U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

46–319 CC 1998

OVERSIGHT OF METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL

AREAS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT REFORM 

AND OVERSIGHT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 29, 1997

Serial No. 105–79

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT 

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

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 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South 

Carolina 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey 

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

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 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

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 

WILLIAM MOSCHELLA, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian 

JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk 

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida 

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South 

Carolina 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

J. RUSSELL GEORGE, Staff Director and Counsel 

MARK BRASHER, Professional Staff Member 

JOHN HYNES, Professional Staff Member 

ANDREA MILLER, Clerk 

DAVID MCMILLEN, Minority Professional Staff Member 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 29, 1997 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of: 

Hinchey, Hon. Maurice D., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York ................................................................................................... 27

Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania .......................................................................................................... 5

Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 17

Katzen, Sally, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget .................................................... 38

Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Hawaii ............................................................................................................ 9

Redmond, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Mexico ................................................................................................... 24

Spar, Ed, executive director, Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics; and Alvin Marshall, member of the board of directors, 

Schuylkill Economic Development Corp. .................................................... 73

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

Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 35 

Hinchey, Hon. Maurice D., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 29

Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of .................................................................. 7

Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 3

Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 18

Katzen, Sally, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget: 

Memorandum dated May 5, 1994 ............................................................ 59

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 43

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

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

Marshall, Alvin, member of the board of directors, Schuylkill Economic 

Development Corp.: 

Letters concerning people who feel strongly about becoming an MSA . 84

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 94

Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Hawaii: 

Letters dated July 25, 1997 ...................................................................... 10

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15

Redmond, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Mexico, prepared statement of ............................................................ 25

Spar, Ed, executive director, Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, prepared statement of ......................................................... 76

(1)

OVERSIGHT OF METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL 

AREAS 

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1997 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Horn, Sununu, Maloney, and Davis of 

Illinois. 

Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and chief counsel; 

Mark Brasher and John Hynes, professional staff members; Andrea 

Miller, clerk; and David McMillen, minority professional staff member. 

Mr. HORN. The Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology will come to order. 

A metropolitan area is an area with a large population center 

that is economically and socially integrated with adjacent communities. The Office of Management and Budget designates and defines metropolitan areas following a set of official standards. These 

standards were last modified in 1990. 

Metropolitan area designations are used as a framework for the 

Federal statistical system. They are also important to local community leaders for promoting a community as a business district. 

State governments use metropolitan areas to make communities eligible for programs that may be focused on urban or rural districts. 

The private sector uses metropolitan areas to develop sales territories and market new products, among other uses. 

Some have argued that Federal standards for population density 

and contiguous population requirements do not take into account 

variances such as geographic barriers. Certain kinds of economic 

activity, such as intensive mining, may disqualify a community 

from metropolitan area designation because of the contiguous population requirement. 

In addition, some communities have argued they face unfair barriers to recognition because they are squeezed between several existing metropolitan areas. For example, a requirement that 15 percent of workers commute to a single metropolitan area may be unattainable if the community has several surrounding metropolitan 

areas that each draw 10 percent. 

2

The communities and their elected representatives argue that ignoring these anomalies is unfair. It can reduce access to government programs because State governments often use Federal metropolitan designations. Designation as a metropolitan area also allows Federal funding to go directly through the local agency rather 

than through the State government. 

This hearing will allow Congress to examine these and other 

issues surrounding this important statistical designation. We will 

receive testimony from Members of Congress, administration officials involved in administering Federal statistical operations, and 

others in the private sector who are affected by the issue. 

We are fortunate to be joined by Representatives Tim Holden 

from Pennsylvania, Patsy Mink of Hawaii, Duncan Hunter of California, and Maurice Hinchey of New York. We are equally fortunate to be joined by Sally Katzen, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget; Mr. 

Ed Spar, executive director, Council of Professional Associations on 

Federal Statistics and Mr. Alvin Marshall, member of the board of 

directors, Schuylkill Economic Development Corp. 

We thank all of our witnesses for being with us today and we 

look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:]

3


g:\graphics\46319.001
4


g:\graphics\46319.002
5

Mr. HORN. Why don’t we just go in the order of the Members 

that are on the agenda. 

Mr. Holden. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. HOLDEN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and we thank you 

very much for holding this very important hearing. 

We come before you today representing a bipartisan coalition of 

Members of Congress stretching across America from New York to 

Hawaii, and their respective communities. The issue at hand is the 

need to change the standard for the 2000 Census, allowing counties 

with 100,000 population or more to be designated as a metropolitan 

statistical area. 

Under the standards established for the 1990 census, metropolitan statistical area status could be conferred on a county by having, A, an urbanized area with a core population of 50,000 people 

and a county population of 100,000 people; B, a contiguous population of 50,000 people in a county of at least 100,000 people; or 

C, an area contiguous to a previously designated MSA with an outmigration of at least 15 percent of the population to the previously 

designated MSA. 

Applying this criteria to all of the counties in our coalition makes 

the existing standards questionable at best and unfair in the least. 

In my home county of Schuylkill, years of both deep mining and 

strip mining have resulted in steep slopes that are undevelopable, 

and thus do not allow us to meet the density requirements and the 

contiguous population figures necessary under the current standard. In arguing that these areas are not indeed undevelopable, 

Government agencies have pointed to the houses built on cliff sides 

on the West Coast as a method of comparison. Building on a cliff 

side in California to overlook the Pacific Ocean is far different than 

building on a strip mine slope to overlook old abandoned mines. 

Schuylkill County is currently fighting hard to overcome decades 

of high unemployment due to the decline of the coal industry. Unemployment in the area has gone from a high of 22 percent in the 

1960’s to a current level of 8 percent due to the diligence and hard 

work of its people. The county has a population of 153,000 and yet 

is still denied MSA status due to antiquated standards. 

Metropolitan statistical area status is enjoyed by hundreds of 

counties throughout the United States, several of whom possess 

fewer than the 50,000 contiguous density requirement and have a 

county population of less than 100,000. These communities are 

granted MSA status because 15 percent of their population commute to an already designated MSA. 

Again, I compare this standard to Schuylkill County where 22 

percent of the population commutes outside the county to work. 

However, because the traveling is divided among three areas—

Reading, Harrisburg, and Allentown—the 15 percent requirement 

is not met. Where is the fairness in this standard? Where is the 

equity in this standard? What valid justification is there for this 

arbitrary 15 percent figure? 

Fairness for communities to compete for growth and development 

depend heavily on the adoption of this standard. Advertising execuVerDate jul 14 2003 11:33 Dec 15, 2003 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46319.TXT 46319
6

tives, marketing experts, manufacturers, and individuals looking to 

locate retail stores begin their search and purchases with MSAs. 

We are requesting this additional standard be added to allow all 

counties with a population of 100,000 or more people to be designated as a metropolitan statistical area. 

I would like to acknowledge the work of my fellow members of 

this coalition in organizing this bipartisan group and acknowledge 

the great efforts on the part of my constituents in both the public 

and private sector. 

Mr. Chairman I thank you for taking the time to hold this hearing this morning. 

Mr. HORN. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tim Holden follows:]

7


g:\graphics\46319.003
8


g:\graphics\46319.004
9

Mr. HORN. Congresswoman Mink. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATSY T. MINK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII 

Mrs. MINK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I too 

thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of a change in 

the metropolitan statistical area standards to allow 12 new counties to qualify. Current regulations should be modified to allow a 

simple definition, that areas with populations of at least 100,000 

people be approved as MSAs. 

Twelve counties are unable to qualify for MSA status because 

they do not meet the density or contiguous population requirements, despite the fact that these counties have populations well 

over 100,000 people. The proposed change is necessary to restore 

fairness to the MSA designation process. 

One definition already allowed under the current standard is 

that at least 15 percent of the area’s population commute to a recognized MSA. Accordingly, 16 communities now designated have 

populations of less than 100,000 people. 

The Hawaii congressional delegation supports this change, and I 

would like to submit for the record copies of joint letters signed by 

my delegation to the chair and ranking member expressing this 

support. Our interest in this matter is that Maui County and the 

big island, Hawaii County, in the State of Hawaii should and could 

be included as MSAs if this change were made. 

Mr. HORN. Without objection, those letters and other material 

will be inserted in the record. 

[The information referred to follows:]

10


g:\graphics\46319.005
11


g:\graphics\46319.006
12


g:\graphics\46319.007
13


g:\graphics\46319.008
14

Mrs. MINK. Thank you. 

In 1990, neither Maui County nor Hawaii County contained a 

city or urbanized area of 50,000. Kahului was counted at 16,000 

and Hilo, at 37,000. If you have visited Maui, you know that 

Kahului and Wailuku are contiguous towns and their joint populations might very well qualify Maui County. 

According to the Census Bureau, without a regulatory change, 

the only method under which these counties could gain a MSA status would be through the contracting of a special census to show 

that an urbanized area could be defined around Kahului or Hilo. 

A special census is a complicated and expensive process that these 

counties could not afford. 

As we prepare for the 2000 Census, standing regulations should 

be changed to allow a simple requirement that areas containing 

more than 100,000 people be deemed acceptable as MSAs. Any assistance you may provide to accomplish this change would be deeply appreciated by my constituents, and I thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

As you know, the whole idea of contiguity, as prescribed by the 

regulations, simply doesn’t fit in my situation because, like my colleague here who described the abandoned coal fields, I do have the 

Pacific Ocean separating my populations. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HORN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Patsy T. Mink follows:]

15


g:\graphics\46319.009
16


g:\graphics\46319.010
17

Mr. HORN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Hunter. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Holden, for being 

the gentleman who at least from our office perspective, started this 

effort; and we quickly joined on. I want to thank Congresswoman 

Mink for her strong efforts, and Congressman Redmond for his efforts on this. 

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that MSA status is a standard of economic focus. And if you have it, you tend to get more economic 

focus and, therefore, more economic development than if you don’t 

have it. So it’s important, and I think its importance is illustrated 

by the community of Pocatello, ID, which I understand, once becoming an MSA after the 1990 census, has seen an interest in business locations increase by 20 percent. In my county in Imperial 

County, CA, which is over the coastal range from San Diego County, we have an unemployment rate that hovers between 20 and 30 

percent. We desperately need MSA status. 

I think the second point here has been well made by my colleagues and that is that there is not a logical reason for the denial 

of MSA status based on noncontiguity, I guess you would call it, 

noncontiguous communities, because these communities being noncontiguous is often a function of the economic nature of the community that we are talking about. In Mr. Holden’s description, he 

talked about the steep slopes that are the result of mining. In my 

area, we have a major agriculture county, and we have—as the 

county developed and grew—very productive farmland, some of the 

most productive farmland in the world, lying between these communities. 

So we have a series of strong communities in Imperial County 

which, if they were not separated by this extremely productive, privately held farmland, would very possibly have melded into a contiguous community, thereby inviting MSA status. But they did not, 

and it is good that they have not, because we grow a great deal 

of the produce for this Nation in that county. 

Nonetheless, I think that the MSA status is logical and is justified in my county as in the counties of my colleagues. 

So I also have, Mr. Chairman, a number of letters that I would 

like to offer for the record, and I would hope that the committee 

would move forward and give us this designation which is so needed by the communities in Imperial County. 

Mr. HORN. Without objection. Those letters and materials will be 

put into the record. 

Mr. HUNTER. And I offer my statement too for the record. 

Mr. HORN. That is automatic. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Duncan Hunter follows:]

18


g:\graphics\46319.011
19


g:\graphics\46319.012
20


g:\graphics\46319.013
21


g:\graphics\46319.014
22


g:\graphics\46319.015
23


g:\graphics\46319.016
24

Mr. HORN. Mr. Redmond, the distinguished new colleague from 

New Mexico. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL REDMOND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Mr. REDMOND. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

allowing me to be here this morning; and members of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, fellow Members of Congress, ladies and gentlemen of the 

audience. I am grateful to have this opportunity to express my 

views regarding the changing standards for the definition of metropolitan statistical areas. 

Like most of you this morning, I too believe that changing the 

MSA standards would positively impact many communities nationwide, including my home State of New Mexico. I believe that the 

city of Farmington in San Juan County, New Mexico, with MSA 

status, would be vital to stimulate the economic growth in that 

area. It is plagued with high unemployment and underemployment. 

There is a portion of San Juan County, on the Navajo reservation, 

where we run between 30 and 40 percent unemployment, and it 

has been that way for almost 30 years. 

As Congress’ newest Member, I recently came to Washington 

with several goals, one of which is aimed at improving the employment opportunities in my home State of New Mexico. By receiving 

MSA status, San Juan County would be placed in a preferred position among national marketing directors and would be able to attract hotels, restaurants, and retail establishments. According to 

the 1990 census, a substantial portion of San Juan County workers 

are employed already in the service industries, so this would be an 

asset to the community. 

In addition to increased employment opportunities, a change in 

the MSA status would result in additional revenue for roads, 

homes funded through Housing and Urban Development, which is 

very important, and also Medicare reimbursements. The potential 

for improvements for the infrastructure is vast. The measurement 

of the epicenter often is not an indication of the population density 

of the region as it is in northern New Mexico. A recent conversation that I had with Farmington Mayor John Taylor revealed 

strong community support for MSA status and Mayor Taylor said 

that the MSA status could greatly improve the quality of life in 

San Juan County. 

Like many other communities in the Nation, San Juan deserves 

the ability to compete on a level playing field for Federal funds; 

and I support and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support 

the proposal that would change the Office of Management and 

Budget MSA standards for the 2000 Census to include all the counties with a population of 100,000 or more. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Bill Redmond follows:]

25


g:\graphics\46319.017
26


g:\graphics\46319.018
27

Mr. HORN. We are now joined by our distinguished colleague 

from New York, Mr. Hinchey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAURICE D. HINCHEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very much 

appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning, and I very 

much appreciate the fact that you are conducting this hearing on 

an issue that is of great importance to the communities that are 

represented by myself and the other members here on the panel before you this morning. 

As you know, the current census regulations for metropolitan 

statistical areas require either an urbanized area with a core population of 50,000 people and a county population of 100,000 people, 

or a contiguous population of 50,000 people in a county of at least 

100,000 people, or an area contiguous to a previously designated 

MSA with at least a 15 percent commuter rate to that previously 

designated metropolitan statistical area. These criteria put one of 

the counties that I represent in the 26th Congressional District in 

New York, namely Ulster County, at a distinct and perhaps insurmountable disadvantage. 

First, most municipalities in this particular county, Ulster, were 

incorporated more than a century ago, and in some cases, two or 

three centuries ago. As you can imagine, cities and towns of that 

age have much smaller boundaries than, for example, relatively 

new cities in the western parts of the country. In terms of meeting 

the core population and contiguity requirements, the communities 

of Ulster County are disadvantaged. Outer, more suburban areas 

incorporated within a western city’s boundaries are incorporated 

into separate townships and villages. In the district that I represent, the core city in this particular county, the city of Kingston’s 

more recent incorporation was at the turn of this century, and New 

York State law strongly discourages future annexation. In fact, as 

a practical matter, it is impossible. 

Second, this particular county, Ulster, faces difficulties in meeting the commuter rate requirements into other MSAs because of 

the congestion of our region in New York. Ulster County is within 

close proximity to three other designated MSAs and a reasonable 

distance to the New York metropolitan region. While Ulster has a 

commuter rate higher than 15 percent, 15 percent of the population 

does not commute to any one MSA. But that higher rate of 15 percent finds themselves commuting into a number of metropolitan 

statistical areas, including the metropolitan area of New York City. 

Finally, the efforts of the residents of Ulster County to protect 

the integrity of its communities effectively prohibit Ulster County 

from becoming an MSA. Ulster County is a scenically rich and historically important area. Because we have made a concerted effort 

to preserve the unique character of our region, instead of promoting strip mall development up and down the main thoroughfares, we fail to meet the census contiguity requirements. The Census requirements seem designed for areas with steady, consistent 

geography. With its wetlands and rolling hills and open rural 

areas, the topography of Ulster County cannot fit these particular 

designations and requirements. For these reasons and others, we 

28

believe that changes to the metropolitan statistical area requirements are needed for the Census which will take place in 2000. 

To the letter of the law, Ulster County has and may always have 

difficulty in meeting the current requirements as they presently 

exist, yet the county has a population of more than 165,000, a population as much as 150 percent higher than other MSAs. In the 

spirit of the law, I believe Ulster County and other counties represented here deserve to be qualified for MSA status. 

We clearly have a community of interest surrounding our primary city, the county seat, Kingston. Kingston, New York, is the 

center of commercial, civic, and cultural activity in this area. The 

fact that the natural growth of the city’s surrounding population 

clusters is slightly farther away than in other parts of the county 

should not preclude the county from MSA status and the benefits 

that flow from that designation. 

The bottom line is that any Census regulations of this kind are 

arbitrary and, I think, need more flexibility, Mr. Chairman, than 

they currently have. As my colleagues and I have explained, there 

are communities across this country that deserve this designation, 

but are precluded from it due to their own unique characteristics. 

Without some flexibility in the regulation, the Census is also precluding these communities from certain economic development advantages. I realize that economic development was never the intent 

of the MSA status, MSA status was never designed to help promote 

economic development, but in practice, MSA status is an important 

tool frequently used by the private sector in making a variety of 

economic decisions. Changes to the Census regulations are sorely 

needed to ensure that these communities can compete with counties of comparable size. We request Census regulations be changed 

to allow counties with populations of at least 100,000 people to be 

designated as metropolitan statistical areas. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I just want to personally thank you for 

your attention to this issue. It is one that is important to a large 

number of the people that I represent, and I think that the committee has before it a number of reasons why this designation 

ought to be changed. And I hope and know, as I know you, Mr. 

Chairman, that it will get your careful and considerate deliberation; and I thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Maurice D. Hinchey follows:]

29


g:\graphics\46319.019
30


g:\graphics\46319.020
31

Mr. HORN. Well, we thank all five of you for testifying. 

We are joined by the ranking minority member on the committee, Mrs. Maloney. Do you have any comments? 

Mrs. MALONEY. I congratulate all of my colleagues for coming forward. Mr. Hinchey from the great State of New York, you put forward a very forceful testimony and I look forward to the other remarks. Thank you. 

I ask that my opening remarks be put in the record as read. 

Mr. HORN. They will be without objection. 

[The prepared statements of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney and Hon. 

Danny K. Davis follow:]

32


g:\graphics\46319.021
33


g:\graphics\46319.022
34


g:\graphics\46319.023
35


g:\graphics\46319.024
36

Mr. HORN. Mr. Sununu. 

Mr. SUNUNU. I have no opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate the testimony that has been presented here, and 

I look forward to the testimony from Ms. Katzen as well. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. MALONEY. May I just ask one question? Very briefly, could 

you just go down the line and just answer one question. What do 

you see your communities gaining if they are designated metropolitan areas? In just a brief answer, what would you gain if you were 

designated one? 

Mr. HOLDEN. Mrs. Maloney, I believe that the gain that would 

come from the Federal Government directly would be minimal. I 

think there might be some changes in reimbursement to health 

care providers, but I think the gain from the private sector, the investment and economic development, is what our communities 

would gain. 

Mrs. MINK. I think my response would be the same. I don’t think 

that there are large potential Federal grants. There might be a few 

at HUD in CDBG and programs like that, but, basically it is being 

listed as a significant area for potential development, and my two 

counties that are affected would be, I think, dramatically assisted 

if they were included in this designation. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Mrs. Maloney, I agree with my colleagues that 

there would not be any significant alteration of relationships between these communities and the Federal Government in any really material way. However, there are benefits which would flow to 

the communities as a result of MSA designation, as a result of 

their interaction with the private sector. 

A number of major economic entities in the private sector base 

decisions about locations and various things of that nature—advertising—on the designation of MSAs. They will, for example, routinely consult the directory of metropolitan statistical areas, and 

they will focus their attention on those MSAs. If you live in a community that is not designated as an MSA, therefore, you do not get 

that attention and the economic benefits that flow from it. 

Now, if you happen to live in a community such as the one that 

I described, which is a very old community, settled really back in 

the 17th century in some cases, even in the 16th century, and you 

have municipalities that were incorporated in the 18th century, 

then you find that the arbitrary requirements that are laid out for 

MSAs—and I don’t mean that in a derogatory way; arbitrary in the 

sense that you could pick any number of criteria and use them—

these criteria simply do not favor old, established communities. 

Therefore, this particular area that I represent finds itself at an 

economic disadvantage vis-a-vis other communities in other parts 

of the country. 

So it is really an issue, I think, of fairness and justice and equanimity that we are asking you to address here. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Is it sufficient to wait until the 2000 Census to 

make these changes, or should they be made beforehand? I’ll just 

add another question to it. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I would just say, the sooner, the better. But 

I addressed my remarks to the centering around the 2000 Census 

37

because that is the next convenient time when these changes could 

be made. 

Mr. HUNTER. I think Mr. Hinchey has walked through this pretty 

effectively. An MSA is a standard of economic focus, if you will. 

And when people are making decisions for advertising, business expansion, and other areas of economic development, they say, show 

us the MSAs; bring the MSAs, for example, in southern California 

or bring the MSAs in New York or wherever. If you are not an 

MSA, you are not a focus; you are not identified as an area where 

there are lots of people that want to buy lots of things or do lots 

of business. And so you are a blank spot, if you will, on the map 

for a lot of large businesses and advertisers. 

Mr. REDMOND. San Juan County is the only county in my entire 

district that will benefit from this and we have on the Navajo reservation between 30 and 40 percent unemployment and some of the 

most dismal poverty statistics in the Nation. And the city of Farmington is what is referred to as a border town because it borders 

the reservation. 

Basically, this is going to make a correction in the data. The region is large enough population-wise to be qualified for an MSA because of the amount of people that are there, even though the epicenter itself does not have the required number of people. The city 

of Farmington on a weekend will swell to over 100,000 people as 

Native Americans come off the reservation to do marketing, but 

when you actually count residents, we don’t have the population 

base necessary to become an MSA. 

I think that as far as economic development goes, many of the 

young Native American people that are able to get a college education—they end up finding they have to leave the community and 

separate themselves from their families. If we can become a focus 

for economic development, as Congressman Hunter, has said, we 

will be able to keep the Navajo culture more intact and keep Navajo families intact. So there is not only an economic side to it; there 

is a cultural, familial side to this that we will benefit from. 

Mr. HORN. Mr. Redmond, does your district already include all 

of the Navajo reservation? 

Mr. REDMOND. No, the Navajo reservation is spread over three 

States, and I’m not familiar with the border towns on the Arizona 

side or on the Utah side. 

Mr. HORN. I am thinking of the Navajo reservation as in New 

Mexico. You have all of it? 

Mr. REDMOND. Yes. 

Mr. HORN. Because it is the size of the State of West Virginia. 

And I remember holding a hearing there when I was vice chairman 

of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and in 1973 there were 

136,000 members of the tribe. I don’t know what it is now. 

Mr. REDMOND. It is the largest Native American tribe in the Nation. 

Mr. HORN. But you are absolutely right on the unemployment 

situation there. A lot of work needs to be done. 

Mr. REDMOND. Farmington is a border town that, on a weekend, 

when people come to town to do business the town swells to over 

100,000 people and that is just a variable. It is not accounted for 

in the current formula. 

38

Mr. HORN. In terms of my own bias in this, I think you have a 

real point on what you say. I think our problem is that the Federal 

Government does not usually recognize the tremendous use that is 

made of certain types of Federal actions in terms of the private sector. 

The ZIP Code, which is under the administration of the U.S. 

Postal Service, is a good example. I have been working for 3 years 

to try to get a city of 9,000 within my district that is completely 

surrounded by the second largest city in Los Angeles County, and 

we cannot get it because three ZIP Codes come out of the inner city 

of the largest city that completely distort the city of Signal Hill. 

So I am very sympathetic to what you are talking about, and I 

think Federal officials are going to have to realize, and Congress 

who authorizes this, that when we authorize certain types of 

choices in terms of statistical data, they are used for other reasons 

than the Federal Government might have collected them. However, 

that’s the reality and we need to be in touch with reality, and so 

I think you made a very good case. 

I would extend to you the invitation, since this hearing won’t be 

that long—we have essentially three more witnesses, but the principal one is the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the very able Sally Katzen; she will be up next. If 

you would like to stay, we will have a dialog here. 

I believe that putting the witnesses—as she knows—that have 

something they want to do with the Federal official that can do it, 

or not do it, and getting closure on these things. So if you would 

like to stay around, you are welcome. We will make room for Mrs. 

Katzen and her two bright assistants that are in this area. 

So we can swear you in. She lives up here; we built a room for 

Mrs. Katzen, our witness Friday and this afternoon. 

Mr. HOLDEN. I have some other records that I would like to submit for the record. 

Mr. HORN. Without objection, they will be included at this point. 

You know the routine, and have Mrs. Wallman and Mr. Fitzsimmons join you. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HORN. The clerk will note that all three witnesses have affirmed. We are glad to see you again, and we will be glad to see 

you again this afternoon. 

STATEMENT OF SALLY KATZEN, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF 

INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Ms. KATZEN. It is a pleasure, as always, to be here. 

Mr. HORN. You are a very good witness. 

Ms. KATZEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 

the metropolitan areas program. I am accompanied today by Katherine Wallman on my left, who is the Chief Statistician of the 

United States. She is the head of the statistical policy branch of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget. On my right is James Fitzsimmons, who is 

the chief of the population distribution branch, Bureau of the CenVerDate jul 14 2003 11:33 Dec 15, 2003 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46319.TXT 46319
39

sus, who leads much of our metropolitan areas work on behalf of 

the Federal statistical system. 

As you know, I have a lengthy written statement that goes into 

a lot of detail, and I would request that that be incorporated in the 

record at the appropriate place. 

Mr. HORN. It will be automatically done. 

Ms. KATZEN. Let me try to summarize what I think are the more 

salient points of that statement during this brief oral testimony. 

I believe that the official metropolitan areas program is a success 

story, a statistical success story that is now nearly 50 years old. 

Shortly after World War II, it became clear that the value of data 

produced at the metropolitan level by the Federal Government 

agencies would be greatly enhanced if the agencies used a single 

set of definitions for the Nation’s metropolitan areas. This is a concept that appears in a number of our statistical projects, and consistency among Federal agencies is desirable. 

The predecessor of OMB, the Bureau of the Budget, led the effort 

to develop standard metropolitan areas in time for their use in the 

1950 decennial census. The purpose of the metropolitan areas is 

the same today as it was when they were first defined. The classification provides a nationally consistent set of definitions for collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics. 

Stated differently, OMB establishes and maintains metropolitan 

areas solely for statistical purposes; and in reviewing and revising 

metropolitan areas, OMB does not take into account or attempt to 

anticipate any public or private sector nonstatistical uses that may 

be made of the definitions. 

Now, while the basic concept has remained the same since the 

end of World War II, there have been changes in the standards 

themselves. They are reviewed and revised preceding each decennial census, so we are currently entering the period when this work 

must be undertaken to complete the standards that will be employed in the first decade of the 21st century. Periodic review of the 

standards is necessary to ensure their continued utility and to be 

certain that area definitions can be implemented using criteria that 

are both relevant and measurable. 

The definition of metropolitan areas is a function of applying the 

standards selected to the data that are produced by the Census Bureau. This process takes place on a comprehensive basis each 10-

year period after the new population, commuting, and other data 

are available from the decennial census. It is relatively straightforward process of applying existing standards to the data. It is not 

a matter of submitting a request for designation or otherwise applying, if you will, for permission to call yourself an MSA or appealing to the exercise of discretion. We simply take the standards 

and apply them to the data. 

We do this during the intercensal years as well. Typically, this 

occurs when there is a change in the populations, which are data 

that are made available to us. These data are used along with the 

commuting data from the previous decennial census because that 

is not updated in the intercensal years. Typically, this annual process will produce one or two new metropolitan areas, and OMB 

issues a bulletin on or around June 30th of each year indicating 

whether there are new or reused metropolitan areas. There was no 

40

such bulletin in 1997 because there were no metropolitan area 

changes as a result of the application of existing standards to the 

newest data. 

The concept of a metropolitan area is that of a core area, consisting of a large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities that have a high degree of integration with that core. 

That is a concept to which I will continually return as we discuss 

these standards, because what it says is that a metropolitan area 

has a core and that the outlying areas are related to that core. 

Metropolitan areas themselves are of three types. One, metropolitan statistical areas, which are known as MSAs; two, consolidated 

metropolitan statistical areas, CMSAs; and three, primary metropolitan statistical areas, PMSAs. The bases for types of areas and 

the numbers of them are set forth in my written statement. 

While there are permutations and variations, again, I want to 

emphasize the basic concept is a central city and the county or 

counties in which it is located, together with outlying counties if 

they have enough commuting to the central counties and meet 

other criteria. It is also important to remember that the geographic 

units used in defining metropolitan areas are, for the most part, 

political areas established under State and local laws. 

Having heard the previous panel, I would note that there is substantial discretion available at the local level for defining the 

boundaries of various counties, and this has both pluses and 

minuses for our program. A county could be drawn to be very, very 

large and could pick up huge tracts of land with different degrees 

of population density. Or in the case that we heard from Mr. Hinchey of New York, local communities have the option of local annexation to increase the size of some of their boundaries; and local 

annexation is not an infrequent occurrence. Stated another way, 

there is a certain amount of discretion at the State and local level 

which then gets incorporated because we use, for the most part, 

that data for our standards. 

The other issue that was discussed by the preceding panel is the 

uses of metropolitan areas. As I mentioned, OMB establishes the 

metropolitan area designations for statistical purposes only. We 

recognize that some agencies use the areas for a variety of nonstatistical purposes, including determinations about eligibility and 

benefit levels in certain Federal Government programs. In some instances, that is the result of legislation in which Congress chose to 

incorporate the metropolitan area definition in the authorization of 

the program activities for the agency. 

There may be other instances where a Federal Government agency elects to use metropolitan areas in a nonstatistical program, and 

if so, it is then, in our view, the agency’s responsibility to ensure 

that the definitions are appropriate for that use. In addition, as the 

chairman noted, it is quite frequently the case that what is done 

for Federal purposes is then used in some way by the private sector. 

In reality, we recognize that there are many private sector uses 

of metropolitan area definitions. For example, the areas are ranked 

by population size and used for market analysis and advertising 

purposes. I would note that OMB has no control over the use to 

41

which this standard is put by the private sector, nor the appropriateness of the use. 

Finally, there was a question about the timing of changes that 

should or could occur. As I mentioned at the outset, there has been 

traditionally a review of the metropolitan area standards preceding 

each decennial census. We are now 21⁄2 years before Census 2000, 

and therefore we have already begun the work of reviewing the 

metropolitan area standards to determine whether they are appropriate or require changes at the beginning of the next century. 

While I cannot predict what aspects will be revised, I can tell you 

that the review will be comprehensive, thorough, and open-minded. 

We have already begun to explore some of the issues. The Census 

Bureau has entered into contracts with four universities to explore 

some of the subject matters and it held an open conference in November 1995, attended by representatives of Federal, State, and 

local government agencies and the private sector. 

The conference participants identified a number of issues which 

they thought were important to review in the next 21⁄2 years: 

whether the Federal Government should define metropolitan/nonmetropolitan areas; the geographic units to be used in defining 

those areas; the criteria to be used to aggregate the units in defining statistical areas; whether there should be hierarchies or multiple sets of areas in the classification system; the kinds of entities 

that would receive official recognition in the new system; whether 

a system should reflect statistical rules only or allow a role for local 

opinion; the frequency of updating; and territorial coverage. 

Now, at the conference, there was some agreement—indeed, in 

some instances, substantial agreement—on some of the points. 

First, there was substantial agreement that the Federal Government should indeed define standard areas at the metropolitan and 

nonmetropolitan level. While many people now have the means to 

define areas for their own purposes, thanks to computers and a 

wealth of geographic information system software, areas defined by 

the Federal Government still offer the advantages of comparability 

to a wide community of users. 

Second, there was agreement at the conference that there should 

be areas defined using the county as the fundamental unit because 

of data availability and familiarity. There was also support for 

areas based on smaller units. Although some suggested 5-digit ZIP 

Code areas, others favored census tracts and others favored minor 

civil divisions. These are areas which we will be exploring. Most individuals at the conference regarded commuting data from the decennial census as the best measure to determine the extent of the 

areas, but other sources of information were identified and are worthy of being reviewed. 

There was also strong agreement that statistical areas defined 

following the next Census should cover the entire area of our country, and that the areas could better account for the components of 

the continuum of settlement than do the current metropolitan 

areas and their nonmetropolitan residual concept that is used. 

Moving from the work that has already been done in the conference to getting a revised set of standards in place before Census 

2000 is the task that we face for the next 21⁄2 years. It is, we believe, a challenging assignment. In addition to the research and 

42

testing that must be undertaken to explore suggested alternatives, 

this period will feature periodic solicitation of public comment and 

responses to the views that are expressed. 

I want to underscore that there will be substantial opportunities 

for public comment as we proceed over the next few years. The proposed metropolitan area standards review project schedule provides 

for the first solicitation of public comment in November 1998, following a year-long program of research and evaluation that we are 

now beginning. At that point, new standards will not have been 

drafted. We will seek views on proposed options. A second solicitation of public opinion will take place in July 1999, following preparation of draft standards. And we plan to conduct at that point at 

least one public hearing. 

I can tell you now that OMB is committed to a thorough, open 

review of the metropolitan area standards, and that we will consider all subjects that have been and will be raised because such 

a review is critical for the public and private data users in the first 

decade of the new millennium. 

I am happy to answer any questions from the Members or my 

new panel members. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Katzen follows:]

43


g:\graphics\46319.025
44


g:\graphics\46319.026
45


g:\graphics\46319.027
46


g:\graphics\46319.028
47


g:\graphics\46319.029
48


g:\graphics\46319.030
49


g:\graphics\46319.031
50


g:\graphics\46319.032
51


g:\graphics\46319.033
52


g:\graphics\46319.034
53


g:\graphics\46319.035
54


g:\graphics\46319.036
55


g:\graphics\46319.037
56

Mr. HORN. Well, we thank you. 

Mr. Sununu, do you have any questions? 

OK, Mrs. Maloney? 

Let me ask you one question here on that commuting standard. 

It is commuting in one direction, as I recall it; is that correct? 

Ms. KATZEN. The concept, you will remember, is a central area 

with outlying areas that are integrated with it. So you would like 

to see whether a county has commuting to a particular central city. 

There are instances where there will be commuting to several different identified metropolitan areas, and that’s actually one of the 

roles of local opinion, which is to see whether a county with commuting to two or three places wants to be part of one or the other 

of the metropolitan areas. 

Mr. HORN. Well, you certainly see that in California. In urban 

California, you’ve got a 360-degree commuting area with most 

cases. 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. Local opinion comes into play if there is approximately equal and qualifying commuting to more than one metropolitan area. 

Mr. HORN. I don’t see what local opinion has to do with it. It 

seems to me that local behavior is what matters, not opinion. 

Where did the opinion bit come in? 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. Well, local behavior is taken into account in 

the actual commuting patterns. If a county is qualified based on 

commuting patterns they have—if qualified to be in a metropolitan 

area, but it qualifies in two different metropolitan areas at the 

same strength, essentially then OMB solicits local opinion as to 

which one it wants to go to. 

Ms. KATZEN. I should note that our solicitation of local opinion 

is done through contacts to the congressional delegations. We do 

not go out and do sample surveys in the local areas but rather contact the congressional delegations that are affected. As Jim was 

mentioning, this is done where there are, in effect, two equal 

choices; rather than having OMB arbitrarily assign a particular 

outlying county to one area rather than the other, where the county qualifies for both, we seek congressional guidance in the form of 

local opinion. 

Mr. HORN. There are two simple ways that most States can give 

you the data, and one is obviously a ZIP Code analysis of the employees in the surrounding area as to, where do their employees 

live. In southern California people think nothing of driving a 140-

mile round trip to hold a job in Long Beach, CA. They come from 

Riverside, San Bernardino by the hundreds, by the thousands, and 

that is certainly one way to get it. 

The other is the State Department of Highways, CalTrans in our 

case. You can see the flow moving in a certain direction in traditional working hours and make certain judgments about where 

traffic from point A is going to point B. This kind of thing. And it 

seems to me there is a way to get these data. 

But what concerns me is when you say these data are solely for 

statistical purposes, I don’t think that’s right. These data are to 

analyze what is happening in America and when you see their use 

by the private sector, it seems to me we should just recognize reality. 

57

Mr. Holden, do you want to ask some questions? 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, Ms. Katzen, I would like to thank you for your testimony 

and you and Dr. Fitzsimmons for your attention to this issue. You 

have been very helpful to me as I have been trying to explain to 

my constituents what hurdles we need to go over to be recognized 

as a metropolitan statistical area. And I know that you are in the 

process of promulgating your regulations for the next Census, and 

I know that you are going to be taking into consideration all the 

testimony that we have presented today and all of the correspondence that we have sent on to you. 

I would just like to take this opportunity again to reiterate some 

of the problems I think occurred in 1990 regulations. And that is, 

I understand the need for uniformity, to have standards throughout the country; however, we are a large Nation and our geography 

is different and there are areas where it is impossible, in my opinion, to use the same standards in Pennsylvania as in California. 

And I would ask to you consider that again as you are promulgating your regulations for 2000. 

Also, on the commuting factor, I believe that the designation of 

an MSA area for a county commuting 15 percent of the population 

benefits the commuting county, not the county receiving the commuters. So, therefore, when counties have an excess of 15 percent, 

such as Schuylkill County where we have 22 percent, I would ask 

you to take into consideration that the eastern part of the country 

is crowded. Our population areas are close together, and there are 

many areas where the people commute to different areas adjacent 

to their home county; so I would ask you to consider those also. I 

know that we have talked about this before. 

Ms. KATZEN. I would note, as I think the chairman knows, that 

I was originally born and raised in Pittsburgh, and therefore have 

some familiarity with the problems of strip mining and other activities in Pennsylvania generally. 

I appreciate your understanding of the need for uniformity. And 

I was struck by the fact that all the members of the preceding 

panel acknowledged the role of standards and recognized that there 

is a need for some consistency. How they are applied is the issue 

that we are grappling with. 

The other point that I would just like to make is that there is 

a sliding scale in determining whether an outlying county would be 

part of an MSA. The greater the amount of commuting, the lesser 

the amount of population density required. So we do try to adjust 

for some of those factors. But I think, as you have mentioned, there 

are other considerations that we will be looking at as well. We have 

appreciated very much the support that we have had from Members of Congress and we expect to be in touch with a number of 

them over the next 21⁄2 years to be able to work with them as we 

go through the process of reviewing the standards. 

So I thank you also for your help. 

Mr. HOLDEN. And I believe you have answered this question, but 

maybe just clarify it for the record. 

I gather this information is purely for statistical reasons; there 

was never any budgetary consideration given that would affect 

58

HCFA reimbursement or HUD reimbursement. Is that what you 

said in your testimony? 

Ms. KATZEN. That is correct. We do it for statistical purposes. 

There are some Federal agencies that use these areas because of 

legislation. And I think HCFA and HUD are two of those for which 

Congress has incorporated the concept of metropolitan areas into 

their statutory requirements. 

During my tenure at OMB, Leon Panetta, who was then the Director of OMB, sent a memorandum to the heads of departments 

and agencies reminding them that if they used these standards or 

they used these areas in their programs without a legislative mandate, it is their responsibility to assure that those standards are 

appropriate for the purposes for which they are using them, and offered the assistance of our office to consult with them. 

We have been in touch with some of the agencies on some of the 

issues, and I’m happy to give you a copy of that memorandum as 

well. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:]

59


g:\graphics\46319.038
60


g:\graphics\46319.039
61


g:\graphics\46319.040
62


g:\graphics\46319.041
63


g:\graphics\46319.042
64


g:\graphics\46319.043
65


g:\graphics\46319.044
66


g:\graphics\46319.045
67


g:\graphics\46319.046
68

Mr. HORN. Mr. Hunter, do you have any questions? 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks for being here, testifying, and letting us be on the 

panel here with you. How many MSAs are there, just generally? 

Ms. KATZEN. 278 metropolitan areas. This information is in my 

written testimony. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. 

Ms. KATZEN. —277. I’m sorry; I am off by one. There are 277 separate metropolitan areas in the United States and Puerto Rico; 258 

are MSAs, 19 are CMSAs, and within the 19 CMSAs, there are 76 

PMSAs that are identified. 

Mr. HUNTER. OK. Thank you. I think you made my point in your 

answer. 

We are talking about 12 counties that, were the contiguity requirement not in place, would be MSAs. What is interesting I think 

about this problem is that this is a classic problem where you have 

something which is precise, which is numbers, statistics, that is integrated with something which isn’t precise, which is vague definitions, theories, and ideas. I’m looking at the idea of a core area 

with highly integrated satellites. 

Who defines what is a highly integrated satellite. In thinking 

about that, I think about Imperial County in my district. Imperial 

County is highly removed from any other population center. If you 

get in your car in San Diego, you drive 120 miles to get to the population in Imperial County. Yet the three major communities, 

starting with Brawley, drive another 10 or 15 miles to the south, 

you see Imperial, another 5 miles and you’re in El Centro. Because 

there’s a few acres of farmland in between these three areas, which 

are just a few miles apart, they’re considered, ‘‘not contiguous.’’ Yet 

the people that live in those counties, in those communities within 

Imperial County, because we are so far removed from any other 

population center in southern California, are much closer in terms 

of business relationships, social relationships, and every other type 

of relationship than people, for example, who would live in the city 

of San Diego’s metropolitan area—Chula Vista and National City—

where they are literally right next door. But because they are in 

a huge metropolitan area have very little integration with the guy 

that lives five blocks down the street. 

So the question is, isn’t it kind of arbitrary? If those two pictures 

on the wall are Brawley and El Centro and they’re 15 miles apart, 

the mere fact that you don’t have a couple of subdivisions making 

it contiguous, is that really a function of science and higher thinking, or is it just kind of a result of a bureaucracy that doesn’t recognize people? Because in the end, in a 100,000-person county, you 

have got 100,000 people. Why is that contiguity so critical? 

Ms. KATZEN. You raise a very interesting dilemma there, which 

I would like to address somewhat indirectly. The issue for some of 

these counties is not so much whether they are highly integrated 

or contiguous, but whether there is a central city or central core 

to which they are, in effect, attached—whether there is a ‘‘there’’ 

there in the core concept. 

I say that because there is absolutely nothing wrong with sprawling communities that have a strong sense of community. Indeed, 

many would say that that is the American way. But the concept 

69

of a metropolitan area is one that starts with the concept of a core 

city, and it is the outlying areas that are attached to it. If there 

are a number of outlying areas but there is no central city, there 

is no central metropolitan area, and it would not satisfy the concept of metropolitan area. 

Mr. HUNTER. I guess that’s my point. Though, I think that’s a 

distinction without a meaning. I mean, what does that mean? Does 

that mean that you don’t have a central metropolitan opera or you 

don’t have a central police station? If you have three separate but 

equal communities that are divided by a few acres of farmland that 

aren’t in a circle as a core, but they’re on a linear strip because of 

the way that the particular geography and economic operation of 

that community happens to be, what’s the difference? You have 

still got 100,000 buyers. You still have 100,000 shoppers. You still 

have 100,000 workers. You still have 100,000 homeowners. 

Why is the concept of a core or a circle—maybe that comes from 

Washington, DC, where everything spreads out from the Capitol, 

and you have this wheel and the hub and the spokes that go 

around it. But in terms of people and the impact of their lives on 

one another, they don’t have to live in a circle or a core. 

Ms. KATZEN. There is nothing magical——

Mr. HUNTER. Just a little argument. 

Ms. KATZEN. That’s all right. This is important. 

There is nothing magical about the configuration, whether it be 

a circle or a triangle or a square. 

Mr. HUNTER. What does ‘‘core’’ mean? 

Ms. KATZEN. Core is something that is focused, a metropolitan 

urban center that, by the local definition, is a city, town, or county. 

Now, you know——

Mr. HUNTER. Let’s go beyond an arbitrary political subdivision. 

What is a focus? 

Ms. KATZEN. Regrettably, once one goes beyond the standards, 

one is potentially on a slippery slope. Let me just say, I am trying 

to defend——

Mr. HUNTER. What we are talking about is whether or not the 

standard is arbitrary. I agree that you have got to have standards. 

I think Tim is, too. 

Ms. KATZEN. I am in a position now where we are undertaking 

a review, and we will be looking at the various recommendations 

and suggestions, exploring them both on a public comment basis 

and on a research basis. And I no more want to say, what is here 

cannot be changed, than to say, now we are going to change it this 

way. So my comments are intended to describe what we are doing, 

and to give you the best explanation that I can of how we have gotten to this particular point, and to engage in a discussion which 

should not, I hope, be viewed as my being negative or affirmative 

on any particular point. 

On the substance, I think it is important to recognize—and several of the panel members and you have—that where you have 

some precision, if you say 15 percent, well, what if it is 14 percent? 

What if it is 13 percent? What if it is 12, 11, 10? Regrettably, there 

are times when we have standards, and departures from those 

standards may appear to be arbitrary. They may also give meaning 

to the application of those standards. And it is an issue that we 

70

have to wrestle with, just as we have to wrestle with the chairman’s issue of the private sector uses of these, even though we do 

not design them for the private sector. 

But once you acknowledge that there are standards and once you 

acknowledge you are talking about 100,000 as the population of an 

urbanized area, what if I have, then, some Congressman or other 

person comes to me and says, ‘‘OK, I have an urbanized area that 

has 98,000, and I have got one that has 96,000, and I have one that 

has 94,000?’’

Mr. HUNTER. At least at this point you are talking about truth 

in advertising, because then if you change an MSA to say that it 

is now going to be 95,000 or more, when an advertiser says, bring 

me the MSAs, he knows that when he gets that MSA, there is 

95,000 out there. 

We have counties that have over 100,000 people. So they have 

as many counties as all the other MSAs. They are not pulled from 

the MSA files because they’re shaped wrong, the communities in 

them are shaped wrong, and there is some blurry and vague idea 

that can best be done with hand gestures about a core that we 

haven’t met. And I would submit that in all matters logical, we do 

meet that. 

So we want to be more precise than I think you folks do because 

we actually want to go on numbers, real numbers. We think that 

the standard, logical, nonarbitrary number is to use the population 

of a county which is 100,000 folks. So I understand you have got—

Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting us indulge in this, and thanks 

for suffering us here. 

But I guess my last question would be, is there any logic in having this contiguity requirement, which often it is simply a function 

of who’s got the strip malls or housing developments that follow 

down this—generally it’s usually a freeway or a main street or the 

throat of a particular community to link them together as opposed 

to cases where you don’t have contiguity simply because you have 

farmland or mines in between. 

Is there any logic there when you have the same number of people? 

Ms. KATZEN. Again, I would have to say that based on the current standards, the concept of a——

Mr. HUNTER. But is there logic in the standard? 

Ms. KATZEN. I believe there has been and that it has well served 

the Federal Government and the State and local governments who 

use this information. You speak about advertising and truth in advertising, which I wholeheartedly support. Metropolitan statistical 

areas were designed and developed so that we could gather data 

about education levels, income, poverty, housing, other statistical 

information, aggregate information on a comparable basis——

Mr. HUNTER. And the county gives you on that. 

Ms. KATZEN [continuing]. To determine for those areas that qualify as metropolitan areas and those that are not so defined. That 

may or may not be the best, in some platonic sense or altruistic 

sense, gathering of data or use of data, but it is the purpose for 

which they have been undertaken for the last half century. We will 

be looking at whether that is the approach that we should be pursuing in the next 21⁄2 years, and I hear very clearly there are 

71

strong sentiments that we must broaden our horizons as we do our 

work. 

Mr. HOLDEN. If I could just followup, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for your indulgence. You talked about the core population. I would 

just say that Schuylkill County we have the city of Pottsville, the 

only city in the county. It is where the county government sits. It 

is where two major hospitals are located. It is absolutely the center 

of commerce in Schuylkill County. But because of the geographical 

barriers, we were unable to achieve that, and because of the need, 

in your opinion, to have, you know, national standards, I believe 

that maybe a set number for the population would be the best way 

to be fair in this matter. 

Mr. HORN. I agree with Mr. Holden on that. It is one thing to 

designate 100,000, but then to put these things arbitrarily that you 

are moving commuting in one way, I just couldn’t believe it. You 

look at the growth of California, Los Angeles County. The second 

largest city in America, is the city of Los Angeles, 3 million people. 

Los Angeles County has 10 million people. It has 88 cities and 

right adjacent to it is one of the great postwar growth areas known 

as Orange County. 

The city of Costa Mesa and its shopping center takes in more 

sales tax than the whole city of San Francisco. So you want to talk 

about where people are moving in cars in Los Angeles and Orange 

County. They are going to the mall in Costa Mesa and they come 

from Beverly Hills. They come from PV, Palos Verdes, and all of 

this. Those are things that have nothing to do with the 50-year-old 

standard of the postwar where there was one core city around 

America and then suddenly freeways came and people said let’s get 

out of the core city. Let’s go to the suburbs and have a little white 

picket fence and green grass and et cetera. And we all know the 

story. 

Now you have urbanized areas that are way beyond the core city, 

and eventually in 50 years, you will have contiguousness between 

the city of San Diego, which Mr. Hunter comes near, and Los Angeles. You will have one solid urban area, and only the Tehachapi 

Mountains will prevent it from going up and taking in Bakersfield. 

A little hard to build in the Tehachapis. But you look at Sacramento right now, you have people from Stockton to Sacramento. 

You don’t know it when you drive. The houses are 5 miles off, but 

they are contiguous right up to the city of Sacramento and it 

doesn’t make sense when we have a 50-year-old standard that isn’t 

in keeping with the patterns that people are doing. Whether we 

like it or not, economic patterns have substantially changed in 50 

years. 

I just thought, how many times do I go into the core city of Los 

Angeles? I don’t go there more than twice a year. When I was not 

a Member of Congress, when I was there full time, I didn’t go in 

there more than twice a year. I go to the airport and I take off in 

a plane, but as I have told many hearing panels in California, I 

have never even bought a newspaper in the airport, so what is my 

contribution to the city of Los Angeles as the core city? Zilch is my 

contribution to it. So I am very sympathetic growing up on a farm, 

living in urban America. I’ve seen the patterns change. That formula hasn’t seen the patterns change. 

72

Ms. KATZEN. I don’t mean to be unsympathetic. As I said earlier, 

I felt it important to try to set forth what the standards are now, 

what they are based on, the concepts that they rest on, the purposes that they serve, and the uses to which they are put. In the 

next 21⁄2 years we will have a chance to see whether that makes 

sense for the new millennium and we will be rethinking all aspects 

of it. 

One of the issues is whether the Federal Government should continue to define metropolitan areas. We are talking about metropolitan areas in the old-fashioned, if you will, concept of a metropolis, 

which means, if I have my Latin or Greek right, a metropolis—that 

is sort of a city in the, if you will, old-fashioned sense. And we are 

now talking about economic areas. We are talking about social 

areas. We are talking about different things which, as I said, may 

well be the American way. 

I think all of these questions could be, should be, and will be part 

of our review. But at the beginning of the review, when I do not 

want to prejudge any of the issues, I simply wanted to lay out the 

predicate for where we are now and how it is now functioning without prejudging the outcome. 

Mr. HORN. Yeah, obviously the simple way is take the critical 

mass of 100,000 and say, hey, you have got a lot of people here. 

Mr. HUNTER. A whole lot of people. 

Mr. HORN. I come from San Benito County, which then had 

13,000 people and I looked the other day, it now has 40,000 people 

and I think there are too many people that have come to that county. I want them to stay in urban America, frankly. But those are 

a lot of feelings that those of us have when we remember Green 

Mountains without houses slipping down them. Any other questions? 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulging us, and Ms. 

Katzen, thank you for putting up with our questions here. I hope 

to work with you. 

Ms. KATZEN. I look forward to that. I look forward to working 

with both of you and your colleagues as well. 

Mr. HORN. Mr. Davis, the gentleman from Illinois, do you have 

any questions? 

Mr. DAVIS. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a statement. 

Mr. HORN. It will be put in the record as if spoken at the very 

beginning following Mrs. Maloney’s. 

We thank our Members of Congress. We have another panel 

more economically oriented from the private sector that will show 

us the use of some of these data. And if you would like to sit with 

that panel, Ms. Katzen, we welcome you. 

Ms. KATZEN. I am due back here at 2 o’clock, sir. I think I will 

do something else. 

Mr. HORN. We appreciate you coming here this morning. Thank 

you very much. 

All right. We are now on our last panel for the morning. And this 

will probably be the shortest hearing we have ever held on anything. Mr. Spar, Mr. Marshall, will come forward. We are in business. Gentlemen, as you know, raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

73

Mr. HORN. Both witnesses have affirmed. Let us start with Mr. 

Ed Spar, the Executive Director of the Professional Association on 

Federal Statistics. Welcome, Mr. Spar. 

STATEMENTS OF ED SPAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL 

OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ON FEDERAL STATISTICS; 

AND ALVIN MARSHALL, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SCHUYLKILL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP. 

Mr. SPAR. Good morning, sir, I will extract from my testimony 

and request that the full testimony be put in the record. 

Mr. HORN. It is automatic with every witness in the record the 

minute we introduce you. 

Mr. SPAR. Not that we speak with each other, but it was 

COPAFS that hosted that conference that Ms. Katzen mentioned. 

So we really do cooperate an awful lot. My comments really come 

from the private sector. Before joining COPAFS, I was president of 

a company called Market Statistics and we produced publications 

that reached over 60,000 marketing and sales executives around 

the United States. 

Metropolitan areas are certainly one of the most important constructs of the private sector. Companies use them to develop sales 

territories, to develop sales quotas, test new markets, to delineate 

sites for expansion, use in advertising, and on and on and on. 

Rankings are used as cutoff points. It is typical to see an advertising agency use the top 10, 25, or 50. Sales people, who make 

their livelihoods basically through commissions, rightfully so, believe that they know the sales territories best and one of the reasons that metropolitan areas is so important to them is that they 

see them as fair. They are based upon standards that are consistent for everyone. Essentially, they are areas that are not manipulated. 

I would say that metropolitan areas are more used than almost 

any other government construct. That includes Bureau of Economic 

Analysis areas, consolidated areas, and urbanized areas. Metropolitan areas also are the basis for almost all the other types of areas 

that the private sector creates such as Rand McNally trading areas 

and radio listening markets. Oddly enough, they are not used for 

television markets which are more based upon the construct of 

viewing and I will get back to that a little later. The strengths are 

obvious. They are a good measure of urban concentration. They delineate socioeconomic segments fairly well and from a private sector point of view, since you are always updating them in the private sector, they are good for the purpose of being able to find or 

because you can find a lot of data. 

The problems are, of course, that once you have got the area, 

they don’t change over a 10-year period. The second is they cover 

the entire country. Third is when you finally do get a change after 

10 years, they are a significant change and there are an awful lot 

of them and sort of abrupt. 

What is needed, I believe, is a better geographic segmentation of 

the metropolitan area. My first example is the concept of a suburb. 

We all talk about a suburb, but there is no definition of a suburb 

in terms of metropolitan areas. From a private sector point of view, 

what you have really got is an inner core. I call it an inurban. Then 

74

you have got an urban area, then you have got a suburban area. 

Then after that, what you consider an ex-urban area, a term I 

think Spectorski came up with in the 1950’s. But it is that part 

that is no longer urban, but not really rural yet. And then finally 

you have the rural areas. You have got this sort of continuum 

which is something that you are not able to get currently from the 

metropolitan area construct. 

Because of this kind of a problem, what is happening is the private sector has been moving more and more away from using metropolitan areas, although they wouldn’t like to, as I said this, because they are standards and they are consistent. What has happened is that you find that private sector companies are now starting to use television markets because they cover the entire Nation, 

or they use some of these rather sexy, if you would, constructs that 

have been developed by private sector vendors based upon clusters. 

And what they are, some of the names are kind of cutesy. 

You will find ‘‘Shotguns and Pickup Trucks’’ is one cluster; very 

descriptive. On the other side of the spectrum you would find something like ‘‘Fur Coats and Stationwagons.’’ This helps people define 

the area conceptually and since it covers the entire Nation, they 

are able to use them across all uses. 

Anyway, if I might, let me give you my Buck Rogers approach 

where I think the solutions might lie from a private sector, again, 

perspective. I think the entire Nation should be covered. I think 

how it should be covered is by building blocks. You startup from 

block groups or tracts or ZIP Codes. I don’t think you should abandon the county, but the county should be constructed as you move 

your way up. This would allow you, if you think of it conceptually, 

think of it conceptually, to think about it as concentric circles. They 

are not really circles, obviously, but you have this inner core and 

then it goes on and on and on. So finally what you have got essentially is the whole Nation covered by a whole series of areas. I almost see them in terms of their being in conflict with each other. 

The other suggestion, I think, coming out of the private sector is 

that they have to be updated annually. There is just too much that 

goes on. We have heard testimony there is so much that goes on 

right now that to have an area updated once every 10 years doesn’t 

make any sense. You’ve got to have it so that a county or perhaps 

even a piece of a county—well, no, I think you have to keep the 

county concept whole, but a county could move from one area to another area based upon how things have changed. Put another way, 

essentially what I see is a set of dynamic areas which would enable 

the private sector to see how flows take place. 

Finally, I think there could be a stronger working relationship 

between the public and the private sector. I don’t have a clue how 

this would necessarily work right now. Obviously, the standards 

that the Federal Government have have to be extremely strict, but 

I do believe they could make better use of the geographic information technology, the demographic updating technology that the private sector has developed. Again, this is something that would 

have to be worked out. 

What I am not suggesting is that the private sector create metropolitan areas. That would be about the worst thing that could happen. One, obviously nobody would want to do it. But second of all, 

75

without the standard, if you would, this official standard, then this 

whole problem of something that is comparable for everybody that 

you could rely upon, that would be lost. 

I certainly want to compliment OMB, who over the years, have 

produced absolutely great work and they have been very open 

about this process. Also, I think the Census Bureau whose task it 

is to go through the rigorous intellectual work to get this done 

must be complimented for their work. This has been a very open 

and cooperative process. And although the private sector grumbles 

an awful lot about it, I want to assure you that they’re grateful. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spar follows:]

76


g:\graphics\46319.047
77


g:\graphics\46319.048
78


g:\graphics\46319.049
79


g:\graphics\46319.050
80


g:\graphics\46319.051
81

Mr. HORN. We thank you, and now we have Mr. Marshall. A 

member of the board of directors of the Schuylkill Economic Development Corp. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Good morning, Chairman Horn, members of the 

committee, Members of Congress, and ladies and gentlemen of the 

audience. I live and work in Schuylkill County, PA. I happen to be 

the former chairman and I am presently a board member, as you 

mentioned, of the Schuylkill Economic Development Corp., which is 

our local industrial development agency. I am also the chairman of 

the MSA Community Fairness Coalition. 

I am here today on behalf of all of the members of Schuylkill 

County, who live in Schuylkill County and want to thank you very 

much for holding this hearing and to give us the opportunity to 

present our views of Schuylkill County on the importance of gaining MSA status and on the criteria that we believe are unfortunately most unfair in precluding county communities such as 

Schuylkill County from attaining MSA status. Even though we exceed the minimum population requirements as currently designated, we are still nevertheless precluded from achieving MSA 

status. 

Schuylkill County, as you heard, is a county of 153,000 people. 

We are located on the southern boundary of the Pennsylvania anthracite region. We are also located midway between Philadelphia 

and Harrisburg, and we lie 50 miles from Allentown and Reading. 

All of those communities are MSAs. 

Our community has worked extremely hard and admittedly has 

been relatively successful in rebuilding the local economy of 

Schuylkill County from what at one time was a 22 percent unemployment level in the early 1960’s, after the decline of the anthracite coal industry. Today, proudly, our unemployment stands at 8 

percent, but that’s still not enough. We are still trying and we have 

been successful in attracting industries, including some major Fortune 500 companies to locate plants in our community, but we still 

find ourselves with an ongoing need to create additional jobs to 

make our unemployment level closer to State and national levels 

which are below 8 percent. 

We also continue to strive to get our average wage rates higher 

so that more of our constituents can enjoy better schools, better living conditions, and a better quality of life in general. 

As we compete in the national and international marketplace for 

new jobs and for job retention, we continue to find ourselves at a 

definite competitive disadvantage because of our inability to obtain 

MSA status. Even though our community is significantly larger 

than a number of communities that already have MSA status, because of the current criteria that requires the contiguous core population of 50,000, which you have heard so much about this morning, and based on what we consider to be unfair developmental 

land standards, or again because of this need to have a 15 percent 

commutation pattern of workers to one single destination, Schuylkill County has been unfairly precluded from satisfying current 

MSA standards or the application of those standards. 

This has resulted in what I call a competitive disadvantage. I 

previously mentioned the efforts of our community that we have 

made over the last 40 years to reconstruct our local economy. Our 

82

degree of success has been the result of a truly public-private partnership between local investment—and I might add the workers 

themselves have contributed to local industrial community drives 

to create new plants and new jobs. In fact, we have local job-creating pools through State, county, and Federal agency grants and 

we have also benefited, frankly, from low-interest loans that financed the renaissance. 

Despite all of these efforts, during the most recent years, it has 

become readily apparent that without MSA status it is exceedingly 

difficult if not truly impossible for Schuylkill County to recruit good 

paying jobs to the area we live in. 

That old adage, ‘‘If you build it, they will come,’’ may be good for 

Hollywood, but it doesn’t necessarily apply to Schuylkill County 

and our revitalization efforts. We are one of those communities 

that are surrounded by MSAs to which 22 percent of our people 

commute every day, but not 15 percent in one direction. And that’s 

why we have been hurt terribly, we believe, by the failure to 

achieve MSA status. 

The significance of MSA status, you have heard today in the private sector, is most important. I would point out two communities, 

if I may, that achieved MSA status in the 1990 census and the results that we are aware of to those communities. 

Greenville, NC, is one of them. This received MSA status in 1990 

as a result of the census and they received and realized a significant acceleration of expansion of both national retail chains in and 

to their community. This expansion was preceded, I might add, by 

national restaurant companies that created a shopping and a dining environment which has been most important to the growth of 

their community. The increased data and the information that 

arises from MSA status delivers to those communities a method of 

improved planning activities and it allowed Greenville to present 

current statistics to new companies coming into their area to relocate there. Without MSA status, Schuylkill County has been denied 

all of these benefits to our definite disadvantage. 

Pocatello, ID, is another community that recently attained MSA 

status. They experienced a 20 percent increase in phone requests 

and true inquiries from companies desiring to locate in a new MSA 

area. Their experience saw the location of four new businesses 

within a very short period of time after they achieved MSA status, 

one of which was a disposable medical firm that expects to expand 

600 manufacturing jobs in the next 3 years. Statistical information 

has been more frequently updated, which allows the dissemination 

of much more current information to new prospects. Housing funding was increased and reimbursement for health care services also 

increased. 

We believe in good conscious that similar benefits and results 

will become available to Schuylkill County with MSA status, as has 

been achieved by Greenville and Pocatello, ID. It is our belief that 

if we attain MSA status it is critical to our efforts to rebuild our 

local economy. The current standards of core population and the 

commuter patterns simply do not apply, in our opinion, in a fair 

and equitable fashion across the communities of America. The 

members of the MSA Fairness Coalition, the 12 communities that 

are here represented today, are all in the same situation. They are 

83

being prejudiced, we believe, unfairly by the fact that they cannot 

qualify. 

Representative Holden was very careful in explaining the land 

configuration problems that Schuylkill County faces. The land capable of being developed in one section of our country with high 

density and few land options does not fairly represent practical investment or any developmental potential in other communities 

such as Schuylkill County. 

The ravages of the coal industry, unfortunately, have left certain 

areas practically undevelopable from an economic standpoint. Notwithstanding either the definition or the application of standards 

have called that land developable and we are unable to expand the 

contiguity of the core city, Potsville, to reach that 50,000 population 

level. 

Standards, we believe, must be based on fairness and equity for 

communities to compete for jobs. But to compete with a distinct 

disadvantage places communities such as ours in a position where 

it is practically impossible to gain good jobs and move local communities forward or to improve the quality of life. 

We have a core city that can achieve a goal if the standards 

change. We believe and we respectfully ask the members of this 

committee to respond to the plea of Schuylkill County and the 11 

other communities that are part of the MSA fairness coalition to 

allow you to change the communities so that none of us suffer from 

the disadvantage we now suffer. 

By changing the government standards for MSA status so that 

all communities of 100,000 or greater people will qualify for MSA 

status, you will level the playing field and you will give us the 

equal status that eliminates our competitive disadvantage and allows us to compete in the economic development marketplace as 

equals. 

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that we have over 350 letters from 

local people who feel that strongly about becoming an MSA that we 

would like admitted in the record. 

Mr. HORN. We certainly will take a look at it. And if we can include them, we will. 

[NOTE.—Additional letters can be found in subcommittee files.] 

[The letters referred to follows:]

84


g:\graphics\46319.052
85


g:\graphics\46319.053
86


g:\graphics\46319.054
87


g:\graphics\46319.055
88


g:\graphics\46319.056
89


g:\graphics\46319.057
90


g:\graphics\46319.058
91


g:\graphics\46319.059
92


g:\graphics\46319.060
93

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, I would be pleased to answer any 

questions and I thank you very much for allowing us and Schuylkill County to be represented here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]

94


g:\graphics\46319.061
95


g:\graphics\46319.062
96


g:\graphics\46319.063
97

Mr. HORN. While they are here, let me extend the invitation to 

Mrs. Wallman and Mr. Fitzsimmons please join us here. You can 

ask questions and they can ask questions and I think we will get 

some closure on this. Why don’t you come back to the table and we 

welcome you. 

One of the problems obviously is the current definition, and I 

guess I would ask our friends from Census and OMB, what are the 

options one might think about when you have got the 100,000 

mark having been met, and then you have either commuting in one 

direction—and, of course, I’m saying why not commuting in several 

directions? What is the standard that the commuting means when 

you have the 100,000? 

Ms. WALLMAN. Mr. Chairman, you are going to see me rely extremely heavily on my colleague from the Census Bureau, Mr. Fitzsimmons, who is indeed an expert. I would note that the commuting actually is not unidirectional, and Jim will give a little 

more explanation of that. 

Mr. HORN. Good. 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. Commuting under the present standards, in 

fact, is measured in both directions. By ‘‘both,’’ I mean from a county possibly qualifying for outlying county status to a central county 

and the reverse; commuting is measured to the central county and 

from the central county. 

Mr. HORN. Well, that is really one direction. You are going to the 

place. 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. Meaning it is not multiple metropolitan areas? 

Yes. The key there is that OMB’s practice has been to define individual metropolitan areas rather than metropolitan classes or you 

might come up with a different term, classes of counties. So in defining individual metropolitan areas, if you have some commuting 

from a county to each of three or four surrounding metropolitan 

areas, which metropolitan area would you put the county in if it 

doesn’t qualify to any of the four? 

That’s the question posed by the current standards. And they 

prevent it. You could think in terms of classes of counties based on 

different kinds of characteristics instead, but the current standards 

are ones about defining individual metropolitan areas. 

Mr. HORN. What were some of the options when this standard 

was developed? What was another way to look at that? And why 

did the Census Bureau settle on that particular one-way standard 

to and from a particular area? 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. Metropolitan areas were developed before the 

1950 census. They followed from work that had been done for several decades before that in defining an entity called the metropolitan district at the Census Bureau. Metropolitan areas were actually developed by the Office of Management and Budget with an 

interagency committee. 

Beyond that, I don’t know what other considerations they had in 

defining areas with regard to whether they considered classes of 

counties. The standards were evolving. They were going from something called metropolitan districts, again, to metropolitan areas, 

but they were still defining individual metropolitan areas. It was 

also a different time. The commuting patterns were different before 

98

1950 than they are now and that’s part of the reason why all of 

this is up for evaluation between now and Census 2000. 

Mr. HORN. Are there some options that people are considering 

that haven’t been brought up this morning? And if so, what are 

they just for the record? 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. The full range of options is out there, including not using commuting measures at all: using population densities as a surrogate for commuting, for example, and as a larger 

measure of activity patterns. 

I think in the flows that you were talking about earlier, you were 

not limiting yourself to journey to work and daily commuting, 

which is what has been used to date. It has been suggested, for example, that we could look at population density as a surrogate for 

the web of activity that involves not just journey to work, but the 

other journeys that people take on a daily or weekly basis. That is 

one of the proposals. 

Mr. HORN. Which would include shopping, entertainment, recreation, all of those options? 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. That immediately poses measurement problems, but, yes, that has been proposed. 

Mr. HORN. There is certainly a lot of truth to that. We talk about 

the soccer moms and often they are leaving a particular home area 

to get to a recreational or an artistic cultural function with the 

children and then coming back to that home area and it does contribute to the economy to some extent. 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. Yes, though, again, we will come up against 

the hard rock of measuring these things in a way that they can be 

applied across the United States. 

Mr. HORN. Well, conceivably since the Census Bureau believes in 

sampling to some extent, couldn’t one sample in this area? 

Ms. WALLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair—I am not going 

to get into the sampling discussion right now. 

Mr. HORN. I am just saying here is a place to apply it. 

Ms. WALLMAN. Well, there actually is a proposal that the administration has asked the Congress to look at with respect to a more 

frequent updating of some of our basic demographic information, 

known as the American Communities Survey. I am sure you have 

been exposed to that at some point. 

Mr. HORN. No, I would like you to tell me about it. 

Ms. WALLMAN. You would like me to tell you about the American 

Communities Survey? I could do my best, and I have colleagues 

here who probably could fill in if I make any errors. But the general concept is over the next decade to look toward having annual 

information of the type that we have traditionally gathered 

through the decennial census long form, so that we have more upto-date information for use in allocation of Federal funds. This 

surely is one of the concerns that we would have. There are a number of other areas that could be explored as well. 

One of the issues that has come up recently is if we were to stick 

with our thoughts about commuting data, would the American 

Communities Survey provide a vehicle—I make the pun unintentionally—to have more up-to-date information on commuting. 

My colleague, Mr. Spar, has indicated that maybe we should update the metropolitan areas more frequently. We need data in 

99

order to do that, depending upon what constructs we would decide 

to use. 

Mr. HORN. The question often comes up about these subcounty 

areas or submetropolitan district, metropolitan consolidated whatever it is. Obviously, two come to mind that people do use for various purposes and those are the census tract and the ZIP Code. 

Could you just for the record, for the average citizen and the average Congressional Member, sort of differentiate between what 

goes into picking a particular census tract. And in relation to your 

knowledge, although it isn’t, I guess under your jurisdiction, to 

what extent does a ZIP Code overlap or have different criteria? I 

would just like to get it spelled out simply and I know you will do 

that in a very fine way. 

Ms. WALLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will do that most effectively if 

I defer to one of my colleagues. 

Mr. HORN. Well, some colleague? 

Ms. WALLMAN. Mr. Spar or Mr. Fitzsimmons may know the answer to this question more than I do. 

Mr. SPAR. There is really no relationship between the two, sir. 

The tract is obviously a government definition that is pretty much 

consistent over time. The idea being it gives you a chance to see 

how things change socioeconomically. I’ll get in trouble by saying 

this, but I have no belief that the ZIP Code is geography. 

Mr. HORN. Then, what do you think it is? 

Mr. SPAR. I believe it is nothing more than a bunch of carrier 

routes for delivery of the mail. You, sir, said that you came from 

a small farming area. Then you are aware of the fact that this line 

is mythical that goes from point A to point B in terms of trying to 

designate what a ZIP Code looks like. There is no real geography 

that you follow along the road to make that square. On the other 

side, you have got a building that can have five ZIP Codes in it. 

Floors 34 through 37 could be one ZIP Code. 

Mr. HORN. I am sorry, I missed hearing that last part. 

Mr. SPAR. You could have a building that has three or four ZIP 

Codes in it. The Empire State Building or the World Trade Center 

has more than one ZIP Code in the building because of this concentration, if you will, of mail delivery. All a ZIP Code is is a 

means of delivering the mail. There is really no relationship between those two. The way I’d put it, one is geography and one is 

just a construct. 

Mr. HORN. In your judgment, should there be another concept behind the ZIP Code besides simply delivering the mail? 

Mr. SPAR. Probably not, because the problem would be trying to 

get the data. 

Mr. HORN. The fact is the insurance industry uses ZIP Code to 

set their rates; right? 

Mr. SPAR. Yes, they do. Oh, yeah, they use it for all kinds of 

measures and there are firms that update ZIP Code information 

and the Census Bureau even tabulates once every 10 years from 

the decennial census at the ZIP Code level. All the point I am trying to make as long as we don’t think of them as a picture of geography, they are very valuable to aggregate to get an idea of what 

a subcounty area might be like. Same for the tract, if you could update the tracts. 

100

Mr. HORN. Well, that’s what I want to get at. What is the most 

useful for various purposes? We’ve got two subgroups here, a census tract and a ZIP Code. They’re done by different agencies for different purposes. Now, if you as a demographer, which you are, had 

to pick and choose between one of them, what would be the most 

useful of the two for most of the data-gathering reasons in the private sector as well as the public sector? 

Mr. SPAR. I would opt probably for block groups within tracts. 

Mr. HORN. You would go for what? 

Mr. SPAR. A block group, which is a subset of a tract. A tract is 

made up of a bunch of block groups and then the tract itself, and 

buildup, because——

Mr. HORN. You are talking about this census tract? 

Mr. SPAR. Right, exactly right. And then build those up. Those 

are geographies that we can actually find a crosswalk, Third Street 

and 7th Avenue kind of situation. I would prefer to use those and 

have those updated more frequently than every 10 years. Be able 

to build inner cores, if you would, and then move out. The entire 

Nation is tracted, which would enable such a construct to take 

place. One other thing——

Mr. HORN. I would like to ask Mr. Fitzsimmons if you could give 

to me a simple way that you develop a census tract and what was 

the basic purpose when a census tract was designed. Was that simply to take the census or to see change in an area or what? 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. Yes, they are statistical areas defined by the 

Census Bureau with local participation. I’m not an expert on census tracts, but they have a range of population within which they 

fit to keep them roughly equal in size across the Nation. 

Mr. HORN. Well, what’s the range roughly? 

Mr. SPAR. 4,000 people. 

Mr. HORN. 4,000 people per tract? 

Mr. SPAR. Yeah, and the idea being when they start to really 

grow, then they split them. Census tracts aren’t changed unless 

there is really a need to do so. Detroit had to redesign their entire 

area at one point because of all the shifting that went on in the 

inner city, but if you don’t have major changes—New York City is 

an example. There has been little change in the actual tracts in 

New York City over the last—I think they started in 1950. 

Mr. HORN. In a sense, we have 50 years of data by census tract 

in most areas of the United States where there wasn’t rapid 

change? 

Mr. SPAR. Certainly, for the central cities. And then over time 

they started to track the entire Nation. I am correct, Jim? I think 

in 1990? 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. The 2000 Census will have a completely 

tracted United States. In 1990, there was a combination of these 

tracts and block numbering areas outside of metropolitan areas. In 

earlier times only metropolitan areas would have had tracts within 

them. 

Mr. HORN. Let me round this out. I am just curious, does this 

buildup in the bottom simply 4,000 at a time and spread out? Do 

you draw a geographic line around the 4,000? Is that the way it 

works? You go from some center point in, let’s say, core city and 

start building census tracts outward or is there some relationship 

101

to race, ethnicity, age, whatever, in these tracts that you’re trying 

to develop? 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. No, they’re based on total population. 

Mr. HORN. Simply population and nothing else. Not type of population? 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. No. 

Mr. HORN. So, let’s face it, registrars of voters probably use census tracts in a way to develop some of their districts simply because of the population. If you assume there is a certain relationship between voters, there might be due to some population mostly 

kids in the area now and not enough people for the registrar to put 

a polling booth in a census tract, but just cutting across their own 

lines. So I’m curious how census tracts are used by people in the 

marketing business, shall we say. Is this just a happenstance, and 

since there is no real formulation of who goes into a census tract 

except sheer numbers? 

Mr. SPAR. What the private sector has done is they have updated 

these geographies. They have taken various demographic techniques and they update age, race, sex, income, et cetera. And these 

updates actually go down to as low as the subtract area, the block 

group. They then reallocate all of this so the final determination, 

this market area, is a grouping wherever probable of known geographies like tracts, but now you basically have updated information 

and you have got a market segment. 

The market segment, as I said before, could be some cluster of 

areas, but the advantage from the private sector point of view is 

that you can—you’re not constrained by counties, you’re not constrained by the data that you have got from the public sector where 

the only thing it is updated for all intents and purposes is population. The private sector takes a totally different approach to the 

creation of areas. They are freer. They have less constraints. 

Mr. HORN. But you could, with that stability of the tract in terms 

of numbers, unless split, you could have a real snapshot of change 

as it occurs over time in terms of economics, taxation, and all the 

rest of the things, presumably, that the economic side would mirror 

to some degree what is going on in that tract. 

Mr. SPAR. That’s exactly what the private sector does. 

Mr. HORN. Well, any other questions? Mr. Marshall, would you 

like to ask any questions? 

Mr. MARSHALL. No, sir, I would not. 

Mr. HORN. OK. How about members of the administration, would 

they like to ask any questions? 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. Sir, I would just add that census tracts and 

ZIP Codes have both been suggested as possible units to use in defining metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan areas in the future. 

They are options that will be explored. 

Mr. HORN. I will suggest again, I think one of the best groups 

in America that we ought to be hiring during the census are the 

postal workers. They walk these territories. They know what is 

real and what is unreal in terms of some residences. Some people 

have 26 people living in a residence. That will never be picked up 

on much of your sampling or your mailing or anything else. And 

yet that postal worker will know from long experience who is 

around the neighborhood. And it seems to me there ought to be a 

102

real opportunity there. This is after hours, pay them whatever, and 

that would be good for the postal workers, and I think you would 

have a very accurate count. Much more than I think we do now, 

very frankly. 

Are there any other subcodes, areas besides the ZIP Code and 

the census tract that we ought to have some understanding of? Is 

that it? Basically, the ZIP Code, presumably, for delivering mail? 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. There was a third one that escapes me at the 

moment that’s also been suggested. 

Mr. HORN. Why don’t we just put it in the record? 

Ms. WALLMAN. It’s in the record. 

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. It’s in the written testimony. 

Mr. HORN. Mr. Davis, do you have any questions? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know you 

sometimes baffle me about your knowledge and wisdom when you 

start talking about 26 people in one building or one house. It 

sounds like you have been in the communities that I’m familiar 

with. And where I live. And I didn’t know that you knew about 

those. But——

Mr. HORN. Trust me, I do. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Marshall, I could feel your testimony. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. I mean when the group decided who they wanted to 

come down and make the case, I guess they couldn’t have done better in terms of selecting a person. Could you tell me—I want to see 

if I could see it—just what would your community get in benefit 

if it did, in fact, receive the MSA designation? 

Mr. MARSHALL. We believe what Schuylkill County would gain is 

principally more in the private sector than from what I will call 

government assistance. Through research, we have learned that 

there are certain funding elements that would come through housing and urban development, and other perhaps government agencies that would be directly available to Schuylkill County. But that 

is not really the true significance of what we see MSA status to be. 

Mr. Spar detailed greatly the benefit to a community such as ours. 

We are shut out from having availability of national companies 

and national retail chains even considering Schuylkill County because we are not listed on the national MSA lists and they are significant. We have not been able to yield growth in both, as I said, 

the retail area and the industrial area. 

Our ability to gain economic development has in effect been 

stunted, not shortchanged, but stunted in the sense that not being 

in an MSA eliminates, again, our community from even being considered by a Fortune 500 company who won’t look at anybody who 

is not an MSA. Our community has suffered the ravages, unfortunately, of the coal industry which after World War II significantly 

died. We have been fighting an uphill battle for years. Quite honestly, we have been trying to attain MSA status, I am told, for 20 

years, and because we cannot meet the criteria merely because of 

the configuration of our county, we have been shut out. 

What MSA status would bring to Schuylkill County, as I said 

earlier, is the ability to let us compete on a level playing field with 

Harrisburg, Reading, Allentown, Philadelphia, MSA communities 

that surround us. They have created an enclave which has exVerDate jul 14 2003 11:33 Dec 15, 2003 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46319.TXT 46319
103

cluded Schuylkill County from being able to compete in the private 

sector. That’s what we would gain, not necessarily increased government funding. 

Mr. DAVIS. It is like some of us if we don’t go home on weekends 

and things like that to our districts, although they all know we 

exist. When we are out of sight, we are out of mind. And even 

though we are real, if you’re not on the chart, you’re not on the list. 

Then you’re not really considered——

Mr. MARSHALL. Exactly. A good analogy is having a degree, but 

not getting on the list for a job. Being shut out unfairly, we believe. 

Mr. DAVIS. So private sector concerns weigh just as heavily or 

perhaps even more heavily than considerations in relationship to 

interaction with government or governmental agencies. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Absolutely, sir. Without question. 

Mr. DAVIS. If there were to be changes in the designation, would 

it be of any real value to have those changes occur prior to the taking of the 2000 year Census or would it be better to see if there 

might not be a way to move ahead and make adjustments before 

then? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I believe the expression ‘‘the sooner the better’’ 

was used here today. Unquestionably, benefits would flow as soon 

as Schuylkill County could be designated as an MSA. And right 

now, yes, without question, we believe that if it could be done tomorrow, there would be benefits flowing to all 12 communities that 

are part of the MSA coalition with no detriment to the Federal 

Government. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Spar, you have heard the testimony. What would 

your reaction be? 

Mr. SPAR. Well, two things. First, I think it certainly should wait 

until the 2000 Census so that we have the latest information in 

order to be able to fairly delineate these areas. But there is an 

irony which is, I just don’t believe the entire Nation should be classified one way or another. In other words, I see almost every county in the United States having a degree of metropolitanness, if you 

would. 

Under that scenario, I think Mr. Marshall might be quite unhappy with me, because you are no longer exclusive. You no longer 

have a special delineation because you are now metropolitan and 

somebody isn’t. Everybody is to some degree metropolitan, which I 

think is the right way to go on this. 

So I think there’s—I have a different approach to the problem. 

I certainly agree with you. In fact, I believe that your county to a 

good degree is a metropolitan type of county, along with many, 

many others. But I would see you in one of these areas that would 

fit the entire range of the Nation. That might be very different 

than the way you would like to see it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me just pursue, Mr. Spar, a little bit. Give your 

direction. It seems to me that one of the reasons that the MSA designation came about or was developed in the first place, was to try 

and identify core population groups. How would the utilization of 

smaller entities such as ZIP Code areas and that kind of thing, 

how that would impact upon the one reason at least for the designation? 

104

Mr. SPAR. First of all, it would enable you to have a better delineation. What would happen is that you could use small geographies 

to be able to give you a better breakout of the core, if you would. 

I’ll give you an example. If you have a small metropolitan area, the 

central city has a downtown core, and probably most of that central 

city is suburban. It’s usually only in the large metropolitan areas 

where you have this very large area and you don’t have a suburban 

area until you get to the next county. That is not the case probably 

in the vast majority of metropolitan areas, but we don’t have any 

way of differentiating that right now. 

You can only differentiate that if you use the geography below 

the county level. I think I am answering the question. It allows you 

this ability to get this core construct as juxtaposed to the balance 

of the area. I think that answers it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Would there, then, be anything that we would call 

something other than having been designated? I mean, would that 

affect other definitions? 

Mr. SPAR. Oh, for sure, absolutely. I think what you’re going to 

have here is the whole metropolitan definition is going to be completely different and you will still have the city, but rather than 

just saying you have the city of X, you’ll have what I call for lack 

of a better phrasing, in-urban core of city X, and then you will have 

the urban surrounding part of city X, and then you will have the 

suburban part of city X. See what I’m saying? I see this as basically a continuum across the Nation. 

You could argue that just about any county in the United States, 

3,142 counties in the United States, has some degree of metropolitanness. How do we bring them together? That’s not an easy—

I don’t have any ready answer for that. 

Mr. DAVIS. Since the consideration still has some time, could I 

just ask, and this is perhaps my last question, if each one of you 

might consider, are there other things that could be looked at in 

terms of shared information with OMB before the census is taken? 

And would it be put into the hopper or the pot as this question is 

being considered? So if there are other possibilities or other items 

that could be looked at, would you each share those if you have got 

some? 

Mr. SPAR. I had mentioned in my opening remarks that I believe 

there’s been a lot of good work done in the private sector in terms 

of geographic information systems and in terms of the ability to update demographic data. I don’t suggest that OMB or the Census 

Bureau use all of these—these data or all of these constructs, but 

I think there might be some public-private partnership that could 

be developed that would aid the government in updating these 

areas in terms of small geographies and in terms of more often. 

Mr. DAVIS. And let me just say, if the changes that we are talking about were, in fact, made, and the affected communities were 

able to get their designations, do you see any other groupings that 

would express concern or opposition in terms of how those changes 

might affect them? 

Mr. SPAR. Sure. With trepidation, sir, one of the areas that I 

would be concerned about, that comes to mind immediately would 

be redlining. If you are using small constructs, one has to be very, 

very careful that what we are not doing here is defining ghettos. 

105

Something I’ve thought about quite often, and struggle with. That’s 

scary. And I think that has to be taken into account. One has to 

look at that very closely. However, census and OMB decide to 

change these areas. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I realize that there needs to be uniformity, but 

I’ve always believed that some classification of counties based on 

the configuration of the local communities would be meaningful 

here. Schuylkill County happens to be a fourth class county. We 

can’t really compare ours for example to Philadelphia which is a 

first class county. But we are treated on the same level as they are. 

I believe that benefit might be gained by smaller communities 

that are homogenous, and we are, and commuting patterns within 

Schuylkill County will prove that the core community that they 

looked for is now there, even though it might be wider than the 

contiguous land area that they look for. They have drawn arbitrary 

lines. And I don’t mean this as a criticism, but they have these objective standards that really are not fairly applied. 

So I would look really to some form of classification that would 

give smaller counties an opportunity of qualifying on a better basis 

from that standpoint. 

Mr. DAVIS. I thank you all very much, and I certainly would suggest that OMB is wrestling and I think moving in some very positive and direct ways to try and clarify these issues and I appreciate 

the work that you’re doing. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. I take it, Mr. Marshall, when you say a fourth class 

county, you’re talking about Pennsylvania law? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Pennsylvania law. 

Mr. HORN. What is the sequence? About six classes? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I think there are eight classes. 

Mr. HORN. Some States just assign a class to every city or population in ascending or descending order. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I don’t know what the criteria is. 

Mr. HORN. To make law that presumably applies to that county, 

which it wouldn’t in a completely rural county. 

Mr. MARSHALL. We lump fourth to eighth class counties under 

one segment of our law, so there obviously must be some relationship. 

Mr. HORN. I am familiar with your area, being that Potsville is 

the home of John O’Hara and Potsville was also the home of a close 

friend of mine who was a great political scientist and reporter 

when he was there, and that is James Rikley. I don’t know if you 

have ever run into Jim. 

Mr. MARSHALL. We are also the home of Union beer. 

Mr. HORN. You are the home of a lot of things. You do face some 

real problems with those anthracite piles. They probably haven’t 

changed much since I was there and you have got a tough time. 

So we are sympathetic with you. 

One of our fine professional staff members noted this, Mr. Fitzsimmons. ‘‘Census tracts were developed as administrative units to 

balance the workload of conducting the census. They remain useful 

for that purpose, but have maintained constant boundaries wherever possible to facilitate comparisons across time.’’ Is that a pretty 

accurate statement? 

106

Mr. FITZSIMMONS. I am sorry, you are reaching beyond my expertise with census tracts today. 

Mr. HORN. Is that pretty much what your understanding is? 

Mr. SPAR. Yes, yes, sir. 

Mr. HORN. At least we have got you two generalists seated next 

to two statisticians of the United States and the demographer in 

the private sector. What more can I ask for this morning? 

Well, we thank you all for coming. I think it has been a very enlightening discussion. We have all learned a lot and I want to 

thank the staff that put this together starting with J. Russell 

George against the back wall there, staff director for the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology. The staff member particularly responsible for this hearing 

is my colleague on your right, Mark Brasher, professional staff 

member; and John Hynes, professional staff member; Andrea Miller the majority clerk; David McMillen, professional staff member 

for the minority; and Jean Gosa, the clerk for the minority. We 

have four free laborers here known as interns, bright college students, Darren Carlson, Jeff Cobb, John Kim, Grant Newmann, and 

our court reporter, Joe Strickland. And we thank you all, and with 

that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

107


g:\graphics\46319.064
108


g:\graphics\46319.065
109


g:\graphics\46319.066
110


g:\graphics\46319.067
111

Æ