[Congressional Record: July 18, 2001 (House)]
[Page H4130-H4141]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr18jy01-97]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 192 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2500.
{time} 1252
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2500) making appropriations for the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Tuesday,
July 17, 2001, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado
(Ms. DeGette) had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment
from page 39, line 18, through page 39, line 24.
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendments
to the bill may be offered except pro forma amendments offered by the
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations
or their designees for the purpose of debate, and amendments printed in
the Congressional Record on that day or before, each of which may be
offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee,
shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, except
pro forma amendments for the purposes of debate, and shall not be
subject to a demand for a division of the question.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated under this title
shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate
in any way the performance of, any abortion.
Sec. 105. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the
obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to
provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to
receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided,
That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect
of section 104 intended to address the philosophical beliefs
of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
Sec. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not
to exceed $10,000,000 of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to establish and publicize a program under which
publicly advertised, extraordinary rewards may be paid, which
shall not be subject to spending limitations contained in
sections 3059 and 3072 of title 18, United States Code:
Provided, That any reward of $100,000 or more, up to a
maximum of $2,000,000, may not be made without the personal
approval of the President or the Attorney General and such
approval may not be delegated.
Sec. 107. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Justice in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer
[[Page H4131]]
pursuant to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming
of funds under section 605 of this Act and shall not be
available for obligation except in compliance with the
procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 108. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
$1,000,000 shall be available for technical assistance from
the funds appropriated for part G of title II of the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended.
Sec. 109. Section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1356), as amended, is further amended as
follows:
(1) by striking in subsection (d) ``$6'', and inserting
``$7'';
(2) by amending subsection (e)(1), by replacing ``No'' with
``Except as provided in paragraph (3), no''; and
(3) by adding a new paragraph (e)(3) as follows:
``(3) The Attorney General is authorized to charge and
collect $3 per individual for the immigration inspection or
pre-inspection of each commercial vessel passenger whose
journey originated in the United States or in any place set
forth in paragraph (1): Provided, That this authorization
shall not apply to immigration inspection at designated ports
of entry of passengers arriving by the following vessels,
when operating on a regular schedule: Great Lakes
international ferries, or Great Lakes Vessels on the Great
Lakes and connecting waterways.''.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice
Appropriations Act, 2002''.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES
Trade and Infrastructure Development
RELATED AGENCIES
Office of the United States Trade Representative
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States
Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $30,097,000, of which $1,000,000
shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to
exceed $98,000 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses.
International Trade Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the International Trade
Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, and
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed
$2,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$51,440,000, to remain available until expended.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Operations and Administration
For necessary expenses for international trade activities
of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and for
engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including
expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose
of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard
to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for
dependent members of immediate families of employees
stationed overseas and employees temporarily posted overseas;
travel and transportation of employees of the United States
and Foreign Commercial Service between two points abroad,
without regard to 49 U.S.C. 1517; employment of Americans and
aliens by contract for services; rental of space abroad for
periods not exceeding 10 years, and expenses of alteration,
repair, or improvement; purchase or construction of temporary
demountable exhibition structures for use abroad; payment of
tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph
of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign
countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official representation
expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
official use abroad, not to exceed $30,000 per vehicle;
obtaining insurance on official motor vehicles; and rental of
tie lines, $347,654,000, to remain available until expended,
of which $3,000,000 is to be derived from fees to be retained
and used by the International Trade Administration,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided, That $66,919,000
shall be for Trade Development, $27,741,000 shall be for
Market Access and Compliance, $43,346,000 shall be for the
Import Administration, $196,791,000 shall be for the United
States and Foreign Commercial Service, and $12,857,000 shall
be for Executive Direction and Administration: Provided
further, That the provisions of the first sentence of section
105(f) and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational
and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and
2458(c)) shall apply in carrying out these activities without
regard to section 5412 of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4912); and that for
the purpose of this Act, contributions under the provisions
of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act shall
include payment for assessments for services provided as part
of these activities.
Export Administration
Operations and Administration
For necessary expenses for export administration and
national security activities of the Department of Commerce,
including costs associated with the performance of export
administration field activities both domestically and abroad;
full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate
families of employees stationed overseas; employment of
Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; payment
of tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first
paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign
countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation
expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under
the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by
22 U.S.C. 401(b); purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use with
special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase without
regard to any price limitation otherwise established by law,
$68,893,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$7,250,000 shall be for inspections and other activities
related to national security: Provided, That the provisions
of the first sentence of section 105(f) and all of section
108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying
out these activities: Provided further, That payments and
contributions collected and accepted for materials or
services provided as part of such activities may be retained
for use in covering the cost of such activities, and for
providing information to the public with respect to the
export administration and national security activities of the
Department of Commerce and other export control programs of
the United States and other governments.
Economic Development Administration
Economic Development Assistance Programs
For grants for economic development assistance as provided
by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as
amended, and for trade adjustment assistance, $335,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of administering the economic
development assistance programs as provided for by law,
$30,557,000: Provided, That these funds may be used to
monitor projects approved pursuant to title I of the Public
Works Employment Act of 1976, as amended, title II of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and the Community Emergency
Drought Relief Act of 1977.
Minority Business Development Agency
Minority Business Development
For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in
fostering, promoting, and developing minority business
enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and
other agreements with public or private organizations,
$28,381,000.
Economic and Information Infrastructure
Economic and Statistical Analysis
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic
and statistical analysis programs of the Department of
Commerce, $62,515,000, to remain available until September
30, 2003.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr.
Chairman, I rise for the purpose of an exchange with the chairman.
As the chairman knows, last night we had made an effort to make sure
we had informed all Members to be here when their amendment came up.
However, as the gentleman knows, we anticipated coming to the floor at
sometime around 3 or 3:30, and we are ahead of schedule, which is the
good news.
The bad news is that there are some Members whose amendments are
coming up pretty soon who are on their way to the Chamber now, so we
are trying to find out first of all how the gentleman is doing, how the
chairman is feeling this morning, and at the same time give them an
opportunity to come.
I am sure that the gentleman could join me in this repartee, and as
soon as I find out what that means, I will use it more often.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, out of consideration, if somebody comes
within the next 5 minutes, even if they miss it, I would not be so
strict. I think if they come in 2 hours, it would be a little bit
different.
Mr. SERRANO. I understand.
Mr. WOLF. Is this the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) that the
gentleman from New York is speaking of?
Mr. SERRANO. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
So it is my understanding that in these two cases, as soon as they
come, we can go back and deal with those amendments, within reason?
Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman will yield further, that is right, yes. We
are not trying to hurt anybody, obviously, and I would want to be
protected, since we did get here earlier for certain reasons, maybe.
[[Page H4132]]
It would be helpful, though, if maybe anyone is listening, if they
are listening to the House debate and they had an amendment that was
up, it would be helpful if the gentleman found the Member and told them
that we had moved a little faster. We are hoping to get home earlier
than normally we would have been able to get home, so the longer we
delay, the harder it will be.
We did accord two Members last night that opportunity.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should rest assured it is
not our intent to hold up the process. As I said, it is just that we
are 2 hours and 15 minutes ahead of schedule, which is the good news,
but we are trying to get just two folks over here, so we appreciate the
gentleman's understanding.
Mr. WOLF. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Bureau of the Census
Salaries and Expenses
For expenses necessary for collecting, compiling,
analyzing, preparing, and publishing statistics, provided for
by law, $169,424,000.
Periodic Censuses and Programs
For necessary expenses related to the 2000 decennial
census, $114,238,000 to remain available until expended:
Provided, That, of the total amount available related to the
2000 decennial census ($114,238,000 in new appropriations and
$25,000,000 in deobligated balances from prior years),
$8,606,000 is for Program Development and Management;
$68,330,000 is for Data Content and Products; $9,455,000 is
for Field Data Collection and Support Systems; $24,462,000 is
for Automated Data Processing and Telecommunications Support;
$22,844,000 is for Testing and Evaluation; $3,105,000 is for
activities related to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and
Pacific Areas; and $2,436,000 is for Marketing,
Communications and Partnership activities.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 27 offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
Page 47, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
Page 48, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
{time} 1300
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment for which there is strong bipartisan support with my
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), on the other side
of the aisle.
This amendment would provide funding to begin planning to ensure that
all Americans, including those living and working abroad are counted.
Last year's census workers fanned out across the Nation to count every
single American. Millions of Americans came together to complete their
census forms and provide us with a snapshot of America. Unfortunately,
during the 2000 census, we were unable to include a critical group of
Americans: Americans, private citizens, living abroad.
Americans abroad make huge contributions to our economy each year.
They encourage overseas expansion of American companies, improve
exports, help us to expand our trade opportunities, and act as
ambassadors to what we as Americans are all about, our American values.
Unfortunately, although these hardworking Americans contribute so much
to our Nation, although they vote, although they pay taxes, these
Americans were not included in the 2000 census.
I strongly believe that these Americans deserve to be counted. I have
met with them from around the world, from the Arabian peninsula, to
France, to Latin America. I have gotten their e-mails, letters, and
faxes. And what has impressed me the most is that, even though some
have been living abroad for years, or even decades, they are still
proud to be Americans living abroad. It is very important that they are
part of the great civic experience of being part of our national
census.
If we truly want to embrace the global economy, then we should keep
better track of these critically important citizens. This legislation
will provide $2.5 million for the Census Bureau to use to begin
planning a census for Americans abroad by 2010. This is a necessary
shift for this purpose. I believe this effort is long overdue and that
these Americans who offer so much to our Nation deserve to be counted.
I want to remind all of the Members that while they may be living in
France or Canada or Italy, they all come from Michigan, Texas, and
California; and many do in fact vote and pay taxes in their home
States, in all our districts.
Finally, I would like to compliment the patriotism that many
Americans abroad have shown in their quest to be included in the
census. Their love for our Nation has been an inspiration, and I am
proud to offer this amendment on their behalf. I hope all of my
colleagues will support this commonsense amendment which will begin the
process to ensure that all Americans are included in the census.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Census of the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller), conducted numerous very important hearings on the
need to include Americans abroad. Last year, because of his efforts,
there was report language that included a demand that the Census Bureau
come forward with a plan. The problem is that the whole time that I
have been in Congress we have been asking for this plan. Like Moses, we
could be in the desert for 40 years if we do not have a plan.
They are supposed to come back with a plan in September. Yet I fear
that it will be like the other plans, a statement, a dwindling of time,
and not a concrete plan to go out and count these Americans abroad.
This $2.5 million would allow them to have a trial run at counting them
so that we could study the proper and best way to make sure that it is
fairly and legally done.
I want to compliment the fine work of my colleague, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Miller), on this particular effort. We have worked
together in a bipartisan way. And I hope that the distinguished Chair
of this appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf), and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano), will accept this amendment.
We called the Census Bureau yesterday because the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller) had mentioned to me that this report was coming;
and just last month the acting director of the Census Bureau said that
the September report on counting Americans abroad, and I quote, ``will
raise serious concerns about the feasibility of counting them.'' It
sounds to me like the Census Bureau is not asking how this can be done,
but instead is once again looking at the negative.
This allocation will show that we are serious that 10 years from now
we want these citizens counted and we want trial runs in between. We
want this to happen for the American citizens. It is important to our
country, it is important to our global economy, and it is the fair and
right thing to do.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment.
My colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), has done an
outstanding job with regard to this issue. He probably knows more about
the issue of the census than most Members will ever ever know.
There will be a report, the gentleman from Florida has been on top of
it; but in the interest of time we will deal with this issue, and we
will accept the amendment.
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
[[Page H4133]]
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.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first of all
thank the distinguished chairman for accepting this amendment; and to
my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), I
wish to thank him for all of his hard work on this. And from the bottom
of my heart, and sincerely, I sincerely wish he were not retiring at
the end of the term. The gentleman has been a distinguished leader on
many, many issues, particularly the census.
But I know that 10 years from now I will probably still be here, and
they are going to be yelling their heads off at me saying, You and Dan
Miller said you would take care of it. So I am glad the gentleman is
taking a continued leadership role to be sure that by 2010 we have a
viable plan that will work, that will have strong standards that
everyone understands, that are fair, and really represent the interests
of our country and the interests of our citizens.
I thank the gentleman so much, and congratulations on accepting it.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the
gentlewoman knows, we have had our differences on other issues with
regard to the census, but this is certainly one we have had agreement
on.
It is a frustration that we share with the real professionals of the
bureau who really have a challenge on their hands. But we are going to
do it because we have to do it.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentlelady from New York, Representative Maloney, to allocate
$2.5 million for the Census Bureau to begin planning the portion of the
2010 Decennial Census that will count Americans living abroad.
Private sector Americans abroad won the opportunity to vote by
absentee ballot over two decades ago, but they are still battling for
the right to participate in the Decennial Census.
Somewhere between three and ten million private sector Americans live
overseas. Traditionally, they vote, they pay taxes, and own homes in
the USA. It stands to reason, then, that they should be included in the
Decennial Census. As one American abroad put it, ``by excluding us from
Census 2000, the U.S. government is telling us that our taxes count and
our votes count, but that we as U.S. citizens do not.''
Regrettably, the Census Bureau has maintained an ``out of sight, out
of mind'' attitude. In an era of increasing globalization this
perspective makes no sense. Americans abroad, as informal
`'ambassadors'' of the U.S., play a vital role in exporting U.S. goods,
services, expertise, and culture.
Americans abroad have begun to fight back at the polls and in
Washington, and they are finding some very receptive ears. Led by the
House Committee on the census, a strong bipartisan consensus has
emerged on Capitol Hill to enumerate U.S. citizens overseas.
In fact, I have introduced legislation ensuring that all Americans
living abroad are included in the Decennial Censuses. The U.S.
government has done U.S. citizens overseas a great disservice by
treating them as ``invisible,'' and it's high time that we recognize
that Americans abroad do count.
Accordingly, I look forward to working with Congresswoman Maloney on
this important issue throughout this Congress, and I urge all of our
colleagues to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 29 offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
Page 48, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the
following ``(increased by $500,000)''.
Page 48, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to amend the fiscal
year 2002 appropriations of the U.S. Census Bureau.
On Monday night, I appeared before the Committee on Rules on behalf
of myself and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) to ask that this
amendment be protected from a point of order. That committee did not
grant my request.
My intent, Mr. Chairman, was to make sure that the Census Bureau have
adequate funds to produce a special report on the data from the
service-based enumeration from the 2000 census. While those data are
included in the tables that are currently being released, they are not
in a form that is easily accessible so that local governments can
access this information.
In the 2000 census, the Census Bureau made a major effort to count
people with no usual residence. They counted people at shelters, they
counted people at food kitchens, they counted people at mobile food
vans, and they counted people on the streets. This effort is similar to
past censuses. What was different in 2000 was the Census Bureau's very
important partnership program, which the chairman and I worked very
hard to implement.
As a result of the emphasis in 2000 on partnering with local
governments and community groups, the service-based enumeration was
qualitatively different than in the past. Local communities devoted
considerable time and resources to assisting the Census Bureau in this
count. In some cities the local government provided blankets as
inducements to get people to cooperate with the census. In other
cities, local citizens who knew the city were sworn in and went with
the census takers to facilitate the interviews. In nearly all cities,
local governments were active partners in this operation. And, in fact,
one night the chairman and I went out to count the homeless together
with the bureau.
Consequently, those local governments are interested in seeing the
results of their efforts. The data provided in the first census data
released do not allow governments that opportunity. Instead, it is
nearly impossible to sort out the results of this operation from the
current data. At one point I was told that the Census Bureau had
decided not to release these data because of the poor quality of the
data. I am pleased to report that these data will be released in a
special report this fall. This amendment is to ensure that sufficient
funds are available to produce that report.
I would like to make two other comments about these data: first,
there has been some confusion about what these data represent. It is
often convenient to call these data ``the data on the homeless.'' Those
who advocate on behalf of those who find themselves without adequate
shelter bristle at this suggestion, and they are correct in doing so.
In the 2000 census, the Census Bureau counted a little more than
280,000 people in shelters and at soup kitchens and on the streets. No
one should delude themselves that this is an accurate count of the
homeless.
In fact, it was the release of these data in 1990 at the track level
that showed just how clearly the count did not represent reality. Here
in Washington, D.C., the track that includes the White House and the
Capitol, and the stretch of Constitution Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue
in between,
[[Page H4134]]
showed a street population of 41. The track adjacent to the White
House, which includes McPherson Square, showed a street population of
zero. One only has to walk through these areas to understand the
inadequacies of these counts.
This is not a good reason to suppress these data. I am pleased that
the Census Bureau is issuing a special report on the service-based
enumeration. That report can clearly describe just what these data do
and do not represent.
Our country is founded on the principle of free and open access to
information. We have a long history of struggling against totalitarian
regimes that would rather keep their citizens in the dark. It would be
a tragic turn of events if our census, which is at the constitutional
center of our Federal information system, were not open to the public.
Suppressing information should never be a substitute for educating the
public.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment reduces the appropriations for other
periodic censuses and programs by $500,000 and increases the
appropriations for data content and products by the same amount. I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
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.''
{time} 1315
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. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in strong support of the Maloney-Kucinich amendment to ensure
that the Census Bureau has sufficient funds to produce a special report
on the data collected for the 2000 Census from the service because of
the enumeration and targeted nonshelter outdoor location programs.
As the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) explained, for the
2000 census local governments and homeless advocacy groups across the
country in a unique partnership with the Census Bureau invested
resources in counting Americans sleeping in shelters, eating at soup
kitchens and living on the street. The Census Bureau has decided not to
show the count of people living in shelters and people living on the
streets separately. People counted on the street will be lumped in with
people living in other noninstitutional group quarters, which are
dormitories or other places that people live that are not operated by
the government.
Local governments and community groups expected to learn the results
of this collection. However, the data currently provided by the Census
Bureau is not in a format useful to local governments. It is
encouraging to learn that the Census Bureau would be releasing a
special report this fall showing some data collected through the
serviced-based enumeration.
Our amendment will provide adequate funding for the production of the
report. I strongly urge the Census Bureau to include in the report all
tracked level data collected by the Census Bureau through the targeted
nonshelter outdoor locations and other service-based enumeration
programs. Only data provided at the local geographic level will enable
communities to determine what services are needed by residents of their
community.
I would like to clarify that the data gathered on people staying in
shelters and living on streets is not intended to be interpreted as an
official government count of the homeless. I can understand the concern
of some of the national groups who would believe that it would be
interpreted as an official count of the homeless. But due to the great
difficulty in locating people living on the street, under bridges and
in cars, we understand that these figures will not be an accurate count
of the homeless. But I think it is important to get some sense of what
the Census Bureau was able to find in their surveys.
We owe it to local government and community groups which spent days
assisting census takers in this effort to make the information public.
I have been contacted by local homeless advocacy groups in my
congressional district in Cleveland, Ohio, urging the release of this
data. One group, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless,
assisted the Census Bureau by holding a service fair to increase the
number of homeless people counted. As a publisher of a street
newspaper, they support the release of the information collected by the
government. They also believe that the staff hours that went into this
count would be an utter waste of time and resources if the results were
not published in a forum useful to local communities.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and provide your local
governments access to the information collected on people living in
shelters and on the street.
Homelessness is a serious problem in this country. All of us know
that it has many manifestations: people living on the street, people
living in cars, people living under bridges, people assigned to
homeless shelters, people living in government-sponsored shelter. But
for all of the work that the Census Bureau did in its last enumeration,
I think it is important and essential that this Congress and the people
of the United States have the ability to have the exact data that was
gathered by the Census Bureau, to have that information made public.
We actually paid for it. There ought to be freedom of information for
the public. Then it is up to us to determine how to interpret that
information. But to withhold the information or to say it might be
misinterpreted really is to lose an opportunity to get a broader
assessment of the picture of homelessness in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to work with the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) on this.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I place in the Record statements by local homeless
advocates who want to see the numbers. I could read it, but I will
place it in the Record.
Census: Local Homeless Advocates Who Want To See the Numbers
``Who are they safeguarding?'' asked Ron Reinhart, director
of the Salvation Army's PASS Program in Cleveland. ``They
don't want people to know what a poor job they did.'' (Census
Keeps Lid on Homeless Numbers, Cleveland, the Plain Dealer,
6-21-01.)
Brian Davis, head of the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the
Homeless, helped count the homeless in 1990, when Census
officials tried to do it all in one day. He said the 2000
count was much improved, but not without major problems.
``It's important to have these numbers,'' Davis said. ``There
are 1,600 [shelter] beds in Cleveland. And all the beds are
usually full. You should get at least 1,600 homeless
people.'' (Census Keeps Lid on Homeless Numbers, Cleveland,
the Plain Dealer, 6-21-01.)
``It really doesn't make any difference to us when the
census numbers come out. But it does strike me as being
extremely weird,'' said John Suggs, executive director of the
Presbyterian Night Shelter of Tarrant County, near downtown
Fort Worth. ``They had a lot of people here counting the
homeless people inside and outside the shelter. Why do all of
that work and not share it with the public?'' (After Costly
Count, Census Skips Homeless; Report to Reflect Only People
in
[[Page H4135]]
Shelters, News Section, page 1 Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 6-
23-01.)
Tillie Burgin, director of Mission Arlington, also
questioned the decision to withhold the numbers. ``We don't
depend on stats,'' she said. ``However, the folks are
expecting whole truths from the census.'' (After Costly
Count, Census Skips Homeless; Report to Reflect Only People
in Shelters, News Section, page 1 Fort Worth Star-Telegram,
6-23-01.)
``I'd rather have [the numbers] now. It's almost been a
year since we've done it,'' said Candis Brady, communications
director for the 700-bed Shelter for the Homeless in Midway
City, Calif. ``It could help in getting funding for
programs.'' (Census Policy on Homeless Draws Criticism,
Midway City, CA, Associated Press, 6-27-01.)
Leslie Leitch, director of Baltimore's Office of Homeless
Services, said she also thought the census was going to
release more detailed figures. Now, she said, her city may
have to go out and do their own survey of people in soup
kitchens and living on the streets. (Census Policy on
Homeless Draws Criticism, Baltimore, Associated Press, 6-27-
01.)
``Here in Seattle, we worked hard to get people to
cooperate with the census, and we would support releasing
more information,'' said D'Anne Mount, spokeswoman for the
Seattle strategic planning office. (Numbering the Homeless,
Associated Press, 6-29-01.)
Still Tavares [Columbus City Councilwoman] says there has
to be a better way. ``By not having the numbers, we're
missing out on dollars that would come back . . . for
homeless programs, child care, funding for education,
emergency food services, transportation and many more,''
Tavares said. ``These are living, breathing citizens in our
community.'' (City Won't Get True Homeless Count: Census
Numbers to Include Only Those at Shelters, Dispatch.com, 7-
17-01.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman is correct. I have
a letter here from the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless which
supports the release and the number of people counted during the census
as stated in the Maloney-Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2500.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Maloney-Kucinich amendment to provide the
funds necessary for a special report on the counts from a Census 2000
program called the Service Based Enumeration.
One of the significant improvements in the 2000 census was the way
the Census Bureau reached out to local governments to improve the
census count. This was good for the census and good for the
communities.
Nowhere was that partnership more evident than in the effort to count
people who during the census had no usual place to live. Some of those
people were sleeping in shelters. Some were sleeping on the street.
Some were sleeping in cars or in buildings that the Census Bureau
considered vacant, and the census counted those people at soup kitchens
and mobile food vans.
To make this count of a special population happen, local governments
and community groups donated time, energy and money to the census. In
some communities, counting this special population was a major
undertaking. In others, it was a modest effort. Most communities worked
with the Census Bureau to make this count happen.
In 1990, Congress worked with the Census Bureau to assure that any
time the street and shelter counts were published they were accompanied
with the appropriate caution that these numbers should not be taken as
a count of the homeless. That was a successful cooperative effort, and
to my knowledge those numbers have not been misused.
Nonetheless, some of the groups who advocate on behalf of the
homeless worry that the publication of the 2000 census numbers from the
street and shelter count will be misused. Consequently, the Census
Bureau included those counts with other categories in a way so they
could not be separated out.
The acting director of the Census Bureau told me that these numbers
would be published in a separate report this fall. This amendment will
provide the resources necessary for that special report, and I applaud
the Census Bureau for taking this approach. I am sure that this report
will contain the same cautions as 1990. These data should not be used
as a count of the homeless.
At the same time, the special report will give local governments and
community groups a way of evaluating their efforts. We all realize that
the 2000 census count is seriously flawed, but the only way to improve
on that count is to make it public and to enlist the efforts of all
involved in improving those data in the next census.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment so we can
continue to improve uncounted persons with no usual place to live. We
cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend this problem does not
exist.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support of
the Maloney-Kucinich amendment and to point out that all across the
Nation we have had homeless advocates who have stated concern about
this issue that we have raised.
A Columbus city councilwoman stated, ``By not having the numbers, we
are missing out on dollars that would come back for homeless programs,
child care, funding for education, emergency food services,
transportation and many more. These are living, breathing citizens in
our community.'' That was reported on the Columbus Dispatch.com.
Mr. Chairman, D'Anne Mount, spokeswoman for the Seattle Strategic
Planning Office, said, ``Here in Seattle, we worked hard to get people
to cooperate with the census, and we would support releasing more
information.''
In Baltimore, from the Associated Press, Leslie Leitch, director of
Baltimore's Office of Homeless Services, said that she thought that the
census was going to release more detailed figures. Now she says her
city may have to go out and do their own survey of people in soup
kitchens and living on the street.
Mr. Chairman, there is a need for this, and I appreciate the
assistance of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Mr. CLAY. Reclaiming my time, that is what the census is about, how
we actually count those in the different communities. As the gentleman
said, local governments and community groups want to know how many
people actually exist in their communities.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, in Midway City, California, a
communications director for a 700-bed shelter for the homeless said it
could help in getting funding for the programs. She stated, ``I would
rather have the numbers now. It has been a year since we have done
it.''
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
[[Page H4136]]
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.
{time} 1330
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.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I do rely on the Census
Bureau to give us the information. I know that last year as the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Census, the gentleman from Florida was
very concerned about political manipulation of the census data. I
wonder if he would comment on whether or not this situation is an
example of political manipulation. The Census Bureau consulted with a
special interest group and then decided not to publish the numbers.
This is one homeless group. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and
I have a list of other groups that would like this information. What if
it had been the NRA? What if it had been NOW? What is the difference?
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.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney) will be postponed.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
Page 45, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $250,000)''.
Page 46, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $250,000, for a grant to the City
of Pahokee, Florida to assist in the dredging on the City
Marina)''.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of order.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to concede the
point of order and withdraw my amendment, but first I would like to
engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the committee,
the gentleman from Virginia; and the distinguished ranking member the
gentleman, from New York; and my good friend, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley). I thank particularly the chairman and the ranking
member for their consideration, mindful of the time constraints that
are involved.
For the past year, the entire South Florida community has fallen
victim to an ongoing drought. While larger, wealthier communities have
been able to survive, smaller, poorer cities and towns have merely
scraped by on savings that no longer exist. Without the immediate
assistance of the Federal Government, these communities will find
themselves facing extinction. Small towns located on the shores of Lake
Okeechobee, that my good friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley)
and I represent, such as the city of Pahokee, depend on a tourist
industry that attracts thousands of recreational boaters, who travel
inland from the coasts to enjoy the lake as well as the local
restaurants and shops.
In addition, the city's growing commercial fishing industry has come
to a standstill. In fact, fishermen's boats are unable to even make it
to the water which has evaporated so much that its nearest point of
entry is 1\1/2\ miles inland. Both recreational and fishing boats
docked at Pahokee's city marina now lie on their sides against what
used to be the floor of the city's marina.
The City of Pahokee is in dire need of $250,000 in Federal assistance
to dredge the city marina. This project will provide immediate
assistance to the businesses that depend on the marina as a deeper
marina will be able to recover from the drought at a quicker pace than
a shallower one. The State of Florida has agreed to pay for half of the
project, but Pahokee is unable to recover the remainder of the costs.
Just this morning, I received a copy of a letter from Florida
Governor Jeb Bush urging the Small Business Administration to declare
the counties surrounding the gentleman's from Florida (Mr. Foley) and
my district's area a disaster area. I am confident with the leadership
of the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from New York I can go
home and tell the people of Pahokee that help is on the way.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this
issue to our attention. We would want to work with both of the
gentlemen from Florida to find the most appropriate way to assist this
community.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his kindness and look forward to working with him.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate and applaud the good
work that the gentleman from Florida has been doing to assist the small
communities in his district. I assure him that
[[Page H4137]]
I want to help him find the appropriate way to assist this community. I
will join the gentleman from Virginia and him in accomplishing this.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank
the gentleman. This issue is a bipartisan issue. It is one that affects
the lives of thousands in South Florida.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend and neighbor, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Foley), who has worked so hard with me to restore the
livelihood of those living in the communities around Lake Okeechobee.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) and, of course, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their participation
today. When people think of Palm Beach County, they immediately think
of polo fields in Palm Beach and Worth Avenue; but the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I well know that the people living in the
Glades area are struggling. Lake Okeechobee, the largest lake on the
Eastern Seaboard, is in fact experiencing its worst drought in memory.
We are not just talking about Pahokee. We are talking about
Okeechobee, Buckhead Ridge, Canal Point, Clewiston, Moore Haven,
Harlem, Lakeport, Belle Glade, all people who derive the livelihood and
the ability to feed their families from this precious resource, Lake
Okeechobee and its tributaries. I salute the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) for coming to the floor today and making this dramatic
point of how much we need help. Governor Jeb Bush, as he mentioned, has
sent a letter urging our colleagues to join with us in this very
important pledge to help these small communities around the lake.
Again I thank both the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for their attention to this. And, of
course, I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for
bringing this to Congress' immediate attention.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would
just like to once again thank the distinguished chairman, the gentleman
from Virginia, and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from
New York, for all their help on this important issue to the people of
South Florida. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Foley) for joining me on the floor today in support of this
project. I look forward to working with the gentleman in the coming
weeks on this and many other issues affecting the people of South
Florida and this Nation.
Finally, I would like to say to the people of Pahokee, help is on the
way.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 28 offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
Page 48, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 48, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of myself
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) to amend the fiscal year
2002 appropriations for the U.S. Census Bureau.
The Census Bureau changed the question on Hispanic origin in the 2000
census; and as a result, our ability to measure changes in subgroups of
Hispanics has been severely hindered. This amendment is to provide the
funds necessary for the Census Bureau to create accurate counts of
subgroups of Hispanics from the 2000 census.
In the 2000 census, the question on Hispanic origin had a subtle
change from 1990 that produced a profound result. In 1990, the category
``other Hispanic'' was followed by a line that said, ``Print one group,
for example, Argentinian, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan,
Salvadorian, Spaniard, and so on.'' In 2000, these groups were given
only the instruction, ``Print group.'' As a result, the number of
persons who marked ``other'' and did not write in a particular group
went up and the counts for these other Hispanic groups do not reflect
the actual increase in population that occurred between 1990 and 2000.
Let me give my colleagues a few examples of the confusion this change
caused. The Census Bureau has reported that the population of Hispanics
grew by 58 percent between 1990 and 2000. That may be, but the number
of Nicaraguans declined almost 15 percent. The number of Panamanians
declined from 92,000 in 1990 to 91,000 in 2000. At the same time these
groups supposedly declined, the number of ``other'' Hispanics of which
Panamanians and Nicaraguans are a subgroup, grew threefold from 2
million to 6 million.
In short, there are problems with comparing the 1990 and 2000 census
data on Hispanics. This problem can be taken care of, to a large
extent, by using data on the long form to revise the counts of Hispanic
subgroups. This was done in 1990 and could be done again in 2000. The
long form collects data on place of birth and ancestry which can be
used to augment the Hispanic origin data to provide a more accurate
count of Hispanic subgroups. The funds transferred in this amendment
should provide ample resources for correcting these data.
Some have suggested that this is an issue that is of interest only to
New York. That is in part because New York's data has been released,
and detailed data for other States with large Hispanic population have
not yet been released. California, for instance, contains a third of
the U.S. Hispanic population and is itself almost a third Hispanic. It
is quite likely that when the data for California is released, we will
see similar problems there. The data for Texas, which contains almost 7
million Hispanics, have not yet been released. And so we have not yet
seen the detail on Hispanic subgroups.
Mr. Chairman, we owe it to the Hispanic groups that worked so hard to
make sure that the 2000 census was a good census to provide the best
possible data on Hispanic subgroups. I hope that my colleagues will
join me in making sure that this happens by supporting the amendment
that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I are putting
forward.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do is to get support
of not having a recount but in having a more specific classification of
the communities that have just been lumped together. As we all know,
the Hispanic community is showing the greatest population growth than
any other group. A part of our responsibility is not just to count
people by a label, no more than we would be comfortable in counting
Europeans, not taking into consideration whether they are French or
German or Irish; but the most important thing, it would seem to me, is
that we should be trying to find some way to get the information that
we can more properly allow this group to assimilate into our community,
into our country, and to be as productive as they can be.
As we all know, the census data is used not only to designate the
type of programs that we want but are used to define what type of
school districts we should have, what political subdivisions there
should be for those who want to run for city office or State office or
indeed the reapportionment for the United States Congress, and should
take into consideration the background, culture, and languages of the
people that come from that community. So what we are asking is to
rearrange it so the resources will be there for the Census Bureau to
give us a clearer understanding of who we call Hispanic.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is also, I
can tell Members, a flawed amendment because it does not do anything.
It just kind of moves money around without having any kind of stream of
thought to it. The amendment would again move funding from various
census appropriation accounts to other accounts in a very, very
confusing way.
[[Page H4138]]
I understand what the gentlewoman and the gentleman are trying to do,
but the professionals have made a decision and many believe that this
would be the camel's nose under the tent, the slippery slope. Although
the 2000 census is considered to be the most accurate in history, it is
understandable that some have had some concern. But the professionals
would be opposed to this. We really cannot go back. It does not really
do anything other than flip money around and back and forth in a very,
very confusing way.
{time} 1345
So we would urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the chairman to respond to the
question as to whether or not he can see his way clear to at least have
in a conference report language as to how beneficial it could be to a
community to be identified by who they are, rather than by just some
Spanish-speaking Hispanic label.
It just seems to me that the professionals would think that that
could be a great addition as we attempt to use the data we have in the
best way we can.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
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. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, they never really got
an opportunity to ask newcomers into the country, that if you are not
of Mexican extraction, if you are not Cuban, and if you are not Puerto
Rican, then you just have to be considered as ``other.''
We have a half a million Dominicans in the United States, almost half
in my congressional district, and this is one of the most exciting,
vibrant communities that we have. The question has to be, that as proud
as they are of being Hispanic, they are more proud of being Dominican.
This is the way we have to conduct the Federal Government. They
cannot send out a Spanish-speaking hand. They have to take advantage of
their culture, their background, their experiences, and to bring them
into society and bring them into politics. If one thinks that makes
some sense and has to be worked out, I would appreciate it if the
gentleman would consider putting that into some type of report that
does not go into conflict with the decision that has been made.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman for
his statements and would like to point out that the long-form
information is available in 2002, not 2003, but 2002; and the
professionals in this case made a mistake. They changed the question.
They changed the question, and they did not know the effect it would
have. Now that we know the effect and the problem that it has caused,
we have a chance to go and correct it. That is what this amendment
seeks to do.
Let us correct this data so it more properly reflects, in the case
that my colleague so eloquently made, the Dominican population in New
York and other places in the country.
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. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the Maloney-Rangel
amendment to improve the count of Hispanics in the 2000 census. This
issue is a very simple one: the Census Bureau changed the question on
Hispanic origin from the 1990 questionnaire to a different format on
the 2000 questionnaire. As a result, it is difficult to compare the
count from some of the subgroups of Hispanics.
The Census Bureau can go a long way towards fixing this problem using
data from the long form. This amendment makes sure the money to fix
this problem is in the right place.
I am a bit puzzled by those who oppose this amendment. I am, frankly,
a bit puzzled about why the Census Bureau has not come up with a plan
to fix this problem. Do these people not care about an accurate count
on Hispanic groups?
Mr. Chairman, the Census Bureau director, Ken Pruitt, went around the
country talking to the American people about how the census was an
American celebration. He called it a celebration of our country and our
democracy. The census, he told us, is what makes our democracy uniquely
American. The American people listened to the director and responded in
an unprecedented fashion.
I do not know of a single person in this House or professional census
taker
[[Page H4139]]
or statistician who predicted that the 2000 census would have the kind
of response we witnessed.
Now it is the Government's turn to respond to the people. The numbers
for some of the Hispanic groups do not make sense because the Census
Bureau changed the question, and the new question changed the way
people answered. What is more, the problem can be fixed.
Now is the time for the Census Bureau to show its thanks to the
American people for their part in making this one of the best censuses
ever by producing the best data ever. The Census Bureau can do the
work, and we here in this House can provide the funds to make that
happen, or we can turn our backs on the American people and take their
cooperation for granted.
If we defeat this amendment, we will be telling the American people
that they were taken, once again, by their government and this House of
Representatives, for granted.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
excellent statement, and I would like to just underscore what the
change in the question meant. In 1990, 1.9 million Hispanics were
classified as ``other.'' In 2000, 6 million Hispanics were classified
as ``other.'' That is 17 percent. Why? Because, as my colleague has
pointed out and as we well know, the bureau changed the question.
In 2000, according to the Census Bureau, Hispanic population, 17.6
percent of the Hispanic population was classified as ``other.'' That
makes ``other'' the second largest group of Hispanics. Now, only the
bureau can tell us how much of this change is a result of changing the
question. And why will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not
support our efforts to answer this question? We are merely asking to be
able to get this question answered and to direct the resources to make
that happen.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let us me first open my comments by saying that I do
not have to repeat, the record will show I have been totally supportive
of full funding the Census Bureau for the last few years; that I have
gotten as the ranking member up on this floor and supported not only
full funding, but supported the professionals who work at the Census
Bureau. So I am clear on that, that this amendment and this
conversation and this debate should in no way be seen as an attack.
There is no need to defend the professionals at the bureau, because we
all respect the work that they do.
However, the point here is that in trying to do the best job possible
and in taking into consideration what they had to do, there were a
couple of mistakes made this year. One of them is this issue that the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) so aptly bring up in this amendment that I support,
and that is the whole issue that in areas throughout the country, but
you take especially an area like New York City, of not giving an
opportunity for a Hispanic subgroup to identify themselves, is in fact
not gathering the proper information.
I want to make that point clear. This is not about who is pleased
with this information. This is not about who we make happy by providing
this information. This is about the fact that we funded the census,
full force, in the hope that they would get out the best accurate
information.
Well, you cannot get the best accurate information if people who
would like to identify themselves, again, if you will, a second time,
do not get an opportunity to do so. There is the discussion in New York
City that there might be up to 150,000 missing Dominican Americans.
They are not missing from the Hispanic count as much, although there is
an undercount, we know. They are not missing from the New York City or
New York State or the national count; but they are missing for purposes
of identifying who they are.
While it is true that on this House floor there are many Members who
always speak about we are one Nation and should not divide ourselves
along certain lines, and we can all agree on that, the census happens
to be the one constitutional institution that is supposed to do exactly
what some people may not like, which is to go identify you at the
national level, at the block level, ethnically, racially, to try to
find out who it is living in this country and how we provide services
and how we celebrate who we are as a country.
So I support this amendment, in the hope that the Census Bureau,
within their large massive funding operation, within the support that
they receive from us, they can understand that there was a slight error
made here and that they have to be able to deal with that.
I will give you an example: when the first numbers came in, some of
the articles in New York said ``Puerto Rican community losing ground as
other Hispanic community grows in leaps and bounds.'' I looked at it
and said, who is this ``other'' that is growing so much? Then it dawned
on me that ``other'' was everybody else, and perhaps it may be that
those articles were not accurate, because when you break the ``others''
up, none of them reach the amount that the Puerto Ricans have in New
York City. Yet the information given out is that ``others'' has become
this incredible new number that, one, we do not know how to service;
two, we do not know where they come from; and, three, we do not know
how best to deal with all of their needs.
So if you look at this, you are really not asking for anything that
should not have been put forth in the first instance. I would hope that
we would realize that in supporting the Maloney-Rangel amendment, we in
fact get to the full truth, and that is what the census was supposed to
give us in the first place.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
{time} 1400
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.
[[Page H4140]]
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. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rangel-Maloney amendment. I
think, as someone who represents a community which has a substantial
Hispanic population, I can say that I understand the concerns that have
been expressed here by my colleagues.
It is a matter of record that in both 1990 and 2000 those who marked
that category ``other'' were asked to write in a particular group; and
in 1990, after ``other,'' the questionnaire listed, print one group,
for example, Argentinian, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, El
Salvadoran, Spaniard and so on. In 2000, those who marked ``other''
were only given the instruction: ``print group.'' So, as a result,
there were far fewer people who marked that category ``other'' and, as
a result, there were groups that were understated in the 2000 Census.
I think it is really important that we remember that, in addition to
the enumerative aspects of this census, there is a matter of pride
which is involved. Any time any of us have ever gone to a citizenship
ceremony, we see people so proud to be Americans, but at the same time
they reserve something deep in terms of an expression of where they
came from. We are all Americans. We take pride in that. But we have a
right to be able to keep those deeper connections, those cultural
connections which also express who we are.
So when the census is designed in such a way that it stops that
expression from happening, it really is an offense to so many of the
groups that are now part of this wonderful cultural mosaic which is the
United States of America. So I think that we need to ask the census to
have greater sensitivity in making sure that we have an opportunity to
correct this miscounting of Hispanic Americans in the 2000 Census.
So I wanted to express my support for this, but also I think we need
to reflect on the underlying cause which animates the concern of all of
us expressing our positions here on this amendment. That is, people are
celebrating that they are part of this great country, but they deserve
to be identified as to the various lands that they have come from.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Hispanic Caucus's Task Force on the
Census and Civil Rights, I rise in favor and in support of the Maloney-
Rangel amendment. Let me explain why, because I believe that I actually
bring the truth of all perspectives, in light of the responsibility and
duties that the Caucus has to the Hispanic community in the United
States.
The first thing to recognize is that the Hispanic community, in and
of itself, reflects tremendous diversity. We are unlike any other
community. Therein lies our strength but also some problems, and this
is what we are attempting to address.
Let me explain why. It is important to identify the different groups
within the Latino and Hispanic communities. Did the census succeed in
doing so? The answer is no. Was it intentional? Was it negligence? It
does not matter. The result is that we do not have an accurate result.
When we do not have an accurate result, we do not have usable
information. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) knows exactly what
I am talking about because I think we see eye to eye on 90 percent of
the issues when it comes to the census. One of the issues is accuracy,
but the other was the utilitarian part of it, and that is how we use
this information.
It is not just the United States Government and every level of
government under the Federal Government that uses it, but it is the
private sector, trying to identify the needs of certain communities
within the big, all-encompassing Hispanic community in the United
States. Therefore, it is important to make sure that the subcategories,
the subgroups are identified, because the needs are truly different.
No one understands that, when I try to tell individuals, we are not
just Latinos. If you take someone of Mexican dissent, it is totally
different than someone from Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic or
from Colombia. That is just the way it is. But this is America today,
and that is the reality.
So what does this amendment really seek to do? I do not believe, as
has been characterized in the debate today, that it attempts to change
any of the information. What we are asking is to take existing
information and, from that, glean and analyze and come up with a better
result. This is not a major overhaul, a wholesale overhaul of
information, and no one should misinterpret it that way.
The amendment requires the Bureau of the Census to report to Congress
on possible adjustments to the data and a diagnosis of how many people
may have been misclassified by the rewriting of the census form. With
these reports, we can determine how best to use the data we have and
how we can avoid such confusion in the future.
What I am afraid of, and it has been mischaracterized and, again, I
do not think intentionally, I think everyone questions everybody's
motives when we come up and want to do something with this information.
We are looking at accuracy. We are looking at the usefulness of the
information. Otherwise, we may have the numbers, we may have succeeded
in identifying more people and having more people respond to the
census, but it will be of no use. We will not be able to use that
information. We must identify those contributions that certain
individuals can make within the Hispanic community but, more
importantly, what are the needs of these individuals that reside in
this great Nation of ours.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Maloney-
Rangel amendment to improve the accuracy of the Hispanic census count.
Compared to the 1990 census, the 2000 census changed the way it asked
Hispanics to identify their country of origin. In both censuses,
individuals were asked to identify their Hispanic origin as Mexican,
Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other. The way the ``other'' category was
treated is what changed. In both 1990 and 2000, those who marked other
were asked to write in a particular group. In 1990, after ``other,''
the questionnaire listed ``Print one group, for example: Argentinian,
Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadorian, Spaniard, and so on.''
In 2000, those who marked other were only given the instruction ``Print
group.'' The result of this was that far fewer people who marked
``other'' wrote in a group, and the count of groups like Colombians and
Dominicans is understated in the 2000 census.
The Moloney-Rangel amendment will enable the Census Bureau to conduct
a report on what the census results would have likely been, had the
question been phrased the same way it was in 1990. This will provide us
with useful, supplemental information about the Hispanic population.
The Hispanic community is becoming increasingly diverse. Having
accurate information about the diversity of the Hispanic population
will enable us to better target resources that are culturally sensitive
to these communities. It is important to remember that the Hispanic
community is not homogeneous. For example, the best way to communicate
and reach out to Mexican-Americans is not the same as the best, most
effective way to reach out to Dominican-Americans. This is why we
should enable the Census Bureau to conduct a study and provide the
public with information that gives us a better understanding of the
true diversity within the Hispanic community.
Hispanics deserve to be accurately counted. As Chairman of the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I therefore support the Maloney-Rangel
amendment and urge all my colleagues to do the same.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney) will be postponed.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Miller of Florida) having assumed the
[[Page H4141]]
Chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2500) making
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2002, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________
Share this page
|
Bookmark this page
The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM
|
