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.
“THE YEAR 2000 CENSUS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H502-H503 on Feb. 24, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE YEAR 2000 CENSUS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 21, 1997 the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to continue the conversation I began a few weeks ago about the 2000 Census. As I have said, I believe we need to work together to ensure that we have the best, most honest Census possible. But I believe we are a long way from realizing that type of Census.
As everyone involved in the decennial Census knows by now, I have concerns that we are headed for a failed Census. Today, I want to discuss what I believe are the serious mistakes the Clinton Administration has made to date, and what I believe they need to do to start correcting them in time to save the 2000 Census.
The biggest mistake, indeed a colossal mistake, was made right from the start. They decided to ignore Congress. They thought they could just go ahead and design any methodology they wanted and just say to Congress: This is what we are going to do, and you just pay for it. That is not how our system works on any issue.
Mr. Speaker, we expect the Decennial Census to cost almost $4 billion. In other words, we spend real money on the Census. As a general rule, Congress does not give the executive branch $4 billion and say, hey, do whatever you want with it, you know best.
Under our system, Congress controls the purse strings. So when the administration wants to spend tax dollars, they come to Congress and justify what they want to do. This gives Congress the ability to shape how the money is spent.
Congress plays an even larger role in the conduct of the Census. We do this for one basic reason: the Constitution mandates that it is the Congress' responsibility to direct the manner in which the Census is taken. Let me quote from the Constitution itself: Quote: ``The actual enumeration shall be made within every subsequent term of 10 years, in such a manner as they, meaning the Congress, shall direct by law.'' End quote. In other words, the Constitution places the responsibility for the Census on the Congress, not the executive branch.
For reasons I do not fully yet understand, the Clinton Administration used the ``Hillary Health Care Model'' for designing the 2000 Census. They decided to design a complicated, untested Census plan that was created by ``experts.'' And since the idea was sanctioned by well-
meaning experts, they just figured there was no reason to explain it or to sell it to average Americans and certainly no reason to work with the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, remember the secret health care task force that designed the original Health Security Act? They were all well-meaning, hard-
working individuals with great educations and they designed the ultimate graduate school seminar project. The plan was over 1,000 pages long. They had thought of every possible problem. And when the American people raised concerns, they just said do not worry, we know best. When Congress asked questions, the President threatened vetoes. Well, the Clinton health care plan collapsed.
Unfortunately, they are headed down the same path on the Census. They used some legitimate problems in the 1990 Census as an excuse to totally redesign a 200-year method for taking the Census. But because they used experts, in this case statisticians, to design this unprecedented method, they decided they did not need approval from Congress. How could Congress have any legitimate concerns after all, because the Census Bureau used ``expert panels'' to create this new concept?
Well, ``expert panels'' weren't elected by the people. Professional statisticians are not constitutionally responsible for directing the Census. Academics do not have the responsibility for deciding how taxpayers' dollars are spent. That is Congress' job.
By the way, I have a Ph.D. in marketing and statistics, so I understand the theory behind what they are trying to pull off. I believe, however, that the Clinton Administration dropped the ball in informing the Congress, working with the Congress, and seeking approval from Congress.
This serious miscalculation has placed the 2000 Census in danger and the institution of the Federal Government most impacted by a failed Census is the United States House of Representatives. Every State legislature, every city council, every school board needs a successful Census to legitimately represent the people. Let me repeat that. Every State legislature, every city council, every school board needs a successful Census to legitimately represent the people.
If the administration fails in the implementation of their academic theory, all representative bodies in this country will be thrown in turmoil and uncertainty.
The majority in Congress have made it very clear that we do not approve of the administration's current plan. What we want, or more precisely what we intend to pay for, is a traditional Census that is transparent and fair. We understand the problems of the 1990 Census and we want them fixed. We do not believe, however, that we need to throw out the baby with the bath water.
To date, I am not satisfied they have gotten the message downtown. In November, Congress passed and the President signed legislation to continue on an actual enumeration. They have not gotten the message.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the legislation--``that funds appropriated under this act . . . shall be used by the Bureau of the Census to plan, test and become prepared to implement the 2000 decennial census, without using statistical methods. . . .''
It seems pretty clear that the law requires them to prepare for a traditional Census. I don't believe that's what they are doing. They're budget submission hides behind legalisms and technicalities and says,
``The Administration has not included additional funding for nonsampling census activities because that funding is not required by the agreement.''
To me, that is yet another slap in the face to the Congress. They seem to have this attitude that Congress' opinion doesn't matter.
The 2000 Census is in deep trouble at this moment. The Commerce Department's own Inspector General has said that. I stand ready to work with the Administration. We want and we need a successful Census in 2000. But the attitude downtown needs to turnaround. They need to understand that we have a role to play--a very major role to play--in the planning, preparation and implementation of the 2000 Census.
____________________
