Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I really want to underscore what the gentleman said. They ruled on a statutory issue, not the Constitution. It referred only to apportionment and specifically said that one could use modern scientific counts and should use it for all other purposes, redistricting and distribution of Federal funds. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), my dear friend and colleague. (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a former mayor and outstanding member of our Task Force on the Census.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

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.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on our side?

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 472. This bill, should it pass, will seriously damage the quality of the 2000 census. It may create so much disruption that the Census Bureau will miss the statutory deadlines for delivering apportionment counts to the President. To make matters worse, this bill will do absolutely no good. It will not increase the accuracy of the census. It will not reduce the high undercounts for minorities and children. The 1990 census was fundamentally unfair. That census missed 8.4 million people who were mostly minorities and the poor in urban and rural areas. It also counted twice 4.4 million people, mostly white suburbanites. Over all, the total error rate was over 10 percent. The 1990 census missed 1 in 10 African American males, 1 in 20 Hispanics, 1 in 8 American Indians on reservations, 1 in 16 white rural renters. During the decade, as a result of these errors, millions of people went unrepresented. The supporters of 472 want to repeat the errors of 1990. In fact, they went so far as to put in the legislation that all ] future censuses would have to repeat the procedures that brought us this seriously flawed 1990 census, the first census in our history to be less accurate than the one before it. Post-census local review is a review of the housing counts, the counts of housing units. It does very little to reduce the undercount of people, the big problem that the Census Bureau is trying to correct in the present census. In 1990, 70 percent of the people missed and 80 percent of the African Americans missed lived in households that were counted. The Census Bureau counted the households but missed the people in them. For 2000 the Census Bureau moved local review to the front end of the census. Mr. Speaker, let us get it right the first time, not fix it later, and that is what the Census Bureau is doing. In 1990, post-census local review was a failure. Eighty-four percent of the local governments did not participate. For the last year, the Census Bureau has been working with local governments to make sure that there is an agreement with the local governments on the number of housing units before the census begins. So far that program has covered 86 percent of the addresses in the United States, and they are still working. That is far, far better than 1990. Why then does the majority want to repeat the 1990 census? In fact, it is not just local review they want to repeat from 1990. The majority has repeatedly said, in fact it has been said on the Floor today, that the 1990 census was not all that bad. They want to repeat as much of 1990 as possible. Why? Why does the majority want to repeat 1990 with all those undisputed errors? Because they believe that the errors in the census are to their political advantage. Just recently one Republican operative was quoted as saying in the paper that this was a, quote, do or die issue for the Republican party. The former Speaker said in his book that winning the census fight was about preserving the Republican majority in Congress. It was not about getting an accurate count. He said it was about preserving the Republican majority in Congress. The head of the RNC sent out a memo soliciting contributions to fight the census in the courts, and the majority here made sure that those lawsuits would be paid for with taxpayer dollars. The litany goes on and on, but the tune is the same. The supporters of this bill, the opponents of a fair and accurate census, are willing to do anything to make sure that the next census repeats the mistakes of the past. H.R. 472 is just one more salvo in that continued assault on a honest and accurate census. Let us remember what happened in the last Congress. The Republican majority attached to the disaster relief bill, the flood relief bill, language that would have prevented the use of a modern scientific count. They thought the President would not veto it because so many Americans were suffering. The President vetoed it and received editorial support across this Nation for standing up for what was right. Twice they held up the budget over it. And now, they complain that the Census Bureau is partisan and trying to rig the census for the Democrats. The Census Bureau has no political agenda. In fact, the Director, when he testified before us, implored the Congress to keep the Census Bureau out of the line of fire. The response by the majority has been to put the Census Bureau between the cross hairs. The Census Bureau put forward the best plan it could develop for the 2000 census, one that has been supported by many professionals in the scientific community, Republican and Democrat alike. It is time to stop trying to destroy the census and let the professionals do their work. We should not be trying to micromanage the Census Bureau. We should let the professionals go out and conduct an accurate count. The partisan agenda is not at the Census Bureau; it is here on Capitol Hill. It is being managed out of the Speaker's office and the RNC down the street. H.R. 472 is just one more item in that agenda and it must be defeated. I urge a no vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the record is clear. We need to defeat this bill. The U.S. Conference of Mayors in a letter this week said, ``A lengthy 1990 style post-census local review will do very little to address the persistent undercount problem. We urge you to oppose any legislation that places at risk the Census Bureau's ability to conduct a timely, post-enumeration survey.'' We should let the professionals at the Census Bureau do their job. We should stop trying to micromanage the census. We should support an accurate census and defeat H.R. 472.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush). (Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. The gentleman quoted Dr. Prewitt from the Census Bureau. I request to put in the Record a letter of April 12 to me, and I would like to quote and put in the Record directly his response. He said, ``The operation proposed in H.R. 472 will harm the ability of the Census Bureau to carry out its basic mission of providing the most accurate census counts for all purposes.'' And to end his quote, he says, ``It would put the census at risk''. Mr. Speaker, I provide for the Record the letter I just referred to. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census Washington, DC, April 12, 1999. Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Maloney: I apologize if my responses to the question(s) regarding H.R. 472 have left any uncertainties about its impact on the overall accuracy of the census. I welcome this opportunity to make the record clear, especially because the amount of time available during the hearings to address H.R. 472 was limited by the need to respond to the full agenda of issues of interest to the Subcommittees. In assembling the plan for a census, the U.S. Census Bureau reviews the strengths of a large number of operations, first considering each on its own merits. We then assess the relative effectiveness of each operation, for the final design is of course an integrated set of operations. It is this integrated set that constitutes the design that in the professional judgment of the Census Bureau will provide the best census results within the available time. In assembling the final design, the Census Bureau did not exclude the Post Census Local Review in order to include the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation procedure. Decisions on the desirability of these operations were mutually exclusive. In 1990, the Post Census Local Review process proved to be so cumbersome that 75 percent of all local governments did not participate in the exercise, resulting in the addition of only one-twentieth of one percent to the overall count, or about 125,000 persons. Census Bureau professionals, relying on a decade of experience, analysis and testing, designed a new and better way to involve local governments in the effort to count everyone. This new operation, called Local Update of Census Addresses, or LUCA, enables local governments to verify the addresses in their communities before the census is conducted. Similarly, the Census Bureau included the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation on its merits. It is the only effective procedure that will inform the Census Bureau and the country about the accuracy of the original count based on the mailback, telephone/interview operations, and nonresponse follow up. The accuracy measurement represented by the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation will provide the greatest level of accuracy for census data for uses other than reapportionment, such as redistricting, federal funds allocation, and population estimates. It is designed specifically to address the differential undercount experienced in prior censuses and anticipated in 2000. In making these determinations, there was no trade-off between the two programs, just as there was no specific trade-off between any of dozens of other operations excluded and included. Census 2000 represents an integrated set of operations that was selected over many alternative sets. At this late stag in the decennial cycle, any new operation of the magnitude of the Post Census Local Review would adversely affect the timing and quality of census operations, including the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation. I have testified, and here reemphasize, that an integrated operation of the complexity of the census--correctly described as the largest civilian mobilization in the country's history-- cannot now be redesigned without degrading accuracy and placing timely completion at risk. In conclusion, to directly address your question, the operation proposed in H.R. 472 will harm the ability of the Census Bureau to carry out its basic mission of providing the most accurate census counts for all purposes. More specifically, H.R. 472 as proposed would obligate the Census Bureau to send to all cooperating jurisdictions an incomplete household file; or, if we delayed sending it until we had completed that work our ability to produce apportionment counts by December 31, 2000, as required by law, would be put at risk. Sincerely, Kenneth Prewitt, Director.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer), former chairman of the Subcommittee on Census and an outstanding leader on this issue.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay a special tribute to The School of the Future as it celebrates the opening of the new Center for Ethics and Technology. This innovative educational facility, located in the heart of my district, is aptly named: it does a remarkable job in preparing our city's children for the future. An astounding 98 percent of the School's graduates were accepted to colleges and major universities in 1998. The School places an emphasis on providing students with a strong liberal arts education. It aims to produce students who are not only culturally literate, but who have well-developed analytical skills. Students are trained to examine evidence, explore alternate points of view, consider significance, understand point of view and seek connections in all of their learnings. The new Center for Ethics and Technology strives to create a sense of balance and responsibility in our increasingly technological society. Through the use of computer technology, the Center will allow participants to expand their inter-generational dialogue toward an intercultural, international exchange. Last month, the Center invited senior citizens, computer scientists, inner city freshman and their parents to join the Anti-Defamation League at a forum to explore how our sense of community has evolved in today's high-tech world. This Center would not have been possible if not for the dedicated volunteer work of the Center's director, Adam Kinory; the school's teachers and principal, Kathy Rehfield-Pelles; its parent body, and volunteers from The Sol Goldman 14th Street Y of The Educational Alliance, New York Cares, and Pencil. At a time when our public school enrollments are at record levels and those numbers are expected to climb further, we have an obligation to act now to shore up our public education system. The School of the Future is leading that journey. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues rise with me in this tribute to The School of the Future as it strives to bring our public education system into the next millennium. The School's important work with New York City's children is priceless. It is an honor to have the School in my district.