was right in arguing against it for the past
several years. Now they flip-flopped and think the two-number census is
a good idea. It is unfortunate because they want to use the second
adjusted set of numbers for redistricting.
Well, I say today that it is going to be declared illegal again. It
is going to go back to the courts, and the courts will say we are going
to have to use the same number for apportionment that we use for
redistricting. We cannot use two numbers for redistricting and
apportionment. It will not work.
So now what do we do? We need to do the best job we can on a full
enumeration. That is what is required by the Supreme Court. So we have
proposed some ideas on how to improve on getting the most accurate and
legal census possible.
The Census Bureau has come up with some good ideas on this census and
I have to commend the Census Bureau for the innovations and ideas they
have put forth for the 2000 census. They are doing things. For example,
the address list was a major problem in 1990 and they are making a
major effort getting the addresses as correct as possible. That is a
good program.
We are going to go to paid advertising. I think that is important
rather than relying just on the donated advertising by television.
There will be census in the schools trying to get young people involved
because young people are some of the ones that are most undercounted.
There are a lot of ideas that are good. We have come up with some ideas
too, and today we are going to debate one and that is post-census local
review.
Now this is not a new idea. This was used in 1990 and it is simply to
give local communities one last chance to look at the numbers before
they become official because once they become official they are stuck
with them for 10 years. It is hard for me to understand why someone
would object to this. Again, it is not a new idea. It was used in 1990
and added about 125,000 people. Secretary Daley says that is not very
many people. I say if it is a small community, every thousand people
makes a difference. One hundred twenty-five thousand may not be a big
deal in New York City or another city, but it is important that we
allow communities to add people if they were mistakenly missed.
That is all this is about, giving one last chance to add people if
they were missed and not included.
To assume that the Census Bureau does not make any mistakes is that
trust-me attitude; trust me, I am from the Federal Government and I
never make mistakes.
Well, there are mistakes made; not intentional mistakes. There are
computer errors, and so all we want to do is give that opportunity.
This is widely supported by elected officials. The National League of
Cities is supporting it. The National Association of Towns and
[[Page
H1998]]
Townships are supporting it. Planning organizations are supporting it,
and we have heard from dozens and dozens of local officials that say we
need this program because it gives us that one last chance to make sure
there are no mistakes. That is all it is.
It improves accuracy and it improves trust in our census, and trust
is something we need on this census because it has been politicized too
much.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disturbed that the Committee on Rules did
not issue an open rule on
H.R. 472. Many of my colleagues have asked to
speak on this bill and the limited time allowed by the committee will
not allow for a full and open hearing on this bill.
As the majority has reported, there is not much business scheduled
for the House this week. So far this week we have put in less than a
day's work. The only reason to limit debate on this bill is to silence
the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has not been carefully considered by either
the Subcommittee on Census or the Committee on Government Reform. The
only hearing on this legislation was held in conjunction with the
markup on the bill. The administration was not invited to that hearing
and I was out of the country as part of an official U.S. delegation to
the International Conference on Population and Development.
An open rule would give all Members a better chance to evaluate the
bill. Just yesterday, I met with the League of Cities and they still
did not understand the full implications of
H.R. 472. For example, they
were not aware that the bill adds over 9 weeks to the census process.
I will offer an amendment to
H.R. 472. I am committed to a fair and
accurate census. As everyone should know, the errors in the 1990
census, according to a GAO report, misallocated billions of dollars to
localities. If
H.R. 472 passes and degrades the overall accuracy of the
census 2000, as it will, then we will have an injustice as well as bad
public policy for the next decade.
H.R. 472 calls for a post-census local review. The question is not
whether or not we should have local review, of course we should, but
whether we should do it in a way that improves overall accuracy.
What
H.R. 472 does is make taking the census, the task of taking it,
more difficult. It delays the time for correcting the census for
persons missed and persons counted twice.
H.R. 472 requires the Census Bureau to repeat work that has already
been done. Following the bipartisan direction from Congress, written in
the Address List Correction Act of 1994, the Census Bureau has
developed a program to work with local governments to make sure they
agree on the number of addresses within the Government's jurisdiction.
If they cannot come to an agreement, there is an appeals process
through the Office of Management and Budget.
So far, this program has covered 86 percent of the addresses in the
United States. What
H.R. 472 does is require that this work be done
again. Those who are not familiar with the census believe that this
post-census check will catch errors made in the census. In fact, it
will not.
There is no reason for a second check on something that has not
changed unless there is an ulterior motive.
There are two areas of concern raised by local governments that could
legitimately be addressed by this bill. One is new construction and
boundary checks. Between the time the census address list is finalized
and census day, there will be some boundary changes and some new houses
under construction will be finished.
My amendment calls on the Census Bureau to develop a program to
address these legitimate concerns. It further calls for any new program
to be coordinated with all the other activities that must go on for the
census to be successful.
H.R. 472, as written, does not give the Census Bureau the latitude it
needs to address these issues. In 1995, long before the 2000 census
became a do or die issue for the Republican Party, the National Academy
of Sciences issued a report called Modernizing the U.S. Census. This
report was written in response to a bipartisan request from Congress.
The central conclusion of this report was, and I quote, ``It is
fruitless to continue trying to count every last person with
traditional census methods of physical enumeration. Simply providing
additional funds to enable the Census Bureau to carry out the 2000
census using traditional methods, as it has in previous censuses, will
not lead to improved coverage or data quality.''
The facts that led to that conclusion have not changed.
H.R. 472 is
seriously flawed and will ultimately make the census less accurate and
make it impossible for the Census Bureau to meet the statutory
deadlines of delivering apportionment counts on December 31, 2000, and
final population counts on April 1, 2001.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying
bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the assistant majority whip.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the
legislation. This really is largely about whether we are going to have
a one-number census or a two-number census and all of the things that
surround that. How many Members of this body would want us to have a
two-number election result and then decide after the election what
would have happened if somebody's speculation of what was going on on
election day somehow could have been fulfilled?
{time} 1400
How would we want to serve if we had not just the number that was
certified as the actual count of the election, but if we had the number
that was certified as somebody's idea of what might have happened if
the election had been done in some scientific laboratory?
This is about counting people. This bill is about counting people in
a way that involves local governments. It is about counting people in a
way that involves the Census Bureau with local governments, because so
much of what happens at the local level for a decade is determined by
their numbers; not just how they are represented in this body, but how
they are represented on their county council, how they are represented
in their city council, how they are represented in the State
legislature.
Missing a block, forgetting a thousand people or even a hundred
people, can be a significant factor in all of those determinations. In
the past, the Census Bureau has seen this as one of the important
principles of coming up with an accurate number that stands the test of
time, that local governments rely on for the better part of that
decade.
I think this bill has been carefully considered. It is also the way
the Census has been conducted. In fact, in 1990 the Census Bureau said
that what is most important about this review is that local officials
have an opportunity to review the maps and counts while the Census is
still in progress. Possible errors identified and reported at this
stage, according to the Census Bureau, are relatively easy to check and
correct if necessary. Once this stage is passed, once the Census is
finalized, once local governments have somehow not had this
opportunity, it is awfully hard to come back and solve those problems.
The substitute today, the amendment today, would leave this up to the
Secretary of Commerce, who has already said in writing that he is not
supportive of this legislation, and it is questionable without his
support, a post-Census review.
Of course we want to have a local review. Of course we want a Census
that is the best possible. Of course we want to correct this process
before it is finalized, not after it is finalized. That is what this
bill does. It is what it does, creating the best cooperation between
local officials and the Census Bureau. I support the legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members of this House to oppose this rule
and oppose
H.R. 472. To me it boils down to a
[[Page
H1999]]
very simple question, do all Americans count. If we believe they count,
then listen to some of the statistics from our last Census in 1990.
More than 4 million people in this country were not counted. In my
State of California, almost 1 million people did not get included in
the 1990 Census.
In terms of dollars, that cost my State somewhere close to $2.3
billion over these last 10 years. My city of Los Angeles, the second
largest undercount of any State in the Nation to have occurred was in
Los Angeles. Some 140,000 people in my city of Los Angeles did not get
counted.
That cost the city of Los Angeles and its residents about $120
million over the last 10 years: $120 million of police officers,
teachers, firefighters that were not put on the ground because we had
an inaccurate Census for the entire Nation.
Mr. Speaker, the director of the Census Bureau, Mr. Ken Prewitt, has
said that
H.R. 472 will have ``consequences for an orderly, timely, and
accurate Census in 2000 that are just short of disastrous.'' He is
saying that because we are tinkering with it in ways we do not need to.
If we are all concerned about having every American count, then let
them be counted using the best, most modern, and expert methods
available. If we believe all Americans count, then vote against the
rule and vote against
H.R. 472, because we do not need to go through
the mistakes of 1990. We have the technical abilities, we have the
modern technology to get the most accurate count possible. That would
require that we oppose
H.R. 472.
I urge all Members to vote against this rule and against
H.R. 472.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Pryce), one of my colleagues on the Committee on Rules.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. I
rise in support of this rule and the Local Census Quality Check Act.
Simply, this legislation is designed to improve the accuracy of the
Census by giving our local officials, who know their communities best,
a chance to review census data before it is finalized.
Local review is not a new idea. It was used in 1990 with the support
of Republicans and Democrats, and it succeeded in adding thousands of
overlooked households to the Census Bureau's original count.
Local review is especially useful in fast-growing neighborhoods and
communities, or ones that are being rebuilt after fires or natural
disasters, where it is very possible that the Census Bureau will miss
some new homes. In fact, this was the experience in 1990. And who
better than the people living in the community to recognize oversights
and errors in Census numbers?
I have to say that I find the objections to this bill very curious.
My friends on the other side of the aisle claim they need statistical
sampling to make a guess about how many households may exist which the
Census might miss. They support this method of estimation in the name
of improved accuracy.
Yet, they reject a program that allows local officials to look at
Census data and point to actual existing households with addresses
where real people with names and faces live which do not appear on the
Census Bureau's list. How can my colleagues argue that a system of
adding invisible statistical households is preferable to adding real
homes and people to the Census count?
Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record a letter that I received from
the Ohio Township Association, representing more than 1,300 townships,
in support of
H.R. 472.
The material referred to is as follows:
Ohio Township Association,
Columbus, OH, April 12, 1999.
Hon. Deborah Pryce,
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Pryce: On behalf of the Ohio Township
Association, I am writing to express our support of
H.R. 472.
This legislation, as written, would provide a 45 day period
of review to local governments of the Census 200 figures.
Without this legislation, local governments would have no
opportunity to review the Bureau of Census' count of their
communities before the census data is finalized. Local
governments must have a voice in the census process to ensure
they are not undercounted. Local governments, especially
townships, rely on the census to determine their eligibility
for state and federal funding. Local leaders and planners use
the census figures to choose the best location for building
roads, hospitals, schools, libraries, playgrounds, day-care
and senior citizen centers. Businesses use census numbers to
determine the location of new housing, shopping centers,
offices and factories. Most importantly, in the case of an
emergency, census figures aid emergency and safety
personnel's rescue efforts by telling them how many people
live in a certain area. In light of last week's tornado and
storms in Cincinnati, Ohio, this especially true.
Again, on behalf of the 1309 townships in Ohio, I urge you
to support
HR 472 without amendment. If you have any
questions or if I may be of assistance to you and your staff,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Michael H. Cochran,
Executive Director.
Mr. Speaker, some of my Democratic colleagues regret the fact that
the local review process would be time-consuming and delay the Census
Bureau's work. I would suggest to my colleagues that they look to the
Census Bureau itself if they are concerned about delays. We are less
than 12 months away from Census day, and the Bureau has failed to
provide Congress with its estimated budget or its plan for conducting a
legal count.
Mr. Speaker, any Member who is genuinely concerned about the accuracy
of our Census should support this legislation. The Local Census Quality
Check Act gives us one more tool to ensure that every American is
counted, as the Constitution envisions. I urge a yes vote on both the
rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Kennedy).
(Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I find it very curious that
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would make the argument
that this is not political, that they say they do not want politics in
this. Hello, everybody. This is the most political issue we will
probably face in the next 2 years of this session, okay? This goes to
who is going to control this House for the next 10 to 20 years.
So I do not want to hear my colleagues disingenuously represent this
bill as simply about counting, because that is hogwash. The fact of the
matter is the census is about who has got the money and who has got the
power.
It should be very curious to the Republicans that the Congressional
Black Caucus, that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, that the
Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus, all three of them, every minority
caucus in this Congress, are against their sampling proposal and their
Census proposal. Why? Because they say that in the effort to get
accuracy, they want to delay the Census process. Well, delay equals
death for accurate counting.
Mr. Speaker, this is about the heart of government. It is about the
distribution of money and power. There is nothing more fundamental to
this debate for the next 2 years than this Census. Bridges, roads,
education, law enforcement, health care, all of that will be decided by
how many people exist in each State and in each city across this
country.
If we undercount people, and I have to say, traditionally, there is a
reason why the Hispanic Caucus, there is a reason why the Black Caucus,
and the minorities are against this, because minority people of color
historically get undercounted.
If my colleagues would yield for a question, I would like to ask them
to answer why they are delaying this process.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In response to my colleague, I would like for it also to be noted on
the record that the Republican Black Caucus is 100 percent for this
bill that we are supporting on the Floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
When we mention the caucuses, the Hispanic Caucus, the Black Caucus,
he is talking about Democratic members of those caucuses.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman,
[[Page
H2000]]
how many Members are members of the Republican Black Caucus?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. We have one.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. How many do we have?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. They are all Democrats.
I thank the gentleman very much. My friend has made the point, he has
tried to place color where politics is. He is the one who has said this
is all about politics, not us.
What we are trying to do is assure a fair count for groups that have
traditionally been undercounted. That is why this legislation moves
from six languages that are included in the Census surveys to 33
languages, including braille, so that we can get at these hard-to-count
populations that have traditionally been undercounted. If they can read
the forms, if they can read them in their own language, they are much
more likely to answer them.
Although it is only 1.3 percent of the population that are included
in these additional languages, these are groups who have been
traditionally undercounted that we are trying to get at. The 33
languages come from the Census department's own advisory committee, in
terms of what these languages are. That is why we are increasing the
advertising.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield
further, I am not arguing about the gentleman's efforts to make sure we
count everyone accurately. My argument is with the delay. With their
delay, they are effectively delaying the numbers being reported, which
in essence means we cannot get an accurate count.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Not at all.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think what is important to note
here is we are allowing local governments to come in who feel they have
been undercounted, to come in with a post-Census sampling and start
adding their input into that process. So if they are being undercounted
in their cities, if they are going to be punished if it comes to
Federal aid or punished in redistricting, they will have an opportunity
at that point to have their say before the final count goes forward.
That is fair to these localities, many of them that are traditionally
undercounted. That is why we put more money for the advertising budget
increases, that is why this legislation puts more enumerators in hard-
to-count areas, that is why we have extended the census in the schools,
and we have moved it up from 20 percent, which is what the
administration offered, to 100 percent of the classrooms in America.
Many times you reach the parents with the best count going through the
classrooms and the kids in the schools.
That is why this legislation asks that AmeriCorps volunteers be
empowered to help in hard-to-count areas, so we can get to a solid
count. That is why the governments and the NGOs are going to be given
additional grants to assist in hard-to-count populations, and that is
why this legislation allows Federal retirees, welfare recipients, not
to be punished if we empower them and help them to get the most
accurate count in history.
All of these are very, very important. It is ironic that people who
claim they are being undercounted would oppose these measures.
On January 25 the Supreme Court ruled that sampling could not be used
in the 2000 Census for purposes of reapportionment of the House of
Representatives. But let me read what the Congressional Research
Service report says.
It says, ``A closer examination of the other parts of the court's
opinion indicates that it did not interpret those other purposes as
necessarily including at least interstate redistricting.'' That is why
my friends on the other side of the aisle oppose this. They lost this
at the Supreme Court level, and now they want to go for it with an
illegal funding mechanism for the census.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would point out to the previous speaker what happened at the
Supreme Court level. There have been several misstatements on the other
side. I assume those misstatements were not intentional.
What the Supreme Court did was to decide that a statistical
adjustment could not be used for apportionment among the States. The
Supreme Court specifically said that adjusted figures should be used
for redistricting within States and for the allocation of Federal
funds.
I have read the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court only spoke
to the apportionment among the States, and that was a matter of
construction of statutory law. They did not decide that on a
constitutional basis.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, a fair and accurate census is in the
best interests of our Nation. I therefore rise in opposition to the
rule and to
H.R. 472.
H.R. 472 is nothing more than an unnecessary
delaying tactic to prevent the Census Bureau from using modern
statistical methods, methods that the National Academy of Sciences and
the National Academy of Statisticians have said are necessary to obtain
an accurate count of the American people.
We must not let
H.R. 472 repeat the mistakes of the past. The stakes
are simply too high. In California, for example, as a result of the
1990 undercount, 835,000 Californians essentially became invisible.
Half of those missed were Latinos, and tragically, over 40 percent were
children.
{time} 1415
Due to this undercount, the hardworking people of California lost
$2.2 billion in Federal funds for transportation, schools, housing,
health services, and valuable programs over the past 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, counting every American is an issue of social justice.
My Republican colleagues must put the interest of the country first and
stop trying to micromanage the census. Let the experts at the Census
Bureau do their job to ensure an accurate 2000 census. I ask my
colleagues to defeat the rule and
H.R. 472.
Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind
Members on both sides of the aisle who wish to engage in a dialogue
with the Member under recognition that they must first gain the
yielding of the Member under recognition before engaging in the
dialogue.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) ha
s
10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Davis) to respond.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Frost), I would hope that he would put in the Record
the specific language he claims that would mandate that the intrastate
redistricting is mandated to use these other numbers he talks about.
Looking at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, CRS-5, and
I will ask unanimous consent that this report be put into the
Congressional Record, they note that for the purpose of intrastate
redistricting, ``the Court's opinion indicates it did not interpret
those other purposes as necessarily including, at least, intrastate
redistricting. It refers to these other purposes, noting that the
census serves as the `linchpin of the federal statistical system by
collecting data on the characteristic of individuals, households, and
housing units'.''
The document referred to is as follows:
Ramifications and Reactions
sampling in intrastate redistricting
Almost immediately after the Supreme Court issued its
decision, the opponents of sampling were claiming victory,
but at the same time, the supporters of sampling were
downplaying the impact of the decision, by emphasizing the
narrowness of the holding. The Court held that the census
statute prohibited the use of sampling for the apportionment
of the House of Representatives, but declined to reach the
constitutional question. The Court had even stated that
section 195 required the use of sampling for purposes other
than apportionment. Slip opinion at 23. The proponents of
sampling viewed this as supporting the position that sampling
techniques were not only permissible, but were required, in
the taking of the census for the purposes of intrastate
redistricting and federal funding allocations.\4\ However, a
closer examination of other parts of the Court's opinion
indicates that it did not interpret those other purposes as
necessarily including, at least, intrastate redistricting. It
refers to these other purposes,
[[Page
H2001]]
noting that the census serves as the ``linchpin of the
federal statistical system by collecting data on the
characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units
throughout the country [cities omitted].'' Slip opinion at
24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes at end of document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, Justice O'Connor based her standing
analysis, at least in part, on the ``expected effects of the
use of sampling in the 2000 census on intrastate
redistricting.'' Slip opinion at 14. Her discussion of these
expected effects appears to indicate that the Court assumed
that the federal decennial census figures for apportionment
would be the figures used by the States for congressional
redistricting and, in many cases, for state legislative
redistricting. The Court seems to think that the references
to the federal decennial census data in state legislative
redistricting statutes and state constitutional provisions
are references to the data for apportionment of the House of
Representatives. Otherwise, the threatened injury to the
plaintiffs would not be redressed by the Court's decision.
Certainly, the position of sampling proponents, if officially
adopted and carried out, would mean that the threatened
injury to voters in state and local elections had not been
eliminated by the Court's decision. The issue of
redressability and the possibility of a two-number census was
raised during oral argument.\5\ However, the analysis in this
part of the Court's decision deals with standing and not with
the merits, therefore, technically, the position of sampling
proponents, that sampling in intrastate redistricting is
required, is not inconsistent with the Court's holdings on
the merits, but is arguably inconsistent with the apparent
assumptions and larger scheme underlying the holdings.
footnotes
\4\ Since the required taking of a traditional headcount for
apportionment of the House of Representatives would make the
non-response follow-up sampling moot, presumably any
contemplated sampling for intrastate redistricting and
funding allocation data would be similar in concept to the
ICM for the undercount or the Post Enumeration Survey
conducted after the 1990 Census.
\5\ Oral Argument Transcript, found at 1998 WL 827383 on
Westlaw (oral argument of Michael A. Carvin on behalf of the
appellees in No. 98-564).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) ha
s
13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I do
that because I support achieving the most accurate census count, and
H.R. 472, as written, will delay and destroy our chance to achieve the
most accurate census count possible.
Mr. Speaker, an accurate census does matter. It affects our
communities, our families, and our children. In fact, inaccurate
figures cost the State of California $2.2 billion in Federal aid during
the 1990s.
It cost my district $29 million in Federal aid by missing over 10,000
people in the 6th Congressional District of California. Ten thousand
people were not counted. I happen to believe that every one of those
10,000, and 100 percent of the people nationwide, deserve to be counted
and included in our census.
An inaccurate count costs all of our communities literally millions
of dollars for Federal highways, for child care, for foster care, for
education, for aid to women and infants and children.
We cannot make the same mistakes with the 2000 census that we made
with the 1990 census. Our democratic system demands fair representation
for all constituents and all constituent groups. This can only be
achieved through the most accurate census possible.
Fear is what really is stopping the opponents of an accurate census,
fear that an accurate census will affect the political makeup of the
House of Representatives. We should not play politics by blocking an
accurate census. Vote ``yes'' on the Maloney substitute, ``no'' on the
rule, and ``no'' on
H.R. 472.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time,
and I congratulate him on his superb management of this rule.
I rise in strong support of the rule. We have a very simple and basic
goal here. It is to subscribe to those two words in the U.S.
Constitution, ``actual enumeration.'' In so doing, we want to make sure
that every single American is counted.
I thought we had started to win this war on the issue of local
control. We in a bipartisan way passed the Education Flexibility Act.
What did it say? It said decisions would be made at the local level.
What is it that
H.R. 472 says? Basically the same thing it did back
when the 1990 census was conducted. It said that there should be post-
census local review. There should be some kind of local input for this
process. Frankly, I believe that it is the most responsible thing to
do. It is by far and away the most balanced thing.
I think organizations have recognized that. We have heard that we
have got the National League of Cities, the National Association of
Towns and Townships, the National Association of Developmental
Organizations, I mean, they are supportive of this measure because it
is fair and it is the right thing to do.
I know that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have
raised questions about this rule. I will tell my colleagues, I am
looking at the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who reminded
me yesterday that I had said to her last month when we had this hearing
in the Committee on Rules that we wanted to make her amendment in
order. In fact, that is exactly what we have done.
On March 18, I announced right here that we were in fact going to
have preprinting. We have made with this rule every single amendment
that has been submitted to the Committee on Rules over the last month
in order. That basically consists of an amendment from our side by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the amendment by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). We had an interesting hearing
on this issue upstairs. So we have in fact done exactly what it is that
they requested.
We will have, if there is a recommittal motion, a grand total of 3
hours and 10 minutes of debate, including this debate which is taking
place right here. So I think that we have moved ahead with this, with
what is a very, very balanced, fair rule on this question. At the same
time, we have given more than an adequate amount of time for debate and
again have made every Democratic amendment in order that they
requested.
So I urge my colleagues to, in light of that, support this rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could believe in the
sincerity of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on this issue
because, in fact, census should be a collaborative and bipartisan issue
and response.
But when they cite
H.R. 472, the same process that was used in 1990,
let me tell my colleagues why I have a problem. That is because Texas
lost $1.87 billion in Federal funds, likely to lose $2.8 billion in
Federal funds with the same use of
H.R. 472 now.
In 1990, it was estimated that 28,000 children in my district were
missed, almost 5 percent of all African Americans and Hispanics were
not counted in 1990. So for me it is a life and death matter in terms
of ensuring that all of the people are counted but that the resources
go back to the State.
The Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt says that the
H.R. 472
proposal that we are now discussing will disrupt the census and put it
at risk.
This rule does not allow us to discuss fully at length how to resolve
this problem. The National Academy of Sciences said we should have a
Martin statistical method.
I am dealing with some of the largest cities in Texas who are opposed
to
H.R. 472, the City of Houston, the City of San Antonio, the City of
Austin, the City of Laredo.
Local officials do not understand what we are doing to them. What we
are doing to them is we are forcing them to have to take the time with
meager resources and one's tax dollars to take in a long period of time
to count numbers after we have counted it.
I do not believe those organizations who are supporting
H.R. 472 know
the financial burden that they are putting on local government. I
served in local government. I served as a member of the city council. I
can tell my colleagues right now, I would much rather provide for
health services and sanitation services and environmental services than
to sit around putting staff on
[[Page
H2002]]
counting people that the Federal government can do.
Martin statistical sampling is what we need. We also need to follow
H.R. 472, as amended by the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney). It needs to be changed because what we have here is a
burdening of local officials and a bad census and the denial of the
count of the United States people, people in the United States.
I come today to oppose the modified closed rule for
H.R. 471, the
Local Census Quality Check Act of 1999. This modified closed rule
impedes the amendment process that could improve this legislation.
The Census is one of the most significant civil rights issues,
especially as we approach the 21st Century. For the year 2000 the
Census must be accurate to ensure equal representation of all
Americans.
This bill in its present form would not improve the accuracy of the
census count. Instead it would repeat the method used in 1990 that
increased the involvement of local governments by allowing them to
review census housing units numbers.
The process used in the Census missed 8.4 million people, 4.4 million
people were counted twice and 13 million people were counted in the
wrong place.
Because of the undercount in 1990, Texas lost almost $1.87 billion in
federal funds. A recent article in The Houston Chronicle estimated that
Texas could lose $2.8 billion if a similar undercount takes place.
Children, people of color, and the rural and urban poor were most
likely to have been missed. In my district in Houston, close to 500,000
people were missed.
It is estimated that 28,554 children in my district were missed.
Almost 5 percent of all African-Americans and Hispanics were not
counted in 1990, and these groups constitute almost half of the
population of the city!
Although
H.R. 472 purports to increase the involvement of local
government in the census, it really acts to slow down and delay an
accurate count. This bill repeats the ineffective program that was used
in 1990, and it would delay the census by an additional nine weeks.
The Census Bureau plan already provides for review as the count
occurs instead of after the fact. This is more efficient and it is a
better use of resources.
The modified closed rule does not allow us to offer amendments that
would actually make improvements in the counting methods.
Census undercounts translate into communities losing out on federal
and state funding for schools, crime prevention, health care and
transportation.
I urge my colleagues vote against this modified closed rule to
support an open rule so that we may prevent an unnecessary delay in the
census. The method advocated in this bill did not prevent an undercount
in 1990, and we must not make the same mistake for the year 2000.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I want to
talk about some other communities, Litchfield, Illinois; Salem,
Illinois; and Carlyle, Illinois, small rural America who support
H.R.
472 and the Local Census Quality Check Act.
I would like to share with the House some feedback I received from
these communities and my constituents about the 2000 census. I am
finding that the localities in my district are supporting our efforts
to provide them about post-census review mechanism.
In fact, the Mayor of Litchfield, William Cornman, wrote me on March
24, 1999, and stated, ``We feel that in order to have an accurate
Census, we must reinstate the post-Census Local Review program. If a
mistake is made with the oversight of subdivisions and newly annexed
areas, the Census count is not accurate.''
He continues, ``We feel that we cannot properly evaluate the Bureau's
Partnership Program as it relates to our community. Thus far, all that
they have provided us is a bulging packet of information and very
little direction.''
I believe Mayor Cornman has made two critical points: one, that the
local authorities cannot challenge and review the final census numbers,
even if they are incorrect, and, two, the current Local Update of
Census Addresses, the LUCA program, which my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle praise, and the Census Bureau claims is working
efficiently, appears in the eyes of my constituents as just a bulging
packet of information and very little direction. Clearly, this is not a
sign that we are on the road to an accurate census.
The City of Salem in my district felt so strongly about this issue
that they passed a resolution which states, among other things, the
following: ``Whereas, one of the most vital parts of the American
Counts Today is reinstatement of the Post-Census Local Review Program,
that provides a procedure for local public officials to review and
challenge the Census Bureau determinations before counting is final;
and Whereas, a Post-Census Local Review is based upon the premise that
local officials know their own communities better than statisticians
and pollsters in Washington, D.C.''
I think the City of Salem hits the nail on the head with this
resolution. They say exactly what Republicans in Congress have been
saying about the census and Federal Government in general; local
officials know how to run programs the best, not bureaucracies in
Washington.
Additionally, the City of Salem points out that post-census local
review provides a procedure for local officials to challenge Census
Bureau findings before they are final. I do not see the harm in
allowing the Census Bureau's conclusions from being challenged. I
suspect the challenge is what the Census Bureau fears. It would be an
easier job for the Census Bureau if nobody was able to question their
conclusions. The foundations of democracy rely on the voice of the
people. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Census Bureau is muzzling
our localities.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring up the correspondence
which I have received from the City of Carlyle. Mayor Schmidt wrote me
in support of the post-census review and included a memorandum from one
of his staff Ms. Jean Parson which discusses this issue in detail.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record letters from the mayor of
Carlyle, and from the cities of Salem and Litchfield.
City of Carlyle,
Carlyle, IL, March 29, 1999.
Congressman John Shimkus,
Springfield, IL.
Dear Congressman Shimkus: I have shared your letter
concerning the post-census review process with my office
manager. She has been the most active member of my staff in
regard to the Census 2000 project. As you will note in her
enclosed memo, she feels very strongly that the post-review
process remain in place. I feel her concerns are legitimate
and encourage you to pursue this matter further.
Please phone 618-594-2468 if you have any questions, or
would like to discuss this matter further with either Ms.
Parson or myself.
Sincerely,
Don W. Schmitz,
Mayor.
Enclosure.
March 17, 1999.
Mayor: I agree with Representative Shimkus on the
importance of the post-census local review program. This is
something I have been concerned about all along.
In the old program, they conducted the census and then we
had the opportunity to review the count and challenge
anything that didn't look quite correct to us. Under this
program, as I understand it, our only input is in the
formulation of the address list. I have spent many, many
hours reviewing their list. I spent time with the post master
comparing our lists, and then made corrections to the census
list. The entire process was extremely confusing and I have
had my doubts if my changes will even be made. I also am sure
that I didn't pick up every problem in the list. It is just
too complicated and time consuming.
They have given us time schedules as far as different
reports and mailings are concerned and I don't believe they
have been completely accurate. I am still waiting for a
report where we can be sure all ``special places'' are
included in their count. These include the nursing home,
group homes, the jail, etc. I don't believe I have seen this
report.
I guess I'm getting old, but the old way seemed to work. If
we have no opportunity to review the final count, there is
basically no one watching to see that the census takers
actually do their job and that the information submitted is
processed correctly.
I strongly feel that he should continue his efforts and get
this process changed. it is a very critical part of our
financial future to have the ability to challenge their
counts. We are basically stuck with these counts for ten
years. It could mean thousands and thousands of dollars to us
if the counts are incorrect.
The other thing that should be noted is that there appears
to be little involvement from most communities. We have been
participating with our best efforts, but I don't believe that
is the case with most communities. Communities were not well
represented at the meetings I attended, and I have spoken to
many community leaders who were not even aware of the
changes. I'm sure this is because of mailings not reaching
[[Page
H2003]]
the appropriat
