Jeff Miller

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. My colleague from New York is correct, this has been a nonpartisan issue and we have been working together for the past several years to try to figure out how to include overseas Americans in the census. In 1990, they included Federal employees, military, and people working for the State Department or Agriculture Department, because we had administrative records. The question is how do we count the others. And so we tried to do it in the 2000 census. Director Pruitt, who was the director under President Clinton, felt it was impossible at that late stage to include it. Our goal is to have them counted in the 2010 census. Last year, in this appropriation bill, we included language to require a report by the end of September. I met with the bureau again this morning, and I am assured we are going to have a report how we come out doing it. It is not an easy job, and that is how Director Pruitt explained the problem to us. We are going to have a hearing again next week. This gets to the question of who do we count. Just because someone has a U.S. passport, but has not been to the United States in 20 years and does not intend to, do they get counted? Those are the type of questions we will have to get resolved. So we are raising a lot of questions. The goal is to having it done in 2010. I do not object to putting this amount in this particular appropriation bill. I do not know what the right amount is. I think the $2.5 million was an arbitrary number. The Bureau has given me assurances in September they will have a more accurate number, whether it is $500,000, $1.5 million, or $2 million; and so in conference we can get the right amount in there. But I agree with the gentlewoman that we need to count them. I am glad we are actually putting something in the appropriation bill to specifically say we need to get them counted. And when we get the report in September, and I hope it is more accurate or more representative than the gentlewoman thinks, that we can move forward with it. This is something we are going to work together on, and I feel confident that in conference we will get the right dollar amount. However, as I say, I have no objection to including this amendment.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let us clarify what the situation is. On the short form, the question is, is the person Spanish, Hispanic, Latino, and they check. In 1990, most people either checked Mexican, Puerto Rican or Cuban. Seventy percent of the people filled out the other category. But of that, only 5 percent left are blank. In the ``other'' category, only 5 percent said ``other.'' Others wrote in, 7 percent of the people wrote in Hispanic. Well, maybe they meant Dominican, but it was not a mistake, by the way, when they removed Dominican, because there are so many different subgroups within the Hispanic population. We have Costa Rican. We have Guatemalan. We have Honduran. We have Nicaraguan, Panamanian, Salvadoran, Ecuadorian, Colombian, Chilean, Bolivian. So we cannot list them all or the form gets too long and then we affect the total response. We really wanted to get the best response we could. So the Bureau took the three largest subgroups, which are Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Rican, and then left a blank space: fill it in. But we cannot go back and change what someone put in. If someone wrote in the word ``Hispanic,'' we cannot go back and figure out what the intent is. That is the reason why the long form data, which will be forthcoming in the next year or so, will have more details; and we look forward to that detail, which will have a breakdown for Dominican. But we cannot change short form data. We cannot read the intent. If someone wrote the word ``Spanish'' in there, did they mean to say Dominican? Did they mean to say Peruvian? Did they mean to say Chilean? How do we interpret that? We cannot. So the Bureau very intentionally felt that the number one goal was to get the best Hispanic count possible. I see my colleague from Texas. We had a very successful Hispanic count, and the differential was tremendously improved. So we should rejoice at the success of the census. Part of the reason I think is we kept the simpler form. They pretested this form. They pretested it. They focus-grouped it. They came up with the best form they can to get the best response rate. So I think right now we should be commending them and await this report in another year, a year-and-a-half and see what the information is. We should not try to tell the professionals and micromanage here on the floor of the House what they should be doing.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand the goal that we want to make sure we have all the subgroups counted; but let us first of all remember we have the most accurate census in history, and for the Hispanic population, we had a very, very successful census. I think the Hispanic population deserves a lot of credit for actively participating in working out the census for 2000. The total increase in Hispanic population is 58 percent. We should be very pleased at the success of that. That was the primary goal of the Census Bureau, is to get the best, most accurate number of the Hispanic population, and we did that. When it gets down to subgroups within that, you are right, there were three groups, Mexican, Puerto Rican or Cuban, listed. But then there was a blank to fill in if one wanted to identify as somebody else. Ninety-five percent of the people filled in something. The problem is, we cannot retroactively go back and change what 95 percent of the people wrote in. What we will be able to do when this number comes out, whether it is late 2002, or I was told early 2003, there will be a report from the Census Bureau reporting on the long- form data, which only went to one out of every six people. On the long- form data there is a question of birthplace. So we will have a more accurate number for the long-form data. So this amendment may be well intended, but it sets a dangerous precedent. That is the reason, again, the professionals at the bureau, let us trust the professionals. Do not manipulate the numbers. It would force the Census Bureau to rewrite people's answers in a way that they self-identify themselves on the short form. This would be unprecedented and change a basic Census Bureau policy. The overall count on Hispanics is not in question. In fact, it is the best count in history, with a 58 percent increase. The 2000 census is considered the most accurate there is, and especially the Hispanic count. In New York City, the number of Dominicans and other Hispanic subgroups may have been changed as a result of the change in the wording, where ``Dominican'' was not used as an example, because they wanted to simplify the questionnaire to get the best response for Hispanics overall, so there were no examples shown. There was a lot of research put into this questionnaire. They did focus groups, they did sample testing of the questionnaire, and the bottom line goal was the best total count for Hispanics. Now, when we get to the subgroups, that is where this 2002-2003 report will be based on the long form, and that is where I think the most informative information can come on the Dominicans. But we cannot retroactively try to change what people said. Ninety-five percent of the people filled in something there, and you cannot say just because they wrote ``Hispanic,'' they are Dominican. We need to wait for the 2002-2003 report and trust the professionals at the bureau on this issue.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, what we have at issue is the short-form versus the long-form data. The short form, as has been pointed out, was changed slightly from 1990; and when they gave examples, they did not mention Dominican. So it may possibly have affected the number. There is a question on the long form that asks ``place of birth.'' That data will not be available until 2003. So the problem on the short form is when they filled out the form, if they did not put Dominican, they do not get counted as Dominican. On the long form, if they put Dominican, they will get counted. 2003 will have a new report, but we cannot go back and change what people put down on the short form now.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Reclaiming my time, since January 20, the election, there is no political appointees at the Census Bureau. They are all professionals. The acting director of the Census Bureau is a career person with the Federal Government. There are no political people at the Census Bureau. This is not a political issue. These are the professionals at the Bureau that say, ``Don't release these numbers because they are not accurate numbers.'' And the professionals say, ``We don't have a homeless count.'' And so the homeless people do not want to have numbers misinterpreted. They are inaccurate. I trust the professionals in this case. The gentlewoman has always been a big supporter of the professionals. In this case I think we should accept what the professionals are saying. It is not political because there are no political people at the Bureau.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I commend the gentleman from Ohio for his concern on this issue, because we are concerned about getting the most accurate count on the homeless. Mr. Chairman, the 2000 census is the most accurate census in the history of this country. We counted almost 99 percent. It is very successful. On this particular issue, the professionals at the Bureau and the leading advocates on homeless in Washington here are opposed to this amendment. I find it ironic in a way that during the past years of debate with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) on issues with respect to the census, she said trust the professionals of the Bureau. Well, let us trust the professionals of the Bureau. This is not accurate information to release, and that is why the Bureau is opposed to it. Our experience with the 1990 census was that when the numbers are presented in the way that the amendment would require, the homeless population and their service providers are hurt more than they are helped. The people counted during these operations are already included in the population counts for all areas, but it would be misleading to say this is an accurate representation of the homeless population. In fact, Mr. Chairman, contrary to popular belief, the Census Bureau did not intend to have a, quote, ``homeless'' count in 1990. However, because of the way the numbers were released in 1990, people thought that the Bureau was releasing a homeless count. Homeless groups were up in arms over the release of this information in 1990. That is why three of the most prominent homeless organizations in the Nation agree with the Census Bureau professionals and would like to see this amendment defeated. These homeless advocates do not want to see the mistake of 1990 repeated again, a mistake that they believe hurt the homeless cause in our Nation. These groups, the National Coalition for the Homeless, the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Law Center for the Homeless, have written a letter which is available on their website pleading that this information not be released. They note that we cannot take a snapshot of the homeless population and report it as an accurate number, as is the way that the census enumeration works. That is not to say that these people were widely missed, rather than enumerated in categories that may not lead themselves to be identified as homeless. In 1990, the Census Bureau released these numbers in the manner described in this amendment. The result was a storm of concerns over the decades from homeless advocates that saw their funding disappear because of what they felt, and the Bureau agreed, was a low estimate of the population making use of these their services. The Bureau decided to revise their reporting for the 2000 census during the final days of the Clinton administration. They did this in consultation with homeless advocates; and, in fact, the Commerce Secretary's 2000 Census Advisory Committee reported in 1999 that the homeless numbers should not be released in the same manner as 1990 for the reasons mentioned above. The Bureau currently plans to produce a more informative report on the results of the service-based enumeration and release that report in the fall. This report will be ready by the fall of 2001 and will provide data on this population at the national level and at a subnational level. This report will also note the limitations of the census in measuring this highly transient population. We should respect the judgment of the professionals at the Census Bureau and the homeless advocates and not mandate the release of unreliable, inaccurate numbers. We should defeat this amendment and support the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the National Coalition for the Homeless, and the National Law Census on Homelessness and Poverty. We need to support the homeless. That is the reason this amendment is not appropriate and we should defeat it.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Let me read a letter signed by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the National Coalition for the Homeless, and the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. They say: ``We write to expression support for the U.S. Census Bureau's decision not to release a separate homeless count in this 2000 census.'' National advocates worked closely with the Census Bureau during the planning and implementation of the 2000 Census to help ensure that people without housing would be counted. We believe that people without housing should be counted by the Census for the same reason that people with housing should be counted. They also go on to say, however, advocates also urge the Census not to release a separate count. They go on to say, in addition, a separate homeless count would be highly misleading because in most cases homelessness is not a permanent condition but a state of extreme poverty marked by temporary lack of housing. People move in and out of homelessness throughout time such that more people will experience homelessness over the course of time than any other point of time. So for that reason, the people who know more about this than anybody else, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the National Coalition for the Homelessness and the National Law Center on Homelessness, oppose it. We urge the rejection of the Maloney amendment.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the appointment of Christopher Allen Knight as the newest Director of the Florida Highway Patrol. Colonel Knight has accelerated through the ranks to become the leader of ``Florida's finest.'' This is an exciting time for the people of Florida's 13th Congressional District. The Florida Highway Patrol provides citizens with the highest level of professional service while promoting safety on Florida's highways through enforcement and education. I commend the FHP for their promotion of a safe driving environment through aggressive law enforcement, public education, and safety awareness; while reducing the number and severity of traffic crashes in Florida, and preserving and protecting human life, property and the rights of all people. Colonel Knight was recently appointed by Governor Jeb Bush to serve as the Director of the Florida Highway Patrol. Knight was given his new badge on June 29, 2001 in Tallahassee. At his side were his 10-year-old son, Mitch, his mother and father, Herman and Genevieve, his sister, Connie Bennett of Venice, and his brother, Thomas Knight, who is a Highway Patrol Troop Commander in Pinellas Park. Colonel Knight graduated from Venice High School and earned a degree in criminology from Florida State University, before taking a job as a patrolman with the Venice Police Department. He was later selected to serve in the Florida Highway Patrol, and progressed through the ranks in his 20 year career. He has been stationed in Miami, Bradenton, Palatka, and Tallahassee in various positions, including Commander of Troop H, Tallahassee, and Chief of Training at the FHP Academy. His most recent assignment has been Chief of Field Operations for Region II, which includes oversight of Troops C (Tampa), D (Orlando) and F (Bradenton). Knight will now supervise nearly 1,800 officers throughout the state of Florida as the FHP Director. I congratulate this fine American, and I rest assured that the Florida law enforcement community is in good hands.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I thank the gentleman for introducing it. All we are asking for is transparency, and let me use the illustration of the sugar program that was passed in 1996, when we were told, no cost to the American taxpayer. Well, let us look at the facts. Let us look at the facts. First of all, GAO says it cost $1.9 billion for the American consumer. The American consumer is the American taxpayer, so it cost $1.9 billion. Last year, the Federal Government had to buy $430 million worth of sugar, and it does not have any use for it. It is having to store it. We are spending $20 million a year to store all of this sugar that we have no use for, and yet we were told that it had no cost. The price of sugar in the United States is more than double what it is elsewhere around the world, as if the Federal Government were a major purchaser of sugar, whether it is in VA hospitals or schools and such. In addition, under the environmental issue, sugar is a major contributor to the pollution of the Everglades. We are going to spend $8 billion to clean up the Everglades, and we are going to pay a lot of that cost because the sugar program is causing the problem. So these agriculture programs that say, oh, it does not cost the Government anything, we do not know what it costs us. It has direct costs and it has indirect costs, and all this amendment says is let us have transparency, and let us figure out what it really costs.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for once again bringing up a good, commonsense amendment to help seniors throughout this country, seniors in my district. My district in Florida, the median age is 47. My district has more Medicare recipients than any other district in the Nation, save one. The seniors in my district worked hard their entire life and do not expect a free lunch from government. However, what I do hear from my seniors is the frustration about the disparity of prices here in the United States and overseas. I have hardworking and informed seniors who recognize that their heart medicine is 60 percent cheaper in Canada than in Florida. They do not know, and I cannot explain, why United States seniors, in the age of free trade and NAFTA, cannot take advantage of lower prices for products in another country. Mr. Chairman, I am a free trader. I believe bringing the elements of free trade will solve many issues in America, whether it is the outrageous costs to consumers of the anti-free trade sugar program or whether it is a difference for seniors in drug prices across our border. Americans are free to buy pork chops, fruit, and other food from across the border. Why can we not do the same with FDA-approved drugs? The amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) is carefully drafted to concentrate on personal use of FDA-approved products made in FDA-approved facilities. It allows Americans to have greater access to cheaper drugs. It is a commonsense measure that deserves everyone's support. I fully recognize that this amendment alone will not solve the problem of high drug prices, and I oppose price controls on prescription drugs or other products. I have no interest in bashing the pharmaceutical industry because I recognize how important they are, especially for the future production of new drugs. However, I believe that this bill will introduce an additional source of needed supply to help lower prices. It is something that should be a starting point to allow the free market to work to the benefit of all seniors, and I urge a yes vote.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am hear today to congratulate New College on being the newest accredited independent liberal arts college in the state university system of Florida. New College was founded in 1960 as an independent college by Sarasota and Bradenton civic leaders. When the school opened in 1964, it accepted students on their academic talents, not on their race, creed or gender. In 1975, during a time of financial uncertainty, this 650- student college joined with the University of South Florida. Even with this merger, New College retained its faculty, academic programs and competitive admissions. New College is known as the Honors College of Florida, being the only public college or university in Florida designated as ``Highly Competitive'' by Barron's Magazine. The graduates of New College are some of the brightest and most motivated of all college graduates in the country. I wish the best of luck to New College and to all its students and faculty during its transition. They have met many challenges in the past and face more in the future, but New College will succeed and make Florida very proud. I am honored to represent this institution.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, for our distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, I thank him for referring to Sarasota. Those are my beaches in Sarasota. I have some of the most beautiful beaches in Florida on the west coast, Anna Maria, Longboat Key, Siesta; and I hope the gentleman brings his boat down to our area. But I am also the base where the pipeline comes ashore in Manatee County, at Port Manatee. Just as it leaves the gentleman's district, it comes ashore in my district and has a big economic impact. So I think we need to recognize the importance of the pipeline and its investors, who are spending over $1 billion on this pipeline. Now, if there was not enough gas, they would not be spending over $1 billion on this pipeline to build it from our two areas. This issue was brought up in a manager's amendment on Monday which had something to do with Venice beaches, and I appreciate that in the manager's amendment last week when we addressed the issue of this pipeline. So this is strictly about the pipeline. The investors, they are the ones putting the money at risk, so we do not even make that decision. We should go ahead with the pipeline. With respect to 181, since I only have a few seconds left, I think we need to open that up for discussion. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is right. There is plenty of gas there. I think we should drill for that gas. This was a 6-month delay. We kind of in Florida get caught between our Governor and our President, and I think there is room for compromise. I think there is a middle ground. That is what we need to look for: move ahead, because we need the energy in our country, but let us not fight over this pipeline. The pipeline needs to go ahead, and it is going to be continued. Mr. Chairman, I hope everyone votes for this amendment.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I come before you today in this great Chamber to honor a fellow American. His name is Ron Foxworthy. He lives in Sarasota, which is in my Congressional District in the Southwest part of Florida. Ron is being honored in Sarasota by his fellow citizens, his friends, his family, and most notably by the hundreds and hundreds of handicapped children and adults for whom Ron has been the most devoted of advocates. Ron is a successful businessman who could easily have the delightfully carefree life of a retiree in our area. He is a Shriner. He is also a 33 degree Mason. Many years ago, Ron decided to devote his extra time and extra finances to the care and well being of handicapped children. Ron gives the expression ``quality time'' new meaning. Since 1964 he has made sure that handicapped children can enjoy the beautiful beaches of Sarasota. He has organized the now international Suncoast Off-shore boat races, for which all proceeds go to the Suncoast Foundation for the Handicapped. In his role in the business community Ron has been instrumental in bringing various groups together for the common goal of assisting the handicapped. He counsels young business entrepreneurs on the operation and management of their businesses and provides them with the skills to assist the handicapped in their communities. He somehow managed to find the time to build the first training center in the country for Special Olympics Athletes. It is not uncommon for Ron to transport burned and handicapped children to Shriner Childrens Hospitals in his own airplane and at his own expense. He then flies back to pick up the parents so they can be with their children at the Hospitals. Webster's Dictionary defines Champion as ``The holder of first place in a contest; one who defends another person''. Ron Foxworthy is a true Champion of the Handicapped.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a minute to recognize the students of the 2001 Congressional Classroom from my district in Florida. One student from the junior class of each of the participating high schools in my district was selected competitively to participate in the program here in Washington, DC. Throughout the week, the students had the opportunity to meet with several of my fellow colleagues in the House of Representatives, as well as Florida Senators Bob Graham and Bill Nelson, and Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court. The students also had the opportunity to meet with Dan Goldin, Director of NASA; Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor; and Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Institute at the National Institutes of Health. The Congressional Classroom program also included an important trip through history with a visit to the National Holocaust Museum. The Congressional Classroom program is a superb opportunity for young people to learn more about the United States Government, and provides them with a first hand account of the persons and institutions that comprise our government. It is always an honor and a pleasure to share this experience with young people, as it is a learning experience for the students as well as myself. Keeping in touch with the issues that affect the future generations of this nation is crucial to maintaining the spirit and effectiveness of our government. I would like to thank the teachers, parents, staff, and all of my distinguished colleagues who so generously donated their time and effort to make this program a success. I wish the best of luck to all the students who participated, and that they can continue to have a powerful and positive influence on their communities and the world. Finally, I would like to congratulate the participants of the 2001 Congressional Classroom: Will Butler, Saint Stephens School; Brad Chase, Pine View High School;

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I first became involved in extradition reform in 1997 when there was a horrible crime in my district in Sarasota, Florida. Sheila Bellush, a mother of six, was brutally murdered in her home while her 2-year-old quadruplets watched. The murderer, Jose Luis Del Toro, immediately fled to Mexico where he managed to avoid extradition for almost 2 years. The Mexican government demanded that we waive the death penalty in order to have him returned to the U.S. Despite our cooperation, they still held up his extradition for over a year. This kind of policy is not acceptable. We are dealing with cases of Americans, killing other Americans, on American soil. No foreign country has the right to interfere in the just prosecution of these criminals! Unfortunately, the Del Toro case is not an isolated one. In 1977 in Philadelphia, Ira Einhorn brutally murdered Holly Maddux. He bludgeoned her to death and then shoved her body in a steam chest where she remained in his closet for 18 months. While waiting to stand trial for this heinous crime, Einhorn fled overseas. He is now in France, successfully avoiding extradition by continuously hiding behind false claims regarding his case. In 1977, the death penalty was not legal in Philadelphia, therefore it was never an option in the Einhorn case. Yet, the French use Einhorn as a poster child for their crusade against capitol punishment and are still pursuing all options possible in holding up his extradition to the United States. The French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, has signed Einhorn's extradition order, but the appeals process can take an unspecified amount of time and there is no indication that they are interested in expediting the matter. In the meantime, the family of Holly Maddux is in its 24th year of watching and waiting to see if justice will be served. The more involved I have become in this issue, the more I realize that while the United States may not be to blame for the lack of cooperation from these countries, we certainly have not done our part in formulating a solution. To date, the Department of State has no tracking system for extradition cases. It is absolutely incomprehensible to me that there is no place for anyone, whether a Member of Congress or a family member of a victim, to find simple answers on which countries are extraditing criminals and which ones are not. How can the State Department work effectively with the government of France in getting Einhorn returned, if they have no idea how many similar cases are pending in France. We need to have these answers. If Mexico has 35 outstanding extradition requests from the United States, and 10 have been denied--we need to know that! And we also need to know why! My amendment will require that the State Department compile this information and submit it to Congress. It will provide a country by country report of the number of Americans being held by foreign governments, the number of extradition requests that the United States has made to such governments, the number of those requests denied, and any reasons for delays. This is not a controversial amendment. It is a matter of ensuring that justice is served. When foreign governments blatantly disregard reasonable and legitimate requests by the United States, our authority is undermined. My amendment would take us one step closer to ending this practice. My thoughts and prayers go out to the Maddux family and any others who have lost a loved one in a tragic murder where the killer remains free in a foreign land. I sincerely hope that you will all see justice served in the near future.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me express my thanks and appreciation to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for making this trip possible. This was indeed a very moving experience for me personally, as it was for all of us who participated in that unique weekend. It was a chance to, as people talked about, walk through history. It was an amazing walk through history. I kept asking myself that weekend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and I often were there together, what was I doing back in those days? I was an undergraduate at the University of Florida in those days, just as a young guy enjoying the fraternity life and not thinking about it. But you would read things in the paper about what took place at the 16th Street Baptist Church. We were there, with the girls, where the bombing took place. We walked across the bridge in Selma. You start thinking how did our country allow this to happen, and why was I not more involved in trying to help end it, like the gentleman did? The gentleman was a leader. You talk about the young John Lewis. It is kind of fun seeing the photographs from the early days. Which one is John? Did he really have that much hair back in 1961, 1962, 1963? We saw his photographs in the museums. The gentleman is a hero. He helped lead that effort. I appreciate that the gentleman brought people with us there. Bob Zelner flew in for it, and Bernard Lafayette, who is a delightful gentleman. He actually grew up in my area, the Tampa, Florida, area; and his father was able to be there. And being with, and I cannot remember the old elderly gentleman from the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. In 1956. This is fascinating. This is the history. We have the deacon of the church who went to Atlanta and talked Martin Luther King out of going to Savannah and coming to Montgomery and making his mark in history too and helping lead that effort. That is the part of the history that you get to be part of. A book I am reading right now, I do not know how much time we have, so I do not want to use up the time of other speakers, is ``America Afire.'' It is a delightful book, but it is talking about the founding of our country. I was just reading about how in the late part of the 18th century when we were voting and drafting the Constitution, it was white men, Christian, basically, landowners that were involved in it. It is amazing that they wrote a document that could evolve. That is the great thing about our country. You feel proud, as horrible as what the African American community went through for generations in this country, the fact is we have survived, and we are going to go forward. This was an effort that I think is so inspirational for me. I appreciate the opportunity. At the conclusion, going to the Brown Chapel, I went to more churches on a weekend than I normally do. I go to church, but not as many as the gentleman took me to over the weekend. And the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge was special. I am going to encourage all my colleagues, especially on my side of the aisle, I am standing on your side of the aisle today, but this was certainly not a partisan event. I congratulate the gentleman for what he has done, leading in the non-violence effort. That was important, the gentleman's phase of it. Hearing Bernard talk about that too, how you learned to be non-violent. When people approached you with violence and you could tolerate that, I just do not know what I could do under those circumstances. So I commend the gentleman, and really my admiration and respect is great for you, because now I learned more about it. I thank the gentleman for giving me that opportunity. I really sincerely appreciate it. I will work to get more of my colleagues 2 years from now to participate when we have another one of these.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to first commend the President for proposing his tax relief package for permanent relief for the American people. Everybody who pays taxes gets tax relief. They have lowered the lowest rate, from 15 percent to 10 percent. That is going to help real working people in America. But, Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about the Census, because I feel it is important to place in the record some facts regarding the 2000 Census that some of us may have forgotten over the last several days as my colleagues on the other side try to tear down the Census head count in order to build it up with a statistical adjustment. What seems to be forgotten is how good the 2000 Census really was. The Census Bureau announced that compared to the last Census, the undercount of African Americans may have been cut in half. The undercount of Hispanics also was cut by more than half. The undercount of American Indians was reduced by more than two-thirds, and the elderly and children have never been counted so well. The preceding Congress appropriated an unprecedented $6.5 billion for the Census effort. Let us take a moment to see what the American people received for their tax dollars. This 2000 Census reversed a three-decade drop in the questionnaire mail back response rate. The 2000 Census reached more Americans, including those living in the hardest to count communities, than ever before. The 2000 Census established a first-time-ever paid advertising campaign that focused on educating the American people on the importance of the Census participation. The 2000 Census included more than 140,000 local, State and national partnerships to promote Census awareness and participation. The 2000 Census included a Census in the Schools program, that reached out to millions of students and parents nationwide to promote Census awareness and participation. And for the first time, with the 2000 Census, Americans were able to file their Census forms electronically using the Internet. There are Members of this body who are quick to focus on the limited number of people that chose not to participate in this Census. But I will point out for the record that Census 2000 found and counted nearly 99 percent of the population, more than any other Census. This Census dramatically reduced the traditional undercount of children, the poor, and members of minority communities. Regardless of what side of the adjustment debate a person falls, this Census was one of the best in our Nation's history. Opponents of a real head count said it could not be done. They said we could not improve upon past Censuses. They said that the undercount would most certainly grow larger. They said we must sample and adjust people because they will not answer the call. But we said no. We must do everything we can to get an actual head count. Get out there and advertise, educate, involve local officials, spread the word, make it easier for people to be counted. An actual enumeration is what the Constitution calls for. It is what the Supreme Court called for, and it is what public law calls for. And now we can and should stand proud and say, it worked. An unprecedented 99 percent of our population was counted. All the efforts to get an accurate head count paid off. Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to congratulate the hard efforts of those career civil servants in the Bureau who worked long and difficult hours. I call upon my colleagues to remember and congratulate the thousands of State and local volunteers and countless others in each and every one of our districts who partnered with the Bureau to make the head count such a success. While the news regarding the Census has been good, the political rhetoric surrounding the Census threatens to taint the entire effort. For months now, relentless pressure has been placed on President Bush and Secretary Evans to use the controversial adjustment plan known as sampling to recreate people that may not have been counted. My position on adjustment has not changed. Adjustment is a Pandora's box, filled with unintended consequences, legal uncertainty and inaccuracy. Some would have us to believe that this decision is simply about statistics. Load the numbers into the computer, hit enter, and that is your answer. Adjust or do not adjust. These people could not be further from the truth. The adjustment decision has far-reaching legal, political and social consequences. Adjustment simply has too many risks and unintended consequences to be justified for any Census, and particularly because we have such a great Census taking these risks even seems more unjustified. Instead, we should all be thrilled with the incredible inroads made with the differential undercount. Significant reductions occurred in the undercount rates for African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians. The 2000 Census head count is one we all can and should be proud of.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 132) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 620 Jacaranda Street in Lanai City, Hawaii, as the ``Goro Hokama Post Office Building''.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.