Census Oversight Efficiency and Management Reform Act of 2010

Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to S. 3167. In the last 2 years, I have served as the ranking member of the Census Subcommittee here in the House. We have had no legislative hearing, no markup, no substantive discussions about the content of this legislation. And here we are at the last hour of a lame duck Congress and they are trying to pass a piece of legislation that hasn't had an honest-to-goodness legislative hearing or a markup.

Well, I guess that is what we have seen over the last 24 months out of this Congress, a disregard for the legislative process. I don't think it is responsible for us to pass a major piece of legislation like this, and it does have a major impact. I certainly appreciate my colleague submitting ideas such as this to improve the census, but I don't think this is the right approach.

To that end, I would like to submit for the Record a letter from the Department of Commerce signed by Secretary Gary Locke dated December 13 stating his opposition to components of this legislation.

I think it is important that we should not reward the Census Bureau for a repeated history of cost overruns and mishaps. These suggest that the Bureau needs more, not less, oversight.

S. 3167 would grant greater autonomy to the Census Director. The bill would have the director bypass the Commerce Under Secretary for Economics and Statistics Administration, ESA, in favor of a direct report to the Commerce Secretary. Each Commerce Secretary has opposed this proposal. In fact, the current Commerce Secretary has 16 direct reports, so this further puts in place a process that I don't think is sustainable for this Commerce Secretary or future Commerce Secretaries.

Yesterday, the current Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke, wrote a letter to the Congress stating, The department strongly opposes the provisions of this bill enabling the Census Bureau Director to submit legislative recommendations or testimony to Congress without supervisory review.

This letter also expresses concern about the provisions of the bill that would require the Director of the Census Bureau to report directly to the Secretary of Commerce.

With regard to these views, it is worth pointing out that it is the Commerce Secretary himself who is granted the statutory authority to carry out the decennial census. The Census Bureau will have less oversight if it reports directly to the Secretary, as I stated before, because the Secretary has 16 direct reports.

The Census Director currently reports to the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, who heads ESA. It is the role of ESA to coordinate economic data, some of which is provided to the Census Bureau's Economic Directorate. Granting the Census Bureau autonomy from ESA will hinder the coordination of economic data, and certainly we are a world leader in terms of our regard for economic data.

The Census Bureau wants to operate as independently as possible. That certainly is understandable. But it is also important to recognize a history of cost overruns the Bureau has had under Democrat and Republican administrations, and the GAO has put the 2010 census on its high risk list due to concerns of mismanagement within the Census Bureau. Again, that was a bipartisan problem. Congress should not reward fiscal irresponsibility by granting additional autonomy.

Madam Speaker, this bill does not establish accountability. It does not require the Census Bureau to have an inspector general, which I think would be proper. It does not establish fiscal constraints. It does not even provide guidelines on the questions and surveys that it can ask the American people. And it doesn't require the Bureau to produce alternative methods of procuring statistical data, such as partnerships with universities and the private sector, which I think is necessary and proper in this time that we are in.

Madam Speaker, consideration of this bill is premature. The 2010 census results will be released one week from today. The Bureau just announced that yesterday. But crucial information concerning the statistical confidence level of the data will not be released until early next year.

Again, this bill is premature. I certainly appreciate my colleague's interest in this, but I think it is better handled in the next Congress, where we can actually have an honest-to-goodness, I don't know, legislative hearing perhaps, maybe even a markup of a bill, and actually get some input from both sides. Just because the Senate passed it doesn't mean the House should rubberstamp it, by any means. But I do think we should have serious consideration of this bill and do it under the light of day, not at the 11th hour of a dying Congress.

So, that is my view, and I think that is the view of many colleagues on my side of the aisle as well.

U.S. Department of Commerce,

The Secretary of Commerce,

Washington, DC, December 13, 2010.

Hon. Edolphus Towns,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S.

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter provides the views of the

Department of Commerce on the Senate-passed version of S.

3167, the ``Census Oversight Efficiency and Management Reform

Act of 2010.'' Your continued work on behalf of the Census

Bureau is appreciated, and we look forward to working with

you to make it an even better agency.

The Department of Commerce's goal is to ensure that the

Census Bureau functions as a transparent, cost-effective, and

competent

organization that is successful in planning and implementing

its programs, while maintaining its statistical integrity and

freedom from political interference. Therefore, we consider

it crucial that we convey the following assessment of several

provisions of the legislation as passed by the Senate.

The Department supports the provision of the bill that

would create a five-year fixed term for the Census Bureau

Director beginning on January 1, 2012. A five-year term

(limiting an individual to two full terms) for the Census

Bureau Director helps avoid political interference by giving

the Director more stability across election cycles. This

stability conforms to well-accepted principles and practices

of independence for federal statistical agencies and is the

current status of the appointment of the Commissioner of the

Bureau of Labor Statistics and of the National Center for

Education Studies. It may mitigate the risk of having long

periods after elections where there is no Senate-confirmed

Director, particularly in those years leading up to a

decennial census. At the close of the 2010 Census, five of

the last seven decennial censuses will have been led by a

Director appointed in the year ending in 9 or 0, leading to

management uncertainty at critical times during the decennial

census cycle.

However, the Department strongly opposes the provision of

the bill that could be construed to enable the Census Bureau

Director to submit legislative recommendations or testimony

or comments to Congress without supervisory review, and has

concerns about the provision of the bill that would require

the Director of the Census Bureau to report directly to the

Secretary of Commerce.

With respect to the proposal concerning the submission of

the Census Bureau Director's views directly to Congress where

the views include a statement indicating that they do not

represent the views of the President, the Department of

Justice advises us that in order to avoid infringing on the

powers reserved to the President under the Recommendations

Clause of the Constitution, the Executive Branch would

construe the word ``officer,'' in that provision, not to

include the President, thereby allowing him to direct the

review of the Director's legislative recommendations,

testimony and comments prior to their submission to Congress.

Even as so construed, however, the proposal would overreach

into Executive Branch prerogatives by bypassing normal

communication and decision-making channels within the

Executive Branch, and therefore we oppose it. There are

always a variety of data policy issues under discussion that

are often the subject of testimony or that emerge as

legislative recommendations out of a broader Executive Branch

decision-making process. It is a prerogative of the Executive

Branch to speak with one voice on such issues. The ability to

speak with one voice on policy matters does not interfere

with statistical agencies' ability to provide unfiltered

statistical data. A key principle of government statistical

agencies worldwide is that the credibility of the information

they provide depends on the public perceiving these data as

independent of political intervention.

In addition to this provision, we have concerns about the

provision in the bill that would require the Director of the

Census Bureau to report directly to the Secretary of

Commerce. This provision unnecessarily limits the Secretary's

discretion to establish an organizational structure that best

suits the needs of the Department.

The Director of the Census Bureau has full access and

accountability to the Secretary of Commerce. However, there

are sound reasons for maintaining the current reporting

relationship of the Census Bureau to the Economics and

Statistics Administration (ESA). The Under Secretary for

Economic Affairs, who heads ESA, serves as the principal

adviser to the Secretary on economic issues and also oversees

the activities of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The

Under Secretary is responsible for the analysis and

development of policies on economic and statistical issues.

One of ESA's primary roles is to interpret the mission of

statistical agencies to senior officials within the

Department, ensuring that the Office of Management and Budget

directives of independence and freedom from political

influences are maintained.

Like you, I believe that independence from partisan

political interference and effective management oversight and

accountability of the Census Bureau is a top priority. I

encourage you to take into consideration our concerns and

accept our recommendations on this important issue. We are

always looking for ways to improve the Census Bureau and look

forward to continuing to work with you on this and other

important matters.

The Department appreciates the opportunity to present these

views on the Senate-passed version of S. 3167. The Office of

Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection

to the transmittal of these views from the standpoint of the

Administration's program.

If you have any questions, please contact me or April Boyd,

Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental

Affairs, at (202) 482-3663.

Sincerely,

Gary Locke.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, again, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I certainly appreciate the sponsor's thoughtfulness in creating it, but I think there

are a number of provisions that do cause problems. And I agree with the Democrat Secretary of Commerce, the current Secretary of Commerce, with his opposition to large provisions within it.

In order to thoughtfully legislate on the decennial census, I think we need to have a hearing and I think we need to have a markup, and I think we can hash this out. And I am willing to work with my colleague from New York to make that happen in the next Congress, because I do think she comes from a sincere place with this legislation. Unfortunately, it is a piece of flawed legislation. I'll give you one example.

The Census Director will report directly to the Secretary of Commerce. Again, that Census Director will be one of 17 individuals with a direct report to the Secretary of Commerce. However, the Secretary of Commerce is not able to fire the Census Director. So, if he or she is a direct report to the Commerce Secretary, shouldn't the Commerce Secretary have the ability to fire that person if they're incompetent or inept rather than just letting them serve a 5-year term? That's one provision within the legislation that I think is troublesome.

Additionally, as the sponsor mentioned, there is no inspector general. And, with a multibillion-dollar census, I think it is important that we have IGs that actually have the power to oversee a program, and a program that's so large and so expensive.

This census has a $3 billion cost overrun over its life cycle. Now, the individuals responsible for that weren't held accountable. But that $3 billion, rather than rewarding the Bureau for having a cost overrun of that size by giving them independence and autonomy right now, I think we need to have some thoughtful consideration of how to ensure that we don't have future cost overruns like that.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I again yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, just to address my colleague's comments about the opinion she imputed to me about this legislation and the way she changed the legislation to more meet with my opinion, those, Madam Speaker, were not my opinions. We have actually not had discussions about this legislation, my colleague and I from New York have not. So, just to be very clear, those opinions were someone else's; not mine.

Additionally, it is kind of interesting to throw in the tax debate regarding a piece of legislation about the census. I'm not going to take the bait. It's fine. We'll have a vote on that or we won't have a vote on that this Congress, depending on what the Speaker thinks. I certainly understand the concern about not having hearings and not having markups.

But I would say to my colleague from New York that it is her party that is in both the House and Senate and had every opportunity to schedule a hearing on this piece of legislation. They had every opportunity to schedule a markup on this piece of legislation, and they didn't. So, clearly, it is a problem not with my party, but it is a problem with my colleague from New York's party about getting that scheduled.

Madam Speaker, I do have serious concerns and, I think, legitimate concerns. I also understand how many folks operate in Congress: we take a pledge that we will fix it later, and that ``later'' never happens.

So what I would say to my colleague from New York is that, in the next Congress, I will be very happy to work with her to pass a reasonable piece of legislation which, I think, structurally will look different than this but which will take on some of the concerns that she has about the Census Bureau.

I am truly concerned about making sure that our statistical agencies are independent, independent from political influence like this President tried to have at the beginning of his term in office by having the Census Director report directly to then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. We came out opposed to that. It was my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who wanted that. We came out opposed to the statistical manipulation of the outcome of the census, which some in the other party were very much in favor of. It is true that there are political disagreements between Republicans and Democrats, but I think we all want to have a fair and accurate census.

I also want to have a census that is cheaper in the future than it has been in the past. We have had a cost overrun of $3 billion. As I would mention to my colleague from New York, the entire budget of the Department of Commerce is just shy of $9 billion annually. They had a $3 billion cost overrun within just the Census. That is an enormous sum, and I think it is worthy of having an Inspector General to make sure that this doesn't happen again. So that is my concern.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am sorry my colleague used up her time.

I am going to close by saying that anyone who wants an accountable Census Bureau will oppose this bill. Instead of saying we want an independent bureau that is not accountable, I think we are saying we want an independent bureau that is accountable. That is why I am going to oppose this bill.

I ask my colleagues--those who want fiscal sanity, those who want proper oversight of the Census, those who want reasonable legislating, which actually means we would have a hearing and a markup--to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I would also mention to my colleague from New York that her legislation we are discussing here today got just about as many votes as that tax deal that she opposes. So you can take this for all you want as to what the Senate does, but the census affects every Member of the House, all of our constituents, our statistical reporting agencies, and our economic bureaus as well. We want to make sure we get this legislation right, but it is highly flawed as it is currently constructed; and it would mean further cost overruns going forward.

With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3167) to amend title 13 of the United States Code to provide for a 5-year term of office for the Director of the Census and to provide for the authority and duties of the Director and Deputy Director of the Census, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Census Oversight Efficiency and Management Reform Act, important bipartisan legislation that I introduced with my colleague, Congressman Charles Dent. Senators Carper and Coburn in a bipartisan way introduced the companion bill in the Senate that recently passed the Senate unanimously, 100 votes in favor, and is now before us today.

This is a strong bill with no cost to American taxpayers, and it will help ensure a better census for 2020 and beyond. It is bipartisan, it is good government, it is scientific independence, and it is good management. This important reform ensures consistent, professional management of this major scientific agency and minimizes political interference of its vital constitutional mission.

I am grateful to Senators Carper and Coburn for their bipartisan leadership on this issue in the Senate. Now we in the House must commit to forward thinking to avoid problems in the run-up to the 2020 census.

Our country owes a great deal to James Madison and Thomas Jefferson for handing down the innovation of a census whose goal is to ensure fair political representation. If we want to attract future census leaders in their mold, we must give the Census Bureau the professional independence called for in this bill.

This bill is a way of saying to the American public that we honor the intent of the Framers and we acknowledge the incredible participation of the public earlier this year to make the 2010 census a success.

Madam Speaker, all seven former living census directors, who served Republican and Democratic Presidents, support this bill: Vincent P. Barabba, who worked for Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter; John G. Keane who worked for President Reagan; Barbara Everitt Bryant who worked for the first President Bush; and Martha Farnsworth Riche and Kenneth Prewitt who worked for President Clinton; and Charles Louis Kincannon and Steven H. Murdock who worked for George W. Bush, the former directors support an advocacy on behalf of this bill; and they testified at congressional hearings, met with congressional leaders on this bill, and their participation underscores the importance of the reforms needed to ensure that the Census Bureau is able to best perform its constitutional mandate of providing a fair and accurate census count.

I worked with Senators Carper and Coburn and my colleague, Congressman Dent, to develop this bill based on the experiences of the seven former bipartisan census directors and what they thought we need to overcome the challenges which plagued each of the last four censuses in 1980, 1990, 2000, and in the planning for the 2010 census. This bill enjoys bipartisan support across scientific, social, and political groups. They support it in a bipartisan way, from the leadership conference on civil rights representing over 200 civil rights organizations to NATEO, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, to a host of scientific organizations, including the American Statistical Association. With Senator Carper and Senator Coburn's leadership in the Senate, it passed unanimously.

What this bill would do is give the director the independence to report directly to the Secretary of Commerce. It would make the director of the Census Bureau a Presidential term appointment of 5 years with the 10-year census cycle split into two 5-year phases, planning and implementation.

Further, it strengthens overall transparency and oversight of census management which is a very good thing. This legislation would allow the Census director to report to Congress and the Commerce Secretary directly on the needs at Census to help prevent challenges such as the failure to develop handheld computer technology for the 2010 census, and to have the power to say to Congress when he or she disagrees with an administration position on the census.

After nearly 2 years of consideration and debate on the ideas in this bill in both the House and the Senate, and now at the 11th hour and 59th minute, after the Senate approves it unanimously, the Commerce Department last night sent over their concerns. The Secretary supports the 5-year term for the Census director, but seeks some changes to the bill's requirements that the Census director be required to respond completely to Congress in testimony and to the requirement that the highest levels of management at Commerce take responsibility for oversight of Census management.

Of course, this is precisely what we in Congress seek to change. These two provisions are about accountability and transparency. We in Congress are insisting that we finally end the musical chairs of Census management we witnessed over the past several decades and that when we ask questions, we actually get the answers. We must allow the career professionals at the Census to be able to tell us what is on their mind.

This bill will remove barriers that prevented Congress from knowing the full story and planning for 2010, which put the census at risk before Congress acted to fully fund a new design. I am confident this bill will ensure Congress will get the information we deserve, to get us a fairly and fully funded census no matter who occupies the White House in 2020.

There are some who may not like this bill or have additional ideas for reform, but I deeply believe we can build on this legislation and continue to work together in a bipartisan way to ensure a fair and accurate full census count. There is no reason we cannot move forward on this issue today and enact these commonsense reforms now.

The next census will occur during a Presidential election, which runs the risk of disrupting the operation. We must act now to ensure we can get a professional manager like Dr. Groves at Census long before 2020. We need to bring focus, transparency, and accountability to the process of planning and implementing the census. There is too much at stake for our constitutional government, for the fair description of over $400 billion in Federal funds, and for the basic trust in our statistical system to do anything less than enact this bill. With the Senate action, now is the time to get this bill to the President. We can show the American public Congress can work together in a bipartisan fashion to reform government and get results.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's statement. As he knows, this is an issue that many of us in a bipartisan way have worked on for many years.

As you know, my original bill did create an independent Office of the Census, which by definition would have had an IG. But at the protest of some of my colleagues and some in the Commerce Department, we kept it in the Commerce Department, but with independence, so that the Census Director could speak honesty and truth. I don't think any of us want to keep someone from testifying in an honest and truthful way and having their words possibly changed by someone else.

I would like to place in the Record a series of editorials in support of this bill, from USA Today and many others. There have been hearings on it, including one in the Joint Economic Committee, where seven former Census Directors in a bipartisan way testified in support of this bill.

I would also like to place in the Record the testimony of Dr. Bryant, a Republican Census Director, and other Republican Census Directors, along with Dr. Pruitt and others, their testimony on how we can get a more reliable, transparent, usable census for accuracy for the American people.

I would now like to yield such time as she may consume to a very outstanding member of the committee, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman for his concern and his thoughtful statements. If the gentleman is so determined for a markup, there's one bill that the Republican leadership has told us they must have, and that's the tax bill. Yet there's been no markup on that tax bill or a hearing on that tax bill. And there have been hearings and discussions on this. I have testimony from numerous Republican Census Directors supporting it.

Now, as the gentleman knows--and we changed the bill in response to the gentleman's concerns and others. We did have it as an independent agency with an independent IG. We folded it back into Commerce, at your suggestion and others. And, as you know, the Commerce Department has an IG. They have their own IG. And if the gentleman in the next Congress would like to sponsor an amendment to add another IG at Commerce that looks totally at the Census Bureau, then I would certainly support the gentleman.

Now, the gentleman has written an op-ed which I found very interesting, and I appreciate your op-ed that appeared in Politico. You called for many things in this bill: transparency, independent voice, accountability. I repeat, because I know cost is an important factor now, this will cost no additional money to the taxpayer, not one additional cent. And I would like to join my good friend and colleague in the spirit of bipartisanship and the dedication of getting an accurate census for the American people that we pass this bill, and what the gentleman would like to add to it in the next Congress--and the gentleman's party is in charge and you will have the votes to add whatever you would like next year. And I certainly would like to work with you in a bipartisan way to add the gentleman's concerns, but there's absolutely no reason not to act on this when seven former Census Directors have come out strongly for it, including every Republican Census Director under former President Nixon, under former President Ford, under former President Reagan, and George Bush 41 and 43, G.W. and his father. So all of their Census Directors have come out in support of it.

I would also like to place into the Record the National Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and they represent 200 different civil rights organizations, all in support of this bill; the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, their letter in support of the bill; the Population Association of America and the Association of Population Centers, their letter of support for the bill; the American Association for Public Opinion Research, their statement in support of the bill; the American Planning Association, their statement in support of the bill; the American Statistical Association, who are dedicated to accurate numbers, their strong, strong support of accuracy in this bill; the Consortium of Social Science Associations, their support; the Latino Census Network, their strong support; the Mid-Region Council of Governments, their strong letter of support; and the National Institute for Latino Policy, their letter of support; the Southeast Michigan Census Council, their support of the bill; and the Southern Demographic Association, their support of the bill.

So, as my good friend and colleague knows, there is strong support for this bill. Many allege that the Commerce opposition is just a turf battle. Well, the census is too important for a turf battle. I would support the gentleman's amendment to have an independent extra IG. If he wants two IGs on the Bureau, I would support it, or three or four or five. I would support the gentleman's extra oversight of what the Census Bureau is doing. But, mainly, we want them to be given the tools to get the job done. That is what this bill does.

The Leadership Conference,

December 13, 2010.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner: On behalf of The

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition

charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national

organizations to promote and protect the rights of all

persons in the United States, we are writing to express our

strong support for the Census Oversight Efficiency and

Management Reform Act (S. 3167/H.R. 4945). The bill includes

needed reforms that will improve the operations of the

decennial Census and other Census activities, and ensure a

count that does not disproportionally miss any segment of the

population. With Senate passage of the bill by unanimous

consent on December 8, we urge the House to swiftly pass the

Senate-approved bill so that it can reach the President's

desk by the end of the year.

The Census occurs on a constitutionally mandated ten-year

cycle, but Presidential administrations run in four-year

cycles that do not fit well with the complex planning and

preparation timetable for the decennial count. This causes

inevitable development and implementation difficulties due to

a lack of consistency and, often, leadership vacuums. The

bill's proposal to create a five-year term appointment for

the Census Bureau Director is an important change that will

allow the Census Bureau to avoid disruptions caused by

changes in administrations, especially around the period of

the decennial census.

As organizations that work to ensure that hard-to-count

communities are fully included in the Census, we welcome the

greater stability for the leadership of the Census Bureau

that this legislation seeks to provide, which will in turn

minimize disruptions in the Census and allow the Census

Bureau to benefit from improved continuity in its overall

operations. We also believe that the new line of authority

from the Census Director to the Secretary of Commerce will

help allow the Census Bureau to more nimbly address problems

and issues that inevitably arise during the decennial census

and other surveys.

It is critical that the bill be enacted promptly, since

planning for the 2020 decennial census is already underway.

We urge swift passage of the bill.

Sincerely,

Wade Henderson,

President & CEO.

Nancy Zirkin,

Executive Vice President.

I appreciate the gentleman's concerns. We should pass this bill. Then, in the new Congress, you can add your amendments or your ideas to the underlying bill. This is a strong bill with no cost to the American taxpayers, no increased cost; and it will help ensure a better census for 2010.

As I said, it has very strong bipartisan support, particularly from the seven living former Census Directors, who served Republican and Democratic Presidents. They support this bill. They testified before Congress that

this bill would make a stronger, more accountable, transparent census. The former Directors' support and advocacy on behalf of this bill, I believe, underscores the importance of the reforms needed to ensure that the Census Bureau is able to best perform its constitutional mandate of providing a fair and accurate census count.

Again, I want to underscore: How many times have we seen a bill come over with 100 Senators who are in support of it--totally unanimous? totally bipartisan?

I am confident that this bill will ensure that Congress will get the information we need and deserve in order to get us a fair and fully funded Census which is independent and will respond, no matter who occupies the White House. In other words, this is a very important bill, so I urge a strong bipartisan vote in support of it.

S. 3167 Endorsed by seven former Census Directors: Vincent

P. Barabba (1973-1976; 1979-1981), John G. Keane (1984-1989),

Barbara Everitt Bryant (1989-1993), Martha Farnsworth Riche

(1994-1998), Kenneth Prewitt (1998-2001), Charles Louis

Kincannon (2002-2008), and Steven H. Murdock (2008-2009).

S. 3167 Endorsed by: National Leadership Conference on

Civil Rights (LCCR); National Association of Latino Elected

and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund; Population

Association of America (PAA) and the Association of

Population Centers (APC); American Association for Public

Opinion Research (AAPOR); American Planning Association;

American Statistical Association (ASA); Arab American

Institute Foundation; Consortium of Social Science

Associations (COSSA); Latino Census Network; Mid-Region

Council of Governments; National Institute for Latino Policy

(NILP); Population Resource Center; Prison Policy Initiative;

Southeast Michigan Census Council (SEMCC) and Southern

Demographic Association (SDA).

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Department of Justice Global Advisory Committee Authorization Act of 2010. This legislation will make it easier and less costly for local, state, tribal and federal agencies to share public safety and criminal justice information and to better protect our communities. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Crime and Drugs Subcommittee, and Senator Patty Murray in introducing this legislation. I look forward to working with all my colleagues to see it enacted into law.

Ensuring the public's safety often depends on effective information sharing. In recent years, criminal gangs, fugitives, illegal trafficking networks, cybercriminals and terrorist organizations have increased their ability to operate across jurisdictional boundaries. However, too often the public safety agencies charged with combating these threats have operated without all the information that should be available to them. Inconsistent information-sharing protocols and databases that are not interoperable with one another are barriers the law enforcement and public safety communities have identified. Quite simply, if we want to combat the threats of the 21st century, we need a 21st century information-sharing framework.

The U.S. Department of Justice has long recognized the need to bring law enforcement and public safety stakeholders together to take on this challenge of improving information sharing. In 1998, the Justice Department established the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative Advisory Committee, also known as the ``Global Advisory Committee''. Chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Global Advisory Committee brings together key representatives from law enforcement, judicial, correctional, and public safety agencies to advise the Attorney General on information-sharing policies, practices and technical solutions.

Over the years, the Global Advisory Committee has developed a strong track record of consolidating stakeholder views and developing consensus information-sharing solutions that local, state, tribal and federal agencies all agree upon. The Committee has recruited experts on a pro bono basis to develop new interoperable technological standards, and they have already developed a criminal justice information sharing standard--the Global Justice XML Data Model--and a broader justice and homeland security information exchange--the National Information Exchange Model--that enable agencies to convert their own database information into a common format which can be shared.

The Global Advisory Committee also created the ``National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan,'' a blueprint for agency intelligence- sharing procedures that has been endorsed by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. And the Committee has drafted ``Fusion Center Guidelines'' which have helped communities throughout the country establish information-sharing ``fusion centers'' for responding to security threats. The Justice Department plans to involve the Committee in crafting new information-sharing strategies and protocols for combating gang violence, improving correctional information, and sharing fugitive information.

In addition to its work developing information-sharing standards, the charter and bylaws of the Global Advisory Committee prioritize civil liberties and privacy protection and promote database security and shared information accuracy. The Committee has established a working group specifically dedicated to protecting privacy and information quality, and has also created resources to help jurisdictions develop privacy and civil liberties programs.

The Global Advisory Committee's work has already led to cost savings in the design and procurement of interoperable information systems. These cost-saving benefits are likely to grow if the Committee's information-sharing standards become increasingly adopted and if interoperability among local, state, tribal and federal databases increases. With Congress's help, the Committee can revolutionize efficient information-sharing among public safety and law enforcement agencies, which will both lower information technology costs and help prevent and fight crime.

While the Global Advisory Committee's value has been recognized throughout the law enforcement and public safety communities, it has not yet been recognized by Congress. The legislation I am introducing today will give Congress's blessing to the Committee by authorizing the Justice Department to provide it with technical and financial support and dedicated funding.

Currently, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Global Advisory Committee must terminate and reestablish itself every two years, but my legislation will keep the Committee in continuous operation. The bill also directs the Committee to make recommendations to the Attorney General on interoperability and information-sharing practices and technologies, and to report to Congress at least annually on its recommendations. My legislation also expresses the sense of Congress that agencies across the country should adopt the Global Advisory Committee's recommendations in order to improve their information sharing. The bill further directs the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress regarding the state of information sharing between corrections and law enforcement agencies through the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision, including suggestions for improvement.

This legislation has been endorsed by the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, the National Criminal Justice Association, the National Association of Counties, the American Probation and Parole Association, the American Correctional Association, the Association of State Correctional Administrators, and the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, SEARCH.

The Global Advisory Committee has already achieved great success in bringing together local, state, tribal and federal agencies to develop consensus information-sharing solutions. With Congressional authorization and a consistent funding stream, the Committee can build upon that success in a way that will benefit justice and public safety agencies across the nation. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator Ensign to introduce the Elko Motocross and Tribal Conveyance Act of 2010.

As you may know, the Federal Government manages more than 87 percent of the land in Nevada, which equates to more than 61 million acres. This fact makes it necessary for our communities to pursue Federal remedies for problems that can be handled in a much more expeditious manner in States that have more private land than we do. This bill, for instance, would transfer one small parcel of land to Elko County and another to the Elko Indian Colony. Both conveyances will provide important benefits to the residents of northeastern Nevada, and both conveyances require congressional action.

The first title of this Act would convey approximately 300 acres of public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, Elko Field Office to Elko County. This proposal, which is strongly supported by the local community, would clear the way for the construction of a BMX, motocross, off-highway vehicle, and stock car racing area. It is worth noting that Elko County tried for many years to work

through the normal administrative process to get a recreation and public purposes lease on this land, but the local BLM field office has been unable to process the request due to a very high workload.

Off-road vehicles are an important part of life in rural Nevada. In response to this interest, Elko County has attempted to provide a variety of motorized recreational opportunities for both residents and visitors. This legislation will help the City of Elko develop a centralized, multipurpose recreational facility on the western edge of the city with easy access to Interstate-80. The new Elko Motocross Park will eliminate traffic and noise issues caused by the existing stock car racing track. The new park will also draw OHV enthusiasts from across northeastern Nevada, which will, in turn, provide an economic boost to local businesses.

Beyond the convenient location, economic benefits, and potential for diverse recreational opportunities at the Elko Motocross Park site, this new complex will provide a place for people to learn responsible use and enjoyment of recreational vehicles. I believe this facility will be a model for other communities in the West that are interested in creating safe, centralized recreation areas for motorsports. I would also like to commend Elko County, the State of Nevada, the Nevada Association of Counties and many others for working together on recent statewide initiatives that will encourage the sustainable use of off- highway vehicles on public lands.

Title II of this Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to make a reasonable expansion of the Elko Indian Colony by taking approximately 373 acres of land into trust for the Elko Band to address their need for additional land. The Elko Band is one of four constituent bands that make up the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada. Each band has a separate reservation or colony in northeastern Nevada. While the Elko Band's population has steadily grown, their land base has remained the same for over 75 years.

The histories of the City of Elko and the Elko Indian Colony have long been intertwined. Elko was established as a railroad town in 1868 with the construction of the Central Pacific, part of the first transcontinental railroad. Shoshone families lived nearby and worked on the railroad as well as in the nearby mines and on local ranches. Despite government efforts to relocate the Elko Band in the late nineteenth century, these families persevered and remained in the Elko area. In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson created the Elko Indian Colony when he reserved 160 acres near Elko for the Shoshone Indians by executive order.

The Elko Indian Colony has always been a thriving part of the greater Elko community. Unfortunately, while more than half of the Elko Band's enrolled members live and work in Elko, the Elko Colony has one of the smallest land bases of the four constituent bands. Over 350 tribal members must live outside of the colony because it lacks land for additional housing and housing related community development. Our legislation would address this need by making land available for residential and commercial development, or for traditional uses, such as ceremonial gatherings, hunting and plant collecting.

I also want to highlight that this legislation is designed to protect the city's rights-of-way that cross the land in question. We have also received letters expressing strong support for this tribal conveyance from both the City of Elko and Elko County.

It is always encouraging when communities come together to support projects like these and we are grateful for their collective work on this effort. This bill is vital to the growing communities we serve. We look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and the other distinguished committee members to move this bill through the process.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation in the Senate that has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Alaska Congressman Don Young to clarify federal mining law and remedy a problem that has arisen with the extension process for ``small'' miner land claims.

Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f), holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of September 1st each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen to $125 per claim. But Congress also has provided a claim maintenance fee waiver for ``small'' miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, that they do not have to submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their claims and submit an affidavit of annual labor by Dec. 31st each year, certifying that they had performed more than $100 of work on the claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C. 28f(d)(1). The waiver provision further states: ``If a small miner waiver application is determined to be defective for any reason, the claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of written notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of Land Management to: cure such defect or defects or pay the $100 claim maintenance fee due for such a period.''

Since the last revision to the law last decade, there have been a series of incidents where miners argued that they submitted their applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due to clerical error by BLM staff or for unexplained reasons the applications or documents were not recorded as having been received in a timely fashion--and that BLM has then moved to terminate the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining claim holders have argued that the law provides them time to cure claim defects, BLM has argued that the cure only applies when applications or fees have been received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no administrative remedy for miners who believe that clerical errors by BLM resulted in loss or the late recording of claim applications.

There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska case, and claims in another incident were reinstated following a U.S. District Court case in the 10th Circuit in 2009 in the case of Miller v. United States.

This bill is intended to short circuit continued litigation and pleas for claim reinstatement by clarifying the intent of Congress that miners do have to be informed that their claims are in jeopardy of being voided and given 60 days notice to cure defects, including giving them time to submit their applications and to submit affidavits of annual labor, should they not be received and processed by BLM officials. If all defects are not cured within 60 days--the obvious intent of Congress in passing the original act--then claims still will be subject to voidance.

The transition rule included in this measure will solve two pending cases in Alaska, one where a holder of nine claims on the Kenai Peninsula, near Hope, Alaska, has lost title to claims that he had held from 1982 to 2004. In this case, John Trautner had a consistent record of having paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22 years and the local BLM office did have a time-date-stamped record that the maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks before the deadline, not just a record that the affidavit of annual labor had arrived. In the second case Don and Judy Mullikin of Homer, Alaska, is in the process of losing title to nine claims on the Seward Peninsula outside of Nome in Alaska because the Anchorage BLM office has no record of them receiving the paperwork, even though the owners have computer time stamps of them having completed the paperwork five months before the deadline, but no other evidence of filing to meet BLM regulations in support of an appeal. These are claims that have been worked in Alaska yearly since 1937 and are the main livelihood for the Mullikins.

This legislation, supported by the Alaska Miners Association, clearly is intended to remedy a simple drafting error in congressional crafting of the small miner claim defect process. While only a few cases of potential clerical errors have occurred over the past decade, it still makes sense for Congress to clarify that claim holders

have a right to know that their applications have not been processed, in time for them to cure application-claim defects prior to being informed of the loss of the claim rights forever. Simple equity and due process requires no less.

Given the minute cost of this administrative change to the Department of the Interior, but its big impact on affected small mineral claim holders, I hope this bill can be considered and approved promptly this year.