WE ONLY NEED TO PAY FOR ONE U.S. CENSUS

You will recall that there was a big fight a few month back about the census required by the U.S. Constitution to be taken in 2000. Every 10 years, every American is supposed to be accounted for.

There are practical reasons for making a census. For one thing, government needs to know how many people there are who require essential services. From a political standpoint, the Constitution bases apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives on the basis of population. And in this era of government funding for just about everything, decisions are made about giving away tax dollars based on population and the socio-economic data collected during a census.

For many Americans, the historic census every 10 years has proven to be a boon in the field of genealogy. Countless ancestors have been tracked down by reviewing the painstaking records kept during some past census. These official head counts were handwritten and contained valuable information about the times, relationships and other matters of interest to historians of all stripes.

Nowadays, not everyone gets counted in a census. It's a plain fact that certain areas are undercounted. Some areas are just guesses at best. Whether or not any geographic area's count is even close to accurate depends largely on the willingness of residents to be tabulated. There are some areas -- some urban neighborhoods, for example -- where census takers are reluctant to venture. And in some cases folks simply ignore the official census documents delivered to their mailboxes.

To remedy this ragged counting, the Clinton administration came up with a plan to use statistical sampling rather than a nose count. In statistical sampling, certain assumptions are made about a given area. Those assumptions are fed into a computer. Using statistical models and mathematical equations, the computer generates a population graph that supporters say is far more accurate than the hit-and-miss head counting.

But there are concerns about statistical sampling. For one thing, such models are guesses at best. And then there is the concern about how a computer can be tweaked to push figures here or pull figures there.

Republicans in Congress were concerned enough about the statistical-sampling plan to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. They contended that the Constitution requires a head count. Both Republicans and Democrats are seriously concerned about the impact of the 2000 census on the apportionment of House seats and the potential to favor one party or the other.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Republicans. The Constitution's mandate is clear. Heads must be counted for redistricting.

Fine, said the Clinton administration. Do you head count. But for purposes of doling out federal funds, we're going to use statistical samples, because they are more accurate and will be fairer to all concerned.

You know what? Congress -- the same Congress that went to the highest court in the land -- is currently debating appropriations for the 2000 census. Instead of giving the Census Bureau $2.7 billion for the head count, Congress is looking at spending $4.5 billion for the head count and the statistical sampling.

Yet there is hardly a whimper from anyone in Congress. That's too bad. Congressional Republicans were right to hold out for a head count. If there are problems with counting Americans one by one, fix the problem. Don't spend millions of dollars to skirt the requirements of the Constitution.

That shouldn't be such a hard task. If you can do two censuses for $4.5 billion, isn't it rational to think you could do a really good head count for the same amount?

Come on, Congress. Don't let this one slip through the cracks.