The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“ON THE CENSUS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H4039-H4044 on June 3, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ON THE CENSUS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McKeon). Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we believe that a fair and accurate census is fundamental to the democratic principles on which our country was founded. We are here today because those principles are being threatened as never before. We have vowed to fight that threat to the very end.
There are some in this Congress who seek to manipulate the census process to assure that the errors that have been made in the past continue. There is nothing that they will not do to achieve their ends. They began 2 years ago by saying that sampling is unscientific. When that did not work, they said that modern scientific methods are unconstitutional. When that did not work, they began to attack the plan for the 2000 census as too complicated. I suspect that the next tactic will be to attack the Census Bureau's ability to take the census. Their goal is to make sure that the errors of 1990 are repeated in the 2000 census, because they believe those errors are to their political advantage.
Yesterday, the President of the United States was at a forum in Houston, Texas; and he called on the opponents of an accurate census to recognize that the census is about people, not about politics. This forum was held in Texas, Houston, Texas, in the district of my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), who is here, and he will share with us more information that the President gave at this forum and will put a human face on his constituents, on people who are running programs, planning services, planning the roads, sociologists, professors, an entire forum of many people who could speak from a personal point of view of why an accurate census is important to our country.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York who journeyed to Houston yesterday and experienced our 98 degree temperature to discuss the census at a roundtable discussion with the President of the United States and people from my district, in fact, from all over Houston. Our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) was also there and here tonight.
It was estimated that the 1990 census undercounted 8.4 million people. Another 4.4 million people were actually counted twice. This undercount greatly reduces the Federal funding sent to a locality, particularly if one has an area like my State, where the undercount could be dramatic, whether it be California, Texas, Arizona, Florida.
It has been estimated that Texas, because of the undercount in 1990, lost $1 billion in Federal funds. That $1 billion is not just social welfare, as a lot of people think of it.
First, it is education funding, Title I funding that has a baseline in the census and an update every 2 years, health care. Veterans benefits is based on an accurate census and the number of veterans and the number of people in a given community. Highway construct funding is based on census. So that is why it is so important to have an accurate count.
An accurate count for Title I funding is so important because of the effort that is the Federal program to help children who are the most in need. And we need to have an accurate count. And, again, our Congress changed the law to have an update every 2 years in 1994, but we still have to have a baseline that is correct.
It is necessary to forecast information on accuracy for Social Security and Medicare. So without an accurate count, we are hurting, not only as a Nation but also individually, our communities.
Census Bureau officials have said that Houston was one of the most affected by the last census count. Over 66,000 people in the City of Houston were undercounted or uncounted. It estimates that, in 1990, Census missed 4.4 percent of the African American population, 5.5 percent of the Hispanic population, 2.3 percent of Asians and Pacific Islanders. It is a shame that our census is missing these people and these people are not being counted.
A fair count is necessary to ensure that all people in our country are represented and that they have a voice. A fair and accurate count is vital for information that is used by everyone, from the Department of Education to a small business marketing a new product.
Yesterday, again, President Clinton visited the congressional district I am honored to represent to discuss the need for an accurate count. He met with everyday people, not only people in the audience who were there, but he conducted a panel discussion by people who rely on census data in their everyday life.
Here is what some of the participants said:
Gilbert Moreno, who is the executive director of the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans, said that the census must accurately chart the growth of Hispanics in America. Over the next 50 years, Hispanics and Asians will provide almost half of the country's growth; and the accuracy of these statistics is crucial. And yet in the last census they were one of the two groups that were the most undercounted in our country.
Dr. Mary Kendrick, director of the City of Houston Health Department, said accurate census data is critical to the public health. She noted census data on child poverty helps determine nutrition programs and children's health programs in the City of Houston as well as around the country.
Glenda Joe, who is the owner of Great Wall Enterprises, a marketing firm aimed at the Asian American community, called the census the bible of corporations looking to plan their business allocations for marketing and advertising. An inaccurate count means she has trouble selling corporations on the idea of Asian American outreach because that community is uncounted.
Again, as a business person before I was elected to Congress, I used census data; and businesses, I know, use it. An uncount or a not accurate count hurts businesses trying to make a decision on marketing their products in our community.
The question arises, what is the best way to count our country's population? The past two censuses have shown that the current procedure undercounts our population, especially minorities. Some Members of the House believe that an accurate enumeration is the only way to take a census. In other words, what I would like to do, and in the past two censuses we have had where you count everyone. You have the mail brochures. You have people actually go out and see those people.
But I have people in my district, as all of us have, who may not want to mail back that information, who may not want to answer that door because the census does not have the right to come in our home and investigate us. They may because of their own privacy concerns. So they are being undercounted; that is, not counting people who may be concerned that there may be a language problem because the census takers in their neighborhood may not be conversant in the language that is customarily used in that neighborhood.
So we want to count everyone that we can by the old system, but we also need to make sure that the undercount, that we recognize there is an undercount, a mechanism to adjust that, and that is why sampling is so important.
That is why we need to count everyone we can and then have the statistical community endorse the use of sampling as a way of ensuring that the undercount that occurred in 1990 is not repeated.
Businesses use the same sampling techniques. That is all I think we, as a government, ought to use, is the same sampling techniques that businesses use to get the best we can for the dollars we spend for those census takers.
Let us also use sampling to make sure everyone is counted, even if they do not want to be, because that is the basis of not only allocation of our districts, but also it is so important for the next 9 years after redistricting for the allocation of resources to serve those constituents.
It was a great day yesterday. It talked about putting a human face on the need to have census data. We were at the Magnolia Multipurpose Center in the City of Houston. They have a senior citizen nutrition program. They have a WIC program. They have a health care clinic that serves children, and plus we have conducted a lot of our own town hall meetings at that location. It is a utilized facility, but that facility would not have the funds that they have today if we do not have an accurate count. In fact, they are doing with less today because of the undercount in that neighborhood in 1990.
We need to make sure we have an accurate count. I was glad my colleague from New York came to Houston, again, to brave our warm temperatures and to talk about how important the census, an accurate census is.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Multipurpose Center in the gentleman's district, we met with real people, and we could see the real impact that an accurate census has on their lives.
Information gathered in the census is used by States and local governments to plan schools and highways, by the Federal Government to distribute funds for health care and other programs, and by businesses in making economic plans.
There was a person there from the private sector who said he needed to know where the people were so he knew where he would invest the expansion of his businesses. Because the census is so important, we must do everything that we possibly can to make sure that everyone is included in the count.
We know that previous censuses overlooked millions of Americans, especially young people, children and minorities. That is not fair, it is not accurate, and it is not acceptable. That is why the President went to Houston and met with Mr. Green and with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and some of their constituents.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who was also at this meeting at the Multicenter yesterday. I thank her for being there yesterday and being here today.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much for her very sound, very pivotal leadership on this issue of census.
One of the things that I have been saying, as I have been speaking to community groups, and my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) knows that we have been trying to raise this issue up all over our community. I appreciate both his leadership and the opportunity to have been in his district. We happen to be neighbors. Census sometimes is not an exciting issue, but it can be a life-and-death issue, because the hope of America is its people, and everyone should count.
In fact, one of the posters that we had inside the Multipurpose Center was the idea that everyone counts. It was an artist's work done by the children of that community. Let me thank the children so very much for the beautiful work that they did, a beautiful rendition of the concept that everyone counts, because the people represented so many different racial groups and so many different language groups. We are very proud to be in that center.
My colleague already said that 66,000 people were not counted in Houston in 1990; 400,000 Texans were not counted. What do the numbers 4 percent, 5 percent and 2 percent mean, again, to us? Four percent African Americans not counted. Almost 5 percent or more Hispanics not counted. Two percent or more Asians not counted. That means almost 11 percent of our people in this country not counted.
I cannot believe, and I appreciate as well the presence of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) who has been a leader on this issue. He joined us in Texas. That is how important it was to make this issue so prominent nationally.
How can anyone refuse to count a single person? How can anyone ignore the cultural differences of this very diverse Nation, not acknowledge that each and every one of those persons have a valuable role and are a contributor to society.
Glenda Joe made the point, as an Asian American and as a businesswoman, that her market depends upon knowing where her community lives, their likes and dislikes, to be able to make the point, the argument almost, that they should not be left out. Her numbers rely upon accurate census data. We already heard in 1990 that Asians were not counted.
Dr. Judith Craven, President of the United Way, doing an excellent job in all of our communities, she is president of the Houston Gulf Coast United Way, made a very vital point. We work together in this community. The monies that they raise, some 60 plus million by the private sector, is key to the census that knows how they can leverage those private dollars to the amount of public dollars. They use the census to know where to go, where to use these precious private sector dollars, what communities need, what are the ailments that are facing these communities.
{time} 1930
She frankly said we would be lost without accurate census data, and also to be able to argue the case of where the Federal dollars should be spent.
Reverend Harvey Clements, who pastors in the same community that Barbara Jordan grew up in and Mickey Leland, former Members, now deceased, in the body of this House, Members who cared about people. Reverend Harvey Clements has seen Fifth Ward, a very old and historic neighborhood, be revitalized because he was able to use some of the census data. Unfortunately the 1990 data was certainly not accurate. But he was able to use some of the data to show where pockets of people in that community had left because of the degradation of that area. He was able to show banks the potential of those people coming back, so that he could build 165 units, Pleasant Hill senior citizen units, he could build that with Federal money and FannieMae money in order to bring senior citizens back into the area, an area that they love but they had to leave because there was no housing. He could build over 100 housing units for families to come back into that area because he could prove by the census data that it had been a vital area in the past and it had the potential for being a vital area.
Mr. Speaker, there could be nothing more important than giving to every human being in this country the dignity of being counted. We have already proven that enumeration does not work. We have also proven that enumeration has not been able to count every American. And we have proven by the law of courts that sampling is constitutional. What more do we want? Our scientific leaders have already said sampling is accurate.
I know the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) will join me in a smile, because we know that this may hit people differently, of an example used by Dr. Mineola, a sociologist from the University of Houston, who made a very obvious point. When we go to our doctors, our blood samples are taken. Out of those samples, we are diagnosed for a variety of things. Potential of heart disease, potential of any blood disease or blood concerns, any sort of hypertension or other matters may come out of that tiny, small sample. Now, it sounds as if we are going somewhere very sacred, but people understand what that means, that when you go to a doctor, they cannot sometimes take an assessment of everything, but they can get a lot of reading, accurate reading, of what your situation is out of that very tiny blood sample.
What is wrong with recognizing the scientific leaders of this issue, with recognizing the legal points of this issue that have already said that this is the correct way to do it, sampling? And might I add as I see the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) come to the floor and certainly the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), this is a bipartisan issue. I would simply say to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney), I was delighted to be with my next-door neighbor, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), to be joined by so many leaders in the community including Dr. Stephen Klineberg, a Rice University sociologist, that have been doing surveys in our community for years and discovered the emerging and exciting Asian population who also affirmed that sampling is the best and most accurate way to go and really sort of challenged us: Do we have to tolerate this political process? Can we not just simply do what is right?
The hope of America are its people. If that is the case, everyone must be counted. I hope that we will do the right thing in this Congress and allow the census to be taken by sampling, and thereby not leave anyone outside of the circle, the senior citizen, the mother and baby needing WIC, the youngster needing Pell grants, the children needing to be educated, then we will be a very proud country and as well we will have reached the promise that we have made as our commitment that every American should be counted.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement and for her attending the conference yesterday in Houston.
The President made the point over and over again that the census is about people, not about politics. Our goal is the most accurate census employing the most up-to-date scientific methods with the most cost-
effective use of taxpayers dollars.
We have been joined tonight on this special order by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). I yield to one of our Democratic whips. I thank her for coming down to the floor.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlewoman from New York. I applaud her and commend her for the work that she has been doing over, it is more than several months, it is the last couple of years, on this issue. She has been indefatigable and once more oftentimes crying out in the wilderness alone on this issue, but she has really brought to everyone's attention the importance of the accuracy of the census.
Census counting happens only every 10 years. The goal, as she has said, is to have accuracy, to be cost effective, and to allow for every single American to be counted amongst the population of this country. I was listening to her comments and the comments of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and wishing I was in Houston. This sounded like a wonderful effort, if you will, to bring life to the numbers. Because these are not just numbers, they are not numbers on a page, it is not statistics. This is flesh and blood, real human beings who mean something in this Nation. We are a Nation of people. The necessity for statistical sampling in the year 2000 will guarantee a fair count, an accurate count for all Americans.
In our Connecticut delegation, and I am delighted to see the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on the floor, we were locked arm in arm, Republicans and Democrats, in support of sampling when the House voted on this issue in September. This is not a partisan issue. The men, women and children in this Nation are all Americans. This is not a partisan issue. It should not be a political issue. The only way to achieve this fair count, as has been stated over and over again tonight, is with statistical sampling. This reduces the error rate to
.1 percent. It would complement and not replace the traditional method of counting. The Census Bureau would avoid undercounts, again that has been said, of minorities, children, seniors, everyone in this country. We have to have a full and accurate picture as we enter into a new century. We cannot fulfill our obligations and our responsibilities to help Americans succeed in their everyday life, in that struggle to create a better way of life for their families and for their communities.
I would say to my colleagues who went to Houston, I do not know if there are any more opportunities, if you will, to be on the road, because people are not paying attention to this issue. It does not come up around their kitchen table. The issues that come up around our kitchen tables are, Will we have enough money to get our children to school? What is going to happen with our retirement? What is our security all about? Am I going to be eligible for Social Security and for Medicare and a whole variety of other kinds of programs, and education programs that the Federal Government participates in? That is why we need to bring this issue to the American public so that when they are thinking about those kitchen table issues and in those discussions that in fact the census and the counting of all Americans has a direct bearing on the ability, their own ability in their families to participate in some of these efforts.
We have all said on this floor that government is not going to solve all of people's problems. We cannot do that. But we sure as heck have the obligation to help people in crafting the tools that they need to meet the challenges in their lives.
The census, if you will, is a blueprint and an infrastructure in order to look at some of these programs and who is eligible for them. Each year census data determines the distribution of $170 billion in Federal spending. As we have all said, the dollars go to programs, Social Security, Medicare, road improvements, child care for low-income families, for middle-income families, Head Start, school lunch programs. It saves us money in sampling. With the use of sampling, the census will cost $4 billion. Without it, as I understand it, it will cost $7.2 billion.
I would just say, and I have said that this is not a partisan issue, but I will say that the leadership on the other side of the aisle, the Republican leadership, I believe is playing politics with the American people when, as we have characterized, this should not be a part of the debate.
Some of the claims on the sampling from the majority leadership in this body is that sampling will delete responses to the census. This is not true. There are people on this floor tonight who have spent a lot more time with this issue and can address it. No responses will be deleted. Instead, it is the Republican plan, the Republican leadership's plan of avoiding sampling that in fact will delete important populations across the Nation from the count.
Often we hear on this floor that what we ought to do is to run government more like a business. I will just say that America's largest corporations use statistical sampling every single day. They base billions of dollars on the results, and their decisions, which are billions of dollars, are directly based on these statistical sampling results. What we do not want to do is what happened in the last census, is that as many as 10 million people were not counted. We need to correct that.
Let me say that, further, we should put this question to the American people. We have two options. One will give us inaccurate information. It will cost more. The other will provide accurate information and cost less. Sometimes we wonder why we are even having a debate on an issue when it is as clear-cut and when there is bipartisan support in this effort. Nevertheless, there is a debate.
I applaud my colleagues for taking out this special order. I think in fact what we need to do is to bring this issue, as unglamorous sometimes as it is, but we need to bring it to the attention of the American public, because so much of what their lives are about is going to be determined by how in fact we do count every single American in this country.
I want to thank my colleagues for asking me to join in this effort tonight. I look forward to the continuing weeks when we will have more debate on this issue on the floor of the House. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut. What she pointed out is that so much of it is part of our everyday lives, that this data is important to us and we must have accurate data.
To prove the point, I just took one day of USA Today and cut out of the paper all of the articles that were based on census data. I really challenge all my colleagues and all of the listening public to do the same thing. When you read the paper, notice how many articles really are based on the census. On the front page, one of the articles that was cut out is about the recent successes in the war on cancer. Measurement of these successes requires information on national disease rates, which rely on census data. There is also a little front page article on recent college graduate jobs and pay situations. The column on ``What's Up in Washington,'' it talks about Social Security, transportation, it talks about grant moneys, that are based on census numbers.
We must have an accurate count. It is a bipartisan effort. With me is the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). I would like to yield to him. He has been a leader on this issue in our bipartisan effort to get a fair and accurate count.
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and want to take this time to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). It is very satisfying to me that of the eight members in the Connecticut delegation, we all see eye to eye on this very important issue. It may be in Connecticut we are sensitized to this fact because Connecticut tends to be an urban State. We do not have large cities, but it is a very urbanized type of State. We know that the census has overlooked the count, particularly in urban areas.
Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewomen have pointed out, we need an accurate census. It truly is the basis of our democracy, and as important as the Voting Rights Act. When I looked at the 1990 census, the census itself has determined they missed 8.4 million people. Totally missed them. It counted 4.4 million people twice. It also counted more than 13 million people in the wrong place, for a total error rate of 10 percent, a significant error rate.
The undercount in urban areas is significant. It is in rural areas as well, but its impact in urban areas is quite significant given the large number of people who live in urban areas.
This to me is quite distressing, 5.7 percent of those in the black community were not counted compared to 1.3 percent in the white community. And Latinos were also disproportionately missed. Now, to improve the count, the Census Bureau needs to test intensive door-to-
door surveys.
{time} 1945
The Census Bureau needs to test various outreach programs. It needs to test various ways to advertise. It needs to test hiring practices and whom to hire. It needs to test telephone responses. It needs to test multi-site form distributions. It needs to test polling by mail.
Now they are going to send out more than once to a household that has not responded; and, yes, it also needs to test and review the results of statistical sampling.
Now when we talk about sampling I think there is a tendency to think that what you do is you find one-tenth of 1 percent and then determine what 99.99 percent are. But this is not the way it works under the statistical method. Basically, you do all those other things. You go into a census tract and you send out the mail, you have outreach, you telephone, you have door-to-door canvassing. But in the end they arrive at about 90 percent, and there is about 10 percent they have not found, and so what they do is they use the statistical methods to take 90 percent to determine the remaining 10 percent. They are not taking 1 percent to determine 99 percent or a half of 1 percent. They are taking 90 percent of the population to determine the 10 percent.
Now I realize that more Republicans then Democrats oppose using statistical methods in the political environment, but I have not yet found one Republican opposed who is familiar with statistical systems who works in New York or in other urban areas and uses statistical methods to determine so many things in their own businesses. I have not encountered one who has not said that you get a fairer and more accurate count by using statistical methods.
And the whole point is we want to just test it. We want to test to see how accurate it will be, and we are having to confront some in our aisle and particularly on my side of the aisle who do not even want to test it, do not even want to allow it to show its validity or not. If the tests prove not to work, then we should not use statistical methods. But that would be surprising because when you count 90 percent it is quite easy to determine the 10 percent.
I just would like to conclude by saying to you that the politicians in Congress that are Republicans, many of them oppose it, and I think their basis for opposing it are groundless. We will have a more accurate count. That is the only thing that should matter.
It will mean, yes, we will count more blacks and more Latinos. I do not make an assumption that more blacks and more Latinos are going to vote against Republicans. They might if they realize we do not want them to be counted. That might be cause to not want to vote for Republicans. But we do want them to be counted. We want to know where every American lives. We want every census tract to be accurate, not just on the basis of the financial aid that is distributed by the Federal Government and how businesses use the data, but also to make sure that we have the most accurate count, to make sure we draw the lines accurately for not just congressional seats but for State representative and State Senate seats and for even council seats.
I would like to conclude by thanking Dr. Barbara Bryant, who was the census director under President Bush. She was the individual who, working with experts of all political persuasions, determined that we needed to test sampling. There is uniform agreement on the part of those who are the experts that we should proceed.
I would like to thank Mayor Giuliani of New York and Mayor Richard Riordan of Los Angeles, who both support using statistical methods. They know if we do not their cities will be undercounted, and their constituents will not be receiving the rights they are entitled to.
And I would like to conclude by thanking Congresswoman Maloney for being the true champion on this issue, doing it in a very bipartisan way, just dealing with the facts. Obviously, there are more on her side of the aisle that support using statistical methods; but, at the same time, she has consistently reached out to Republicans and others to just say, ``Let's just do what is right.''
And I would also like to thank her for her outstanding contribution in campaign finance reform, something that I am spending even more time on than on an issue like this, to say that she is truly a leader on this issue, and it has been a pleasure to work with her on both the census and campaign finance reform.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I, too, would like to thank the gentleman for his leadership on campaign finance reform and also the census. Chris Shays and myself, we are both co-chairs of the Census Caucus, and we have been working this year trying to build a broad base of support on both sides of the aisle for a fair and accurate census. Thank you for your statement tonight.
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. With us tonight is a leader on so many issues and on the census as well, Congresswoman Juanita McDonald.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Maloney. And let me just thank you for your leadership, along with Congressman Chris Shays, for your tenacity in ensuring that everyone is counted and everyone will be counted in this next census 2000. It is your leadership that has forced us to come and join you on this very critical issue.
I am happy to stand with you tonight as you organize this special order to discuss the census. It is an important discussion because, one, I represent California; and California was undercounted by 800,000 votes, citizens I should say, last census count. 800,000 persons were undercounted in California in 1990, which has now been shown as the worst census count ever in the years that we have been doing the census count.
California could ill afford to lose a seat in the House when our population has grown far beyond any other State in this Nation, and so it is important that we have statistical sampling so that we can count all of California's citizens in the next census.
It is also an important discussion for African Americans and other minorities because the outcome of the controversy over the methodology the Bureau of Census uses will say a great deal about whether the three branches that make up our government truly believe that everyone counts. It will stand as a test of how far our Nation has come from the days when people of African decent were considered three-fifths of a person by our Constitution. Indeed, this whole debate would make an interesting case study about contemporary race relations in the United States.
On one side we have the forces of science, two centuries of experience and political leaders committed to insuring that the census that determines the apportionment of seats in the people's House is fair and that everyone is counted. On the other side, we have the forces of tradition inspired by two centuries of experience fighting to keep some people in this country from being made whole and political leaders determined to ensure that this census undercounts some and overcounts others.
Instead of using offensive terminology in a direct frontal attack on the principles of equality, fairness and respect for diversity, they resort to sophisticated and obscure legal reasoning and obstructionist tactics. And why? What do they fear? The opponents of sampling claim that the modern statistical methods being proposed in this census and overwhelmingly supported by the scientific community are subject to political manipulation.
However, a memorandum prepared by Stuart M. Gerson, Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division of the Justice Department for the Commerce Department's General Counsel, noted that a head count, quote, might be subject to political manipulation in the form of a congressional refusal to appropriate sufficient funds for census programs aimed at reducing the undercount of minorities or by an overly restrictive local review procedure. On the other hand, the Census Bureau statisticians might perform a statistical adjustment in a manner yielding highly accurate results, unquote.
The opponents believe that if African Americans were counted as whole individuals using accurate methods instead of the nine-tenths they were during the 1990 census, it could shift control of the House from the Republicans to the Democrats. How else can we explain the Speaker's flip-flop from being a supporter of statistical adjustments based on sampling in 1992 to heading a lawsuit against sampling now?
The opponents are using an interpretation of the constitutional mandate to conduct an enumeration in an effort to preclude the Bureau from using methodologies demonstrated to improve accuracy in the most cost-effective way. By claiming the Constitution requires a physical head count of the entire population, they deliberately seek to avoid reaching the populous in densely populated urban centers unwilling to open their doors to strangers asking intrusive questions about living arrangements and those in isolated rural communities. And we know which demographic profile predominates in these areas, do we not?
What the opponents of an accurate census really fear are the American people themselves in the glory of their ethnic racial gender and socioeconomic diversity. The opponents do not believe that everyone counts, only those that look like them and live in the same types of neighborhoods they do. By assuming an accurate count of the Latino, Asian American, Native American and African American communities as well as the residents of rural areas, it will lead to unpredictable political shifts in power. They display their contempt for any notion changing their agenda in an effort to address these constituencies' needs, hopes and aspirations.
Mr. Speaker, we must make sure everyone is counted in the year 2000, and no one should be left out. This is why I am joining the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and all others who are sensitive and do know the importance of counting everyone.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Thank you for your statement and thank you for being a leader on making sure that all Americans are counted, no matter where they live, no matter what their ethnic background.
Yesterday, the President in Houston not only met with people who were speaking about what the census meant in real terms to their lives, but he also called upon the opponents of an accurate census to recognize that the census is about people, not about politics.
Unfortunately, they responded, the opponents that is, with politics as usual. The chairman of the Republican conference tried once again to invoke the Constitution, but, as we all know, actual enumeration is not a specification for what methodology should be used in the census, and the Constitution is quite clear on that point.
You see, Mr. Speaker, the chairman only quoted part of the Constitution because it suited his purpose to distort and to confuse. What the Constitution says is that the actual enumeration shall be made, and I quote, in such manner as they, meaning the Congress, shall by law direct, end quote. Congress passed a law in the 1940s delegating to the Secretary of Commerce the authority to determine the manner in which the census shall be taken.
If that are were not bad enough, recently there was a lengthy brief filed in the case of the House of Representatives versus the Department of Commerce that looks at the dictionaries used by the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. Those dictionaries defined enumeration as the act of, quote, numbering or counting over, and they define to number as to reckon how many to compute or to input.
The chairman of the Census Subcommittee accused the President of, and I quote, pedaling statistical snake oil, end quote, but the chairman showed his true colors. He is more concerned with protecting the double counts in the census, and there were 4.4 million people overcounted, in making sure that those people missed are forever left out. He claims that real people are going to be deleted from the census.
That is simply not true. No one's form is going to be deleted from the census, and no one other than the chairman has ever suggested such a possibility.
Last month, the chairman tried to frighten the public by claiming that the census was on the path to failure.
{time} 2000
He likened it to the Titanic. Once again the chairman failed to do his homework. Modern technology has shown that the failure of the Titanic was not in the design, but because the manufacturer used substandard rivets.
The real parallel to the Titanic is that the chairman wants to make sure that we use substandard technology in the census so that fails too. Why? Because he believes that errors in the census are to his party's political advantage.
Two years ago the Census Bureau put forth a new plan for the 2000 census. It is a plan founded on 200 years of experience in conducting the census. It is a plan created with the understanding of 60 years of research on who was missed in the census. It is a plan with the advice of hundreds of experts, inside and outside the Census Bureau.
The plan for the 2000 census has been endorsed by dozens of organizations and hundreds of individuals, groups like the American Chamber of Commerce, the Researchers Association, the American Statistical Association, the Cities of New York and Los Angeles, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Regional Councils, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the United States Conference of Mayors. These are all organizations committed to a fair and accurate census in the year 2000.
Despite this broad and overwhelming support, the opponents of the census continue their attack. Why? Because they believe the errors in the census are to their political advantage. I used to believe that all of the misstatements in their rhetoric were just because the speakers did not know much about the census, and I would go to the floor and try to set the record straight so that my colleagues could judge the facts for themselves. But now I truly believe that the mistakes in my opponents' statements are purposeful and they are there to confuse and mislead the public.
Today you have already heard a number of my colleagues talk about the importance of a fair and accurate census and the high cost of the errors in the census. That cost is very human and very real. The 1990 census, according to the General Accounting Office, had 26 million errors in it, people missed, people counted twice, and people counted in the wrong place. Most of those missed were urban and rural poor; most of those counted twice are suburban and white.
The opponents of an accurate census cry out against the idea that we should correct the census for those counted twice. ``Don't you dare take people out of my county,'' they cry. At the same time, they fight with the same energy to make sure that nothing is done to account for those missed in the census for those that have historically been undercounted. Why? Because they believe that errors in the census are to their political advantage.
The opponents of a fair and accurate census say that the 1990 census was pretty good; the second best ever, they say.
The 1990 census was the most unfair census ever measured. Is that what they consider pretty good? Unfortunately, it is.
The opponents of an accurate census want to continue this system, where those fortunate enough to have two homes are counted twice, and the poor and the minorities are missed. It is time for the American public to reject ideas like that and the people who promote them. We need an accurate census and we need to support the plan that has been put forward by the National Academy of Sciences and the Census Bureau to count every single American.
____________________
