U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

55–702 CC WASHINGTON : 1999

OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: EXAMINING

THE AMERICA COUNTS TODAY [ACT] INITIATIVES TO ENHANCE TRADITIONAL ENUMERATION METHODS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 2, 1999

Serial No. 106–1

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

GARY A. CONDIT, California

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian

CARLA J. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS

DAN MILLER, Florida, Chairman

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

THOMAS B. HOFELLER, Staff Director

KELLY DUQUIN, Professional Staff Member

DAVID MCMILLEN, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 2, 1999 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Myrick, Hon. Sue, a Representative in Congress from the State of North

Carolina; and Hon. Carrie Meek, a Representative in Congress from

the State of Florida ....................................................................................... 2

Prewitt, Kenneth, Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census ............................... 35

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 32

Meek, Hon. Carrie, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, prepared statement of ........................................................................... 10

Miller, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 24

Myrick, Hon. Sue, a Representative in Congress from the State of North

Carolina, prepared statement of .................................................................. 4

Prewitt, Kenneth, Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 40

(1)

OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: EXAMINING THE AMERICA COUNTS TODAY [ACT]

INITIATIVES TO ENHANCE TRADITIONAL

ENUMERATION METHODS

TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1999

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in room

2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Miller (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Miller, Maloney, and Davis.

Ex officio present: Representative Waxman.

Staff present: Thomas B. Hofeller, staff director; Jennifer

Safavian, chief counsel; Kelly Duquin, professional staff member;

Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Phil Barnett, minority chief

counsel; Michelle Ash, minority counsel; David McMillen, minority

professional staff member; and Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk.

Mr. MILLER. Good afternoon. A quorum is present and we shall

begin the hearing of the Subcommittee on the Census.

We are going to have a slight change in the order this afternoon,

since a vote is coming in about another 20 minutes, we thought we

would have the two Members of Congress who will be testifying

today make their statements and handle any questions and then

we can break for the vote and then probably we will reconvene, I

would guess right now, around 3, as soon as we finish the second

vote. Congresswoman Meek is on her way and so in order to expedite time, let us call on Congresswoman Sue Myrick.

Congresswoman Myrick is a former mayor of Charlotte, NC and

was involved with the census and is going to be able to testify

today.

Congresswoman Kay Granger was also going to testify but she

is apparently sick with the flu and is not even back in town today,

so maybe on another occasion we will have her be able to testify.

So with that, I would like to call on Congresswoman Sue Myrick.

2

STATEMENTS OF HON. SUE MYRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; AND

HON. CARRIE MEEK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mrs. MYRICK. Thank you Chairman Miller, Ranking Member

Maloney, and the members of the subcommittee. I really appreciate

the invitation to testify today.

As you mentioned, I am a former mayor of Charlotte, NC and

also represent the 9th District of North Carolina, so I do understand the census from both the local, regional, and national perspective.

I have a great deal of respect for the Census Bureau and the

work that it does and I have a link to them on my web page, for

instance, but it is out of this respect for the Bureau and the process

of the census that I come before you today with some grave concerns regarding the 2000 census.

I have serious concerns regarding the use of the sampling plan

put forward by the Census Bureau. It was difficult for me to understand all this and it has been exceptionally difficult for my constituents to understand.

How can counting 90 percent of the population and estimating

the rest yield accurate results, especially when the census accurately counted 98.4 percent of the population in 1990?

I understand there were statistical experts who said it would be

more accurate and those who said it would not. However, as an

elected official knows, we must be able to explain the plan to the

people in a way that they can understand and for this reason alone

the Bureau’s plan failed to convince my constituents that it was in

their best interests to change the fundamental way the census has

been conducted for the last 200 years.

In my years of public service, I have learned many things, but

most importantly, I have learned that the ‘‘we know better than

you’’ attitude that is so common in Washington breeds distrust and

apathy. And it is amid this respective trust that I raise my first

concern today, the failure of the Census Bureau to include a plan

for post-census local review in the 2000 census.

The ability of local governments to check the work of the Census

Bureau is fundamental to building trust between local and Federal

Government. The Census Bureau has made a concerted effort to involve local governments during the planning stages to help develop

maps and address lists and it seems fundamentally flawed to cut

them out from a final review at the end.

I am also keenly aware that most local government officials are

in favor of post-census local review. And why should they not be?

They and they alone are going to have to answer to their constituents if problems arise from the census and certainly personnel at

the Census Bureau are not going to answer my constituents’ concerns.

I am keenly aware that the Census Bureau has proposed what

they term an alternative to post-census local review. This alternative is to do a two-number census and provide sample numbers

to the States for their use. The original sampling plan was difficult

enough to understand and how do I explain this need for two sets

of numbers?

3

As I understand it, population numbers for the second manipulated number will include a mixing of population data from other

States. If I were a Governor, how could I draw up a redistricting

plan based on population data from other States?

I believe that the Bureau’s answer is that the States have a

choice, but why waste time and money giving the States useless information?

As many members of the subcommittee know, North Carolina

has been tied up in court for most of the decade with redistricting

disputes and we are there again now. If the Bureau continues with

its current plan for a two-number census, these suits will only become more prevalent. California, Indiana, Wisconsin, Virginia,

Florida, New York, Illinois, and Tennessee will find themselves in

similar situations.

Many of the members of the subcommittee have served in local

government. Is there anyone here that honestly believes that you

could put forth a redistricting plan based on population data from

other States and not have it challenged in court?

I would like to thank the subcommittee for the fine work you

have done. The census is the foundation of our democracy and everything that we do is based on actual enumeration in America. If

the census is not trusted by the people, then it becomes a failure.

I hope the Bureau will incorporate Chairman Miller’s common

sense plan to count Americans. We must provide not only the Bureau but local governments and community-based organizations

with the resources and the tools they need to have an accurate

2000 census.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share my concerns with the subcommittee.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Sue Myrick follows:]

4

5

6

7

8

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Ms. Myrick.

Congresswoman Meek, we have had a little change in schedule.

Because we are going to have a vote shortly, we decided for your

convenience, actually, to allow you all to go first before we have our

opening statements, so that is the reason you are immediately put

in the chair to make your presentation, so we will be able to ask

you to make your presentation and then we will have a chance for

some questions before we proceed to vote.

Congresswoman Meek helped us have a hearing on the census

down in Miami last December, and I thank you very much. And the

day before we had the opportunity to spend touring your district

and getting a better feeling and understanding of your district.

I think it was very valuable, both the trip to Phoenix—where we

talked mainly about the Indian undercount problem and then to

Miami, the unique problems in Miami. It was very enlightening for

both Congresswoman Maloney and myself.

So we are glad that we are cosponsoring a bill that I think you

are going to talk about today and look forward to your comments.

Congresswoman Meek.

Mrs. MEEK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members

of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here and I want to thank

you for taking this opportunity to mark up H.R. 683 on the Improvement Act of 1999. As you know, this legislation was introduced last year. I am so happy that we are able to bring it up this

year.

Now, I must say to the subcommittee it is good to have a good

bill, but it is even better if you have the chairman as a cosponsor

of the bill, so I am more than pleased to be here.

Various techniques, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, can be used to improve the accuracy of the physical count

in the 2000 census, particularly in the year 2000, particularly in

poor neighborhoods.

I do not think I can embellish or enhance too much more than

each of you has said and known already, but thousands of additional enumerators are going to be needed and will be hired. And

my reason for sponsoring this bill and the chairperson as well is

that about 683 people will be allowed to be hired if this bill is

passed and people who are on public assistance and veterans will

be able to get jobs as temporary census enumerators without losing

benefits.

Now, all of you understand that it makes a count more reasonable if there is someone who lives in that neighborhood or someone

who knows the persons who are living there who go in to count.

It is a known fact that many people do not want to be counted.

They do not want to be found. Many of them are in apartments,

in the back of other apartments. Many of them are living with people that other people do not even know where they are living.

So it does help to a great extent to have people from those neighborhoods, people who know these people counting, so when they

knock on the door, they do not think it is a bill collector or they

do not think it is someone they know nothing about.

So this bill provides temporary pay for these census enumerators

in the decennial census and they will not have to lose their benefits. The last time this question came up, some agencies had poliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:24 Sep 06, 2000 Jkt 055702 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\55702 pfrm03 PsN: 55702
9

cies that would allow them to go ahead and be temporary enumerators without losing their benefits; others did not.

There was really no widespread acceptance of this. Even the Secretary of HHS could not say this would be a standard policy

throughout the agencies. So it would be very good if this committee

sees fit to pass this.

The real thing we are aiming for here is a more accurate count.

We know that the accurate count will be much—the count will be

improved if we have people who are in these poor and minority and

immigrant communities.

Mr. Chairman, in many of these communities, people come in

daily. They come in by boat, they come in whatever way they come

in by. They are there.

According to our constitutional mandate, we have to count every

head. So if you have people who are in that neighborhood who are

willing and able to find people and count them, everyone will be

counted.

I will end by saying there is suspicion of government. There is

suspicion of new people coming to your door asking who is there

and asking questions. So what this bill will do is allow these enumerators to be hired on a temporary basis and allow neighbors to

count neighbors.

We do not all agree on everything. We do not all agree on sampling and other methods and methodologies, but we do agree on

one thing: that if we are able to enhance the count and make the

count much more accurate, we need to be sure that we count these

areas where we know the undercount has been very glaring in poor

and minority communities and we know this points us in the right

direction.

We are going to press for passage of this bill and we are certainly

going to press the Census Bureau, when this bill passes, to aggressively recruit minority enumerators in these poor and minority

communities.

This is a fair and crucial process and I hope that the subcommittee will see fit to pass it.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Carrie Meek follows:]

10

11

12

Mr. MILLER. Congresswoman Meek, we are not marking up the

bill today. Hopefully, I think we are doing it on Thursday morning.

But the criticism I have heard from both people on the Ways and

Means Committee, and Secretary Shalala, is that we are usurping

State power since we delegated all this power to the States. And

we have talked about this, but the question is, well, how do we justify doing this?

I mean, I am supportive of it, but how do you answer the question of some of the critics of our bill that say, well, why are we taking away a State power, since in 1996 we gave them the State

power?

Mrs. MEEK. I think that the States’ rights issue is not a good

issue here in that in terms of States—they will be the first ones

to sue you if they do not think that you have an accurate count.

History is replete with States who have sued the Census Bureau

and the Government because they did not feel there was an accurate count.

So I think one of the strongest parts of our rationale is keeping

closely to an accurate count. They all agree that the count is very,

very important.

I think it will be much better this time if we are able to get these

people involved and I think it does say something also to poor people and minorities, that, look, we are so interested in your being

counted, we are going to find you wherever you are, even though

many of you may feel that we are encroaching upon you. We need

to know that every citizen is there.

Now, I will tell you another thing, Mr. Chairman. The States are

not going to hold back when you start issuing the money. When it

comes down to issuing the money and giving them their share of

the money, they are not going to say, oh, we have States’ rights.

They will be happy if you have gotten an accurate count in their

community.

I think that is something that each of them will be very much

secure in, if they know that they are getting the good count.

Mr. MILLER. And another argument I will make is that it is—this

is a constitutional requirement to do the census.

Mrs. MEEK. Right.

Mr. MILLER. And it is very specific that we must conduct the best

census possible in our Constitution, that I think in this case we

have—you know, once every 10 years we have a right to make it

possible. So I agree with you.

Let me ask Congresswoman Myrick a question.

Mrs. MYRICK. I was just going to ask if I might comment on that,

because I also support the bill. And, you know, this is on my mind.

I am a great States’ rights person, so I am always big on States’

rights, but this is like providing guidelines for the States to follow

so you know that you are going to get an accurate census. And, as

you said, it is a constitutional matter and that is really what is important, so I do not see this as a conflict.

Mr. MILLER. You mentioned in your statement about the lawsuits.

Mrs. MYRICK. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. And I have been reading about North Carolina. I do

not know if it is settled yet, but——

13

Mrs. MYRICK. No.

Mr. MILLER. I mean——

Mrs. MYRICK. It is not. Not until this summer.

Mr. MILLER. I mean, lawsuits are going to happen, but with a

two-number census, there are going to be more lawsuits than we

can keep track of, the whole area of census law is going to be developing. What is your comment about this? You have the lawsuits

that North Carolina——

Mrs. MYRICK. Well, it has been a real frustration, again because

you go back to the people in the districts. I mean, they do not know

what district they are in.

Since 1992, when Mel Watt’s district was established, we have

had challenges every time to his district. And so we are constantly

having new districts. And it is just—people just throw up their

hands. They do not know where to vote, they do not know who is

their representative. And, you know, we just help everybody out because it is so frustrating to everyone.

And, of course, Mel’s district and my district border each other,

so we are especially affected by all this. And, you know, we just

keep hoping that it is going to stop. We believe that he has a good

district now and it does not need to be done again, but people challenge it, so that is really where we are coming from.

But if you have more reason for them to challenge, I mean, they

challenge now with hardly any reason at all, that we are going to

just be tied up in court and who knows how long this will go on,

not only in my State but in other States as well.

Mr. MILLER. Can you imagine how two sets of numbers will tie

it up even more?

Mrs. MYRICK. Well, I mean, that is a perfect reason for them to

challenge it. So which number is right? It is just mass confusion

is all we can see. And having been through this now since 1990,

his district was established in 1992, so it started in 1990——

Mr. MILLER. So he had a different district in 1992, 1994, 1996,

and 1998?

Mrs. MYRICK. We did not have a new one in 1996, but we did

again for the 1998 election. We have another new one.

Mr. MILLER. How about 2000? Is it going to be challenged?

Mrs. MYRICK. Well, right now, if the Supreme Court rules this

summer that the challenge is OK, we will have a new district in

2000 and then a new district in 2002.

Mr. MILLER. OK.

Congresswoman Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to

commend both of the speakers.

And Carrie Meek, I certainly support your bill.

Building on the comments of the chairman on the hearing that

was held in your district earlier, it was interesting to note that all

of the panelists, save one, on the record came out in firm support

of modern scientific methods in counting and there was a cross-section of civil rights groups, of Latinos, blacks, Asians, elderly, youth

programs, well over 50, 60, almost 100 different groups from the

Miami area that came out likewise in support of a modern scientific count.

14

But I would like to ask Sue Myrick some questions based on her

testimony.

It has been suggested that the post-census review operation

should be reinstated, and you support that. While I certainly support the concept of local review, I believe that the Census Bureau’s

current program of pre-census local review is more effective, efficient, and practical than a post-census review.

For starters, the program’s value in 1990 in terms of adding people was small in relation to the work and cost required. Only 4.2

percent of the 6.5 million census blocks nationwide were challenged. The re-canvass of these blocks added only 124,000 people.

Further, for every housing unit that was added through the program, upwards of two units were deleted.

What is your opinion of the new pre-census local review program?

Mrs. MYRICK. Well, I support that also. I think that the Census

Bureau—in order to have the most effective census, if they consult

with the local officials firsthand, you know, they can give them information as to where they know that they have the problems because most local officials know where their areas are that you will

have undercounts or, you know, projected undercounts, whether it

may be people you cannot identify—I mean, you know, in our city,

I know where all the bridges are that people sleep under, so, you

know, you can go to the bridges and count them. Very seriously.

And there are regular people who are there all the time, they live

there. That type of thing.

And then the reason I support the post-census is because again,

it is just going back for one final check and making sure you have

covered all those areas before you move forward. So I do not see

it as duplication, I just think that it is another mechanism. I think

most local officials will be perfectly willing to work and not hold

it up to be controversial or anything, just simply as a support

mechanism.

Mrs. MALONEY. Is Charlotte participating now in the pre-census

local review program?

Mrs. MYRICK. Well, I will be honest with you, and I cannot answer that question.

Mrs. MALONEY. Could you find out for us and get back to us?

Mrs. MYRICK. I will be glad to find out for you and get back to

you.

Mrs. MALONEY. What their participation is and——

Mrs. MYRICK. I cannot imagine they are not, because we have always had an active process before.

Mrs. MALONEY. In 1990, were you the mayor of Charlotte, in that

time period?

Mrs. MYRICK. Mm-hmm.

Mrs. MALONEY. And did you participate in the post-census local

review program?

Mrs. MYRICK. I am trying to remember just how we were involved and I should have checked this before I came today, Carolyn, and given you an exact rundown and I will do that.

Mrs. MALONEY. OK. Because I would like to know.

Mrs. MYRICK. Yes. I will.

15

Mrs. MALONEY. I would like to know how many people were

added in Charlotte’s 1990 census count as a result of the post-census review.

Mrs. MYRICK. We will get that to you.

Mrs. MALONEY. And how much it cost Charlotte and in your

opinion was the effort and cost worth it in terms of the Federal

funds that flowed into Charlotte’s coffers.

Mrs. MYRICK. Right.

Mrs. MALONEY. One of the things about this is that when we did

it back in 1990, 50 percent of the persons added were from two cities, Detroit and Cleveland.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mm-hmm.

Mrs. MALONEY. And when the Census Bureau looked at this, this

was based on their prior testimony, I understand Dr. Prewitt will

be testifying later, he can add to this, but it was my understanding

because the post-census review was not successful in that it only

added 124,000 people, they decided to work with the mayors and

the local governments before to get the address lists——

Mrs. MYRICK. Right.

Mrs. MALONEY [continuing]. To check those bridges, to check

those buildings, everything that you said. They thought it would be

smarter and more cost effective to do this now or do it before,

which is what they have done.

Mrs. MYRICK. Right.

Mrs. MALONEY. And so what we are talking about in the process

that you are proposing that we now add to their plan, what does

it add to it? They have already done it. They have already done

that particular job.

Mrs. MYRICK. I think all it adds to it is, again, just a double

checking and a making sure that all those areas have been covered—that they have done the areas that were specified in the precheck and that everything is OK before they move forward, nothing

has been forgotten.

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, I think that is what the pre-census local review is for. But——

Mr. MILLER. The red light does not go on. The green goes off.

Mrs. MALONEY. OK. My time is up.

Mr. MILLER. OK. If I can, Mr. Davis, I will switch over to Mr.

Waxman. May I?

Mrs. MALONEY. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, can I get to her in

writing questions about Charlotte?

Mr. MILLER. Of course.

Mrs. MYRICK. We will get you those answers. I have a staff person who is taking notes on those.

Mr. MILLER. We have requested information from the Census Bureau on this and we have not been able to get it ourselves on the

1990 post-census.

Mrs. MYRICK. Right. One of the problems, Mrs. Maloney, is I did

go back and check with my records. All my records are archived

and we cannot get to them.

Mrs. MALONEY. Oh, really?

Mrs. MYRICK. And so the person who is in the office now, you

know, did not know and there was no way for me actually to check

without them going back into the archives out at the university, so

16

that is why I was not able to get the information for you ahead of

time, because we did try.

Mr. MILLER. Some of this we can get from the Census Bureau,

too.

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both

of you for your testimony today. We all share the interest in wanting an accurate census.

In 1990, we took a census. We did not have any adjustment

which would have reflected what the Bureau of the Census wants

to do this time around to be sure the census is accurate.

Ms. Myrick, you said your constituents cannot understand why

we would do sampling or do any of these adjustments, we would

just count the people.

Mrs. MYRICK. Right.

Mr. WAXMAN. And that should be good enough. Now, the

GAO——

Mrs. MYRICK. No, I did not say we should not do adjustments.

I said we should count the people.

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. What adjustments would you make?

Mrs. MYRICK. Well, again, if you have a review that you know

you are going to be reaching the people in the areas where they

are living or staying even though they are not registered at addresses, so you would have a pretty good idea that you have counted everybody. Then you should be OK before—and, as I said, checking with the city people before and then again afterwards, I do not

see really is duplication, and then when you move forward you

should have a pretty good feel that you have everybody.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, the GAO said that despite all the best efforts

in 1990, we did not get everybody in some places and we double

counted people in other places.

Mrs. MYRICK. Well, I think that is one reason Carrie’s bill is such

a good idea because——

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, let me finish. Because the GAO—we want

any proposal that will help us get the most accurate count. I am

not arguing against her bill. But the GAO said that in 1990 there

was an attempt to try to take the figures and project where there

was an overcount and where there was an undercount and rearrange it.

They proposed to do that, but the Secretary of Commerce refused

to do it and, as a result, we have many States that have lost money

that they otherwise would have had over this last 10-year period;

we have some States that made more money, they received more

money, because they had people counted twice.

They indicated, GAO indicated, that 27 States and the District

of Columbia lost $4.5 billion over the decade in Federal funds due

to the failure to correct the 1990 census.

Now, the biggest loser was California. The next biggest was

Texas. There were six States, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia,

Louisiana, and Texas, each lost over $100 million. Florida should

be of interest to our chairman. But even North Carolina lost

money. In fact, GAO said that North Carolina lost $68,300,000.

Now, are your constituents not going to say to you, why are we

losing money because the census is not making sure that we can

17

project all the people that are here to sample and get an accurate

picture of all the people that are here?

There are people in your State that are not being counted despite

all the best efforts, even with Ms. Meek’s bill they are not going

to be counted. Do you not think we ought to make sure that they

are all counted and that we are not duplicating and overcounting

in other States?

Mrs. MYRICK. I have no problem with the fact that they should

all be counted and I, of course, cannot answer for why the Secretary of Commerce would not allow an adjustment after the last

census. But, again, I go back to the fact that if we do the best job

we can in counting them now and not just estimating, then if there

are adjustments needed, if you look at the local communities, you

are going to know pretty much. They pretty much have a handle

on where their people are.

Mr. WAXMAN. I think they do and they do not. Maybe you know

where the bridges are, but you do not know exactly what numbers

of people are under these bridges, but there are methods for getting

some sampling that can tell you the totality of the amount, the

same thing as you do and as Ms. Meek does and all the other politicians do when we try to figure out what public opinion is.

We do not count every single person, we get enough of a sampling, we use a scientific method to determine the totality of the

population in an area.

Ms. Meek, do you not think we ought to have—count all the people we can and then use all the scientific methods to make sure

that we have a sampling and a projection of the total population

in each area?

Mrs. MEEK. My answer is yes.

Mr. Waxman, for the last 4 years, and even before, I have been

a strong proponent of sampling in that I do know that I have been

in one of the States in one of the fights since 1970 regarding the

counts in the census. And it has been very, very standard right

after each census for minority communities to find out there has

been an undercount. And, of course, certainly, if we could do sampling I would be very, very happy, very satisfied that we would get

these people.

Even with my bill, no matter what methodology you do here, unless you follow science in what you do, in the end you will probably

come up with a less than accurate count.

Mr. WAXMAN. The Census Bureau is made up of career people

who understand statistics and the best way to count the population. We ought to take their judgment as to how to do this thing.

The Census Bureau was overturned by a political appointee at

the Secretary of Commerce, who I think decided that it would not

be in the Republican party’s interest to make sure they had an accurate count. And I must say that I think we are having the same

thing this time around where Republicans are saying we are afraid

that if you count everybody the way the Census Bureau thinks is

scientifically the best way to get the most accurate statistics, that

it may hurt Republican party interests.

Now, maybe it does, maybe it does not, but it hurts a lot of people in a lot of States, including States where we have Democrats

and Republicans. We have Democrats and Republicans in CaliforVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:24 Sep 06, 2000 Jkt 055702 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\55702 pfrm03 PsN: 55702
18

nia, in Florida, in North Carolina, and your constituents, our constituents, want to know why they are not getting their fair share

of Federal dollars in order to do the things that they——

Mr. MILLER. The red light——

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. Need to build roads and everything

else.

Mr. MILLER. The red light does not work. The green light is off,

which means the same thing.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank both of the

witnesses.

Mrs. MEEK. Mr. Chairman, if I may have just a second?

Poor people, the people on food stamps, the people on welfare,

they do not care anything about parties. They really do not.

They are concerned about what benefits they can get from the

government and how the government can help them. When they

are waiting for a house or something that the government should

be giving people who cannot afford to do it, they can care very little

about the ideologies that we hear in the Congress and in the public.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me commend you and Representative Meek for what I consider to be a

very common sense, solid piece of legislation in terms of trying to

make sure that individuals who are indigenous to low income communities have an opportunity to participate as enumerators without penalty.

Representative Meek, my question is even if we make use of

these individuals who are indeed indigenous to local areas and who

have a greater sense of awareness of what is there, after all is said

and done, do you think that the people still will be counted or will

we have missed a considerable number of people even making use

of indigenous people to those areas?

Mrs. MEEK. I think the utilization of indigenous people will enhance the ability to get an accurate count. It means that common

sense tells you that if you have someone who is known in that area

to go in, since you are going to have a head count, you are looking

for enumerators. The Constitution says you must count every head.

Well, what is any more logical way of counting every head than

to have someone who knows where those heads are, who can go

and tap them?

And I think in that particular realm that one of your better

methods is to not exclude them in any scientific sampling that you

may be able to do, but this does mean that your enumeration will

be much better than it would be if you did not have them.

Mr. DAVIS. Is it your experience that in many such areas that

there are still persons who could be termed unreachable, untouchable, and that no matter how hard you try in terms of the actuality

of seeking them out that there still is a strong possibility that you

are going to miss them?

Mrs. MEEK. I do not think there is a strong possibility. I think

there is a possibility, but it is not as strong as it would be if you

were not to use enumerators from those areas and that they know

where the people are.

19

I visit a lot of the homeless shelters in my district and those

without; and if it were not someone that we would enlist from

Catholic Charities, from some of the rescue missions who know

where those people are, the regular enumerators would never find

them.

Or if you were to go to a housing project, you would find out that

there are many people there you never know are there, but you will

find them if you use people who live in that particular housing

project, in that particular unit. And that happens a lot with children, in that many times they do not get an accurate count with

children.

You will get a better, more accurate count with children if you

are working through the local CAAs, if you are working through

the local Head Start programs.

And to answer your question, I guess anything that exists in any

amount can be measured. If that is the case, then we should use

the best methodologies we can find to measure them.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.

Representative Myrick, I agree with you that there is a certain

amount of confusion that will in fact exist, especially if we have

two sets of numbers in any kind of way. Of course, some people are

going to be confused even if there is only one.

Mrs. MYRICK. True.

Mr. DAVIS. But with two sets of numbers, and especially the way

that we are talking about using those now, I guess we are talking

about using one set for one purpose, that is, the purpose of entitlement, another set for apportionment.

Do you think if one had to weigh or try and determine if one part

of this equation was more important than the other, I mean, is entitlement more important than representation or could you see both

being equally important?

Mrs. MYRICK. I think both are equally important. And my main

concern was simply with the fact of the confusion in, first of all,

having the two numbers and then second, if there are estimates

other States use, then that just gives people an opportunity to sue.

And a lot of people today do not need an opportunity, they do it

anyway. For instance, in North Carolina, as I said, with our districts, you know, we thought we had done a very fair job of redistricting this last time, but they came back and said, no, it is not.

The concern that I have is what happens with the people at

home when they are trying to figure all this out.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I certainly appreciate your response and, you

know, I just think it is unfortunate and I feel very strongly that

after all is said and done, as we are currently moving, that there

are indeed people who are going to be denied either entitlement or

representation and I think that is most unfortunate because I do

not believe that it is necessary that we do that. I do think it is possible that we could indeed provide the opportunity for people to

both count and be counted.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. I was just handed a note by the staff concerning

Mrs. Maloney’s question that Charlotte, Ms. Myrick, that Charlotte

did participate in the post-census local review in 1990, but they did

not know the outcome because the bill did not tell all the commuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:24 Sep 06, 2000 Jkt 055702 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\55702 pfrm03 PsN: 55702
20

nities exactly what the impact was and that Charlotte/Mecklenberg

is supporting post-census local review now. Those are the counties,

the two counties together, I guess.

Mrs. MYRICK. Well, Charlotte is a city in Mecklenberg County.

Mr. MILLER. Oh, I see. That is the county. OK.

Mrs. MYRICK. So they work together.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

Well, we have a vote going on. Hopefully we can be back here

right after that second vote, which would be approximately 3 p.m.

We will stand in recess until then.

[Recess.]

Mr. MILLER. The subcommittee will come back into session and

we will begin with opening statements by the Members.

Good afternoon. Today we have heard from two distinguished

Members of Congress, Sue Myrick and Carrie Meek, and we will

now hear from Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, the Director of the Census Bureau.

Last week, the Clinton administration, to my extreme disappointment, officially announced its plans for a two-number census. One, a legal number, mandated by the Supreme Court and a

second number manipulated by their controversial and unproven

sampling plan and then provided to the States.

This plan, when put forth by the Clinton administration, reverses 6 years of policy calling for a one-number census. For years,

the Clinton administration has said that to provide two sets of

numbers measuring the same population would cause confusion

and controversy for the American people.

As recently as this past November, the Census Bureau said in

its operational plan, ‘‘The Census Bureau plans to produce a onenumber census estimate of the United States population in Census

2000 that will improve accuracy and eliminate confusion and controversy caused by having more than one set of census results

measuring the same population.’’

Apparently, now that the Clinton administration’s plan to use

population polling, rather than counting, in the census has lost in

two Federal courts and the Supreme Court, the administration is

perfectly willing to ignite controversy and cause confusion. This

two-number census is a recipe for disaster and will lead down a

path that will force every State and local government in America

into court.

While most Members of Congress and the American people

thought that the Supreme Court would make the final determination on how the 2000 census would be conducted, few thought that

the Clinton administration would still attempt to sidestep the high

court in order to pursue its illegal sampling plan.

Director Prewitt, I read with interest your comments yesterday

in Roll Call. You said that people were getting the impression that

we are headed toward two censuses: a Republican and Democrat

census. I could not agree more: a Republican census approved by

the Supreme Court and a Democrat census that is headed toward

confusion, controversy, and the courts.

In the Roll Call article, you were very concerned about this perception, but you should not be surprised. Last week, the Clinton

administration reversed 6 years of Bureau policy by advocating a

21

two-number census, once again putting politics over good public

policy.

The full count, in accordance with the Supreme Court, must be

the most accurate count possible. That is why the very week of the

Supreme Court’s decision I introduced the America Counts Today

[ACT], initiatives at the U.S. Conference of Mayors winter meeting.

The America Counts Today initiatives is designed to provide the

additional tools needed to improve the 2000 census.

The America Counts Today initiatives are only the beginning. I

would hope and expect that the administration would have concrete

ideas as well on how to legally improve the 2000 census. I made

a pledge that day and I repeat it today, that if more is needed, I

will support it.

For some time I have been focused on how to reduce the minority

undercount. I began a series of field hearings throughout the country in the hardest to count areas to learn ways to count the people

that have been missed in the past. These hearings were designed

to solicit the input of community stakeholders on ways to improve

a traditional census in their respective communities. To date, there

have been field hearings in Miami and Phoenix.

The America Counts Today initiatives are an outgrowth of this

effort. I believe we need three major community-based improvements for the 2000 census. We need to increase community awareness, increase involvement of community leaders and reinforce

community enumeration.

First, I want to increase the involvement of community leaders.

My top priority has been to reinstitute post-census local review.

That bill, H.R. 472, is an important first step to improving the

2000 census.

Nobody knows better than mayors and local officials where people in their communities live. Post-census local review gives them

the opportunity to review census numbers in their communities before the Bureau makes them final.

This program was used in 1990 and added more than 80,000

households, but was discontinued in 2000 to the disappointment of

most local government officials. Post-census local review is a common sense idea.

Why should not the Census Bureau be subject to a local audit of

their work? Everyone makes mistakes and we all know that the

census is a difficult and complex undertaking. If you want local

governments to trust your numbers, then you must give them a

reason to do so.

I have also proposed establishing a matching grant program for

local partnership groups and communities to provide the resources

needed to conduct outreach efforts and to encourage participation

in the census in their respective neighborhoods.

Community awareness is critical to a successful census. Consequently, I have proposed increasing the advertising budget from

$100 to $400 million with a significant portion of the new money

targeted toward the hardest to count areas of the Nation.

Compared to some other Federal advertising programs, the $100

million total advertising effort seemed inadequate. For example, in

fiscal year 1998, the Federal Government provided $195 million for

the Partnership for a Drug-Free America advertising campaign. In

22

fact, the campaign is expected to spend over $1 billion in advertising over 5 years. If the census is as important as we say it is,

then we must advertise it.

In addition, we have proposed expanding the census in the

schools program. If we can get all the schools involved, we should

make any effort we can to get them involved. Additionally, we can

and must increase the number of paid census partnership specialists and, again, target them to work in the areas with the worst

undercount.

My third major initiative involves reinforcing community-based

enumeration. I have proposed adding a minimum of 100,000 additional census enumerators and target them to work in the hardest

to count communities. By organizing enumerators into elite teams

and focusing their efforts exclusively on reaching hard to count

populations, we will have a far more accurate count in these areas.

I have also proposed enlisting Americorp volunteers in the census effort. Why not use this program to reduce the undercount?

They can go in early and stay late to help organize the hardest to

count communities and build trust and partnerships.

I have already joined with Congresswoman Carrie Meek in sponsoring H.R. 683, the Decennial Census Improvement Act, which

will provide waivers to welfare recipients and retired military officers who would like to count their neighborhoods but cannot because of bureaucratic red tape that would cause them to lose their

benefits by taking a temporary census job.

Finally, I propose that we send a second census questionnaire to

households and expand the languages covered. A second questionnaire gives another opportunity to those who did not respond the

first time. In the dress rehearsals, this was shown to increase the

response rate by almost 7 percent. That would mean that in the

2000 census some 19 million people could be added before we send

enumerators into the field.

The Census Bureau should also publish their census forms in 33

languages so no significant group misses out on being counted because they could not get a form in their language. The Bureau has

planned to only publish forms in five languages. Let us go back to

33 and add Braille in order to give everyone a chance to be counted.

These initiatives are both big and small, but all will help make

the 2000 census a success. Above all, we need to work together, Republicans and Democrats, blacks, whites, Asians, Hispanics, Americans and immigrants.

We all have a stake in the census. While we have not agreed on

the path to the 2000 census, we have always agreed that the destination is a complete and accurate count in 2000.

I am encouraged that since I introduced the ACT initiatives the

Bureau has shown encouraging signs of adopting many of the proposals, such as increasing census in the schools, increasing the

number of partnership specialists, and increasing the advertising

program. In fact, the Bureau has now said that it is working with

Americorp on how they can be incorporated into this important

constitutional duty.

Let me say, Director Prewitt, that I do not envy your job. It is

a most difficult one. I do believe that you are being pulled in two

23

different directions. At times, from my perspective, it is difficult to

tell where the professionals of the Census Bureau start and the political appointees of this Commerce Department end.

I also understand that this fact may be largely beyond your control. However, as the Census Director, you are the one that has to

answer the difficult questions.

I look forward to the testimony of the witness today and hearing

your comments on the America Counts Today initiative as we all

work to end the differential undercount in the 2000 census.

Mrs. Maloney.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Miller follows:]

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you.

Every American counts, so we must count every American using

the most modern scientific measures.

Mr. Chairman, I was truly surprised and I must protest your

statements on the ‘‘two-number census.’’ Eighteen months ago, it

was the Republicans who wrote into Title XIII, the requirement to

have a two-number census. I have a quote from the 1997 appropriations bill. This was the language that was put into the bill. And

at the time, you spoke out against a one-number census.

Do you have his quote from that?

So quite frankly, I am surprised to now hear you criticize the

Census Bureau for trying to comply with the law, the law that the

Republican majority wrote, and the Supreme Court ruling.

I say let us let the Census Bureau do its job and keep politics

out of how we count our population. And let us count every American.

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress placed limitations on

the Census Bureau’s ability to use modern methods for better accuracy. It said congressional apportionment needed to be carried out

by the old methods and it cited a law, but the court stated that besides apportionment, which is the distribution of seats among the

States, we should allow the Census Bureau to be as modern and

as accurate as possible. And I would like to put into the record

right now the law, Title XIII, that the Republicans wrote calling for

the two-number census and your particular quote at the time.

Now you have come forward with many new ideas, but the time

for these ideas or proposals, which are just proposals, they are not

laws, they are not thought out, was 2 years ago and we are really

past adding bells and whistles to the 2000 census and without specific legislative proposals, it is very difficult to say what effect any

of these proposals would have.

The only proposal that you have made specifically you rammed

through the subcommittee only days after it was introduced and I

would say the ink was still wet.

I am glad that you are supporting Mrs. Meek’s bill. She introduced it in 1996. I really know that every Democrat will support

her bill. I understand that Senator Moynihan intends to introduce

a companion bill in the Senate. And I think her bill—and I am glad

you support it—is a very good idea.

But let us be very clear, it will not do anything to truly address

our biggest problem, the racial differential and the fact that the old

methods of counting will never be as accurate as modern scientific

ones, no matter what we do.

The most glaring problem with your proposal, or all of your proposals if they were fleshed out or if they were worked out, is that

they will not address this real problem.

In 1990, there were 8.4 millon people missed in the census and

4.4 million people counted twice. Nearly 70 percent of those missed

were in households that were counted. And for African Americans,

80 percent of those missed were in households that were counted.

Adding housing units as your local review bill calls for does not

address these problems.

Increasing the advertising budget, studies have shown, will not

help to count those who are missed and it will not eliminate the

31

millions who are counted twice. At best, it can improve the mail

response rate.

A grants program might raise awareness, but it is not likely to

get people counted in the right place on April 1st.

We have done the hard work on Representative Meek’s bill. My

staff and Senator Moynihan’s staff have worked with her and with

your staff and I hope that you will have a markup this week and

that it will be a signal of the beginning of a bipartisan 106th Congress we have been hearing so much about.

As part of that bipartisan effort, Mr. Chairman, I would urge you

and your colleagues to please discontinue your attacks on the professionals at the Census Bureau. You have called the Census Bureau professionals statistical shills and more recently accused them

of ‘‘peddling snake oil.’’

The speaker has called the Census Bureau experts hypocrites. A

Republican foundation funded by the Republican National Committee, has gone as far as to compare the Census Bureau to the

Mafia. What is next, Jerry Springer?

These kinds of attacks are unprofessional and they are just demeaning to everyone. We can have policy disagreements without

resorting to name calling.

The opponents of a fair and accurate census decided to fight the

census plan in the courts. Well, as a result of the Supreme Court

decision, the census is going to cost $2 or $3 billion more and be

less accurate, at least for purposes of apportionment. You cannot

escape these sad facts by attacking the professionals at the Census

Bureau.

I would like to really end by clarifying one point and ask that

my comments in full be put in the record.

The Supreme Court decision was very clear. It touched only apportionment. It clearly stated that more accurate numbers using

modern scientific counts could be used for other purposes, such as

good data, distribution of funds to our localities and redistricting

within a State.

And I would suggest that we should let the professionals at the

Census Bureau do their job. I would suggest that most Americans

would prefer that professionals conduct the census and not politicians.

So I really hope that you will in a bipartisan effort support the

professionals at the Census Bureau and at the very least stop the

name calling.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney follows:]

32

33

34

35

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Davis, do you have a very brief opening statement so we can proceed?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I

would want to echo some of the sentiments expressed by the ranking member.

I also want to thank you for calling this hearing regarding initiatives designed to increase the accuracy of the 2000 census. I am

also pleased that you have decided to hear from the Census Bureau

regarding the issue of post-census local review and the nine additional activities that you proposed today to improve the accuracy

of the census.

First of all, let me state that no one can be opposed to ideas that

seek to improve the accuracy of counting the people. However, as

the census date fast approaches, it is important that we find consensus on one plan and not duplicate efforts that are already under

way.

Several of the initiatives embodied in the America Counts Today

proposal by you seem to be already under consideration by the Census Bureau. If that is the case, then I do not see the need for the

initiatives aside from pure discussion. Nonetheless, I look forward

to hearing Dr. Prewitt’s comments regarding the initiatives that

have been proposed.

In addition, as a former city councilman and Cook County commissioner, I can really appreciate the zeal to allow local governments a last opportunity to review census data for errors. After all,

as a local government, the opportunity to have one last chance to

increase your count is too tempting to pass up.

However, based on the testimony that I heard at the last hearing

regarding post-census local review, I am not convinced that it

worked that well in 1990. Most of the communities that participated were displeased with the process and less than 20 percent of

the governmental units participated at all.

Thus, the Census Bureau’s comments regarding this issue would

be noteworthy because I remain concerned about a serious

undercount, especially in rural and minority communities.

Finally, I am pleased that within the initiatives proposed is a

recommendation for a waiver to allow individuals who receive Federal assistance to work as part-time enumerators without having

their benefits affected. Therefore, I commend you and Representative Meek for the work on this legislation.

Again, I look forward to all the witnesses and appreciate your

calling this hearing today.

Mr. MILLER. OK. Mr. Prewitt, Dr. Prewitt, if you would stand

and raise your right hand and I will swear you in.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. MILLER. Dr. Prewitt, you have an opening statement?

STATEMENT OF KENNETH PREWITT, DIRECTOR, U.S. BUREAU

OF THE CENSUS

Mr. PREWITT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mrs.

Maloney, Mr. Davis, especially for this opportunity to present and

answer questions on the census 2000 operation plan first sent to

this subcommittee 6 weeks ago and subsequently refined to incorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:24 Sep 06, 2000 Jkt 055702 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\55702 pfrm03 PsN: 55702
36

porate the evaluation based upon the Census Bureau’s dress rehearsal experience.

I appreciate as well the opportunity to comment on Chairman

Miller’s 10 suggestions for how to improve the census. Later in my

comments I will divide this 10-point list into two categories.

On seven of the items, we welcome the approach taken by the

chairman. They are consistent with what the Census Bureau has

learned about how to strengthen the census and we obviously readily embrace a more extensive advertising campaign, an effort to

reach 100 percent of the Nation’s schools, greater resources for the

partnership program, additional enumerators, partnership with

Americorp volunteers and the waiver initiative. And in each of

these areas, if time allows, I can outline what the Census Bureau

has already itself initiated.

On three of the items, the second mailing, the language initiative, and local government review of mailing addresses, the Census

Bureau believes it has presented a superior program than the way

in which the chairman has set forth his views.

Indeed, in some instances, if legislated in the manner before you,

these proposals would disrupt census 2000 and could even put it

at risk. I will have to express those views rather strongly. I will,

of course, allocate more time to those three in which there are differences than the seven on which there is general agreement.

But, first, if I may, a word about the census. It has unique features making it one of the most complicated operations conducted

by the U.S. Government. Think of it as a three-dimensional task.

It is a count, it is an address list, and it is a date.

We have to count every resident of the United States, estimated

to be about 275 million in 2000. We have to identify every residential address in the United States, estimated to be about 120 million

in 2000. And then we have to assign the 275 million people to the

120 million addresses on a fixed, single date, April 1st. Each of

these operations is enormous.

People are on the move, addresses come and go and this movement and transformation does not conveniently pause just because

census date is April 1st.

It is because the task is huge and complex as you have acknowledged, and I appreciate that the Census Bureau is very careful in

how it proceeds. To the extent possible, and especially for procedures not used in prior censuses, we test everything and weigh

what works and what does not. Hours of deliberation, even argument, precede a decision to build any given procedure into the census.

Census staff takes turns challenging each other to prove the merits of a given operation. Nothing is haphazard, nothing is casual.

Every step is carefully, deliberately considered.

This lengthy process, which started for the 2000 census 12 years

ago, just as in 2000, we will test procedures that might be incorporated in 2010. We select and discard based on one overriding criterion: Will this procedure or operation lead to a more accurate and

complete count?

Selection among alternative procedures is based not on what is

more or less difficult, but what is more or less productive. To suggest that the Census Bureau excludes a particular procedure beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:24 Sep 06, 2000 Jkt 055702 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\55702 pfrm03 PsN: 55702
37

cause it would be too much trouble reflects a serious misrepresentation of the dedication and commitment of the Census Bureau career professionals.

Then when all of the pieces are put together, when the whole is

assembled, testing starts all over again, for now we must determine how well the integrated system will work, not just the individual pieces.

As the chairman knows, because he visited our beta testing sites

in Suitland, this, too, is a painstaking task. We currently have in

test 25 major software systems. They not only have to work in

their own terms, they have to fit together.

We have to track 175 million forms, pay hundreds of thousands

of workers, monitor tens of thousands of partnership programs,

produce 12 million maps. Every step, every operation, every procedure is at a huge scale and is interdependent with every other step,

operation or procedure.

This operational plan, as refined in this update, was submitted

to you 6 weeks ago. It is a census plan. This census plan, as you

know, is now being documented in excruciating detail in what the

Census Bureau terms its master activity schedule.

The master activity schedule is 4,000 lines of individual code, but

it is more than that. It is a software program that shows how each

one of these individual steps connects with every other step in the

census. Every procedure links to previous procedures. Every procedure links horizontally to all other procedures and forwards to dozens of other procedures.

This morning, I sat in what we call our lock-up room,

windowless, in the basement of, as you know, not a very nice building. Fifty people down there tracking every single line of this code

to make sure that it fits together, nothing is left out, no mistakes

are made.

When completed in approximately 2 weeks, it will be a very substantial set of detailed operations of how to conduct the census.

The point is we have to sort of establish these procedures now.

I beg the subcommittee, please do not impose on us the burden

of going into the census with just in time programming, which we

will have to do if we add things once this is finished. Do not impose

on us the burden of going in with untested procedures or with additions whose consequences for other operations will not be discovered until they happen. The operational machinery that constitutes

a census is not something to be taken lightly.

Now, you have asked me to focus on procedures to enhance traditional enumeration procedures and also to comment on the 10-point

list of suggestions under ACT, America Counts Today.

Mr. Chairman, I intend no disrespect, but I do have to emphasize

that ACT does not itself constitute a census plan. It is a series of

isolated initiatives. I do not make light of these initiatives and I

have already indicated that we readily embrace seven of them. I

only suggest that they are not a plan.

For example, they speak to only a tiny part of the huge operation

described in census 2000 as the master address file. Except indirectly and, in this instance, not helpfully, they have little to do

with the enormous optical scanning operation planned for census

2000. They do not help us with the difficult issue of unduplication,

38

with the operations needed to validate the housing units that are

vacant, and so on and so on.

Again, we welcome seven of the initiatives, have serious reservations about three, but more generally, I have to describe them for

what they are: isolated suggestions. They are not a census plan.

This, Mr. Chairman, compared to this, is what turns something

into a census plan that has to be managed and operated with something in the multiple thousands of people, as we all know.

Take, for example, how to reach the linguistically isolated in our

population. We welcome the chairman’s interest in this most difficult area and can assure the subcommittee that we intend to be

as linguistically friendly as we possibly can.

We do, however, believe that the program set forth in the operational plan reaches Mr. Miller’s goal more efficiently than printing

census forms in 33 languages.

We are printing forms in six languages that account for 99 percent of all of the households in the United States. Does this mean

that we are indifferent to the other 1 percent of the households?

Which speak, by the way, not just 27 additional languages, but

about 120 different languages over the mean six.

The Census Bureau gave a lot of attention to how to reach these

population groups. But, of course, it wanted to do so in a manner

that did not place other census operations at risk, such as how

many pages of the form can be optically scanned.

We subjected this issue to what we call a business analysis, 28

pages of detailed analysis listing all the pros and cons of not just

one but four major alternatives. In the end, we designed a careful

operation to reach those linguistically isolated households.

I invite you to study it carefully before leaping to the conclusion

that we did not give careful consideration to the idea that is

imbedded in the draft legislation before this committee.

We did consider that idea. We did not reject it because it was too

hard. We rejected it because it would not do the job. Instead, we

have set forth an integrated language program that involves 15,000

paid temporary staff positions in the questionnaire assistance centers drawn from a wide range of language communities, as well as

the preparation of 15 million assistance guides in several dozen

languages.

We have also included a language focus in our partnership agreements with community organizations. All of this to reach that 1

percent of the population which does not speak one or more of the

six languages already covered in our census operations.

Were the bill before you to pass, the following would have to happen.

We would have to renegotiate all of our largest contracts, including nearly 20 printing contracts, the contracts for our telephone

questionnaire assistance program, for our data capture initiative,

and for the data capture service centers.

The entire workflow for the receipt, image capture, transcription

and keying from paper would have to be modified. Let me offer just

one simple example.

Here is what we call our pre-census letter, our letter to alert all

American households that the census form is coming. It will go to

39

120 million households. The wording has been carefully designed to

minimize confusion and to maximize cooperation.

After internal discussion, it was decided that the best way to announce the availability of the five languages other than English

would be to put a very small set of reminders down here at the bottom and then on the back list in the five languages how to get a

questionnaire in those languages.

I would invite you, if you would like to persist with this legislation, to imagine how we are now going to do this to announce to

the American public that there are 33 languages.

The letter will not work. It becomes a different document and

once that document hits the addresses, 99 percent of the households are now getting a piece of paper which bears not at all on

their conditions.

That is not the way we would design a census. We would do it

in such a way as to try to minimize confusion, maximize cooperation, and indeed put in place a mechanism that will reach all of

those linguistically isolated communities.

Similarly, with the second mailing, which I will not consider here

in detail. But, again, there is research, there is analysis, there is

deliberation, there is judgment, there is the dress rehearsal experience, all of which indicates that the value of the second mailing is

outweighed substantially so by the risks that it introduces into

other census operations, not the least of which is the deterioration

in data quality and non-response followup.

The targeted mailing is operationally impractical. The blanket

mailing postpones non-response followup by approximately 6

weeks. Also with the post-census review, which I have discussed in

some detail in my written testimony why the Census Bureau replaced a procedure that worked poorly in 1980 and 1990 with a

much stronger, more extensive procedure in 2000.

I should take no more time in these opening comments. I appreciate the time that you have given me, but I do hope that the question period will provide time to examine why the Census Bureau’s

carefully considered programs should be the ones that we move forward at this point.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Prewitt follows:]

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Director Prewitt.

We will work under the 5-minute rule, but we will have more

than one round, probably. I do not know why it is not working, so

we will just do the best we can.

First of all, I get concerned that the statements by the minority

and by the Census Bureau that the Congress is almost irrelevant

to this process, it is kind of offending.

We do not know the details of the plan. Yes, you have a book

there, but the details are not there. You know that. We do not have

a budget. Two weeks you say we will have it and we are supposed

to wait until it is out and then we are supposed to get involved in

it.

Well, you know, the agreement back—actually passed into law

back in 1997, was that you were going to have a dual track and

be prepared.

You were not there, I know, and you just went to the Bureau in

October, but we should have been prepared and this information

should have been out months ago and I think you would have been

pleased to have had it out months ago. But instead, the administration, the Clinton administration and the Bureau have decided to

only go on one track, unlike what the law said back in 1997.

And so we all of a sudden have to scramble now to put together

the plan and it is unfortunate that we are having to wait this long

and we cannot wait any longer and we need to move forward because, as I have said before, we all agree.

I think we want to focus today on what we can do to improve

the thing and I am glad to see that a number of the ideas are going

to be acceptable; that will help, because we are trying to reach the

same goal.

But let me start off with the post-census local review. We did

have a hearing on that issue. And I am just still baffled by the opposition to it. This is in effect an audit after the mailings have gone

out.

What you are doing with LUCA is very fine and I am very

pleased that it is there and that is good. You know, there are a lot

of good programs there, and that is one that we compliment.

But it does not replace, in my opinion, post-census local review.

This all boils down to an issue of trust. We have been saying trust

for the past year and a half and there is a real trust problem here.

And if people do not trust the numbers, we have a failed census.

And what is wrong—I do not see the harm of post-census local review. I do not see what the problem is in having this post-census

local review.

The LUCA program has been successful to some extent, not as

many as we would like to have participate, but I think we can

build upon it and do a better job.

Tell me why—I do not understand what damage does it do? What

harm does it do to the thing?

Mr. PREWITT. Mr. Miller—Mr. Chairman, excuse me. I am still

learning the protocol. This is my first hearing.

I am a little confused why this is not a plan.

Mr. MILLER. Well, do you have a budget with the details in it?

Do you have the master activity schedule?

48

Mr. PREWITT. I am sorry, I am just really trying to learn—well,

as I said, the master activity schedule is not a plan, it is something

that turns this into a set of activities.

This is detailed about our coverage improvement followup, our

enumeration strategy, our advertising strategy, our dress rehearsal

results. It seems to me like this would be a plan. I am just confused about what in your mind constitutes a plan.

Mr. MILLER. Well, we have a lot more detail on the illegal plan

that the courts threw out. That detail was provided. Now this one

we are scrambling to put together with the detail we had before.

Mr. PREWITT. We are actually——

Mr. MILLER. Do you think that is a complete plan that you can

go out and—do you have a budget? Is that not part of a plan? How

much money are we going to spend? We do not know yet. I just

found out last week you are going to have an accuracy and coverage evaluation [ACE]. Is a budget not part of a plan?

Mr. PREWITT. I am simply trying to understand——

Mr. MILLER. Well, the details are missing, is all I am saying.

There are a lot of parts there.

Mr. PREWITT. Just so we understand that we do have——

Mr. MILLER. You have a plan?

Mr. PREWITT. We have some serious details here and——

Mr. MILLER. But a lot of the details are missing.

Mr. PREWITT. Serious details on many of the things that you

have now put into your ideas.

Mr. MILLER. OK.

Mr. PREWITT. Want to make sure we are talking about the same

thing. We are talking about what is a plan. The post-census LUCA,

would you like for me to comment on this? Because I would have

to have some clarification on this.

My current information says that the cooperation with our current LUCA program covers about 86 percent of all the addresses

in the United States, so I am just not sure—I do not know where

you—I just do not know what this is based on.

Mr. MILLER. OK. All right. But what harm does the post-census

local review do? What harm is done, what damage is done if we do

the post-census local review? That we give communities a chance

to review the numbers?

Mrs. Maloney said—there were 124,000 people added in 1990.

Well, they are not important to Mrs. Maloney apparently because

we should count everybody.

Mr. PREWITT. Oh, yes.

Mr. MILLER. Everybody says everybody should be counted. Tell

Mayor Archer that 45,000 people did not matter. Tell Congressman

Petri up in Wisconsin that some ward in his area was left out, I

do not know the details of it, he thought it was just a computer

error. Mistakes are made. You are not perfect, obviously. But we

want to catch mistakes. We want local communities to trust the

numbers.

Just what harm is done having this? This is in addition to

LUCA.

Mr. PREWITT. Well, let us try again, try to establish what LUCA

does. LUCA is an attempt, and we think a reasonably successful

49

attempt thus far, though we have much more work to do and we

will continue to do it right up until March 31——

Mr. MILLER. LUCA is good. We are pleased with it.

Mr. PREWITT [continuing]. To list every address in the United

States and actively—actively involve local government in putting

together that address list.

Mr. MILLER. That is good.

Mr. PREWITT. But that is what the post-census LUCA was about.

The post-census LUCA was to say did we get every address in your

community?

Mr. MILLER. Right.

Mr. PREWITT. And we are now doing that before we—before we

go to the field. It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for us to

be doing.

Mr. MILLER. OK. My time is up, but it sounds like you say we

are perfect and we do not make mistakes, there are no computer

errors. Mistakes happen and why cannot local communities have a

chance to check the numbers? It is an audit after the fact.

I came from the private sector when I came into Congress and

we had audits. I served on a lot of boards of non-profits. We always

had an audit.

If someone came to me as the chief financial officer of an organization and said, ‘‘Oh, we do not want to have an audit, we will save

some money, we will skip that audit,’’ I would be really suspect.

What are you trying to hide? This is the type of doubt to erase.

Why are we afraid to let a local mayor, county commission, look

at the numbers? I do not understand that danger.

Mr. PREWITT. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman——

Mr. MILLER. I am talking about post-census local review.

Mr. PREWITT. We are talking about numbers, not addresses. You

are asking——

Mr. MILLER. Well, post-census local review.

Mr. PREWITT. You are asking us to ask 39,000 jurisdictions to

look over our actual counts? Population counts?

Mr. MILLER. The similar program we had in 1990.

Mr. PREWITT. Population counts, not addresses.

Mr. MILLER. The housing counts.

Mr. PREWITT. The housing counts? Or the people counts?

Mr. MILLER. The same way we did it in 1990, basically. We will

allow a little more time.

Mr. PREWITT. I am just trying to understand.

Mr. MILLER. I am just trying to figure out what the harm is. I

have not found the harm.

My time is up, so we will come back, because we will do another

round after Mrs. Maloney.

Mr. PREWITT. OK.

Mr. MILLER. So maybe you can think about what harm is done.

Mr. PREWITT. OK.

Mrs. MALONEY. A point of personal privilege. You mentioned that

I thought 124,000 people did not count. I think they count very

much, but I think the number should be much higher and what

happened in 1990, as I understand it, is there was very low participation, therefore the Census Bureau came back with a new plan

that checked housing and addresses prior that involved the counVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:24 Sep 06, 2000 Jkt 055702 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\55702 pfrm03 PsN: 55702
50

ties and the localities, the Director just said, to the point of 86 percent as opposed to the 5 percent success rate here.

I think that we should have for the record where these numbers

came from, since he does not appear to know.

Mr. PREWITT. I do not recognize them. I am sorry.

Mrs. MALONEY. I would like to just take your question and ask

it in a different way. You said what harm will the post-census local

review be.

I would like to ask it in the way of what will it add? Will it add

anything to your ability to count every American?

It is my understanding you started the pre-census to make the

count even better, but——

Mr. PREWITT. Well, what we tried to set forth in our plan is a

number of coverage improvement strategies, starting with getting

address lists right because if we do not get the address lists right

we will not have a quality census and a lot of time and effort and

a lot of cooperation with the U.S. Congress on that score. And then

a series of coverage improvement.

As I tried to say in my opening comments, we look at a whole

portfolio of procedures and operations and then choose the ones

which we think could fit within 9 months, which is a very, very serious constraint to make our December 31 obligations. Pick those

procedures which will maximize the accuracy and the completeness

of the count. That is what we are trying to do.

And we actually think that the procedures that you have not yet

wanted to spend any time on, the coverage improvement strategies

are much superior, much superior, to post-census local review.

If we thought post-census local review, having already gotten the

address list right, would be successful, we would want to do it. It

just simply will not add up to what we think we have produced in

its place.

It is not as if we do not want to count everyone. We obviously

do. We are professionals. That is our job. And we would be very

disappointed on behalf of our professional responsibilities to the

American public if we did not count everyone.

We know it is going to be difficult in 2000. We have been saying

that for years. We know why it is going to be difficult. I am sorry,

I should edit myself better.

Mrs. MALONEY. I have heard some of my Republican colleagues

say that we need a general to take over the running of the Census

Bureau. What in your opinion would be the comments of a general

to these added proposals at the last minute, at this late date?

Mr. PREWITT. Well, Mrs. Maloney, generals sometimes speak in

rather earthy vocabulary, and I would not want to directly quote.

I honestly think that, and I would invite the subcommittee to ask

General Schwarzkopf, who has been frequently used in this connection, to come and answer that question. What would you do, General Schwarzkopf, if just as you were going into the field, a subcommittee of the Congress came along and said, oh, we like this

better than what you are talking about, we want you to do this instead of that.

I think the general would say no, or words to that effect. And I

would invite you to put that question to a general about what it

51

is like to manage the largest peacetime operation activity, mobilization, in U.S. history.

Mrs. MALONEY. As I mentioned in my opening statement, because it has been rather troubling to me, the repeated attacks,

slurs on the professionals at the Census Bureau and what have

these attacks done to the morale of the really—most of whom are

career professionals at the Census Bureau?

Mr. PREWITT. Well, I think we would like to believe that people

who use that language do not believe them. I think if we really believe that people did believe the language that is being used, the

way we are being described, it would be deeply disappointing.

Could I just take a minute? I want to—I would like to just show

the subcommittee this document. This is a questionnaire called the

Consumer Expenditure Survey, which the Census Bureau collects

on a routine basis using, of course, modern statistical methods.

This is the data which go into the CPI.

The CPI goes into Alan Greenspan’s head when he is talking

about the state of the economy, as well as the Bureau of Labor Statistics data, which are based on census collections, of course, and

also the industrial capacity data, which is, again, a Census Bureau

survey.

I just do not think that Alan Greenspan thinks that when he is

talking to you about the state of the economy based upon these

census data that he is peddling snake oil. I think he thinks he is

peddling the very best data that can be produced by the keystone

statistical agency of the United States.

And obviously if Members of Congress really think that the Census Bureau when it does this kind of work is producing stuff which

cannot be used, cannot be trusted, then we have a very serious

problem in this society. I just do not believe it.

So I have to tell you that the reason that morale does not suffer

as much as you might imagine is we simply cannot believe that

people who say that actually believe it, because they turn around

in other parts of their job and use the data all the time. When they

make economic policy, when they make social policy, when they

look at the poverty rates, when they look at educational statistics,

they are using these kind of data all of the time. So I cannot believe that they do not believe in the quality of that work.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Prewitt, we have had some discussion relative to the proposed initiative that the chairman is presenting today.

Did I understand you to suggest that if we get into the business

of starting with something different at this juncture that there are

currently plans in process that would have to be changed, such as

contracts that have been let and initiatives that are currently

under way?

Mr. PREWITT. Well, yes, sir. With respect to, say, the language

program that has been suggested by Mr. Miller. we would simply,

as I did try to say, we would have to renegotiate every one of our

major contracts, every one of our major contracts. It would be extremely difficult for us to meet the April 1st deadline if we have

to do that.

52

We would have to rewrite not only this plan but all of these

4,000 lines of code because all these things connect to each other.

The same thing with the second mailing. If we use the second mailing, we would have to rewrite every bit of this. We would have to

start again.

With respect to post-census LUCA, that is an entirely different

procedure which we have not built into our plan nor our design.

So, yes, I simply have to say in all candor that if we were asked

late in the game to put in a procedure which was not already part

of our operational plan that it could put the census at risk.

Mr. DAVIS. You have indicated that we would probably miss the

deadline. Do you have any projections as to by perhaps how much

or how long it would take to renegotiate this?

Mr. PREWITT. Oh, I think we are talking certainly weeks and

maybe months to renegotiate the contracts and then to re—as I

say, we already have 19 printing contracts out there. It is very

hard for me to estimate because it depends on the nature of the

suggestions that would be introduced or be legislated by the Congress and when we would learn those.

I mean, it is one thing if these things were—you know, said, OK,

today this is the law, we would scramble as best we could. If we

learn that in June, it is one thing. If we learn it September, it is

just simply something else. We are at a point in this census which

if we do not get about it, we are not going to get it done. I cannot

say that more strongly.

Mr. DAVIS. Let us say for some reason we miss the deadline. I

mean, other than the fact that it is a miss, what happens?

Mr. PREWITT. Well, there are three key dates, Mr. Davis. One is

April 1st, census day 2000. The next one is 9 months later, December 31st, apportionment numbers. And the next one is April 1st, by

which time we have to have provided all 50 States their redistricting data.

Obviously if—and everything that we do is geared around trying

to make those dates and we work—this morning when I was in the

lock-up room watching these people work, the thing that got

flashed up on the screen was aha, calendar No. 4, this procedure

gets matched against calendar No. 4. Calendar No. 4 is 24 hours

a day, 7 days a week from April 1st to April 1st.

They are now planning against a calendar that has no space in

it. They are down there in that basement room arguing about

hours and half days. If you need that half day for this, you cannot

have it because I need a day and a half for that.

That is the argument that is going on. There is not space in

there. You put something in that takes 6 weeks like the second

mailing? It is a different census.

Could we do it? Sure, we can do anything, I guess. Would it be

accurate? No. We would reduce accuracy at this point if we start

trying to introduce entirely new procedures into the operational

plan that already exists.

Mr. DAVIS. So you are saying that we would get the exact opposite result than what is being desired, that rather than enhancing

our ability to get accurate information, that we are really creating

a level of confusion that would make it virtually impossible to get

accurate information.

53

Mr. PREWITT. I am afraid, Mr. Davis, that that is—I would not

put it in quite such blunt words, but I am afraid that you have interpreted me correctly.

We start with as many different procedures as we can imagine.

We are all on the table. Then people go into rooms and they argue

this versus that, this is going to give us more accuracy, this is

going to give us a more complete count, and that is going to take

7 days, but this only takes 4 days, but that will take 13 days, let

us do this, not that and so forth. That is the discussion that goes

on.

Then you put it all together and you start testing it. And then

once it is tested, to start taking it apart is very risky. It means we

will go into the field without the software system having been tested, without making sure that it integrates across these 25 different

big software packages.

It just is a very difficult way to do a census, and that is why I

would go back to General Schwarzkopf. I would love to have him

sitting here with me today and asking him what would you do if

you were asked to make these kinds of changes to an operational

plan at this late date.

They are not bad ideas, necessarily. They were—the ones that we

are not using, we think we have superior ideas. On languages, on

the mailing, on the involvement of local governments in address

lists, they are not bad ideas.

We simply worked hard to put together a better version of that

idea in our judgment, and that is what we get paid to do. We are

doing the best job we can.

Mr. MILLER. Well, we will have another round.

It was interesting you brought up Mr. Greenspan and the CPI.

That was an interesting one because I have sat on the budget committee for 6 years and Mr. Greenspan came before our committee

about 4 years ago and said the CPI is overstated by two points and

went through the problems. We had hearings both on the appropriations committee, I served at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and

on the budget committee about the problems with it, about substitution rates, and such, and how they needed to update it.

Now these are great statistical methods, but it was overstating

CPI by two points, according to Alan Greenspan. Now, they are

starting to correct some of these problems. So you bring up an illustration of statistical methods making mistakes and now we are

acknowledging that there have been mistakes made with CPI. So

that is a good illustration you brought up. I am glad that that was

discussed.

Let me go back to post-census local review. The census advisory

committee supports post-census local review. Local governments—

I have not found a local person that was opposed to it. The National League of Cities have supported it. And these local cities

deal with this LUCA program. And the LUCA program is fine.

It has not reached as many people as we would want, I do not

think, but it has reached a fair number and we wish we could get

more people to participate in it.

But I am getting back to the question of what harm will be done?

You know, there is a New York Times article, there is your quote

up there, it says, ‘‘It’s an incentive for anyone to try to boost their

54

numbers for either economic or political gain.’’ What is wrong with

that?

Why should not the mayor of Detroit, the mayor of Charlotte, the

mayor of New York City want to get numbers? And why should

they not say, hey, you missed this block in your numbers?

I do not see the harm. And it is not something that is untested,

because you did it in 1990. You should be able to do a better job

on it in 2000.

Mr. PREWITT. I am absolutely certain that if we did it in 2000

we would do a better job than we did in 1990. Everything that we

worked with in 1990 that we have introduced into 2000 we have

improved on those procedures.

Just quickly, on the advisory council committee that you have

cited as well as a number of other local leaders, I think perhaps

your staff has reported back to you that to a person, to a person,

everyone in the census advisory committee asked that this not be

legislated, that if they were here today they would be all suggesting to you that to try to legislate a procedure at this late stage

in the census cycle is very risky business.

And so I only point that out to you and if your staff did not mention that to you, they did not give you a full report on that meeting,

Mr. Chairman.

Now, with respect to this quote, the Founding Fathers were, as

we know, unusually intelligent and when they first introduced the

idea of a census for purposes of apportionment, they were very worried that the States would inflate their numbers and what they put

into the initial design was that the count of the population of each

State would be used for two purposes, one of which was apportionment and the other one of which was for taxation.

And they argued and they said the reason that we want both of

those in there is that one is an incentive to increase the numbers,

to inflate them, and the other is an incentive to keep them down.

And that is the way in which we have confidence that this procedure of asking the local governments to tell us how many people

there are, that there will be some sort of check on them.

Now, what this quote suggests, and I certainly will not—I will

say that it is certainly a direct quote, that if you actually give

39,000 jurisdictions a count and there is anything they can do to

increase that count, whether that is validated or not, why would

they not want to do it?

As I said in the comment that I made at the end of this particular quote, I was at a meeting in Albuquerque and a mayor of

a fast growing city came over to me on the podium and said we

have a fast growing city, we need 50,000 people in our city because

our city depends upon retail taxes and if we get above 50,000, then

we will get a shopping mall. And he came over and he put his hand

on my shoulder and said, Mr. Director, your job is to make sure

there are 50,000 people in my city.

That is not my job. My job is to find out how many people are

in his city, which may be 47,000, it may be 53,000. My job is not

to give him the number he wants, my job is to give an accurate

count without an undercount, without missing the Hispanics.

Mr. Waxman mentioned the number of States which lost money.

All of them, I believe, are heavily concentrated Hispanic popuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:24 Sep 06, 2000 Jkt 055702 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\55702 pfrm03 PsN: 55702
55

lations. It does not surprise me that they are the States that miss

money because those are the States where we miss people, and we

know it.

So my job is not to go out and find the number that some mayor

needs. My job is to find out how many people are actually there as

best we can do, and that is our task. And, so, yes, you do create

an incentive. Would you not admit that? Would you not agree?

Mr. MILLER. Right. You want the incentive, but the Census Bureau is going to be the judge if they are real people. The Founding

Fathers very specifically did not trust the States, you are right to

say that. That is the reason they were suspect of—they did not

even know about sampling back then, but the concept of sampling

allows for that manipulation, the exact thing that the Founding Fathers were concerned about is trusting the States with it. Now we

want to trust a political system to get involved with it and that is

what the real danger is.

Mr. PREWITT. No, I think what you are asking with post-census

LUCA is you want 39,000 political jurisdictions to be involved in

the count.

Mr. MILLER. But you will judge if they are real people. If they

are not real people, they are not going to be counted. But they

should have the right to say, hey, you missed somebody. You do not

think they should have that right now because you are not going

to make any mistakes. The Bureau—there are a lot of professionals

there, I do not want to criticize them——

Mr. PREWITT. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. But there are going to be mistakes. You are going

to have to admit—but now you are saying we do not want—we do

not trust the local communities to make that—that is what you are

saying. You just do not trust them, and I do not understand—I

have not found a reason we should not have it. Actually, we

need——

We are going to go through a couple rounds here, so let me go

to Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Dr. Prewitt, one of the greatest concerns that

State and local governments have in regard to local review is to

make sure that all new construction is counted and actually, Mr.

Chairman, this was one of the items that was raised in our hearing

in Arizona, where there is a tremendous amount of new construction taking place. And they want to make sure that it is counted

up to April 1, 2000; that it receives a census form.

Do you agree that this is a legitimate concern and are you doing

anything in the Census Bureau to address it?

Mr. PREWITT. Mrs. Maloney, two things have led to that concern,

one of which is our dress rehearsal experience that we did encounter, especially in Sacramento, as well as in South Carolina, a large

influx of new construction and then the recommendation of our various advisory committees.

So we have now included a procedure that allows the local governments to add addresses, especially of new construction and recently inhabited new construction, right up to March 31, 2000.

That is a difficult procedure. We embrace it.

56

It has the nice property that it slides into procedures we already

had in place and that really is important because we are going to

have duplication. That is, two things happen between late fall and

early spring, late fall of 1999 and early spring of 2000.

Two things are happening, one of which is a postal casing check,

where we go to every post office and ask them to take our address

list and see if they can add anything to it. That should have found

all of that new construction. But we were not convinced that would

find all the new construction, so we added a separate procedure

which goes back to the local governments, back with our address

list. Even if they did not participate in LUCA, they are going to

get this opportunity and say are there any new housing units since

we finalized this address list. If so, it puts it into the mail stream.

The problem is, just so you know how complicated this is, two

things are now feeding into that mail stream. One is the postal casing check and one is the local government. There will be duplications. Some addresses will appear twice. We have to unduplicate

those and then we have to send an enumerator out to make sure

the address really is there, which we will do, and then to enumerate the residence.

So, yes, we have now put in place something that slides into our

procedures in a way to bring that address list up to date to the

very last minute before census day.

Census day is really important. You have to count people on

April 1st. If somebody dies the afternoon before it, they should not

be counted. If a baby is born the next day, they should not be

counted. Everything has got to happen on that single day or we do

not have an accurate count.

Mrs. MALONEY. Could you comment on two areas? In 1990, very

few local governments participated in a post-census local review.

Could you comment on why you think so few participated? I understand you got the participation up to 86 percent with the pre-census?

Mr. PREWITT. Yes.

Mrs. MALONEY. That is really quite remarkable.

Mr. PREWITT. Yes.

Mrs. MALONEY. And have you identified, your professionals or

the department, identified that if you had additional resources

what would you institute before post-census review if resources

were available that would make the count more reliable or accurate? Do you have any other ideas that you would like to have

added?

Mr. PREWITT. Well, with respect to the local involvement in our

address list, we indeed are very pleased this time around. We think

we actually put together a better program, by far a better program,

and one which had more time built into it, which had more interaction with local governments, in which they recognized how critical it was to get that address list right before went into the field.

And I think that is why 86 percent of the addresses in the United

States have fallen into that program.

I should say, by the way, I do not interpret 14 percent as unimportant. My guess is some communities did not participate because

they realized we would do a good job without their participation,

57

that maybe the address list is so straightforward, as they are in

some communities.

So I am not even anxious about the ones that did not cooperate

because we think every city that wanted to cooperate, needed to cooperate, had the opportunity to do so.

Additional resources? Let me say a word about resources. The

Census Bureau appreciates the generosity expressed by Congressman Miller and other Members of Congress saying we will pay

whatever it takes and so forth. And we do appreciate it because we

are under an enormous burden to be accurate and to fully count.

On the other hand, the Census Bureau does not want to spend

more money than it needs to. We have a responsibility to the

American taxpayer as well as the American public and we do not

want to put in procedures which just because they seem to make

sense on the surface but would be costly but in our judgment, our

professional judgment, they will not add accuracy and they will not

add to the count.

So we actually all the time are looking at something and asking

is it going to give us real value for the money or are we going to

get real productivity out of this procedure.

So you will find us in some instances suggesting that perhaps for

some reasons we should not spend as much money as perhaps

would be coming out of one source or another.

We—well, let me stop there.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Prewitt, we know that advertising is a substantial part of the

overall process, yet we know that advertising is not necessarily

going to give us the bottom line results that we are looking for.

Are there categories or who are the categories of people who are

likely to be least impacted by the advertising campaign?

Mr. PREWITT. Mr. Davis, the advertising campaign is designed to

increase the mail response returned because every extra percent

we get in mail response returned lessens the pressure on us to go

out and enumerate in what we call our non-response followup.

The hard to count, the really hard to count, are a very special—

once you get into that, you have gotten 94 percent, you have gotten

96 percent, you have even gotten to 97.5, it really gets difficult for

all of those extra—the additional hard to count people. We do not

anticipate that the advertising campaign will be particularly successful at reaching those people.

Let me put it this way. The advertising campaign rests upon a

model of civic engagement. It rests upon an idea that we should

make people aware of the census, educate them to the importance

of it and engage it. The partnership program rests upon the same

kind of general model.

The problem is that the hard to count, the really difficult to

reach, the alienated, the angry, the ‘‘I don’t want to be bothered’’

people are the same people that are going to be hard to find in a

partnership program, the same people who are going to be hard to

reach with an advertising strategy.

So I welcome Mr. Miller’s interest in expanding and strengthening our partnership program. We really deeply believe in it. I welcome the commitment to expanding the advertising program, but

58

it would be imprudent of me to suggest that that will solve the fundamental problem that we will have a differential undercount.

There will be certain population groups in the United States

which will be counted, they will be racial groups, I regret to say,

because they are the groups which live in—two things go into the

undercount. There are housing attributes, crowded housing, housing that does not have regular addresses, irregular housing patterns, and then there are person attributes, poverty, lack of education, unemployment, high mobility.

Certain population groups, particularly racial minorities in this

society, have a preponderance of both the housing attributes which

make it difficult to count and the personal attributes which make

it difficult to count. Put those things together and it is simply very

difficult to find 100 percent of people who have that set of housing

attributes and that set of personal attributes.

So the advertising campaign, the partnership program, the promotion efforts really matter. It will turn this census, I hope, into

a census the American people will participate in, be proud of, but

it will not reach the hardest to count and they will be differentially

spread across different racial groups.

Mr. DAVIS. What about second mailing?

Mr. PREWITT. Well, second mailing is a—the Census Bureau actually tested it and thought about it and did a lot of research. I

brought a lot of that research with me today, if you would like to,

peruse it on the second mailing.

The problem with the targeted mailing, which is the one that we

initially wanted to do, which is the most appropriate, it is very—

the targeted mailing adds 6 weeks, so we simply had to set it aside

because what you have to do is forms have to come in, you have

to then code them all, find out who answered and who did not and

then find the ones that did not, re-mail it, wait for those to come

in.

We went to our printing contractors, we went to other of our consultants. They all said 6 weeks, which would be a real delay. If you

wait 6 weeks before you go out to do non-response followup, the

data in non-response followup begins to deteriorate because people

forget where they were. They have memory lapses. They forget who

lived in that apartment complex 3 months ago. And we are trying

to find 40 million households.

So there is a real consequence of the targeted mailing. Therefore,

blanket mailing closed that time down. We tried blanket mailing,

it produced duplicate responses, it produced a lot of confusion. We

simply could not do it.

The other thing to bear in mind about the second mailing is that

is the part of the population which almost cooperated. By definition, they are the ones that, well, oh, I forgot, I should have, and

so forth. We are going to find them. We are going to enumerate

them. We wish they had mailed it in in the first place, but we are

not going to miss them.

That is not going to help us with that last 3 or 4 percent, that

hard to count population group and we know that half of that count

is going to be children, that we are going to find not 100 percent

of the African Americans but 95 percent. We are not going to find

59

100 percent of the American Indians, but maybe 88, 90, 90 percent.

The same with the Hispanics, 95 percent.

That second mailing would not touch that problem at all.

Mr. DAVIS. You have given me a good feeling that you are going

to put forth and that we are going to put forth our best effort, and

I think it is most unfortunate that without utilization of the scientific knowledge that we have, in spite of all you are going to do,

we are still going to come up short.

Thank you very much.

Mr. PREWITT. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Mr. MILLER. Let me go over some of the other areas in ACT so

that we can continue this.

Mr. Davis brought up advertising. Have you got a proposed advertising budget yet or is that going to be a couple of weeks before

we get it or will Mr. Daley have it tomorrow or—it was $100 million originally and—you know——

Mr. PREWITT. Mr. Miller, as you appreciate, in this hearing I am

really not supposed to be talking about budget numbers.

Mr. MILLER. OK. Fine. But there is going to be an increase from

the original plan. Is that right? In advertising?

Mr. PREWITT. We hope so.

Mr. MILLER. OK. Let me—see, this is what is frustrating. We do

not know what is happening.

Mr. PREWITT. Well——

Mr. MILLER. We ask for details and—do not change it, but I cannot show you the details until it is over and then it is too late. That

is kind of an interesting strategy being used. But at any rate, let

me ask you one thing.

We had hearings in Miami and in Phoenix and, for example, with

the Haitian community in Miami, in Congresswoman Meek’s district, their great concern is to be able to have it as tailored to their

community as possible. When you advertise, you should advertise

on the Haitian radio station.

Now, I know during the dress rehearsal, for example, up in the

Dakotas on the Indian reservation, the advertising was not as tailored to that Indian reservation as possible.

How much flexibility is going to be in the advertising so that it

is not just the New York ad agency doing it, but so that the Haitian radio in Miami can have some tailored advertising? Is that

going to be possible?

Mr. PREWITT. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. In great detail and in great abundance.

Mr. MILLER. OK. Because I think that is true for—anything we

can, the more flexibility at the local level, and that is the partnership specialists and such. So you are going to be increasing the

number of partnership specialists, I think I have seen some numbers, fairly significantly because, you know, working with the local

community is very important. So you are increasing the partnerships, right? The specialists?

Mr. PREWITT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. Let me talk about the language for a minute. The

Haitian community, you know, they speak Creole within a lot of

the Haitian community, especially the new ones just coming over.

How are they supposed to complete a form?

60

Does someone have to—you have instructions, but they cannot—

they have to have someone else do it for them? Is that what you

are saying?

Would it not make it easier if we could let at least the—it does

not have to be everybody in the country has a form in Creole, but

within the Haitian community, in Miami in particular, the partnership specialists could help target and make them available? Why

would we not want to make it easier for the Haitians to fill out the

form?

Mr. PREWITT. Well, that is what our telephone assistance centers

will do and our 15,000 other specialists. We will draw them out of

those language communities. We will work with them with our

partnership program and other activities, work with them to go

back into those communities where people have not responded. We

are talking about a small number, but nevertheless we want to find

them all.

So I do think that our language program—quite honestly, Mr.

Chairman, I really think that our language assistance program is

as comprehensive and thoughtful as it can possibly be to reach

even that last less than 1 percent of the population.

And I just invite you to think with us about the problem of taking—you have a Creole population in Miami and we are now sending a form up to Alaska that says, aha, we can give you a Creole

questionnaire. It is not a good way to go about doing this business.

You want to be flexible and targeted.

I did read the testimony from the Miami hearing, Mr. Miller, and

I think the reason that they came back to you and back to you and

back to you on sampling is because they were afraid all those people would not be counted unless we had something like an accuracy

in coverage evaluation.

Mr. MILLER. But the courts have ruled, we are going to do a full

enumeration, and the concern we have is the two-number census.

I think you agree the Supreme Court did rule and we are going to

a full enumeration.

Mr. PREWITT. Oh, absolutely.

Mr. MILLER. OK.

Mr. PREWITT. Here it is. Here it is.

Mr. MILLER. OK. So we can talk about sampling, we can talk

about sampling, but the fact is we need to do a full enumeration

and so—I just—how about people that are blind? I guess they will

have to do it by telephone. They are not allowed to fill out a form

because we do not offer it in Braille.

But I would think in Congresswoman Meek’s district it would be

that she has a fairly high concentration, I do not know what the

number is, of Haitians and we should make it easier rather than

more difficult. So let me go to a couple of the other issues.

The Meek bill that Congresswoman Meek talked about. Do you

all support that bill? I was reading your testimony, I was a little—

I was not sure. Do you support that legislation that Congresswoman Meek has proposed?

Mr. PREWITT. We know that recruiting the enumerators is a huge

task. We have already had very substantial experience and success

at welfare-to-work recruits. We also know this runs into some complicated legal questions in 50 States.

61

Certainly we support anything that will make it easier to us to

recruit the enumerators we need and if that turns out to be the

wavier bill, good. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. I do not want to put words in Secretary Shalala’s

mouth, but when she was at the corporation’s hearing, she had

some legal doubts, too. But I think it cannot hurt in this—local review—it cannot hurt.

Mr. PREWITT. It certainly cannot hurt the Census Bureau.

Mr. MILLER. It cannot hurt the Bureau and neither does it hurt

post-census local review.

Congresswoman Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. The bottom line is that we want to get the most

accurate count possible, and we know what we got in the last

count, we know what happened in 1990, we know that we missed

8.4 million people, that 4.4 million were counted twice, and we

know that the people missed were largely children, Latinos, Asians,

blacks, American Indians. So really the underlying question we

have is how do we increase the count for particularly the undercounted areas?

And in a bipartisan effort, and I would like to quote from the Republican former head of the Census Bureau, Dr. Barbara Bryant,

and in talking on enumeration she said, ‘‘Enumeration cannot

count everyone. Throwing more money at enumeration will not improve it. In 1990, we hit the wall trying to count everyone by enumeration. The 1990 census was adequately funded, there was no

shortage of funds for hiring more enumerators or making additional efforts.’’

And, as we know, she was a strong supporter of a modern count

to correct the undercount. So the bottom line is we either correct

the undercount or we knowingly go forward, missing millions of

Americans. That is the fundamental question before us. We know

we are going to do enumeration for apportionment. That is over.

We know the courts have said we can get a more accurate count

for data, the distribution of funds and for redistricting within the

States. The only question before us is are we going to get a more

accurate count or not, or are we deliberately going to forward missing millions of Americans.

Now, we have had many bells and whistles put before this committee, but if I understand your testimony, none of it improves the

undercount. Am I right or wrong?

Dr. Prewitt, would you comment?

Mr. PREWITT. Well, regretfully not. I have explained in other forums, I would re-explain today if I may, that the—and I appreciate

that Mr. Miller has characterized this as being defeatist; it is not

being defeatist, it is being honest, I would not want to mislead either the U.S. Congress, that would not be my job to mislead the

U.S. Congress or to mislead the American people.

All of the conditions which make it difficult to count people

which we have experienced in 1980, 1970, again in 1990, they are

growing. We have a better census. That is, this census is better

than the 1990 census. So we are running harder to stay in place.

Now, running harder to stay in place means that we will not

count everyone. I hope we do as well as 1990. It is not defeatist

to say that, it is to recognize the blunt realities of the lack of civic

62

engagement, of the alienation, of the mobile life styles, of the irregular housing. It is to recognize those realities and to try to compensate as best we can for them.

There will be an undercount, I am afraid, and it will be differential. It will not be equally spread across all regions and all population groups. The rural poor, the urban minorities, we will not find

them at the same rate we find people living in the kind of neighborhoods we do. It just—those are the facts. I wish they were not.

The only way to know that after the fact will be if we do, as we

have proposed, an accuracy and coverage evaluation. That will tell

us after the fact how well we did up until December 31st. This is

not a two-number census. There is one number for apportionment

and that will be presented, as is our obligation, to the U.S. President by December 31st. The census is not over.

That does not conclude the census. The census goes on. And we

will continue to be as complete and accurate as we can be. And

that will produce a more accurate set of numbers which can be

used for purposes other than apportionment.

Mrs. MALONEY. So it is very clear, my colleagues, what is before

us. We either continue to miss millions of Americans who are disproportionately children and minorities, or we correct it and we

have the scientific community which universally has come forward

and pointed out the way to correct it and the Census Bureau has

built it into their plan for their accuracy and evaluation.

Now, I have one question that I think is tremendously

important——

Mr. MILLER. We will have another round.

Mrs. MALONEY. I have to ask it right now because I have a lot

on my chest and I am beginning to get very angry with what I am

beginning to see here.

What I am beginning to see and what I am beginning to hear

from the professionals is that some of these ‘‘improvements’’ which

are not the improvements that are suggested by the scientific community, but the ‘‘improvements’’ are going to hinder the Census

Bureau, it is going to make it harder for them to come forward

with an accurate count. I have heard you say that today.

My question is do you think it is deliberately being put forward

by the Republican majority to just make the census professionals

have a more difficult time or make it impossible for them to go forward? If you have to re-let all of your contracts, if you have to rechange all your programs.

Would you please comment?

Mr. PREWITT. Well, if it is all right with Mrs. Maloney, I will not

comment on motives. I can comment on consequences, but not motives.

I have every reason to believe that Mr. Miller wants a complete

and accurate count. I would have to suggest that some of the

things that have been put on the table like the second mailing, the

post-census LUCA, the language initiative, those three in particular, if they were now mandated by legislation, they would be

very difficult, this thing would have to be—we would have to start

aspects of this all over. Contracts, procedures, software, training,

printing, publication, promotional materials. We would have to sort

of take a back look. And this is very late in the day to do that.

63

I would not at all impugn anyone’s motives, of course, but I

would say that certain kinds of things have consequences that perhaps have not been completely thought through, and that is why

I welcome the opportunity to testify.

Mr. MILLER. Before I go to Mr. Davis, I wanted to say I am offended by Mrs. Maloney’s accusation that my motives are different.

I thank you, Dr. Prewitt. We all want the best count possible. I

think it is going pretty low to start making those type accusations.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And, Dr. Prewitt, I just want to again thank you for your candor,

for your forthrightfullness and professionalism. It seems to me that

what you have suggested and what you are saying is that you really cannot get blood out of a turnip, that you can take it, you can

dice it, you can slice it, you spice it, you can curl it, you can swirl

it, but in the end you are still going to have turnip juice and I am

afraid that is where we are, so I thank you very much.

Mr. MILLER. Let me—we had 10 proposals and you said you are

basically agreeable with most of them, seven of them, anyway. And

I would think rather than being fatalistic or pessimistic like my

colleagues on the minority, that we cannot do any better, I think

we need to do the best job we can and by having more partnership

specialists, which you agree with, is going to help, because the

partnership specialists hopefully are going to be targeted, I assume

additional ones will be targeted to the hard to count areas. Is that

a good assumption?

Mr. PREWITT. [Nodding.]

Mr. MILLER. I mean, that should help. And we have got to do a

full enumeration. The courts have ruled and we can start—we need

to go back to sampling, go back to sampling, go back to sampling,

it is a broken record. The courts have ruled, let us move forward,

do the best job we can.

Let me go over a few more of the issues. Census in the schools;

that is a good program, I think. Now, start off with only 20 percent

of the schools but I do not know if we can get all of the schools.

Any idea of how many we are going to be able to try to get yet or—

is that still secret information?

Mr. PREWITT. No, I did—in case the committee has not had a

chance to see it, we did, of course, pre-test our census in the

schools program and I have these materials if you are interested.

The 20 percent was targeted on the hard-to-reach parts of the

population and it was restricted to 20 percent for budgetary reasons. And if we can go to 100 percent, we would love to go to 100

percent. We would love to engage every school child in the United

States in this civic ceremony. It would be a marvelous thing. And

so we would welcome the opportunity to get this into 100 percent

of the schools.

Mr. MILLER. Well, if that is possible, I would be very supportive

because it is—civics is what it is and to make it possible, anything

we can do, I think I would be supportive and I would hope my colleagues would not object to that.

The Americorp, I understand you are working with Americorp

trying to find a way to work out something. Is that right?

64

Mr. PREWITT. Well, yes. In fact, we have already met with

Americorp, not with Americorp, but the Corporation for National

Service, of course.

Americorp is only one of their five programs and we have now

worked out with Mr. Wolford and his staff a way to cooperate not

just with Americorp but also with the National Service Sector, with

the Foster Grandparent Program, their retired and senior volunteer program, every part. It is one of our most important partnerships. We have after all already signed up over 10,000 partnerships.

Mr. MILLER. Well, that is good. And a lot of this will help in the

hard to count areas, right? Some of these will be in inner city

areas? Is that right?

Mr. PREWITT. Oh, certainly.

Mr. MILLER. So I hope my colleagues will not object to helping

use that effort, too, since they minimize the ability.

The matching grant program you said you are not just not set

up to be a grantmaking organization. Is there someone else at the

Census Bureau that can do that? Not the Census Bureau, at the

Commerce Department? The Commerce Department is a huge

grantmaking organization.

Mr. PREWITT. I have not explored it with the Commerce Department. You know, after all, I spent 10 years in private foundations.

I have a bit of experience with grant programs. And perhaps there

is a way you could look to the private foundations. Many of them

are quite engaged in the census.

They have bureaucracies, they have mechanisms to sort of control the quality of the grants, monitoring the performance of the

people who get grants and so forth. So perhaps you would like to

explore this with the American foundation community. It would be

a very important partnership between the public and the private

sector. We would welcome more money going into our partnerships.

You can appreciate why I am a little hesitant at this late stage

to make the Census Bureau into something which I know is very

difficult for it to be, which is to say a grantmaking operation because I have had 10 years of experience with that.

So it is not a hesitancy about wanting money in the hands of the

partners, it is how is the most effective way to make that happen.

Mr. MILLER. Well, maybe, within the Commerce Department,

there is more of an appropriate vehicle that can be handled kind

of independently because this is something that again I think we

would all support, especially for the hard-to-count areas.

Let me have one final question and go back to post-census local

review. What is the relationship to post-census local review and the

ACE issue? Is there any connection between the two of those? The

300,000 sample.

Does it impact the—because I have heard that one of the reasons

you are opposing it is that it will make it harder to do the sampling

adjustment. Is that true or——

Mr. PREWITT. No, sir. I do not know on what basis that would

have been suggested to you.

Mr. MILLER. So the post-census local review has no impact, to

your knowledge, on the 300,000 sampling process, right?

Mr. PREWITT. No.

65

Mr. MILLER. Because of the time factor. Is that——

Mr. PREWITT. It is important to know that the accuracy and coverage evaluation is an accuracy and coverage evaluation of addresses and people.

Mr. MILLER. Right.

Mr. PREWITT. So maybe in some kind of complicated way, but,

no.

Mr. MILLER. OK.

Mr. PREWITT. We will go back and find out how well we did with

our address list, just as we will go back and find out how well we

did with our count.

Mr. MILLER. OK. Thank you. That is my final question.

Does anybody else have a final question?

Mrs. MALONEY. I do.

Are you aware, Dr. Prewitt, that the advisory committee does not

support the post-census local review? They uniformly came out in

opposition to it?

Mr. PREWITT. I believe that what they recommended again was

the attempt by a congressional committee to legislate it in such a

way that it would sort of interfere with the ongoing procedures of

the census itself.

Mrs. MALONEY. And are you aware that the post-census local review is scheduled for a markup this week to be reported out and

to pass, I assume?

So I would just like to ask you, GAO came out with a report that

was very critical of the post-census local review program and, given

their findings, I am sure you read their report and the Bureau’s

prior experiences, what reasons can you give to hope that the outcome of the post-census review will be any different this time?

Mr. PREWITT. Well, there should be sort of nothing for the local

governments to do if they cooperated with us back when we wanted

them to cooperate with us, which is to get the address list right.

I do want to remind you that there is also a boundary annexation

process that we do do late in the fall of 2000 which makes sure

that all the boundaries are correct and we do do that, of course,

with the local governments.

So it is not as if we are not constantly interacting with the local

governments about sort of improving our procedures. I guess I am

just less convinced than the chairman that sort of giving them the

counts and then asking them to sort of say, well, is that as many

people as live under these bridges or whatever, to use the metaphor that was used earlier, it strikes me as not a very effective way

to go about involving local governments in the census operation,

which we have now been doing for about 8 months.

Mrs. MALONEY. Will it hinder your ability to get the job done?

Mr. PREWITT. Any new procedure that is not already embedded

in what we are trying to put in place today will hinder our job. It

just will. And I cannot say that strongly enough. And this is not

to say a given idea is not a good idea, perhaps, but it is very unlikely that it is in a domain that we have not thought about.

We have been doing it, you know, for a couple hundred years. We

are not perfect and it is quite possible that there is something out

there we have not even thought of. But the job is not like most people think it is. It is a count, it is 120 million addresses and it is

66

putting them together on a single day. There is no other operation

like it. So people who have not lived in that operation perhaps do

not appreciate what goes into it.

I would love it if the members of this subcommittee would come

out and sit in that lock-up room for an hour or two and watch the

process at work. And then you would know how risky it is to sort

of say at this late state in the cycle, aha, I have a better idea. And

say pull this out and put that in.

It is just—I have to say, Mr. Miller, you worried about my administrative accomplishments and achievements before I got here

and I appreciate the basis of that worry, but I can tell you as a

manager that it does not make sense to take something of this

complexity and this magnitude and start redesigning it at this

stage in the process. We are actually on schedule.

I am sorry we do not have the budget for you today, but we are

on the schedule that matters. The schedule that matters is April

1, 2000, December 31, 2000, April 1, 2001. We are on that schedule. Nothing that—anything that would deviate us from that schedule, the country will pay a price.

And that is all I can say and I can say it as strongly as you will

allow me to say it. I would invite you, members of your staff, to

come out to that lock-up room and watch it happen and know how

intricate it is.

It is this sort of stuff and then it is putting it up on the screen,

it is pulling down all of the procedures that go into a particular

line, all of the subsequent activities that happen because of that

line, making sure that everything connects with everything else.

That is what it is to put this kind of operation in place. And it is

very, very late in the day to imagine that we can do anything other

than move forward with it.

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, I would like to respond to your invitation

to go to the lock-up room and see how it works. I hope my colleagues on the committee will join us and I hope you would open

it up to the public so that we could all see it. Maybe we could put

it on C–SPAN or CNN and let everyone see how changing the census this late in the game will jeopardize being able to come forward

with a more accurate count.

I thank you, Dr. Prewitt, for your testimony.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Davis, do you have any——

Mr. DAVIS. No further questions.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you for your invitation, because we have had

a great frustration over the past few months or so, due to a lack

of information from the Census Bureau and now maybe—I guess

the openness is that the staff can go out and maybe see a little bit

more of what is happening and that, I think, would be good because this secret attitude is not building trust when we do not have

the numbers and we need to have a system.

We need to also start talking about what is going to happen in

the 2010 census, how do we avoid this issue of trust we have today.

And I look forward to our next time, after we get the plans, to

come back, and Congress does have a role and I think if you—to

say that Congress is irrelevant—and I know you are not saying exactly that, but you are saying basically, butt out, we are the professionals, it is kind of what you are saying, because it is too late for

67

us to get involved. But, read Article 1 of the Constitution, the

House of Representatives very specifically has the power to direct,

and so we want to have the best census possible. I think working

together, we can.

So with that, let me say on behalf of the committee, let me thank

you again for coming and I ask unanimous consent that all Members’ and witnesses’ written opening statements be included in the

record and without objection, so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for

Congresswoman Kay Granger to submit an opening statement, if

she would like.

Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ