U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

60–286 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: EXAMINING

THE BENEFITS OF POST-CENSUS LOCAL REVIEW

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 11, 1999

Serial No. 106–38

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

GARY A. CONDIT, California

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian

CARLA J. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS

DAN MILLER, Florida, Chairman

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

THOMAS B. HOFELLER, Staff Director

ERIN SCANLON, Professional Staff Member

MARK STEPHENSON, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on February 11, 1999 ....................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Boatwright, Lanier, president, National Association of Developmental Organizations; and Barbara Welty, board member, National Association

of Towns and Townships .............................................................................. 88

Bourey, James, executive director, Maricopa Association of Governments;

Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary of State’s Office; Timothy M. Kaine,

mayor, city of Richmond; and Carol A. Roberts, county commissioner,

Palm Beach County, FL ............................................................................... 48

Ehrlich, Everett, U.S. Census Monitoring Board; and Barbara Bryant,

National Quality Research Center, School of Business Administration,

University of Michigan ................................................................................. 113

Foley, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ................................................................................................................... 47

Petri, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Wisconsin ....................................................................................................... 27

Sawyer, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Ohio ................................................................................................................ 28

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

Blackwell, Kenneth, Secretary of State’s Office, prepared statement of ..... 61

Boatwright, Lanier, president, National Association of Developmental Organizations, prepared statement of ............................................................. 91

Bourey, James, executive director, Maricopa Association of Governments,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 50

Bryant, Barbara, National Quality Research Center, School of Business

Administration, University of Michigan, prepared statement of .............. 122

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

of Illinois:

Letter dated February 9, 1999 ................................................................. 110

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21

Ehrlich, Everett, U.S. Census Monitoring Board, prepared statement of ... 115

Kaine, Timothy M., mayor, city of Richmond, prepared statement of ......... 66

Roberts, Carol A., county commissioner, Palm Beach County, FL, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 74

Sawyer, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Ohio, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 31

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 6

Welty, Barbara, board member, National Association of Towns and Townships, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 98

(1)

OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: EXAMINING THE BENEFITS OF POST-CENSUS

LOCAL REVIEW

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS,

COMMITTEE OF GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:15 a.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Miller (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Miller, Doolittle, Ryan, Souder, Waxman, Davis of Illinois, and Ford.

Staff present: Thomas W. Brierton, deputy staff director; Jennifer

Safavian, chief counsel; Timothy Maney, chief investigator; Erin

Scanlon, professional staff member; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Michelle Ash, minority counsel; Mark Stephenson, minority

professional staff member; and Earley Green, minority staff assistant.

Mr. MILLER. Good morning. I apologize once again for the delay

in the beginning of this hearing on the census. This is a very important hearing and I appreciate everybody’s patience.

I just found out late last night about the Congressional Black

Caucus having a conference concerning the census this morning. I

was invited over there at 10 o’clock, and I appreciate that opportunity. I felt that it was important enough, as they had a very distinguished panel over there, to be able to participate in it. So I,

once again, express my apology.

We’ll begin with my opening statement, and an opening statement by the minority. Mr. Davis will be giving that, and then we’ll

go to our first panel.

Let me say good morning and welcome to everyone and welcome

to the new members. They’re not here right now, but we have a lot

of new members. We have one new member on the minority side

and we have three new members on the majority side. Hopefully,

they’ll be here sometime during the hearing.

This is my second term as chairman, and I’m excited about working together with everyone to achieve a successful census in 2000.

Unfortunately, our ranking member, Mrs. Maloney, was unable to

join us today. She’s overseas traveling on official government business. I know if it were at all possible, she would be here. Under

normal circumstances, I would have postponed the hearing and

2

markup scheduled for later today. But these are anything but normal circumstances. They are extraordinary circumstances.

Just weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled the Census Bureau

cannot use sampling in the 2000 census. Now, we must move

quickly to provide the Bureau and local governments the tools they

need to count everyone in America.

Any legislation that Congress intends to pass that would have

the Census Bureau adopt a program such as post-census local review must be done expeditiously. To delay this hearing would delay

the subcommittee markup. To delay the subcommittee markup

would delay the full committee markup, as well as final action on

the House floor. I haven’t even talked about getting this legislation

through the Senate.

I would also add that, as everyone in this room understands, this

is a long process and there will be ample opportunities for people

on both sides of this issue to voice their views, offer amendments,

and cast their votes.

To be fair to the Census Bureau, we must provide them needed

time to implement any new program that Congress may legislate.

It’s unfortunate that Mrs. Maloney is traveling abroad, however,

the business of counting America cannot be delayed.

So, we are here to take another important step in counting

America. The ‘‘America Counts Today’’ initiative is a progressive

plan to count everyone in the 2000 census without the use of illegal

sampling. This plan, supported by the leadership, contains a number of different proposals: hiring 100,000 additional census enumerators who would target the hardest-to-count communities; increasing the advertising budget for the Census Bureau; conducting

a second mailing of census forms; providing matching grants for

local communities to conduct community outreach programs.

Yesterday, Congresswoman Carrie Meek, a distinguished member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and I jointly introduced legislation that would allow welfare recipients and veterans to take

temporary census jobs without losing their benefits. Mrs. Meek is

to be commended for her efforts in this area and her commitment

to working with Republicans to get the most accurate count possible. She is setting a shining example of cooperation.

Today, we are here to focus on another key element of the

‘‘America Counts Today’’ initiative: post-census local review. Postcensus local review is a very straightforward, common-sense idea

implemented by the Bureau in 1990. When explaining the importance of post-census local review in 1990, the Bureau said,

Most important is that local officials have an opportunity to review the math and

count while the census is still in progress. Possible errors identified and reported

at this stage are relatively easy to check and correct if necessary. Once this stage

is passed, problems can become difficult to resolve.

The officials of local and tribal governments that choose to participate also will

have a better understanding of the procedures and concepts involved in taking a

census. A considerable amount of good will and understanding of one another can

develop between the governmental unit, the State agencies assisting the governmental unit and Census Bureau personnel as a result of the interaction during the

local review program.

Apparently, the Bureau now feels that these good reasons for

having post-census local review in 1990 are no longer valid. They

are discontinued—they have discontinued this important step in

3

the census process and this is unfortunate and it must be corrected.

I know there are two words that local officials hate to hear from

the Federal Government. They are: ‘‘Trust us.’’ That’s exactly what

the Bureau’s telling local governments. On the one hand, they tell

us how important the census is and how important it is to get everyone counted and on the other hand they are saying ‘‘We don’t

want you to check our work. It’s accurate. Trust us.’’

Well, that type of attitude does not breed confidence in the census. It breeds distrust in the census. While it’s true that the Bureau has worked very closely in building good address lists and

maps through the ‘‘Local Update of Census Address Program,’’ commonly known as LUCA, it just doesn’t make sense to eliminate the

local involvement on the back end. After all, the finalization of the

numbers is critically important.

I don’t know where my Democratic colleagues here today stand

on this issue. I know some here don’t believe it would be helpful.

But I would urge anyone speaking in opposition to a local audit not

to try and convince me that it’s a bad idea. You need to convince

the California League of Cities, which represents 472 California cities, why the post-census local review is a bad idea.

Convince the National League of Cities that a post-census local

review is a bad idea. Convince the National Association of Towns

and Townships. Convince Mayor Dennis Archer of Detroit who

spoke very forcefully at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in favor of

post-census local review. Tell him why adding 47,000 residents to

the city of Detroit, as they did in 1990, is a bad idea.

And most importantly, explain to your local government leaders

why they should blindly put their fate in the hands of the Federal

Government and not review those census numbers that we all

agree are so vital before they become final.

I’m amazed that there’s anyone at all testifying against this legislation, but there are. What’s even more astonishing is the reasons

why. Cost effectiveness—the assistant city attorney for the city of

Los Angeles will tell us later, according to her testimony, ‘‘This

time-consuming, costly process was to add a mere 7,735 dwelling

units to the city’s housing unit PAL.’’

So now we have the sampling advocates on the record as not

wanting to go the extra mile to get their citizens counted. How

ironic. A ‘‘mere 7,735 units’’ is what her testimony says. If I were

ever to make those comments, I would be branded as not wanting

to count everyone. How many minorities and children live in those

7,735 housing units? And why shouldn’t they be counted?

What these opponents of post-census local review are now saying

is that everyone is not worth counting. It’s not worth the additional

effort and time and cost to ensure that everyone is counted. Well,

I can tell you now that if I have anything to say about it, this Congress will go the extra mile to ensure that everyone is counted. We

have a constitutional duty to do nothing less.

In conclusion, let me make something perfectly clear. We’ve

fought the fight over sampling in the Supreme Court and we won.

But that’s not good enough. As the saying goes, if you’re going to

talk the talk, you need to walk the walk. We need to put forth conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:51 Mar 27, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\60286.TXT pfrm01 PsN: 60286
4

crete proposals that will help give the Bureau and local communities the resources they need to get an accurate count.

Post-census local review is not the silver bullet to a full count in

the 2000 census. It is one important piece of a multi-faceted effort

to count everyone. As I said 2 weeks ago when I introduced the

‘‘America Counts Today’’ initiative, I am looking forward to getting

a Census Bureau plan for a full enumeration. It is overdue. I also

look forward to innovative proposals from the administration on

how they intend to count America legally.

This isn’t about taking credit or casting blame. Yesterday, Congresswoman Meek and I stood shoulder-to-shoulder and introduced

an important tool in helping get America counted. That needs to

be the example that we need to continue to follow. We must stop

using the census to divide America. We must unite and count

America.

And now, we’ll have an opening statement by the minority. Any

other members that want to have an opening statement, we’ll submit it for the record.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would hope you’d allow

members to make their opening statements. We didn’t object to you

going on beyond the 5-minutes and I don’t think our side will use

more time than you did. But ordinarily members should have that

courtesy extended to them.

Speaking of courtesy being extended to us, I’m here to express

some bewilderment and regret as to the state of affairs. The ranking member of the subcommittee, Mrs. Maloney, presumably had a

conversation with you asking that this meeting not be held in her

absence because she’s leading the U.S. delegation at the International Conference on Population and Development. Representatives Davis and Ford had to cancel previous commitments at the

Congressional Black Caucus Summit in order to be here.

Our committee has a bill on the floor at the very same time, coincidentally, not something you would have been able to anticipate.

So, it’s one thing to have the situation where the ranking member

requests and presumably was granted your promise not to hold the

hearing, however we also find ourselves with a hearing and a

markup scheduled immediately after the hearing.

Ordinarily, to find out whether a bill is a good idea or not, and

I don’t prejudge the matter, because I’d like to hear what the witnesses have to say, you hear from the witnesses, you evaluate their

testimony, oftentimes you get ideas from other people and don’t

just tell them what you think. You want to hear what they have

to say and get some input. And based on the input, we might well

have some further thoughts about what the legislation ought to

say. But today, it doesn’t appear we’re going to have any opportunity to take the testimony into account if it suggests needs for

changes in this legislation before the subcommittee’s proceeding to

a markup.

This doesn’t suggest to me a desire to hear and accommodate minority concerns, Democratic party concerns, your colleagues’ concerns on this side of the aisle. Ironically, the subject of this legislation is one that could produce fruitful bipartisan legislation. Each

of us here knows and works closely with local governments in our

district. We often share their concerns. Consequently, when a

5

group of local government officials comes before us with a problem,

we usually work to find a bipartisan solution to their concerns.

Today, we’ll hear that local governments want to make sure that

the census counts all of the housing units in their jurisdiction. I’m

sure that all of us here today agree with that goal. It is possible,

though highly unlikely, that the bill to be marked up this afternoon

is the single and unique solution to the set of problems.

In fact, the city of Los Angeles yesterday adopted a motion opposing H.R. 472; so obviously, all local governments are not in

agreement as to how to achieve the goal of an accurate account.

And I would like to submit that motion into the record, along with

my statement. In addition, I’d like the testimony of Jessica Heinz,

the assistant city attorney for the city of L.A., to be submitted into

the record. Ms. Hines was unable to be with us today.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman and the information referred to follow:]

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Mr. WAXMAN. I believe there are a number of ways we could

solve the problems raised by local governments in an open and unprejudiced manner. If we had a discussion of these possibilities, it

might lead to a solution that all of us could stand behind. Unfortunately, the subcommittee has precluded the possibility of rushing

to a markup immediately after this hearing. And then, I don’t

know what the schedule was like today, but this was a hearing

scheduled for 10 o’clock. I was prepared to be here at 10. I was informed the meeting was going to be put off. I got all of one—maybe

5 minutes notice that the meeting was already called to order. So

I rushed from the floor and I have to rush back to the floor because

we have a bill under consideration.

I want to thank all the witnesses that are going to be testifying

today. I regret that I won’t be here, but I’ll have an opportunity

to review your testimony. The chairman made a misstatement. I

just have to respond to it. The Supreme Court did not settle the

issue about sampling to get an accurate account. The court said

you cannot use, by a narrow margin of 5–4, sampling in the census

for the purpose of apportioning seats between the States. But the

court was very clear in affirming that the law requires the Secretary of Commerce to use sampling where feasible for all other

purposes. And that would seem to me to lead us to the situation

where we’re going to have two counts, two counts that will be submitted—one that will not be fully accurate in terms of apportionment between the States and another one for all other purposes

that will be far more accurate. Perhaps we can change it and have

one count that will be the most accurate count for all purposes. But

I sense that that’s not something that the majority is going to be

receptive to because they want the least accurate count to be the

one to apply for all purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I’m not going to be here for the witnesses. I don’t

think it really makes sense or is appropriate to rush to a markup.

For myself, I’m just not going to be here for your markup. I don’t

know what other members are going to do. I don’t see why we

ought to even be participating in the markup the way we find ourselves today. If you go forward, you go forward. And I’ll just deal

with these issues as we get to full committee, still with the hope

that we can talk and work together and try to get a bipartisan bill.

If not, we’ll fight the fights out in full committee. I’m not going to

be here to fight in its subcommittee and I don’t know what my colleagues are going to do but I don’t know why they’d want to stick

around, either.

So I yield back my time. I hope you’ll let other members who

want to make opening statements have that opportunity.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. One of the reasons it was

delayed is that I was invited to go participate in the Congressional

Black Caucus over at the Hyatt and I went over and participated

in the panel. I felt it was worthwhile enough to delay the hearing

for an hour.

Traditionally, as you know, we don’t normally have all the members. Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Petri are going to be our opening panel.

We have two new members, Mr. Ford and Mr. Ryan, and if they

want to make opening statements, we’ll do that. I hope it doesn’t

17

mess up everybody’s schedule too much. It won’t take, hopefully,

too long. Is that alright? OK?

Well, let me call on Mr. Ryan for an opening statement.

Mr. RYAN. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me start off

by saying that we do want an accurate census. That’s very important for us. The importance of a census to our system of government cannot be stressed enough. That is what all of us are after.

It was specifically provided for in our Constitution. The founders

of our country clearly felt that it was vital to ensure fair representation for the citizens of this country. Getting an accurate census

count in the year 2000 will be of the utmost importance to the citizens of my home State of Wisconsin, which is why I’m very pleased

to have a member of our delegation, Congressman Petri, here before us today. He knows this census process very, very well. He’s

been involved in it for a number of years. And he will be testifying

with us today.

Congressman Petri played a key role in the 1990 census and I

believe his input in planning the year 2000 census will be invaluable. So I hope members will stick around to hear his testimony.

It is the goal of this subcommittee to have an accurate census in

the year 2000, as I mentioned, and the involvement of local governments is essential to the accuracy of our census. I am concerned,

however, though, that efforts to make the upcoming census accurate are in question. Yesterday, we heard from the GAO with our

high risk series in the full committee level. The GAO has labeled

the 2000 census a ‘‘high risk’’ program based on information that

the Census Bureau has not yet developed.

Now, the Supreme Court ruling that an actual enumeration is legally necessary in the census process requires the Census Bureau

to shift its focus toward counting citizens rather than sampling. So,

the question is, how are they going to get ready and work on enumeration?

The administration and the Census Bureau have chosen to disregard the Supreme Court’s decision. That is very unfortunate. It

is vital to the success of the Census Bureau to concentrate all of

its efforts on one method of data collection to avoid any confusion

and inefficiency.

It’s already, you know, February 11th. We’re less than 2 years

away. According to the GAO, the state of the plan for the 2000 census is at risk for a number of reasons, not the least of which is a

desire by the Census Bureau to pursue two methods of data collection or focus on obtaining two sets of numbers. Sampling is not an

option, according to the Supreme Court. Our Constitution requires

actual enumeration. The Supreme Court did specifically say that

we must engage in enumeration for apportionment reasons. We are

behind the eight ball right now.

It is time to turn our attention to a method that will actually

help us achieve these goals. It is well within the ability of the Census Bureau to obtain more accurate numbers through a program

focused on actual enumeration. A program focused on outreach and

local government review will give us the accuracy we are looking

for.

The bill proposed by the chairman of this committee lays out that

kind of foundation for a successful census through actual enumeraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:51 Mar 27, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60286.TXT pfrm01 PsN: 60286
18

tion. This voluntary program, allowing the input of local governments serves as a check on that data. Local government officials

know their jurisdiction, they know their areas, much better than

any Washington bureaucrat does. So they are in the best position

to point out the flaws in district maps or neighborhoods that are

being undercounted. This would ensure that all people in their area

are accounted for.

In 1990, when we did do this, it worked. And the Census Bureau

utilized post-census local review. Approximately 16.3 percent of the

eligible government units participated. It was very successful for

the areas that chose to participate. Over 91,000 additional housing

units were added. Participant cities, such as St. Louis, Milwaukee,

in my home State, and Detroit were able to achieve a more accurate count for their populations through the use of post-census local

review.

Local governments know how important an actual census number is to their representation. The local governments do not need

an incentive program to increase their desire to have everyone

counted. They just need the tools to make sure that it happens.

That is the key in this bill and I think that’s a very important part

of this legislation that we’re going to be marking up.

Now, the Census Bureau can do that by working with them to

focus on areas that are typically undercounted. No one in this room

wants a failed census. Your politics aside, we must do everything

possible to ensure that the census is on the right track.

I would like to thank all of the witnesses for coming to the committee today and I look forward to their testimony. Thank you very

much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to thank Mr. Waxman, the ranking member,

for coming over to express his concerns.

Mr. Chairman, I agree that this is a long, important, and sensitive process and I appreciate your desire to move as expeditiously

and as prudently as possible. But I must admit that I’m a bit concerned that you’ve decided to call this hearing today in the absence

of our ranking member, Mrs. Maloney. The issue of the census and

accuracy is too important to exclude major people who need to be

at the table.

As we began the 106th Congress, the Republican leadership did

so with the pledge of bipartisan cooperation. However, this hearing

and the markup that is scheduled to follow do not strike a bipartisan note.

This issue of post-census local review is an important issue. However, this is not a new issue. As a matter of fact, it is an old issue

with a troubled past. Thus, I look forward to hearing Dr. Bryant’s

comments on how this post-census local review worked in 1990.

As a former city councilman and a Cook County commissioner,

I can really appreciate the presence of local governmental officials

who are here today. Because this is really about resource allocation. And those who can get an accurate count can maximize their

potential for Federal resources.

Consequently, those in urban cities and rural communities who

are missed lose out because they really do not count. So the 100

19

million people—the 10 million people who were missed in 1990,

many of them poor, were essentially told that you do not count.

Their local governments were short-changed of valuable resources.

In Chicago, the undercount was roughly 2.4 percent. And the African-American undercount was significantly higher, at between 5

and 6 percent.

After examining the issue of post-census local review, I am not

convinced that this gets us to the ultimate objective of a fair and

accurate census for America. Because this post-census local review

looked at housing units on a block by block basis, I submit that instead of relying upon the counting of housing units, let’s count all

of the people. In fact, the number of localities participating in the

post-census local review was minimal.

In addition, I am concerned that the costs borne by local communities will be very high. Also, I am concerned about accuracy because in 1990 about 12 percent of the 124,900 added to the census

count were added erroneously. Nonetheless, I look forward to hearing from our expert witnesses and again, especially Dr. Bryant,

who has devoted several pages to this issue in her book.

I believe that the legislation, H.R. 472, the Local Census Quality

Check Act, which is scheduled for markup, is both unwarranted

and dangerous. First, it is too soon to tell if the Address List Correction Act, which was passed in 1994, will lead to greater accuracy

and address some of the concerns at the local level. Moreover, this

legislation could hamper and burden the Census Bureau as they

attempt to implement a model that works.

Finally, I believe that the legislation duplicates many of the activities already carried out in doing the pre-census local preview.

I look forward to hearing from our experts how much of a burden

this legislation will place on local governments. In addition, I look

forward to hearing whether this legislation is really needed.

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have in my hand a letter that was written to you and to Mrs. Maloney from Mr. Prewitt

who is Director of the Bureau of Census. I’d like to read into the

record this letter if I might:

Dear Dan and Carolyn, I understand that the Subcommittee on the Census is

holding a hearing tomorrow on H.R. 472 which would add a new section, 143, to

Title 13 and require a post-census local review, PCLR. I also understand that the

subcommittee intends to mark up the bill immediately after the conclusion of the

hearing.

While I appreciate and understand the subcommittee’s great interest in census operations, I am profoundly disappointed that the majority has apparently opted to

pursue a legislative route to impose its judgments over the operational design judgments of the career professionals at the Census Bureau. In fact, the majority did

not invite the Census Bureau to testify on this issue.

On January 14, 1999, the Census Bureau submitted to Congress a report, ‘‘Census

2000: Operation Plan,’’ using traditional census-taking methods. The covering memo

for the report noted that the career professionals at the Bureau have judged PCLR

to be an ineffective way of improving census coverage.

This judgment reflects their experience with PCLR in the 1990 Census, which

proved to be very expensive in both time and cost and provided very little improvement in accuracy. In fact, the operation only added 124,900 persons to the count,

which is less than a 2-percent reduction of the gross undercount of roughly 8.5 million persons.

It also included high error rates and extremely high cost per case. As the Census

Bureau and outside experts have recognized and advised Congress, the benefits of

PCLR derived from local governments’ information on addresses in that jurisdiction,

particularly new construction. Such information can and should be used in the cenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:51 Mar 27, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60286.TXT pfrm01 PsN: 60286
20

sus, but much earlier in the process than would occur on the PCLR. In our best

judgment, the PCLR operation proposed in H.R. 472 would engage local governments in the wrong way and at the wrong time, as did the 1990 operation.

The Bureau continues to refine its operational plan in light of both the recent Supreme Court ruling and lessons from the 1998 dress rehearsals, including active

consideration of new procedures to include in Census 2000 all new construction

through March 2000. In that context, the Census Bureau is working on better methods for drawing on the expertise and information of local governments and to accomplish the benefits contemplated by PCLR.

I would strongly urge the subcommittee to take no legislative action before granting us the opportunity to explain our concerns and plans. Sincerely, Kenneth

Prewitt, Director.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,

and that concludes my opening remarks.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]

21

22

23

24

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Ford.

Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t be long. I, too, am

a little disturbed. You and I are friends. At least, I consider us

friends. I know you don’t normally operate this way. It concerns me

a little bit that in light of this committee’s history—a very interesting partisan history we have on the full committee—that we

would start the year out on this note, start this session off on this

note, particularly when there’s ample time to have at least waited

for Mrs. Maloney to have returned. It’s not as if she’s on vacation.

She’s leading a U.S. delegation at an international women’s conference.

I think, compounding the fact I believe I’m still the youngest

Member of Congress. Paul Ryan has about 4 months, I think, on

your side. He made excellent and compelling points in his opening

remarks and I am not one, Mr. Chairman, who has made up my

mind on this issue at all.

But I would say to the chairman and to my friend, Mr. Ryan,

whose family I met, I think, when they were out to dinner when

he first got to Washington, that this is not the way we ought to

go about doing this. Mr. Prewitt, who’s the director? I know I see

Steven Holmes has come into the room, the writer with the New

York Times, his article this morning which I hope the chairman

would allow me to introduce into the record, clearly states that the

Director of Census would have loved to have been invited, to have

at least had an opportunity to answer what I think are some pretty

relevant questions.

I know that Mr. Waxman offered a piece of evidence that suggests that maybe the city of Los Angeles is not in lock-step with

some of the California cities or local governments that would support your bill, Mr. Miller. But at least allow them to respond as to

why they believe that this post-census local review is not cost-effective. If, indeed, it is cost effective and will allow us to have an accurate count, then it’s something that I would be willing to support.

It’s just at this point it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

I think all of us support fairness. An accurate count would certainly constitute fairness. But anytime that we can—particularly

with this committee, Mr. Chairman, figure out ways to infuse at

least a perception of fairness, I think we ought to be in the business of doing that. I think that all of us in the committee—and I

do not excuse those on my side for helping to diminish some of the

credibility of this committee over the last 2 years—but anytime

that we can take steps to try to correct that and repair the image,

I think we ought to.

I thank you for responding kindly to Mr. Davis’ and my letter to

come over to the Congressional Black Caucus Summit and provide

some words or provide some guidance as to what the committee

might be doing. But I do think we also have a responsibility to the

Census Bureau itself to allow Director Prewitt—I’d love to hear

him explain why is it that he doesn’t support the legislation that

you’re offering, Mr. Chairman. I don’t question the merits of your

legislation because we are in opposite parties. You’re a good man

and I’m certain that you want a fair count and an accurate count.

But, it certainly raises suspicions on my side and doesn’t do anything to foster the type of camaraderie—not to suggest that we

25

ought to be agreeing on everything, but at least be agreeable in our

disagreements. And this—starting off this way doesn’t do anything

to add to that. It doesn’t enrich, nor does it do anything to correct

or repair or rehabilitate the battered image of this committee.

Again, I don’t blame you guys solely for that. We certainly played

a part in that, as well. And I hope my colleagues, Mr. Sawyer and

Mr. Petri, do not take offense but I’m going to follow the lead of

my ranking member on the committee, Mr. Waxman, and just simply refuse to participate on the grounds of process.

As a new member and a second-term member, I hope that we can

all begin to work together and work together in better ways. Again,

I don’t expect you guys to agree with us or agree with me on everything, but at least let’s agree on a fair and accurate process, much

like the fair and accurate count, Mr. Chairman, that your bill seeks

to make a reality.

As I close, I find it somewhat interesting in your letter, Mr.

Chairman, that you talk about—and again, I don’t think there is

any animus on your part to hold this hearing without Mrs.

Maloney but I do think it raises legitimate suspicions on my side.

As you mention in your letter, as we juggle these busy schedules,

as a member of six congressional subcommittees.

One of the issues we have in this Congress between Democrat

and Republicans, an internal issue, is committee ratios. And with

a six-vote margin between the two parties, the guys on my side of

the aisle who are lucky to serve on one committee and have just

one subcommittee. God bless you for having all those subcommittees.

You clearly possess all it takes to do those things, but to serve

on Appropriations, chair this subcommittee and the Committee on

Budget—as a member who had one committee for 8 months his

first term in the Congress, you’re a good man. I hope that one day

I have the opportunity to have all of these responsibilities but I do

hope that we, as we seek an accurate and fair count of the general

public, that we also look at an accurate and fair count in this Congress and try to make sure that, to the extent that we can get

along a lot better and work better together, that we do that.

Again, I apologize to Mr. Petri and Mr. Sawyer and hope that

you get a chance to come back before the committee and I hope

that we have an opportunity to invite Director Prewitt because I,

too, want to hear, Mr. Chairman, why is it that he doesn’t support

this bill and why he thinks these are efforts to micro-manage preparations for the 2000 census. He’s made some legitimate complaints and I think he ought to have the opportunity to answer

those questions.

I apologize to my good friend and new colleague, Mr. Ryan, for

having to start out this way. And to you, as well, Mr. Chairman,

but I just won’t participate. I hope my colleague, Mr. Davis, although he certainly has the right to start when he wants to, chooses not to participate either. And again, I thank you for the opportunity to have an opening remark.

Mr. RYAN. If I could, Mr. Chairman, may I ask a quick question?

Were all of the witnesses that were requested by the minority approved?

26

Mr. MILLER. Yes. The minority asked for four witnesses and they

were granted every witness they wanted. I thought that they might

be asking for Mr. Prewitt to be here.

Mr. FORD. Unfortunately, I’m the least senior guy here on the

committee, so I apologize for not having more influence in this

process. But I’d say to my friend, Mr. Ryan, I’ve only been here 2

years, but it seems to me it would be logical to invite the director

of the organization. The Census would implement this plan. You’re

not that new——

Mr. RYAN. I’m even newer.

Mr. MILLER. We need to move forward because there are a lot

of witnesses and I’m disappointed that you’re not going to be able

to stay and listen to the witnesses because we have all the witnesses requested by the minority. I think you’d learn something

from the witnesses. We have very distinguished panels, from a

mayor and county official to several elected officials here. And I

think if you want to object to or boycott the mark-up, that’s one

thing. But I’m disappointed that you don’t want to listen to the

statements from the different witnesses.

Mr. FORD. I apologize to all of them. It’s just the process, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. Let me also make a statement concerning Mrs.

Maloney. I talked to her last week and we tried to juggle the schedule around her schedule. Congress is in session. We have to move.

This is serious times and we have a very short timeframe. The census forms are going in the mail next month. And we can’t just put

this off for another couple weeks.

This is a process as we’re going to have it into full committee.

On the floor, there are going to be plenty of chances to debate this

issue. Mr. Prewitt is going to be scheduled to a hearing with the

full committee in the very near future.

Mrs. Maloney found time to fly back from the Hague to a political event in Virginia but she didn’t find this as important, obviously. And that was her decision. But, you know, we’re going to

have, I think, a very good set of witnesses and then we have every

witness the minority requested. We didn’t object—and there aren’t

many cases that happens all the time.

We do have some good ones. We have two Members of Congress.

I’m sorry you won’t even give them the respect to stay here for it,

but I think we would like to call the first two witnesses forward

and I see Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Petri. They can come forward.

Mr. FORD. I’ll talk to them on the floor. I’ll see you on the floor,

Tom.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much. I know one of your witnesses

came from Los Angeles, so I’ll give him the courtesy and I appreciate all the members here.

Colleagues, Mr. Petri and Mr. Sawyer, thank you very much for

coming. Ten years ago you all were in part of this seat. Mr. Sawyer, you chaired the committee back then. Mr. Petri, I think you

were the ranking member, is that right?

Mr. SAWYER. Not 10 years ago.

Mr. MILLER. Six years ago, OK.

Mr. SAWYER. That was Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania.

27

Mr. MILLER. OK, that’s right. Now Governor Ridge. Let me welcome both of you and let’s go with your opening statement, and

Congressman Petri, if you’d like to proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS PETRI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fellow colleagues. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the importance of a post-census

local review. As a member of the census subcommittee shortly after

the 1990 census, I saw first hand the important role played by a

post-census review in achieving an accurate count.

Clearly, the Census Bureau is staffed by a team of competent

professionals and those individuals are augmented every 10 years

by an army of committed, short-term workers. But no matter how

qualified and how committed a team you assemble, no project designed to count 280 million people on a continental scale will ever

be perfect. So there ought to be a mechanism available for a check,

then a double-check, and maybe even a check again.

Now, it’s been said by some that the era of big government is

over. Yet, it’s sort of symbolic of what we associated with the era

of big government and arrogance in Washington that we can assume that a centrally planned and directed census could reach

unerringly into every community and knock on every door. It’s just

not going to happen. Mistakes are inevitable.

We’re fortunate enough to have at our disposal a resource capable of correcting these mistakes. Now, the resources are the local

officials of our land. The committed professionals who live and

work in our communities possess a knowledge and a perspective

not even our best statisticians here in DC could match. So, we

ought to encourage their participation and welcome their assistance. They have a strong incentive to have an accurate and complete count in their communities. And rather than having them

knock on the door and trying to throw information over the transom, there should be an orderly process where they can look at

what’s been done in their communities and offer comments and corrections to it. My understanding is that that’s what your legislation

outlines.

A post-census local review acts like an independent audit, bringing in those individuals with an outsider’s perspective and a specialist’s focus to assure the Nation that nothing’s overlooked.

The importance of such an audit hit home to me and to my constituents when a small town in my district, Montello, WI, received

the preliminary census count for their community back in 1990. To

the surprise of the residents of Montello, the Census Bureau reported they had several hundred fewer people than they expected,

that their town had shrunk in size. This is quite an error for a

town of 1,300 people. During the post-census review, the local officials were able to demonstrate that the census had missed an entire ward of the city. And that’s happened in other instances in my

district, as well. That ward was promptly added and the town was

returned to its former status.

Such problems, if not caught, affect everything from Federal and

State funding and political redistricting to the pride and self-image

of communities across our land. The Census Bureau’s decision to

28

provide no mechanism for review is either a sign of the Bureau’s

recklessness in addressing accuracy problems or a sign of its arrogance in believing that it can avoid all such problems in the first

place.

So, I’d like to commend our chairman for having made a commitment to make available the resources necessary to make census

2000 the most accurate in history. A vital component in that effort

is a post-census local review. So, I’d urge my colleagues to ensure

its inclusion as a part of census 2000 by legislation, if necessary,

or by decision of the Bureau itself.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Petri.

Now, Mr. Sawyer.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS SAWYER, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be

here with my colleague, Tom Petri, again on this topic and to see

so many old friends at the witness chairs behind me.

If I could just step aside for a moment, I would urge you, Mr.

Chairman, to involve the Bureau itself in this process. When we

were doing oversight, it wasn’t a matter of the minority requesting

the Census Bureau to come before us. It was a matter of fundamental courtesy to the administrative agency that is responsible for

this large and complex undertaking. If it were possible, I would

hope that you could find the time to do that prior to a markup.

Having said that, I really want to thank you and the ranking

member for inviting me to testify this morning. I know that your

effort is well-intended and I welcome this opportunity.

Like your effort, the 1990 post-census local review was well-intentioned, but an ultimately flawed program to tap the knowledge

of local officials in the final stages of the census. As a former

mayor, I understand the importance of involving mayors and county supervisors and others to help identify obvious gaps.

The fact is, though, that in the end the PCLR in 1990 became

a frantic attempt to make up for deficiencies in traditional counting

methods. We found that the shortcomings of those methods were

widespread and systemic and it was ultimately futile trying to find

missing housing units and determine who lived there 6 months

earlier in the final hours of the census.

The depth and the breadth of the undercount was an obstacle

that late desperation in the guise of persistence simply could not

overcome. You’ve heard some of the hard facts about PCLR. It cost

nearly $10 million; it added 125,000 people, some 12 percent of

whom were simply wrong. It engaged only one quarter of the governments that were eligible to participate.

And as a result, recognizing that its counting efforts were falling

short, the Census Bureau also initiated a re-canvas of selected

neighborhoods in the late summer and early fall of 1990. In all, the

Bureau visited 20 percent of all blocks in the country that second

time. The combined effort increased the final census count by onetenth of 1 percent.

When Tom and I got together, following the 1990 census to do

our evaluation, we quickly came to the conclusion that building an

accurate address list was an essential element to an accurate cenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:51 Mar 27, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60286.TXT pfrm01 PsN: 60286
29

sus. And frankly, we were amazed to learn that each 10 years, the

Census Bureau starts from scratch to build a new address list.

It was clear from our hearings that involving local governments

in the development of an address list was critical. It was equally

clear that in involving them so late, at the end of the process, in

the frantic efforts to close out the census, produced headaches and

inaccuracies for both the Census Bureau and local officials.

Early involvement was far better for both Census Bureau and

local officials. Unfortunately, the condition of the laws at the time

made that quite difficult and so, at the request of the Census Bureau and the Postal Service, we developed together the Address

List Improvement Act to address these legal constraints.

By using this new authority, the Bureau’s redesigned census relies on the knowledge of local governments to compile and verify

a master address file of all housing units before the census starts.

Unquestionably, this kind of accurate address list will substantially

increase the likelihood that all households will receive a form and

that enumerators will visit all those households.

Equally important—shifting a thorough review of the census and

address lists to the front of the process will promote a higher quality census since information collected late in the process is unquestionably less reliable.

As the GAO and other evaluators have discovered, as information

moves further away in time from census day, more and more mistakes are made and the quality of the data is greatly diminished.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that your legislation to require a

1990’s-style post-census local review and every census is a well-intentioned effort to bring knowledge of local officials to bear on the

census process. That is an admirable goal and one that should run

through all stages of censuses, including planning and preparation

and through its implementation, not focused on the end of the process.

I really must strongly counsel the subcommittee against tying

the Bureau’s hands with specific operational requirements. Particularly, ones that run against the professional judgment of Bureau

staff and may not be wise in the light of past experience.

In 1990, post-census local review held out great promise for local

governments to improve the accuracy of a census that more and

more Americans were beginning to shun. We face the same problem coming into 2000. In the end, for all of its efforts, the program

didn’t meet expectations. But even if it had, we cannot not automatically assume that a repeat 10 years later, based on a census

whose design is grounded in the lessons of the 1960’s, is justified.

This country is changing more profoundly and rapidly than we’re

able to measure. We will not be the same country in 2000 that we

were in 1990 and we must be able to adapt our tools of measurement to accommodate that change. That’s why the Census Act

gives the Secretary of Commerce such wide latitude in determining

how best to conduct the census.

Now, I agree with you that the Congress has the constitutional

responsibility for taking the census and we should not look the

other way while the Census Bureau plans each decennial count.

But I would suggest that perhaps the most constructive role for

Congress is ensuring that the Bureau is guided by sound scientific

30

and operational knowledge generated both from within the agency

and outside experts and stakeholders. You and I may have differed

on some of those details but I think we both have agreed on that

fundamental principle.

Following the 1990 census, the Secretary of Commerce established an advisory committee comprised of a wide range of stakeholder organizations. That 2000 census advisory committee has

prepared a final report that includes recommendations for improving the accuracy of the address file before the census and housing

unit coverage during the census. The committee unanimously endorsed a focused, local review program that gives local governments an opportunity to review housing units at various levels of

aggregation, depending on their ability to participate in the precensus address compilation program.

The committee also endorsed a large, post-enumeration survey

that can serve as the basis for correcting overcounts and undercounts in the census. We should not second-guess the advice of this

broad group, nor the career professionals at the Bureau itself. Nor

should we render their substantial effort meaningless by negating

or modifying key elements of their proposals, which fundamentally

have to work as a system, all together, and not as individual items.

I am really grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for your continued

focus and your detailed interest and I once again close by the plea

that—as long as we’re mentioning Steven Holmes so much this

morning, I refer back to an article that he wrote in November 1998

that was headlined ‘‘Census Chief’s Dream: Grand Tally Minus Politics.’’ I take that desire seriously. I know you do, too. The sidebar

is a quote from him that says, ‘‘Leave us alone and let us do our

job is a message to a glut of overseers.’’ Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to testify this morning. I look forward to answering any questions.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas Sawyer follows:]

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Petri, Mr. Sawyer. We are getting

very close to the beginning of the census. The forms go in the

mail——

Mr. SAWYER. It’s true, but the forms are not going in the mail

next month.

Mr. MILLER. A year from now and, you know, we don’t have a

plan. In the fall of 1997, in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriation bill, there was money provided and a requirement that it prepare for two tracks. And last year, during the appropriation process, I was at a hearing with Secretary Daley, and they said,

‘‘Where is our plan? We paid for a plan.’’ We still do not have a

plan.

In fact, I saw Dr. Prewitt this morning and you know, hopefully

we’ll get one next month. I mean, we’re getting dangerously close

to starting this process. The Bureau has spent the past years on

an illegal plan. You know, we said it was illegal back during that

Commerce-Justice debate in the fall of 1997. Six Federal judges

last summer said it was illegal. And, the Bureau kept moving full

speed forward on an illegal plan. And, if we’re going to have a successful census, we can’t just keep, you know, putting off the decision. And that’s the reason we need to move forward on this.

And on this post-census local review, I’ve had two field hearings:

One in Miami and one in Phoenix. And, a lot of the witnesses here

are local officials from cities and counties. And basically, I’m hearing from all of them, ‘‘We want to have a chance to check it after

the fact.’’ And it’s hard for me to understand why—I know it’ll be

a pain for the Census Bureau. I will admit that it’s a pain to have

to do that. But we all have audits on our books and such. I mean,

we expect to have some checks. You know, they’re not perfect.

I don’t see where anybody would object. You’re a city councilman

and county commissioner. I mean, there’s only one component but

it really gets back to the issue of trust. I mean, you’re more familiar with what happened in 1990 than I am. But, you know, this one

is already tarnished because of the partisanship and the bottom

line—we want to count everybody. I have proposed in my plan that

we’ll spend all of the money and resources we need. I’m tossing out

ideas. The Census Bureau, they’re saying, ‘‘Well, maybe next

month we’ll get a plan to you.’’ I mean, that’s basically what we’re

told. That’s wrong. We should have had the plan last summer. Not

in March or April of the year before we do it.

And so there’s our frustration, and as I say, Mr. Prewitt will be

before the full committee soon. They’re working on a date with Secretary Daley before the Appropriation Committee on which I serve.

So, I just don’t understand, you know, why anybody would object

to it. $10 million on a $5 billion thing? I mean, you can’t say it’s

a cost factor. I mean, you know, $10 million is real money, I would

agree, but to help build the trust and confidence in itself, you

know, I just don’t understand what the objection is, besides it’s the

pain and the Bureau doesn’t want to have anyone looking over

their shoulder after the numbers. But when you have an illustration like Congressman Petri has, a very specific small town, Mayor

Archer was saying how 45,000 people were added. Don’t those people count?

42

Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, those people absolutely count. I

have two examples from my own district of exactly the same kind

of thing. They were discovered in post-census local review. They

would have been discovered using the process the Census Bureau

proposes ahead of time and would not have engaged in the kind of

costly and desperate efforts to correct at the end.

I don’t think there’s anybody here, as Mr. Ryan said, who is not

entirely for the most accurate census that we can possibly muster.

But I must reiterate again that having the Bureau here—it would

really be the people to talk to about a planning process and an implementation process. Not me, not Tom. But the Director of the Bureau that is responsible for it.

So, before you mark up this bill, I would hope that you would

take advantage of that most basic expertise that most people

around the world concede makes the U.S. Census Bureau the most

extraordinary demographic statistical agency ever devised by the

mind of humankind.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. We have a number of elected local officials here. A mayor of Richmond, a county commissioner from Palm

Beach County, FL, so we have some other local officials. And

they’re the ones that have to implement it. So, we’re anxious to

hear from them. And with that, I will call on Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me

just say that I share your concerns about planning. I’ve always

been told that he who fails to plan, plans to fail. But it’s also difficult to plan if you don’t know what the playing field is going to

be and if you don’t know what you’re going to be playing with.

Whether you’re going to be tossing one way or going another way,

or what the guidelines and parameters are.

And, so it seems to me that every time the Census Bureau gets

ready to move, here comes another idea, here comes another possibility. I’d hate to be in that position trying to make a firm determination.

I’ve only got two questions. One, Mr. Petri, you talked about this

particular town and these people who were missed. When they

were found, I mean, were they listed any place? Or did you discover

what had actually happened or why they were missed?

Mr. PETRI. Well, I think they just somehow left out a ward. They

didn’t realize it was part of the town and thought maybe it was

part of the county and it didn’t get counted and it wasn’t included.

When they looked at the numbers they said, no, we know we have

more people here in Montello.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Were they listed in the county?

Mr. PETRI. No, they just dropped out of the system. It happened

earlier in the 1980 census in Markizan, where they missed about

25—there were four wards; they missed one ward.

I don’t know if they were, you know, counted at some stage in

the process and then the paper got lost or misfiled, or mistabulated

by the Census Bureau or whatever, but it does provide a chance

for the local people who know what the facts are or pretty close to

the facts, to see a number and they say, ‘‘This can’t be.’’ To have some process for them to be able to correct that or have

a chance to be heard and if they can make a legitimate case, then

have it corrected. Rather than being told, well, too bad. We’re from

43

Washington and we did the best we could and you just fell out of—

you know, this happens to people in this big country of ours. That’s

not what we want to convey if we can avoid it.

So, providing for some mechanism—you know, Tom said that the

study commission does provide for some post-census audit, maybe

not as necessarily an absolute requirement, but as a feature of

what they feel would be a good procedure.

So, I’m not sure the differences here are all that great. My understanding is that the chairman’s bill basically tries to codify the

procedure that was followed in the last census. The experts evidently met and referred to that and said this would be a good practice, to have some procedure. So it sounds like we’re fishing around

to find parts and differences about something that may not really

be that great.

I’m concerned, though, that at some point we should be thinking

about trying to simmer down on all of the shooting back and forth

and worry about building trust in the census process. Because at

the end of the day, for it to work, however it’s done, it’s going to

require a confidence on the part of the American people to voluntarily participate and step forward. We had lots of hearings about

that. We’re very concerned that people realize that any data that

goes into the census that they tell is absolutely private and cannot

be used for law enforcement or for other reasons. That has to be

communicated to people over and over again so they know this is

not an inspection. This is a census because the data itself has great

value to our country, both for our democracy and for our economy.

Relying on the government, isn’t going to work as well as it would

work if all Americans would voluntarily stand up and be counted.

And, it’s part of your obligation. You have a few obligations as a

citizen, in addition to rights, and one of them is to participate in

the census every 10 years. You benefit as a citizen. Our whole

country benefits by people assuming that small degree of responsibility.

Mr. SAWYER. Let me second that. There is no single commodity

that is more critical to the success of any census than the confidence of the citizenry of the country. Every resident of this Nation

needs to feel confident that they can be counted and be counted in

total privacy and confidentiality. It was why we took such care in

putting together the address list legislation, so that in working together with the Postal Service, for the first time in the 200-year

history of the Nation, that people could have confidence that their

confidentiality was protected. Nothing, I think, in the end, is more

important than that.

Let me just add an observation. Those two words, ‘‘trust me,’’ are

certainly something that sends shivers up and down the spines of

many Americans. The other two words are ‘‘micro’’ and ‘‘manage.’’

[Laughter.]

Striking a balance between those two is really what the oversight

process is all about.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question

for Representative Sawyer, if I could. You’re recognized as a real

expert in this business. I mean, you were chairman of the subcommittee in 1990, plus you’ve devoted a tremendous amount of

44

your own time to actually digging into it and trying to understand

it.

Mr. SAWYER. As most of us do in areas that we focus on——

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. After all the reviews after the 1990 census, less than 125,000 people were added. You’ve looked at 472. Are

you optimistic that if it was implemented that we’d be adding much

or changing much or——

Mr. SAWYER. I believe very strongly that local government involvement early and continuously throughout the process is critically important to its success. Building in an entire post-census

local review as the vehicle to achieve that local involvement, I

think, places great risk on the single asset that is in shortest supply after the completion of the count. That is, time. Because the

Bureau and the Commerce Department are mandated constitutionally to bring the process to a close and to transmit numbers to

the Congress by December 31 of the census year.

Moving that local involvement much more deeply into the process

early and throughout, I believe, would have found not only most of

the mistakes that were found in post-census local review, some of

which were fraught with mistakes themselves, but would have

helped to diminish the mistakes that were systemically built into

the actual conduct of the census throughout. It would have given

the time necessary to do the real fine combing of the numbers at

the end, rather than being preoccupied with what turned out to be

a desperate effort to correct what was by then clearly understood

to be a profound undercount in the census.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Gentlemen, I thank you very much and

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. I will start going on this 5-minute rule

when we get to the next panels, too. We would now call on the

other members of the committee and we’re going to—if you don’t

have any questions now. We have three more panels with some

really good witnesses, too. It’s not a problem if you pass.

Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I would strongly suggest that the

people sitting behind me can answer many of the questions that

you have——

Mr. MILLER. Right.

Mr. SAWYER [continuing]. And while we can offer opinion and experience from 1990, they bring a good understanding of where we

have been and where we are going.

Let me reiterate one more time, however, the people who know

it best are the Bureau and if you can’t have them before this subcommittee, I would strongly urge you to have a full committee

hearing. Because to proceed with this without hearing from the Bureau, I think, would be a mistake.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Doolittle.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As important as the

census has become, I would think it would be extremely important

to have some ability for local communities whose vitality in many

cases depends upon the outcome of the census. They ought to have

some way to examine these numbers and make sure that something hasn’t been missed. And it seems to me that’s the procedure

that you’re advocating.

45

I mean, I represent eight counties and a number of small communities in northern California and I tell you, I just think it’s inherently fair and appropriate that the local communities are being

counted in many cases by outsiders, or directed by outsiders, that

they ought to be able to examine those numbers and make sure

that everything got counted and is appropriate and I assume we’ll

hear directly from representatives of various communities, perhaps

to that effect.

I know the Census Bureau or I understand they don’t like this

because they’ve got the countdown and they want to move on to finalizing it. But it does seem to me that this is just an inherent element of due process, I think. And Mr. Petri, I might just ask you,

when this happened the last time, I mean, this was able to be done

and it didn’t destroy the system, did it?

Mr. PETRI. Not at all. And I think for the census to work well,

you want the active cooperation of local officials and to get that

they have to figure that putting some effort into this process is

worthwhile. And whether they put the effort in or not, it’s not really going to make any difference because if the number’s wrong,

they can’t correct it or they have no assurance that they’re going

to be able to correct it, I think this would undermine the atmosphere that you need to have to elicit as much voluntary cooperation

throughout the process. I have no objection and I think they certainly should be working very closely for a prolonged period with

local officials. But assuring that at the end of the process they have

an opportunity to take one last kick at the can to make a case if

they think something’s undercounted and have people review the

numbers. Seems to me to be fundamental in order to maximize voluntary cooperation and the feeling that their involvement will

make, or has the potential of making some difference. It’s not a

waste of time. It’s not going to be decided somewhere else if they

find some mistake, they can actually influence the final number.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Ryan.

Mr. RYAN. Well, I’d like to direct my questions toward my colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri. You must be very proud of Wisconsin now because, you know, in 1990, I believe, Milwaukee, WI

recorded some of the highest mail response rates in the country.

I’d like to draw upon your experiences from the 1990 census and

ask you how did you encourage local officials to participate in the

post-census local review effort? What was the response you got

from the local officials? What is your opinion, how can we improve

that? How do we, as Members of Congress, communicate that? How

can the Census Bureau get these folks involved so we can get this

accurate census? Just based on your experiences, how do you think

we can address that?

Mr. PETRI. No, I think it’s very important. Wisconsin is proud of

the fact that we participate in the census enthusiastically and completely and, in fact, I’m told that if they had implemented—and I’d

be happy to stand corrected—but if they had implemented in the

last census the adjustment process and would have provided for adjusting down, as well as up, they would have actually adjusted our

number down, even though no one disputed that we had an actual

overcount.

46

The mayor of Milwaukee, Mayor Norquist, made it a major objective of his administration to fully participate; our Governor did;

local officials throughout the State did; the Members of Congress

in both parties and Senate from our State sent out frequent newsletters and public service announcements on the radio. We’ve got

the television stations to cooperate with public service announcements, making it very clear to people that there was no risk and

there would be a reward for their communities and their State in

participating fully and enthusiastically in the census and it was

part of their duty as a citizen to do that step.

And, I think the word got out quite well and we recruited actively, tried to get a lot of qualified, retired people from various

communities to work part-time organizing the census as various

outreach efforts into different communities in our State and that

was very successful, too. We got a lot of good, local talent and

they’re already coming forward again. They may be to your office,

as well, saying ‘‘I participated in the census 10 years ago and I’d

like the opportunity to do it again, but you know, I keep calling

that 888 number and no one answers. I get a recording.’’ Mr. Prewitt, I wanted to try that number myself and see.

Mr. SAWYER. They ought to call him and ask him about that.

Mr. PETRI. Yes.

Mr. SAWYER. One more point.

Mr. RYAN. Sure.

Mr. SAWYER. A very brief addition to it. I think Wisconsin was

a signal effort and an indication to the rest of the country of what

could have been done and what needs to be done in 2000.

Much of what happened in Wisconsin was reflected in similar

kinds of efforts throughout the Midwest. We had great difficulty

not for lack of effort, but lack of success on both coasts of the

United States, people have posited the reasons for that. Some of it

cultural. There are a variety of things. It appeared to have little

to do with income or anything else. There was an underlying difference in terms of rate of participation.

Even that notwithstanding, however, and all of the effort that

was put in Milwaukee, Milwaukee continued to have an undercount that was twice the statewide average. That ought to be of

concern to all of us. Because it means that there is a disproportionate undercount of various populations and when we wind up

with that, we wind up with people who simply begin to disappear

and who are not fully counted and fundamentally don’t function as

full citizens as those who are fully counted do.

Mr. RYAN. What do you think that the source of that problem

may be? And Congressman Petri, when these advertisements were

conducted, when the promotional activities were done, were confidentiality and privacy issues at the forefront of the public service

announcements? And were those issues addressed right away so

those concerns were allayed?

Mr. PETRI. Absolutely. We made it very clear and the Census Bureau took the lead and developed various models and had put various announcements out there that the law prohibited this data to

be used for anything other than census purposes. And that is a

principle that has existed, I think, if not from the beginning, for

a very long time. We underlined it repeatedly and I think you can’t

47

just say it once. I think finally we got the message out there that

this, in fact, was the case and people relied on it. I think that trust

has been maintained. I don’t know of a single instance anywhere

in the country where the census bureau data has been misused for

other purposes.

Mr. RYAN. Good. Thank you very much.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Souder.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being with us today. We appreciate it. Sorry for the delay.

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. And I’m sure we will continue to get your insight

and advice as we go along.

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. MILLER. We’ll move right on to the next panel. I’d like to call

Mr. Blackwell, Mr. Kaine, and Commissioner Roberts. Mr. Whitener is ill this morning and today and so he is unable to join us,

and Mr. Bourey from Phoenix has to catch a flight, so we’re going

to ask him to join this panel, if that’s OK. And if the four of you

all would come forward and then I would have you take a seat because I’d like to call on my colleague, Mr. Foley, to make a special

introduction.

Well, we thank the four witnesses for being here today and before we go with your opening statements, we have one of our colleagues, my colleague from Florida, Mr. Foley, who wants to make

a special introduction of one of the witnesses. Mr. Foley.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK FOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I do want

to take a moment to introduce to the panel a distinguished public

servant, serving now in her 12th year on the Board of County Commissioners and a former mayor of the city of West Palm Beach, one

of the largest—in fact, the largest city in Palm Beach County, the

honorable Carol Roberts.

She brings powerful testimony to the benefits of the bill being

considered by your committee today. Of course, I’m speaking of the

issue of post-census local review, a procedure that allows local officials the right to review census results and inform census officials

of the errors missed or undercounted by the census. In 1990, the

census missed over 20,000 people in Palm Beach County. In the

city of Green Acres alone, 10,000 people were not counted, mostly

because the seasonal residents were out of town.

Luckily, post-census review by local officials like Commissioner

Roberts helped correct the undercount. So, I believe she will be

able to provide extremely important and valuable testimony and I

welcome her to our capital city. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Foley. Thanks for being with us

here today. I’d like to ask all four witnesses if they’d stand and

we’ll swear you in for your testimony.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MILLER. And we will begin now with opening statements.

And because of his need to catch a flight, if no one objects, we’ll

go with Mr. Bourey, who testified with us about 10 days ago in

Phoenix, AZ. And so, welcome.

48

STATEMENTS OF JAMES BOUREY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS; KENNETH

BLACKWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE’S OFFICE; TIMOTHY M.

KAINE, MAYOR, CITY OF RICHMOND; AND CAROL A.

ROBERTS, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, PALM BEACH COUNTY,

FL

Mr. BOUREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members,

and thank you four panelists for allowing me to go first so I can

catch what is, basically, the last flight out today to Arizona.

I’m the executive director of the Maricopa Association of Governments, a body that represents 24 cities and towns, 2 Indian communities, and 1 county in the Phoenix metropolitan area. I also

serve as representative of the International City-County Management Association on the Census Advisory Committee. ICMA members represent more than 3,000 local government units in the

United States. I’ve also been asked by the National Association of

Regional Councils to represent them, as well, on census issues.

I appreciate the opportunity to be with you here today to present

testimony. I strongly support the reinstatement of a post-census

local review for census 2000. I cannot see why anyone would object

to providing local governments the opportunity to obtain a more accurate census count. I work in a 9,200-square-mile area with almost 3 million people. Since 1990, we’ve added 683,000 new residents, more than the population of Washington, DC. While the

Census Bureau is compiling its master address list during the next

year, we could be adding more than 40,000 new housing units. A

post-census local review provides a safety net for identifying recently constructed units. The two maps that were provided to the

committee members earlier today demonstrate some of the magnitude of growth in our region.

Much has been made about the limited participation in the postcensus local review program in 1990. In Arizona, however, out of

the jurisdictions surveyed by the Department of Economic Security,

44 out of 49 participated. I also believe that many more jurisdictions actually participated than statistics would suggest. Many jurisdictions reviewed preliminary counts and they didn’t find the

need to make an adjustment. In our region, post-census local review resulted in the addition of 3,690 dwelling units and by our estimation, almost $37 million in Federal and State funds came

about because of that.

Our cities were really satisfied with the outcome of the post-census local review process in 1990. While it added about a percent

to the region, some cities increased very significantly. Many cities

have expressed that support for the program.

Some argue that a post-census local review is not necessary because the Census Bureau is providing local communities an opportunity to recommend updates to the address list prior to the census. And we commend the Census Bureau for that, for this pro-active stance. But we believe the post-census review is also needed.

The total reliance on the update process, the address update

process, could lead to serious undercounts for several reasons.

Many local governments in the United States are not participating

in a LUCA Program, either because they are unaware of it or beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:51 Mar 27, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60286.TXT pfrm01 PsN: 60286
49

cause they don’t have resources to be able to participate or it’s so

far ahead of the census.

Second, there’s a massive number of changes that need to take

place in the address file and that’s going to make it very difficult

for the Census Bureau to incorporate those changes and make sure

all the housing units are accounted for. One of our cities has 50,000

housing units that were listed. We have to add 22,000 housing

units to that 50,000. So, the changes are very, very significant.

In addition, the limited timeframe that our local governments

have had to review the address file, 90 days for the mail-out mailback, and only 43 days for the update leave, may preclude some of

them from identifying missing units.

Should post-census local review be reinstated, I would expect a

significant participation rate from local governments because this

technological enhancement since the 1990 census will make it far

easier for them to identify the discrepancies.

Many jurisdictions will already have had a start on the review

because of the address file review that will have been taking place.

Substantial publicity over the sampling debate and the billions of

dollars that are at stake for census 2000 have made many local

governments more aware of the importance of an accurate count.

And finally, the efforts by local governments to advocate a postcensus local review will create a momentum that, I think, will lead

to their participation.

While carrying out a post-census local review is certainly desirable, it needs to be accompanied by other census programs. I support additional resources for the census as long as those resources

are deployed wisely. Increasing funding for programs that encourage people to fill out their census questionnaire will not be successful, however, if they don’t have the census questionnaire to begin

with. More resources are needed immediately to better enable the

Census Bureau to assemble and verify the units on the master address file.

At a census 2000 roll-out meeting in Phoenix on January 27, I

heard Census Director, Ken Prewitt, remark that the census is like

a portrait of the American family with all its dimensions and diversity. Without a post-census local review to help achieve a more accurate census, this family portrait, I feel, will be incomplete.

Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you very much for accommodating my schedule and providing an opportunity for me to

testify. I’d be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bourey follows:]

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much for being with us. I know you

represent a very large number of cities in the greater Phoenix area,

Maricopa County, and I appreciate your testimony.

Next, we’ll just go with Mr. Blackwell and when you have to

leave for your flight, we’ll understand. Mr. Blackwell, are you in

town because of the Secretary of States’ meeting?

Mr. BLACKWELL. Both the Secretary of States’ meeting and census meeting.

Mr. MILLER. Both. Great. Well, the new Secretary of State from

the State of Florida is one of my constituents, by the way. She’s

a newly elected member of the State Cabinet.

Mr. BLACKWELL. Katherine is very informed and very effective.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Yes. Mr. Blackwell.

Mr. BLACKWELL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of

the subcommittee. I am Ken Blackwell, Secretary of State of Ohio

and co-chairman of the Census Monitoring Board. Thank you for

the opportunity to testify on the merits of post-census local review.

You all received a copy of the February report to Congress from the

congressional members of the Census Monitoring Board. I would

like to offer the executive summary of that report into today’s

record.

In our report, the congressionally appointed members of the

Board recommended restoring post-census local review to census

2000. In our opinion, a final quality control check for local governments to verify the numbers before they are set in stone is absolutely essential to building trust in the census. Local review will

build trust in the census. Local review will result in better counts.

Local review will correct mistakes. And, local review will find people and houses that have been missed. And finally, local review will

put people counted in the wrong place into the right place.

As a former mayor of Cincinnati, I assure you putting people in

the right place is very important. One street is sometimes the only

difference between money for the city and money for the county.

That might seem like small potatoes here in Washington, but it

means a lot in Cincinnati and it means a lot in Peoria.

This local review will do all of these things in 2000, just as it did

in 1990. But the most important thing it will do, if the Census Bureau allows it, will be to build trust in the process and the numbers

that determine political representation and funding for vital public

services. Trust is the most important benefit.

I worry that trust in the census is eroding. As part of our oversight, the congressional members of the board have aggressively

pursued information from local governments involved in the census

process, in letters and at conferences, in personal interviews and

over e-mail, we have asked the same questions repeatedly. What is

your experience with the census? What is your experience with

LUCA? What is your experience with post-census review?

Repeatedly, we get the same answers. LUCA is a good idea, but

it falls short of its promise. Local governments are frustrated with

the process. Let me give you a quick example.

Last week, the Monitoring Board received an e-mail from the city

planner from Fort Wayne, IN, which happens to be in Representative Souder’s district. Allow me to read from it verbatim.

60

As of today, Groundhog Day, 1999, despite being promised the address list in November 1998, over a dozen calls to the Bureau, the involvement of a Chicago bureau

supervisor, fingerpointing by the Bureau among Chicago, Jeffersonville and

Suitland, and the involvement of our U.S. Congressional Office, we still do not have

a printed address list and instructions for completing the process.

As of today, Fort Wayne has received the materials. But you can

see the frustration. Local governments are not satisfied with LUCA

as their final input into the census. Post-census local review is a

valuable last quality control check.

It will not find everyone missed in the census, but it will find

people. More importantly, it will find people in the exact block

where they live. I can tell you that post-census local review added

or located hundreds of thousands of people during the 1990 census.

Members of the Bureau will counter that it doesn’t add that many,

or it isn’t or wasn’t cost effective, or it won’t fix the whole problem.

We can argue until the sun sets over how to measure additions and

contract and corrections or cost effectiveness or even the extent of

the problem.

There are people here today who can tell you better than I how

the numbers add up and how to quantify the value over 10 years

of every single person correctly located in the census. I urge you

to listen to them because as local officials, they know the numbers

in their area better than any Washington statistician.

But the issue is not just numbers. The issue is trust. Every one

of the more than 39,000 local governments in the country should

be able to trust the census to deliver good numbers to get the services they need to the people that need them. That’s a lot of trust.

And as a former mayor, I can tell you I can trust the Federal Government as long as I can verify.

Post-census local review offers the best chance for verification. I

recently attended the U.S. Conference of Mayors, meeting here in

Washington. I sat on a panel with Chairman Miller, Representative

Maloney and Commerce Under Secretary Robert Shapiro to discuss

the census. I believe the best comment of the day came not from

the panel, but from Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer who was in the

audience. Very simply, he said, ‘‘We as cities need to have the opportunity before the census count is in cement to say here is where

you are wrong, and here are the changes we would like for you to

consider. I think we ought to be given that time.’’

I think Mayor Archer is right. He is not asking for much. If the

Census Bureau is asking for the trust of every local government in

the country, it is not too much for those governments to ask for a

modicum of verification in return. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blackwell follows:]

61

62

63

64

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Blackwell, and thank you for all the

work you’re doing on the Monitoring Board. As co-chairman, I’ve

had a chance to meet with you on several occasions, and it’s tough

work as we’re all involved in making sure we get the very, very

best census we can for the year 2000.

Now, we’re pleased to have the mayor of the city of Richmond

with us, and thank you very much for waiting this long and thank

you for coming up from Richmond today. Mayor Kaine.

Mayor KAINE. Chairman Miller, thank you very much, and

thanks to the members of the committee for inviting me today. I’m

the mayor of Richmond, VA, and I’m offering my comments on behalf of my citizens and also in accord with the position of the U.S.

Conference of Mayors of which I am proud to be a member.

I will summarize the written comments to make it quicker and

to the point. Because I do make comments on behalf of the Conference of Mayors, I would like to tender for the record a survey

of the United States concerning the physical undercount issue that

Secretary Blackwell testified about in reference, and I would offer

that into the record.

As mayor of the city of Richmond, the best place to start is Richmond’s 1990 experience. That’s where I started as I began to look

at this issue as mayor, and as I was asked to come and testify. In

1990, the city of Richmond had two problems in the completion of

the census insofar as it affects our city.

The first was discrepancies in the location of housing units or

failure to identify certain housing units. And then the second issue,

which was more significant in importance to us, was a serious

undercount of people, particularly in poor and minority neighborhoods. That undercount of people is the most serious problem that’s

faced Richmond and that’s faced cities across the country, and I

will talk about both of these problems.

Now in 1990, when we experienced these difficulties, Richmond

did participate through the Census Bureau in post-census review

to try to come to grips with these discrepancies. That post-census

review that we were able to do in 1990 had a very minor impact,

minimal impact on correcting the housing unit discrepancies. Any

correction is obviously good, but the impact of that correction was

de minimis.

We really viewed that the post-census review process in 1990,

however, had virtually no effect on the significant undercounting of

people in poor and minority neighborhoods which is of great concern to us. In order to really work on these two problems, I know

the Census Bureau has tried to figure, with the guidance of Congress, ways to really address them. And the LUCA Program, the

local updated census addresses program that the Census Bureau is

working on, is something that’s embraced by the city of Richmond,

and it is something that we are finding helpful. That ability, as you

know, to coordinate the various address lists that the city has with

those that the Census Bureau maintains is something that in Richmond is working well so far. There’s more to go, obviously.

But, we believe that particular focus will dramatically reduce the

housing unit discrepancies by requiring more of a focus on the front

end than the back end. The successful implementation of that

LUCA process suggests to me, at least in Richmond, and Richmond

65

is not, you know, like every other community, but in Richmond, the

successful implementation of LUCA suggests that the post-census

review will probably continue to be of only marginal benefit. Participating at the front end is the way we should go rather than participating at the back end.

There will be benefit, marginal, though, we think, because the

LUCA process will flesh out these problems in advance. Our concern about post-census review is basically that it does not address

the issue that we think is the most significant and the one that led

me to write the Census Monitoring Board in October, and that is

the issue of undercount of poor and minority citizens.

This is the key issue for cities like Richmond and cities elsewhere. Making marginal improvements after the fact is something

I can’t be against. I’m the mayor. I want to look at the numbers.

That would be fantastic. But we need more than marginal improvements. And the tremendous undercount of poor and minorities, we

do not believe will be affected by post-census review in 2000, just

as it wasn’t in 1990.

The only way to address that issue is for the Bureau to have that

freedom to use every best scientific method that they can, including

the sampling method that’s, I know, controversial here, but that we

believe is required by law of the 13 U.S.C. Section 195 on the census to take the enumeration and use those best scientific methods

to come up with the most accurate count possible.

So, I’m privileged to have the opportunity to come speak to you

today. That has been our experience with post-census review. We

think that the effects of it for us would be marginal at best in 2000.

But we look and really need a solution to the undercount problem

that so drastically affects our city. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mayor Kaine follows:]

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

Mr. MILLER. Commissioner Roberts, thank you for coming up

today.

Ms. ROBERTS. Thank you so much. And I do want to thank Representative Foley for his introduction.

On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach

County, FL, I want to thank all of you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee and to voice our support for the reinstatement of the post-census review. In 1980, I served as the Census Field Operation Supervisor for Palm Beach, Martin and part

of Broward County, an area that had then over 700,000, today well

over a million people.

By involvement in 1980, I became aware of the problems facing

the census in achieving an accurate count. As a former city and

now county commissioner, I saw the undercounted population as a

serious issue with many local governments.

The census count serves as a base for revenue sharing for local

governments. A significant undercount in the year 2000 can cost a

local government millions of dollars in lost revenues required to

provide needed services of their growing communities. This is an

impact that’s not felt just in a single year, but for an entire decade.

The population count is directly used to apportion seats in the

House of Representatives, to distribute Federal funds and set policies. In addition, businesses and other groups depend heavily on

the demographics derived from the census data for market information.

Palm Beach County and its cities—37 cities—have been working

with the Census Bureau in preparation for the year 2000 census.

We’re concerned that, despite the Census Bureau and our best efforts, thousands of residents may not be counted in the census next

year.

In 1990, a post-census review allowed local governments to identify potential undercounts before the census was finalized and

made official. This review has been eliminated, as you know, for

the 2000 census.

In 1990, many cities within Palm Beach County experienced a

significant undercount. It was estimated that at a minimum,

23,000 residents of our county were missed in the 1990 count. A

post-census review enabled some communities to challenge that

preliminary count. As a result of revised counts, Palm Beach County’s reported population was increased.

The city of West Palm Beach, for instance, identified a 384-unit

apartment complex that had been missed in both the initial census

mailing and in the followup by enumerators. The city of Belle

Glade, a community of 16,000 people, identified 168 housing units

missing from the preliminary counts.

The city of Green Acres, which had anticipated a count close to

28,000 people, was surprised to be counted at only 18,000 people.

During the post-census review, Green Acres questioned the census

finding that 25 percent of its residential units were vacant. The

city subsequently found an entire development of almost 500 homes

missing from the census numbers.

I could give you many more examples. Census officials noted at

the time that common problems included people being missed in

high-growth western area of our county. To underscore the potenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:51 Mar 27, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60286.TXT pfrm01 PsN: 60286
73

tial for miscounts, please note that five communities in Palm Beach

County elected to undertake a special census to correct undercounts in the 1990 census. Based on the ability to have a post-census review, four of the cities’ recounts resulted in a population increase of up to 17 percent.

In counties such as Palm Beach where the rate of growth is more

than 20,000 people annually, the post-census review provides local

governments with their best opportunity to correct miscounts and

ensure that as a county, and as well as a Nation, we obtain the

most accurate census possible. An accurate census will ensure

proper government representation and fair allocation of Federal

grant money, as well as useful data for businesses and other organizations.

We are a rapidly growing community within the unincorporated

portion of our county. Almost 500 homes are built each month. As

we speak here today, another 20 homes will be completed and

ready for occupancy. These homes, as well as an additional 7,000,

may be completed before April 2000. They may not find their way

into the census address list.

These units may well be missed during the regular census. Only

with post-census review will these communities have the ability to

identify these and other discrepancies that could affect them in the

years to come.

From the local government perspective, the post-census review

provides an opportunity to ensure all developments are counted

and that the population count is as accurate as possible. County

and city governments look forward to continuing our work with the

census on the pre-census activities to get the best count possible.

We believe we need to be given the opportunity to have a post-census review in order to ensure the most accurate results before finalization of the 2000 census.

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here, and I’ll be happy

to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Roberts follows:]

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much for all three of your fine

statements. H.R. 472 is just about census local review. By itself, it

doesn’t cure all the problems. It is one item in my proposal of a

variety of things, more enumerators, 100,000 more enumerators,

$300 million more in paid advertising, partnership programs to

work with communities to get people to participate and trust the

census. And, this really is a final quality check. It goes back to

what Mr. Blackwell was saying. It is a trust issue.

Let me clarify, Mayor Kaine. You’re not opposed to this?

Mayor KAINE. Let me say that the idea of being able to touch the

numbers myself as mayor of Richmond is something that I would

like to do. So, in that sense, I think the idea of being able to review

the numbers after the census does make a lot of sense. But, I have

three concerns—three caveats.

The first one is that I’m at very much of a disadvantage with

members of the committee because I know you have the expertise

in this area, and I do not. When I hear that the Bureau of the Census is opposed to this and I don’t have the chance to hear them describe why they’re opposed, I get very humble about the weight of

my own opinion. And I would, you know, sort of be interested in

their point on this.

The second caveat that I would have is if the post-census process

at all interferes or diverts timing and resources from front end to

back end. I think that could be a problem, and you need to make

sure that does not happen because it’s better to work hard not to

make mistakes than to provide resources to correct mistakes. So,

the focus should be the elimination of mistakes.

And then the third caveat that I would have, which, again, I’d

like to touch and verify the numbers, is I think, Congressman Miller, the lead to your question pointed it out. This solves perhaps

some problems, but the most acute problem that we have in our

community, I think, is undercounting in poor and minority neighborhoods. We do not think this will solve that one.

To use Secretary Blackwell’s example, if a house is put across the

borderline into one of our bordering counties, this would help it, although we think we’ll flesh that out with LUCA. But, it won’t solve

the problem of people not accurately counting the numbers of people that live in the units that we know are in Richmond, and that

is the problem that is most acute for us that led me to write to the

Census Monitoring Board.

So, would I like to verify the numbers? Would I like to have my

planning staff? Sure, I’d very much like that. But, we view it as

something that is not right at the core issue that we might have

that would lead us to have an undercount that would affect us in

so many areas.

Mr. BLACKWELL. Mr. Chairman, let me speak about three things

that I’ve heard today and what the mayor just said. I think one of

the things that we have to do is to make sure that post-census local

review is not viewed as having been replaced adequately by LUCA

in 2000. In theory or in practice, LUCA is not a sufficient replacement for post-census local review.

LUCA is designed to build the address list. It replaces the precensus local review that was conducted in January and February

1990. Post-census local review is the final quality check of the acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:51 Mar 27, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60286.TXT pfrm01 PsN: 60286
83

tual census counts. The time for post-census local review could be

extended, and more effort should be devoted to promote the program, as has been done for pre-census local review, which is now

LUCA.

Point No. 2. You know, there’s been a lot of talk this morning

about the low participation rate of governments and post-census

local review in 1990. Participation in pre-census local review during 1990 was only 16 percent. It has nearly tripled to LUCA’s participation rate of 46 percent.

But my guess is that even if the Bureau doesn’t choose to make

improvements to the post-census local review process, those governments participating in LUCA will participate in post-census local

review, if only to make sure that the corrections they made during

LUCA were included in the census.

Finally, a point that has been made this morning is that LUCA

offers 3 months or more to participate when post-census local review offered only 15 days. If local governments didn’t have enough

time in 3 weeks, give them 6 weeks. LUCA is an excellent program,

but it does not replace, I underscore again, post-census local review. It expands on pre-census local review, and I think that what

we can do is to make sure that we give post-census local review the

same sort of attention and resources to make it better as we’ve

given to pre-census review in the name of LUCA.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Ms. Roberts.

Ms. ROBERTS. Yes. Post-census review is obviously not the mecca

or the answer to everything any more than LUCA is. But just to

give you an example, the city of West Palm Beach after the last

post-census review, there were 180 people that were added to the

population. The city itself, not being satisfied with that, later pursued a special census at the cost of $350,000, and they found an

additional 7,700 people. So, with the post-census review, they still

went ahead and did an additional census.

The city of South Bay, which is a little tiny city of 3,558 people

in the 1990 census, went ahead at the cost of $20,800, which is a

lot of money to a little farming community, and increased their

census count by 17 percent by doing a special census.

So, post-census review allows local governments to have the

input to be able to look to see exactly where something is lacking.

And, if they’re still not satisfied as a number of the communities

in my area are, they can go forward and prove the additional people. But, it is important to have that.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. So I understand what you were saying, Ms. Roberts, you’re saying that even though you’re hoping LUCA works

well, and even though you’re confident that everybody’s trying to

work with you, and that it’s going to cost some money, you would

still like to have that review.

Ms. ROBERTS. Yes, we’re a growing community. We are growing

so rapidly that we are going to miss even in LUCA some of the

units that are being built toward the end—right before the census

starts.

Mr. SOUDER. In your opinion, why would any elected official oppose it?

84

Ms. ROBERTS. I’m not sure why. I have one sitting next to me.

I don’t know how fast Richmond’s growing, but I know Palm Beach

County. And, I can tell you that my own experience is having hired

700 local people because I was a field operation supervisor in the

1980 census. We went out in 1979. We counted units. We did much

of what Under Secretary Blackwell talked about and what Congressman Petri talked about—having local people involved.

We still had missed units. Some of them are funny stories. Nobody wanted to go count the local nudist colony. It was very hard

to find somebody who wanted to go out and count the nudist colony. Yet, there were people who went there. I had three different

people go out and walk back and say they weren’t going in there.

Yet, we found that when we counted units, Palm Beach County

was growing rapidly in the 1980 census. We were still off. When

you grow at 20,000 units a year, you’re going to miss something.

We’re going to miss something in LUCA, and we believe it’s important to be able to have that post-census review in order to find

where we’ve missed those units.

Mr. SOUDER. And Mayor Kaine, I think you’ve made your position clear. Tell me if I’ve mischaracterized.

Mayor KAINE. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. You don’t oppose the review.

Mayor KAINE. I’m sorry.

Mr. SOUDER. You don’t oppose the review.

Mayor KAINE. No.

Mr. SOUDER. You said the Census Bureau opposes it.

Mayor KAINE. Indeed.

Mr. SOUDER. But you don’t oppose it, and you just don’t feel it’s

the preeminent issue. Now, let me ask you another question.

Mayor KAINE. Yes, and that’s accurate. It doesn’t speak to our

condition. It may speak to other conditions. It doesn’t speak to ours

and of other cities like ours.

Mr. SOUDER. And you said at the beginning of your testimony

you represented the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Mayor KAINE. Correct.

Mr. SOUDER. Is their official position that they also support the

review?

Mayor KAINE. They have not taken a position for or against.

They have not taken a position for or against this bill.

Mr. SOUDER. So are they for or against this bill or for or against

post-census review?

Mayor KAINE. They have not taken a position on this bill.

Mr. SOUDER. Are they on record as for census review in the past?

Mayor KAINE. Well, as an example——

Mr. SOUDER. A bill becomes a political dynamic in Washington.

Mayor KAINE. Indeed.

Mr. SOUDER. I was asking about the principle.

Mayor KAINE. Yes, indeed. There was a good bit of discussion

about this at the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting that we had

2 weeks ago. And I also heard Mayor Archer speak about how it

had helped Detroit in 1990, and that it might be something that

would be helpful again.

But, he was also very adamant that something like the post-census review is part of a package. Accuracy and measures like statisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:51 Mar 27, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60286.TXT pfrm01 PsN: 60286
85

tical sampling and other scientific methods have to be part of that

package. And, I don’t think he would want to have one piece pulled

out and said this is what he supports and nothing else.

So, I think the Conference of Mayors supports a package of

things that would lead to the most accurate survey, but they have

not taken a position on this bill. They certainly haven’t said we oppose post-census review. They’ve not taken that strong a position.

Mr. SOUDER. I think that would be a politically untenable position for the mayors who may not have been at the national meeting

to think that their national association was saying that they

shouldn’t have the right to review their counts.

Mayor KAINE. Right. And that’s why I made my point that I do

not oppose it.

Mr. SOUDER. I’d be very careful where you’re headed here because you’re plunging into a politically controversial question of

should we count real people versus statistical guesses at real people and then saying as part of that we don’t want a review.

Now, you want a review regardless. We have to sort out the sampling part here.

Mayor KAINE. Sure.

Mr. SOUDER. As a mayor, I can’t imagine that you don’t want to

have a review. Secretary Blackwell.

Mr. BLACKWELL. In reviewing the resolutions and the discussions

of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, I think it is fair to say that, in

principle, they favor post-census local review as a last quality control check.

Do they want more? Do they want more tools at their disposal?

The answer, as the mayors indicated, is yes. But, did they debate

this specific piece of legislation? No, they didn’t.

But, you know, this also gives me, Congressman, an opportunity

to say that, you know, I can respect the Bureau’s resistance to

what they might perceive as undue political influence. I really do

think it is important to keep in mind that post-census local review

is not about Congress or the Commerce Department fighting for

the last word on the census.

Post-census local review is about local governments having a say

and a quality control check in the process at the front end and at

the back end. And since local governments serve and represent the

people that pay for the census in every sense, I don’t think it’s too

much to ask that they have some say in the outcome and the final

numbers.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, if I could make a brief comment because my home-base city where I live was alluded to in Mr.

Blackwell’s testimony. I am very concerned that, for political reasons, we have focused so much attention and the administration

has focused so much attention on trying to promote sampling that

they haven’t been doing the basic things that need to be done.

I get complaints in my congressional office about how the Census

Bureau in my home town isn’t getting what they need. And then

I hear people come in to Washington and go on national TV and

talk about how they’re worried about an undercount.

Well, yes, there’s going to be an undercount if they don’t have

the maps, if they don’t get the people hired, and if they don’t know

86

where their city lines are if the Census Bureau can’t get the information.

A lot of whining at the end that we don’t have an accurate count

is not justified because some people wanted to sit down at some

computer and figure out some mathematical vision of how many

people were in a place.

Step No. 1 is get your job done and get the information out there.

Then, work with the mayors and the other county officials to make

sure that gets done. Then, do a post-census review. We need to

work and make sure. This Congress has committed that we’ll spend

the money.

And, what we need are plans out of the U.S. Conference of Mayors to say, look, we’re very worried. We have mobile immigrants

who don’t want to be counted. We have homeless that don’t want

to be counted. We have people who for a variety of reasons don’t

want to be counted. We need proposals as to how to count them because ultimately in the courts, the American people aren’t going to

count fictitious people. Now it hits my home town, they didn’t have

the basics.

So, why are we here in Washington arguing about how we’re

going to do it if they aren’t even implementing the basic fundamental count. Anything else is just a supplemental. I’m sorry I got

aggravated. But all of a sudden, it hits pretty much home. In the

theoretical, what we’ve been fighting about in Washington is my

home town. Hopefully, it will at least count my family.

Mayor KAINE. I took that comment as somewhat responsive to

some of the things I was saying.

Mr. SOUDER. It was not. [Laughter.]

Mayor KAINE. Sure. I agree with you. And the idea is to get outraged and do as much as we can upfront because I think whatever

we might debate about methods—and I’m not savvy enough about

this to debate method with anybody on this committee, the mayors

want the best methods upfront.

I want to verify it later. This undercount problem which is a particular one—you mentioned the homeless and people in poor and

minority neighborhoods. That’s the one we have. That’s the one you

have in your community.

We really think that there are ways upfront to deal with that,

and that is our primary interest.

Ms. ROBERTS. Representative—sorry. In Florida, and Representative Miller knows this, we’re not only incorporated, but we’re unincorporated. And Palm Beach County has about 50 percent of its

population where I am. Literally, Palm Beach County’s government

is the only government.

So, we in effect have the same problems that the cities have. We

want to be sure that everybody gets counted. Palm Beach County,

much to many people’s surprise, is the largest agricultural county

in the State of Florida and the fourth largest in the Nation.

We have illegal immigrants. We have homeless. We have migrants, as well as what our name suggests. So, the problems that

we have are the same as any large city. This is a county of well

over a million people.

We have the enormous growth, as well as homeless, as well as

migrants, as well as a lot of illegals who really don’t want to be

87

counted. So it is important to us to have post-census review. But

we know it’s not the only answer. Counties in Florida as counties

in many places in the United States have the same problems.

They’re not all cities.

Mr. MILLER. The Supreme Court essentially settled the argument

about sampling. So, we keep rehashing something that is illegal. It

doesn’t really get us to our goal, which is to get everybody counted.

And, this is just one component of the whole thing.

Let me ask one final question, if I may, Ms. Roberts. What is

Palm Beach County doing as far as support and resources, and how

is it structured within county government or city government as far

as providing the Census Bureau to get the best number possible?

Ms. ROBERTS. Palm Beach County assigned someone in the county specifically to the census. We also have 38 cities. We have the

unique county in Florida. We have more cities than any other county in the State. So, our larger cities are also cooperating because

they have the resources to do it.

We have many smaller cities. I named South Bay for one, which

has 4,000 people, and it’s a farming community. A lot of our smaller cities don’t have the resources. And, the county is attempting to

help them with LUCA. But we’re working with the Census Bureau

in cities like West Palm, Boca Raton, Boyton Beach, Delray Beach.

They’re all larger cities, and they have the resources to also work

with the Census Bureau.

Mr. MILLER. I think most of your colleagues, the mayors and the

commissioners, recognize the critical importance to do everything

they can to make sure the census gives us the best number possible.

Ms. ROBERTS. It means dollars to us.

Mr. MILLER. Right.

Ms. ROBERTS. So, I can assure you that we’re putting all our resources that are available.

Mayor KAINE. We all have that interest.

Mr. MILLER. Well, remember, Ms. Roberts, you come from an interesting perspective having worked for the Census Bureau back in

the 1980’s.

Well, let me thank all three of you all for being with us today.

We appreciate your testimony, and we all agree on the final goal.

And, we just need to keep working step by step to make sure we

get there. Thank you very much.

Mayor KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. ROBERTS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. We’ll move now to the next panel, Mr. Boatwright

and Ms. Welty. If you all would just remain standing so I can

swear you in as witnesses, please. Raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MILLER. Welcome. I’m sorry. You know, these things go on

and on. We’re lucky. Fortunately, we haven’t had any votes yet

today, and so we have not been called away. But let us continue

with your opening statement. I appreciate both of you being here,

and we’ll go with Mr. Boatwright first.

88

STATEMENTS OF LANIER BOATWRIGHT, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS; AND BARBARA WELTY, BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF TOWNS AND TOWNSHIPS

Mr. BOATWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of

the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today on the need

to reinstate the post-census local review for the 2000 census.

My name is Lanier Boatwright, and I’m the executive director of

the McIntosh Trail Reasonable Development Center in Griffin, GA.

I’m also president of the National Association of Development Organizations. Accompanying me today is the city manager of Barnesville, GA, Kenneth Roberts, who was involved in the post-census

review after the 1990 census.

The National Association of Development Organizations or

NATO is a national public interest group founded in 1967 to help

economic development professionals and local elected officials share

information and ideas. The Association is the leading advocate for

reasonable approach to economic and community development in

America’s small metropolitan and rural communities. We’re also a

part of the Census Bureau’s Partnership Program.

Our general members of the service delivery mechanism for a variety of State and Federal programs provide a wide range of technical assistance to local governments. All of these organizations

were established by State law or Executive order and have strong

relationships with their local elected officials and governments.

The McIntosh Trail Reasonable Development Center serves

127,000 residents in the Middle Georgia region, which includes

Butts, Lamar, Pike, Spalding and Upson Counties, and 16 cities

and towns with populations from 138 to 21,500. Our primary mission is to offer community and regional planning, economic development, mapping services and other requested services to local governments and municipal governments.

We also act as an interface between local, regional and State

agencies for planning and public information initiatives like the

U.S. Census. In preparation for the 2000 census through an appropriation from the Georgia Legislature, the Georgia Department of

Community Affairs has contracted with Georgia’s 16 regional development centers, which includes the McIntosh Trail RDC to provide

technical assistance to local governments for the local update of

Census addressing program. As a State with a 2.124 percent

undercount in 1990, we certainly understand the importance of obtaining an accurate count.

Mr. Chairman, I’m here today to discuss three main issues why

the Census Bureau should reinstate post-census local review for

the decennial census. First, Mr. Chairman, the pre-census activities such as the LUCA Program are inadequate substitutes for the

post-census local review.

While we completely support and embrace these programs, we

also recognize that only approximately 18,000 of the Nation’s

39,000 units of local government are actively working with the

Census Bureau to update the master address file.

In addition, only 32 of the 62 local governments actually participated in the LUCA Program’s process during the target address rehearsal in Columbia, SC, and that was according to reports from

89

the General Accounting Office and the Presidential Members of the

U.S. Census Monitoring Board.

That’s why NATO has been urging the Census Bureau to work

through the network of the 320 regional development organizations, to help rural local governments participate in the LUCA

process. Despite understanding the importance of the census, the

bottom line remains that the vast majority of local governments do

not have the staff or financial resources necessary to fully participate in pre-census activities such as LUCA.

As we found in 1990, many local governments believe there were

undercounts in the area but couldn’t even afford an appeal. Second,

Mr. Chairman, local governments should have an opportunity to

ensure the accuracy of the census numbers before they’re final.

There are too many consequences from inaccurate counts. Besides the well known outcome such as a loss of a congressional seat

or in Federal aid, many small to medium-sized communities have

encountered other problems. In 1990, a small city in Alabama successfully challenged its count and had it adjusted from 1,880 to

2,281 people. However, another small Alabama city informed the

Census Bureau that it was improperly counted, but ultimately it

was never corrected.

These two cases are significant because in Alabama a municipality is designated a city only when it has 2,000 or more people.

Unfortunately, the city that remained incorrect had to change its

name and lost all the revenues it would ever see with an accurate

count or under 2,000.

There are many other examples across the country, including in

Pennsylvania where the North Central Pennsylvania Regional

Planning and Development Commission helped a small community

actually appeal an overcount. If the census numbers had been accepted, the town would have been ineligible for their rural development programs.

When one of the towns in my region, Barnesville, which has a

population of 4,747, tried to appeal in 1990, they were discouraged

by the Census Bureau. In 1996, when the estimates were released

by the Census Bureau, it was reported they had actually lost 100

people. Because the city provides electricity, water, sewer, gas

through its own utility, it knows exactly how many residents it

has.

It also has a state-of-the-art geographic information system with

exact addresses by census tracts. The city appealed the 1996 estimate and provided the agency with maps but never received a response.

As you can see from these examples, these issues of an accurate

count are not only in urban areas and large suburbs, but also in

America’s small towns and cities and counties. Regardless of the

outcome of the debate, our main concern is that we achieve an accurate count at both the national and local level.

And third, Mr. Chairman, local governments can’t afford inaccurate counts for their areas. This census has long lasting implications at the local level. Over billions of dollars in Federal aid to

State and local governments are in jeopardy, and literally hundreds

of thousands of dollars for individual communities.

90

With almost a $3 billion budget, we strongly believe that the

Census Bureau should have provided some financial assistance to

help local government. While the time restraints for preparing the

2000 census may prohibit such a program, the Census Bureau

should help communities with a sound case participate in opposed

census review processes.

Several large cities also have announced they plan to challenge

the 2000 count, and these are communities who have already participated in LUCA and yet still value the importance of an appeal

process.

We believe all local governments should have a fair chance. In

closing, Mr. Chairman, those three main points were, first, the precensus activity, such as the local updated census addresses program, is not adequate as substitutes for the post-census local review.

Second, local governments should have an opportunity to ensure

the accuracy of the census numbers before they’re final. And third,

local governments cannot afford inaccurate counts for their areas.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of

the National Association of Development Organizations, and I

would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boatwright follows:]

91

92

93

94

95

96

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Boatwright.

We do have a vote, but we have enough time for Ms. Welty to

make her presentation, please. Welcome, again.

Ms. WELTY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the

subcommittee on the census in support of Chairman Miller’s bill,

H.R. 472.

Before I go into detail about why a 45-day post-census review is

essential to ensure a fair and accurate count for local communities,

allow me to introduce myself and tell you a little bit about who I

represent.

My name is Barbara Welty, and I am a board member of the National Associations of Towns and Townships [NATAT]. I am also

the elected clerk of Catheo Township in Mille Lacs County, MN

and a member of the Census 2000 Advisory Committee.

NATAT represents approximately 11,000 towns and townships.

Most of these are small and tend to be rural. There are 39,000 general purpose local governments throughout the country of which we

represent approximately one quarter, 82 percent of which have a

population of 50,000 people or less. Nearly half of all local government have fewer than 1,000 residents. Almost one-third of all local

governments have no paid full-time staff and rely mostly on volunteers or part-time workers to fulfill the needs of their citizens. And,

this is especially true for townships.

The decennial census process must include local governments at

all stages. The process must take into account limited staffing and

resource capabilities of many local governments, as well as their

hands-on knowledge about their community.

The purpose of this testimony is to highlight the special needs

of smaller communities and to reiterate the importance of a 45-day

post-census review as described in Chairman Miller’s bill, H.R. 472.

In 1990, part of the problem in reaching small communities

began with the pre-census local review. Only 21,000, or slightly

more than half of all local governments, were eligible to participate. And according to GAO, less than half of those eligible actually

took part.

For the 2000 census, the Bureau instituted a new program referred to as LUCA, local update of census addresses. LUCA has replaced the pre-census local review of 1990, and this is intended to

give local governments the same opportunity to correct potential

miscounts by providing them with the Bureau’s address list and

maps of the area before the actual census.

We support the LUCA process. However, despite the Bureau’s efforts and, indeed, the efforts of organizations such as ours, there

are only 78,105 local governments now participating in the LUCA

process to date. This leaves 21,895 local governments without precensus involvement.

There are a variety of reasons why localities may not be participating in the LUCA process, and I mentioned some of them in my

written testimony. The bottom line is that the majority of local governments are not participating in the LUCA process often because

of inherent special needs of smaller communities and the lack of

Federal funding to help communities participate.

97

It is the obligation of Congress and the Bureau to ensure that

these special needs are addressed. In my written testimony, I refer

to a survey we conducted after the 1990 census. A reoccurring complaint from survey respondents was that the 15 days allotted for

the post-census local review was not enough time to adequately

complete an analysis.

Today, more than one-half of all local governments are still not

participating in any form of pre-census review and, therefore, need

the benefit of a post-census review. Testimony by the General Accounting Office in September 1990 supports our assertion that

small communities are at a disadvantage in the census process.

GAO identified two reasons smaller communities did not plan to

participate in the post-census review. No. 1, a lack of funds, expertise or other resources to carry out the program. No. 2, a lack of

housing unit data of their own at the block level required to challenge the Bureau counts. This was especially true of small populations with communities and populations of less than 12,500. The

GAO findings contradict an earlier Bureau assertion that non-participation in post-census local review is an indication of acceptance

of the preliminary count.

Local communities often want to participate, but they do not

have the resources to do so effectively. The onus lies on the Bureau

and Congress to ensure that smaller communities have the opportunity and the necessary tools to participate fully in the census

process.

Given the limited revenues and human resources, it is only fair

that they be given a reasonable amount of time to prepare their

challenges. Because most local governments are not participating

in a pre-census review like LUCA, eliminating the post-census local

review gives them no opportunity to challenge the Bureau’s data.

Even if a locality cannot wade through the data received during the

LUCA process, it should not be denied the opportunity to at least

review the results.

In a locality that for whatever reason never heard of LUCA, the

process should not be penalized by not having any input into the

accuracy of the data for its jurisdiction. Completing the census is

an extremely difficult undertaking. We appreciate the magnitude of

this job. A 45-day post-census review, as proposed in H.R. 472, is

one way, but only one way, to help ensure that our smaller communities are more accurately accounted for. We need and want an accurate census. Thank you for this opportunity to present my testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Welty follows:]

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

Mr. MILLER. Thank you both for your final testimony. I thank

you all for submitting your testimony early enough.

We do have a vote. I think it’s going to be two votes. So, it’s probably the amendment and final passage.

So, we’ll take a recess. If you all can stay, we’d like to ask a few

minutes for questions when we come back, and then we’ll go to the

final panel. If I had to guess right now, we’re talking about 20 minutes or so by the time we get back. So we’ll take a recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, and sorry for the need to go

vote. Actually, we were very fortunate that that’s the only set of

votes so far today, and I think we’re free for the rest of the hearing.

Let me begin by a couple questions and get some clarification.

Mr. Boatwright, I just talked to you a minute ago. But your development is equivalent—what we have in Florida is the regional

planning councils.

Mr. BOATWRIGHT. Yes sir. The council’s a government in some

States, planning development districts.

Mr. MILLER. And you’re the national president of that organization?

Mr. BOATWRIGHT. Yes sir.

Mr. MILLER. One of the concerns, I think, you expressed, and just

clarify again with me, is that a lot of communities have a lot of

good information, and the only way they have a chance is that they

can help right now in the local address. How is that going in your

sense?

Mr. BOATWRIGHT. In my region, it’s going very well. We have two

tiers. The larger counties go first, and now the next group of counties are coming in, and we’re finishing up the mapping then.

Mr. MILLER. Ms. Welty, are you working? How’s it going so far

in your area?

Ms. WELTY. Up until this point, the LUCA Program has been not

heeded very well, I guess, with smaller local governments. However, I was just at a LUCA training in our general area last week,

and the original plan for that meeting as I called 3 days ahead of

time only had 10 members enrolled or registered to attend. By the

time the meeting progressed, they had over 100.

Most of them, I must say, also happen to be township officials

that were there. We had very few cities and very few counties. The

cities, basically their portion of LUCA should be considered completed by now. However, in the same instances that happened earlier as mentioned, in Fort Wayne, we had several cities at that

meeting that still had not gotten their LUCA maps from the city

addressed LUCA programs.

Mr. MILLER. Well, I think we’re all pleased that we have the

LUCA Program, and we learn every year better ways to improve

the census, and LUCA is certainly one of the improvements we

have this time around.

I’m still baffled why a few of the Bureaus are opposed to postcensus local review because of the trust issue. It can’t do any harm.

I know it’s a pain for some of the people in the Bureau. But I can’t

imagine seeing any harm to it?

Ms. WELTY. Absolutely not. I guess because of my involvement

with the Census 2000 Advisory Committee, I also do a lot of talkVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:51 Mar 27, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60286.TXT pfrm01 PsN: 60286
108

ing about the census to different groups. When I first started to inform them that there would be no review after, most of the people

that were there were aghast at the fact that we couldn’t check

after, that’s it. The LUCA process is it. And, I had to say at that

point, yes.

So, local officials very much support a review.

Mr. BOATWRIGHT. I also think, of course, part of the problem is

that local governments will react more strongly after they have

numbers and information placed in front of them so that you’ll

have a natural reaction when you have numbers.

So that before the census actually takes place, some may not put

as much credence in the LUCA process. Again, in Georgia, we were

lucky because our State went to all the RDCs and said help us in

this process and gave us a small amount of funding to assist. But

otherwise, we would have a lot that wouldn’t participate if we

didn’t have the regional involvement.

Mr. MILLER. Do you know what’s happening in other States? As

far as the State of Georgia says it’s giving $50,000 to each of the

planning districts, development districts. Is the Minnesota State

Legislature?

Ms. WELTY. No. And that by far is the exception to the rule. Most

States have not, to my knowledge, been able to help any toward resources or have not at this point at least.

Mr. MILLER. Ms. Welty, you’re on the Census Advisory Board,

right?

Ms. WELTY. Yes, I am.

Mr. MILLER. Appointed by the Secretary of Commerce?

Ms. WELTY. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. Has the Census Advisory Board taken a position on

this issue?

Ms. WELTY. No, we have not. We discussed it, actually, at one

of our last meetings, and it’s a divided issue, the same as it is here.

But I would say all of the local governments that are represented

on that committee were all in favor of a post-census review.

Mr. MILLER. How many communities are you representing, Mr.

Boatwright, in your district?

Mr. BOATWRIGHT. Oh, I’m 5 counties and 16 cities or towns.

Mr. MILLER. How many of them would you say have relatively

sophisticated ways to count people?

Mr. BOATWRIGHT. I would say, again, with the city of Barnesville,

although it’s under 5,000 by census numbers, it has a very sophisticated geographic information system. The county seats of each of

our counties are municipal electric authority cities that provide

that utility. So, they have access to information and billing going

to customers. I mean, if you think they read a meter at every

household, you know, that’s 120 times in 10 years.

But on the other hand, we think that the smaller communities,

because we’ve got a lot of communities that are under 300, don’t

have the staff and personnel to even begin to address this issue.

Again, that’s where the regional organization comes in to help.

If they don’t have that, they don’t have the personnel to respond

adequately, we think, to the LUCA process.

Mr. MILLER. And the basic idea is that these communities just

want to check the numbers. I mean, even a small community, I

109

guess, of 300 with a volunteer mayor or something maybe, they can

at least have that chance.

Mr. BOATWRIGHT. Well, within a small community you know everybody. But with the city of Barnesville that’s here today, in the

last 90 days they’ve taken a photograph of every primary structure

in their city of over 1,800, and they added that to their GIS system.

So the local elected officials know who’s there and have a way to

find out, through many different ways.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Had I been here when Mayor Kaine was testifying, I had a question that I would have asked of him that related to mispopulation.

The question would have been that in 1990, 70 percent of the population missed in the census were in housing units that were enumerated. Of course, with blacks, 80 percent of the black population

missed in 1990 were in housing units that were enumerated.

The question would have been how does the post-census local review address this mispopulation. Of course, I was not here and did

not ask him the question. But the verification of what I was looking for is contained in a letter from Mr. Ludington from the Brookings Institute. And I would ask unanimous consent if I could have

that letter entered into the record.

Mr. MILLER. No objections.

[The information referred to follows:]

110

111

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. At that time. I have a question of Ms.

Welty. In your written statement, you say that you conducted a

random sample of your members to determine the overall success

of the 1990 census.

You also say that 52 percent of the respondents were from communities with populations greater than 5,000, and that they rated

the Census Bureau’s communication effort as good or excellent,

while 66 percent of the respondents from communities with fewer

than 5,000 residents labeled the Bureau’s communication as being

fair to poor.

So that I can put your numbers in the proper context, could you

tell me how many of the 11,000 local governmental units that you

represent were surveyed?

Ms. WELTY. I don’t have that actual figure. We actually had 140

responses out of 32 States. But through the course of the last 10

years, the actual amount of surveys that were sent out, I cannot

tell you that.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. What you’re saying is that the responses

were probably less than 65 percent.

Ms. WELTY. I would guess yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. If that would be the case, would you have

any estimation or any guess as to why so few of them actually participated?

Ms. WELTY. Basically, it’s resources and understanding the process. The pre-census in 1990 was very difficult. It was geared toward large cities so that the smaller communities of which our Association represents were not able to be involved in that. And at

that point, until a post-census review was made, those cities did

not—or I shouldn’t say cities, but those communities did not really

heed the census.

As Mr. Boatwright just mentioned, once they got the final count

and they realized that they were way under what they thought,

many of the communities wanted to participate. Many of them financially weren’t able to challenge or were discouraged from challenging because it was a more difficult process than what they had

capabilities of doing.

So, many of those people who could have challenged, perhaps

should have challenged, did not for several reasons.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. If that is the case, would that not support

the Bureau’s contention that this really is not the most effective

way to get that kind of information.

Ms. WELTY. No, I don’t think so because with the new LUCA

Program, first of all, there’s involvement from the very beginning

that they have been informed of. However, there are people who

have still not gotten the proper notification because of some problems with mailings and stuff. But now that they know that that

process is out there and many of them have participated, we were

saying 50 percent now basically have agreed to participate in the

LUCA process. They know that it’s out there.

Right now, we’re trying to encourage. Again, many of our members are from small communities that we call in the Census department real address systems. So, they are just now getting their

maps and the involvement of, I am hoping, the involvement of

112

townships will get considerably more because of the process that’s

just starting now.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And so, even though they didn’t participate before, you think that they have a different level of awareness?

Ms. WELTY. They have a much greater awareness.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And what would likely follow up?

Ms. WELTY. Yes, they have a much greater awareness. And once

that process has begun, they really feel that they want a chance

to review at the end the final figures. And this, as I say, has come

back from many of the local officials.

They feel that as an elected representative from the community

that they represent, they should have and they must have a review

at the end, at the final process, before the numbers are out.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Boatwright, I understand that only

25 percent of all governmental units participated in the post-census

local review in 1990. Would you be able to tell us what percentage

of the rural communities that you represent participated in 1990.

Mr. BOATWRIGHT. In the post-census?

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Yes.

Mr. BOATWRIGHT. In my region, I can tell you. And I can tell you

that approximately 50 percent tried to participate in the post-census review. However, in several cases, there was no response.

Again, the city of Barnesville, 4,774 in 1990. The 1994 estimates

came out and showed about 5,400 plus in that community. The

1996 estimates came out and showed 4,600. And the discrepancies

were up and down, you know, since 1990, and they provided maps

and made an appeal and never heard back.

So I am very certain of the specific communities in my region

that have done that. It was about 50 percent.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. If asked to participate in the local review

now, what numbers would you project?

Mr. BOATWRIGHT. Well, I would project that if they were asked

now if they would participate in a review process afterwards, 100

percent, because I feel that the local governments want to have

some say so in the verification.

We have evidence and it’s in my testimony that there are cities

that are participating in the LUCA Program now that still want to

participate in a post-census review process.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you, Mr. Boatwright.

Ms. WELTY. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Ms. WELTY. I’m going to lose my voice yet. I’m sorry. Could I just

quickly address two things, and one of the things which I failed to

mention which is probably the most important. Increasing the postcensus review from 15 days to 45 days is ultimately the goal. It

must be done 15 days in small communities. Sometimes there’s nobody at an office for 15 days. So they might have received the maps

and be sitting in the office. But the person that works with them

wasn’t even there.

So, that is a very important thing. And regarding the PCLR, it

failed basically for several reasons. And one of them, again, was

that the pre-census review was limited and it was difficult to participate in which I mentioned.

113

Another one is that the period of time of 15 days was just too

short. And the LUCA process is flawed. Now we know that. This

post-census review would definitely help us correct that at the

point that LUCA has fallen down.

And I do support LUCA. I think that it’s the way to go and the

way to go to the future. I would hope that it would be continued

beyond 2000, that we can continue that list and update it.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you all both very much for coming here

today. We appreciate your testimony and your statements and your

responding to the questions. Thank you.

Mr. BOATWRIGHT. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. And we’ll proceed on now to the third panel, Dr.

Ehrlich, Dr. Bryant and Ms. Heinz is unable to be with us. If you

all would stay standing.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MILLER. Let the record show that they’ve answered in the affirmative, and we’ll proceed now to opening statements. Dr. Bryant

said she wanted to make sure that Dr. Ehrlich goes first, and actually he was scheduled to go first. Dr. Ehrlich.

STATEMENTS OF EVERETT EHRLICH, U.S. CENSUS MONITORING BOARD; AND BARBARA BRYANT, NATIONAL QUALITY RESEARCH CENTER, SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Mr. EHRLICH. All right, then, although I concede, Dr. Bryant,

with a certain amount of modesty, he having been the one person

on earth who has managed the largest field research project that

our civilization has probably ever seen, and that is the 1990 census. And for that reason, I, as you, Mr. Chairman, am looking forward to hearing what it is she has to say.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here, even on this very short

notice, Mr. Chairman. A written statement has been provided to

you. Let me say a few things in summary.

I think that we have talked fairly amply this morning about the

strengths and the weaknesses of the 1990 post-census review, of

the LUCA Program. I think that even if unorganized, many of

those facts are there.

There are several, though, that I think have escaped notice and

that I’d want to emphasize. One is that half of the success of the

post-census review in 1990, if we measure success by the 3 percent

of the net or 2 percent of the gross undercount that was tracked

in that review, came from two places. It came from Detroit and

Cleveland.

And, Mr. Chairman, you know as well as I do why those places

accounted for half of the success. It’s because they were on the cuff

of having less than 1 million people and, therefore, qualifying for

a different set of programs that would have been of important fiscal

consequence to them.

In fact, local census review wasn’t an immensely successful program. It gave those two municipalities an opportunity to preserve

resources that they thought were due them. I think it’s also the

case that we heard this morning that one of the problems with

post-census review is that it’s unfair to small municipalities, and

it generally requires resources.

114

I think that in the long term that Congress needs to consider reforms such as moving toward standardizing local address lists and

providing localities with resources that would allow them to participate in pre-census reviews, boundaries and the master address file

and the like.

But I don’t think we want to put ourselves in a situation where

we give every locality—there are 39,000 of them—a free shot at

holding up the 2000 decennial. And that, sir, is what your legislation risks doing. It does not specify a criteria for this review. It

simply says that the Secretary will stop the music if one of those

39,000 municipalities has a beef, and it will investigate that.

That can’t be done. It seems unfair. And if one can dissemble

about the rights of local communities and talk about how they all

have to have that right, that won’t work. It won’t work because

you, the Congress, have specified a deadline by which the census

must be done.

Those of us who are my age and older in this room remember

the TV show ‘‘Beat The Clock.’’ In ‘‘Beat The Clock,’’ contestants

were given a crazy stunt to do and a fixed number of seconds in

which to do it. The census is playing the most compelling game of

‘‘Beat The Clock’’ that we’ve ever seen. The Constitution tells them

to go out and to account for each of the 260 million odd Americans

and to do so in a fixed number of seconds.

What you’re telling them to do, sir, is to not only do that but to

do it with one eye closed and one foot off the ground by being prepared to stop the music for each of the 39,000 possible reviews

without a predetermination of merit and without regard for the

fact that, with regard to time, the number of seconds involved,

we’re at risk of putting 10 pounds of potatoes into a 5-pound bag.

I’m concerned that the Census Bureau has not been asked to respond to this proposal before this hearing. And I think that if they

had, we might have exchanged views about what activity in the

critical path you wish to get rid of in order to create the time for

this review because nothing, as an economist I can tell you this,

comes free in life.

In fact, if we’re going to have this review, if we’re going to expand it to the 45 days I heard about this morning, then something

has to give. And finally, sir, I think that we have reason to be

frightened. When the Congress takes upon itself to tell the Census

Bureau not only what it wants to have happen in the way of methodology, ignoring the consensus recommendations of the statistical

community, but how it wants to happen as well, I think that that

risks the appearance of the hand of meddlesome big government.

I know that in your legislative and political career, you have been

an enemy of that trend in our society, and I encourage you to be

an enemy of it now and to allow that career staff to do the job as

they see fit. Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehrlich follows:]

115

116

117

118

119

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

Dr Bryant, welcome again. Nice to have you here. Thank you for

staying all day.

Ms. BRYANT. Well, the reason that Everett had to precede me

was that I said this shows how you have lost power when you once

testified first, and now you’re the last one on the fourth panel.

I am Barbara Everett Bryant of the University of Michigan Business School. I think I’m here today for history. This is because I

was Director of the Bureau of the Census from 1989 to 1993. This

means I was the Director of the 1990 census, which was not the

largest census in civilization. China and India have more.

Post-census local review in 1990 was a well-intentioned but ineffective operation. And even before the 1990 census was completed,

there were consensus among those of us with operational leadership responsibilities for that census. A better way needed to be

found to work cooperatively with local units of government to improve the Census Bureau’s address list for the taking of the next

census.

Now, I say the post-census local review was well intentioned because cooperative was meant to be the operational word. The review was intended to be a joint operation between the then 39,198

functioning local government units and the Census Board to improve the address list for each locality and thus improve coverage

and make the 1990 census more complete.

You’ve heard from all the previous people about the fact that

only a quarter of local government participated, that the particular

operation among a number of coverage improvement operations we

undertook that post-census local review added only 0.08 percent.

That’s eight one-hundredths of 1 percent to the number of housing

units that had been counted prior to post-census local review. That

has been reported in table 1.2 in the final publication on coverage

improvement programs.

Attached to this testimony, I further show by each State that no

State that did post-census local review produced more than a fraction of 1 percent addition to the housing unit count. The Census

Bureau recanvassed blocks in which housing units were reported

missed by the local communities and had already recanvassed others in other coverage improvement operations.

Now, post-census local review in 1990 did have a positive effect

in identifying geo-coding mistakes. That is, housing units that had

been actually counted in one block but really belonged in another

block, usually the adjoining one.

One of the triumphs of the 1990 census was the first use of a sophisticated computerized geo-coding and digital mapping system

known by its acronym, TIGER. Yes, the 1990 census had some triumphs as well as errors.

Even triumphs, however, have problems when first introduced.

But fortunately, the geo-coding errors corrected as a result of postcensus local review then. And during the other coverage improvement operations and in the years since are now permanently incorporated in the TIGER system. And many of the errors we’ve heard

previous testifiers testifying about were these geo-coding areas.

Well, rather than repeat the post-census local review with its

costly, disappointing and minuscule results, the Census Bureau deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:51 Mar 27, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60286.TXT pfrm01 PsN: 60286
120

termined to find a better way for local government to more fully

participate in the census. Neither pre-census or post-census local

review worked effectively in 1990 for one major reason, and we’ve

heard about that from Representative Sawyer already.

The Census Bureau at that time was not able to share addresses

with local government. Long held interpretation of the Census law

title 13 was that specific addresses were confidential. And thus, for

checking in either pre- or post-census, we could only give a city or

a county or a township the housing unit count by block.

For example, you know, 30 housing units in a specific block and

a specific census track or 42 in another. Now, housing units by

block is not the format in which governments keep their records.

Tax records, utility records, all the kinds of addresses that any of

us are familiar with are things like 12342 Oak Street. And, the

local governments found it either cumbersome or impossible to

compare records.

Interestingly, the U.S. Postal Service also had confidentiality

laws. And thus, the two largest address lists maintained by the

Federal Government could not be compared for one to be used to

improve the other.

Well, fortuitously, at that time, the predecessor of this committee

had oversight for both the Census Bureau and the Postal Service.

And with bipartisan support, Representative Tom Sawyer whom

we’ve heard from, the chair of that subcommittee, and Representative Tom Petri of Wisconsin whom we’ve also heard from this

morning, who was the ranking minority member, worked together

and sponsored legislation that allowed the Census Bureau to share

with the Post Office and the Post Office to share with the Census

Bureau, and the Census Bureau to share with local government for

purposes only of improving address lists, not for any enforcement

purpose.

Well, freed from legal restrictions, the Census Bureau moved

ahead to plan the operation now called LUCA, and we’ve heard

enough about LUCA this morning that I don’t need to go through

and elaborate on it.

We now have 45 percent, I understand, of local governments participating. More are expected, and, of course, more are desirable.

But what’s different from 1990 is that as each local government

receives information, it receives its TIGER maps and its portion of

the census address files so that it can relate those addresses to the

maps. And for the first time, the Census Bureau has retained the

computerized address file from the previous census. People may

move, but fortunately most buildings don’t.

Now, the address control file is also being updated continuously

by the delivery sequence file of the U.S. Postal Service. Since the

Census Bureau is also the agency that collects records on new

housing starts and demolitions, these two are being used to update

the address control file. It’s a big job. You know if you’ve even tried

to maintain your own Christmas card list that our population is a

moving target. But fortunately, their housing units are a bit more

stable.

All of this brings me to H.R. 472, which proposes to reinstitute

a costly operation that’s been evaluated, thoroughly evaluated and

121

found wanting. Because the report card on post-census local review

showed such dismal results, it has been replaced by LUCA.

Thus, the 2000 forms will be hand delivered to the most current

address list possible. But H.R. 472 does far more than propose to

reintroduce a census operation found ineffective. More importantly,

it details in great specificity how that operation is to be executed.

H.R. 472 thus opens the door to many attempts to legislate micro

management of the 2000 census.

Census 2000 is an operation whose scope and complexity is a far

too great magnitude to be executed successfully without integrated

implementation of a great many operations planned in advance and

tested in the dress rehearsal now past. The decennial census is the

largest Federal peace time activity. It should not be designed ad

hoc at the 11th hour and with just 1 year to go now and less once

this legislation could possibly be passed.

The 11th hour is now at hand.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bryant follows:]

122

123

124

125

126

127

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Dr. Bryant. One of our great concerns

is—and you’ve heard me say this is that I thought we were moving

toward a failed census. They’ve been planning for an illegal sampling plan for over a couple years. This is, you know, illegal. And

back in the fall of 1997 in the Commerce Justice bill, we mandated

at least two tracks per pair or a full enumeration census.

Last summer, the six Federal judges—two of them were Clinton

appointees—said it’s illegal. And what do we have? We’re still

going to go full speed for this illegal plan prior to the Supreme

Court rule, and we don’t have a plan. We’re a year away. What are

we supposed to do?

They give a plan that’s got lots of voids in it. We have no idea

if they’re going to do a PF, what size it is, or anything else. There’s

so many missing things. Why should we know?

And they’re saying, well, hopefully we’ll get to you, maybe next month. Well, you know, this is a $5 billion thing. I mean, they

haven’t even given us the dollar amount. Now I talked to Secretary

Daley yesterday. He’s hoping to have some numbers for us by the

end of February when he testified before the Commerce Justice

Committee.

But you know, we have a responsibility in oversight to make sure

we have a census. I’m concerned it’s going to get done. And then

we have no input. It goes back to an issue of trust, and, you know,

you’ve got to trust this. This has got to be the most distrusted administration in a long time, and, you know, having the idea of

them controlling it is a scary thing.

And then to say, as I say, we’ve been 6 years and spent $1 billion, and these are the experts that designed it. Well, the experts

have an illegal plan. So, where do we go from here. It’s illegal. The

Supreme Court ruled.

Ms. BRYANT. The Supreme Court ruled only in case of apportionment. It actually encouraged the use of a sampling of statistical estimation for other purposes.

But questions about the plan, I’m here for history.

Mr. MILLER. Right.

Ms. BRYANT. These are questions you’ve got to ask the new Director because a census cannot be micro-managed by an ex-Director.

Mr. MILLER. That’s right. But if we can’t even get a plan from

the Bureau, if we can’t even see the plan, and they’ve been told in

law that they have to have a plan, and we have no details, that’s

not the details of the plan. How large are the PES, and how long

is a PS? Tell me that question. They don’t have it. They don’t have

any dollar amounts.

Mr. EHRLICH. What’s material about that? You have to bear in

mind, Mr. Chairman, if I may for a second, that 90 percent of the

sample versus a non-sample census is the same set of activities.

The fact is their sampling didn’t change the approach to LUCA or

to developing imaging equipment, to outsourcing the management

of the data captured facilities. Which aspects of it are material to

your concern?

The fact that the Bureau can’t give you a number right now for

the final dollar cost of the census reflects not only the kinds of concerns that you have, but, for example, that we don’t know what

128

wage rate will clear the labor market to hire the extra 300,000 people that have to be hired.

I think that there’s a middle ground, and it’s not clear to me that

the absence of the details that you raised justify the kinds of micromanagement that are of concern to us.

Mr. MILLER. Well, we do know they don’t want to do a post-census local review, and that’s the reason we’re moving now on this

issue.

Mr. EHRLICH. Right.

Mr. MILLER. As an issue of trust, I haven’t met a local official

that’s opposed to it. And I know it’s a pain probably for the people

at the Census Bureau. I know they don’t really like to do this.

But the thing is, we didn’t have trust. And if we don’t have trust

in the system, then it makes the whole census a failure if you don’t

have trust in the census numbers. And that’s the reason I think

that this is so important. As I said, I’d like to find an elected official to say I don’t like it, I won’t do it, I won’t participate in it. I’ll

bet you the mayor of Chicago would participate in it if it’s available, and I bet you the mayor of Detroit will participate in it again

if it’s available.

Let me go back to LUCA. You know, I think LUCA’s a good idea.

I think we need to put more resources into the front end. There’s

no question about that, and I fully support that.

But this is the first time they’ve done it. And you know, I think

you had a hearing out in Sacramento that there were some concerns with it. We don’t know LUCA is perfect, and they had some

problems there and hopefully they’re going to correct the problems

based upon that.

And that’s the only thing. You admit LUCA—and you’re on this

monitoring board—that there’s some problems with it, right? I

mean, we’re all agreed that it’s a good idea.

But, just as we liked the idea of the Florida census, what’s wrong

with doing one after the census? I mean, we can work out the time

constraints.

Ms. BRYANT. I’ll point out one thing about it. It’s local government records versus Census Bureau records. As long as the taxes

are paid on a housing unit, the local government will consider that

a valid unit. Take an apartment building with 50 apartments, 49

of which are occupied and one of which is vacant. The Census Bureau counts it as 49. The city, the taxes are paid, counts for this

as 50.

Thus, you’re always going to have the local governments coming

back and saying you did not count enough. All of the goodies come

by maximizing your account, not by accuracy. As Everett has said,

when you open up and especially in 1990, we had criteria for challenging at the block level, not at just saying you’re wrong about my

whole city, but specifics so that the Census Bureau could actually

check them out on the ground.

This bill does not include any criteria. I think that you should

be working this out in discussion with the Bureau rather than legislating a series of procedures that may or may not be possible to

integrate into the schedule.

Mr. MILLER. Is Congress relevant in this issue at all according

to you, Dr. Bryant?

129

Ms. BRYANT. Oh, yes.

Mr. MILLER. OK, thank you. My time’s up.

Ms. BRYANT. We worked a lot with your predecessor committee.

Mr. MILLER. Do we have an oversight responsibility?

Ms. BRYANT. You certainly do. Title 113 says so.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Chairman, I know that definitions

are definitions, and different individuals need different things. But

when I look at this, it says ‘‘United States Census 2000, Census

2000 Operational Plan Using Traditional Census Taking Methods.’’

And so, when I hear a lot of conversation about there being no

plan, perhaps if that could be altered a bit to say I have not seen

the plan that I’m looking for or a plan that I’m satisfied with. Perhaps, I could understand.

Mr. MILLER. A partial plan.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. All right.

Mr. MILLER. That’s missing lots of details.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And also, you know, I listen about how

much faith people have in this administration. And it was just occurring to me that I know an awful lot of priests and ministers

who, if they could get a 70 percent approval rating, they’d be pretty

happy. They’d be pretty satisfied. And so, you know, I think people

do have faith and confidence in this administration and in this government to take care of its business.

But at any rate, a couple questions. Dr. Ehrlich, we’ve heard that

about 80,000 housing units were added during the post-census review in 1990. Do you know how many of those were vacant?

Mr. EHRLICH. If I remember it, I think something like 25 percent

of them were vacant, 12 percent of them were reported erroneously.

So, maybe the number is a half of that or two-thirds of that when

the actual rubber meets the road. But whether it’s 80 or 50 or 100,

maybe, it really doesn’t get us close to making the kinds of systemic corrections that need to be made in the census in 1990 in

which 10 million Americans were closed out, 4 million undercounted on that basis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, if we were to even add, say, 56,000

or so additional units at a cost of about $10 million, how would you

view that in terms of cost-effectiveness?

Mr. EHRLICH. I wouldn’t regard it as cost-effective. I’d probably

make three points in summary. First, if it had produced a small

increment in the undercount at a great expense to a great delay

in other important activities in the flow of the census.

Second, it addresses one kind of error—undercount. It doesn’t address overcount, and there are overcounts. There are people who

have two different homes, snowbirds, they’re sometimes called out

in the field, or people who have second properties. It’s impossible

to identify that kind of an error in this procedure.

And third and perhaps most important, there are two kinds of

undercounting errors in a census. One is where we don’t know

where your front door is. The second is we find the front door, but

we don’t know who’s behind it. The second error, not knowing

who’s behind the front door, is generally around two-thirds of the

error in the census, even more so in hard-to-count communities.

130

What we have here is a minor solution to the problem of not

knowing where the front door is that gives us nothing in the way

of finding out who’s behind it.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I want to ask you, if you have an

overcount and an undercount, would you call that perhaps a double

whammy on hard-to-count communities?

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Would it act as twice—— Mr. EHRLICH. They’re not countervailing errors. One doesn’t undo

the other. In fact, when we have errors going up and down, you

have to add them, not subtract one from the other, to get to the

right answer or to figure out how far you are from the right answer.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And so that’s quite severe?

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Dr. Bryant, I was just going to ask you,

you indicated when you get to taking a look at 472, in your opinion,

is it really needed? Are the same concerns that we’re trying to get

at just as well gotten at with what we’ve already got?

Ms. BRYANT. I think that, no, with LUCA, it’s much better because it would get the addresses on the list ahead of time, and,

therefore, no, you’d get the accurate housing unit count at the time

you mail out the questionnaires. Post-census local review inevitably

would be done in late summer by which time lots of people have

moved, people with two households may be in a different household, those kind of things.

So, I know there will be other kinds of followup checks. In 1990,

we had a program called ‘‘Were You Counted?’’ And actually most

of what Detroit got was not from post-census local review, but was

from a very aggressive ‘‘Were You Counted,’’ in which they distributed a lot of questionnaires out. Many of the people had already

been counted. But the ones that put Detroit over its million were

the ones who had not.

There will be a ‘‘Were You Counted’’ program again in this census, as I understand it. I just think the post-census local review for

the time it takes—and I’m more concerned about the time than the

money—is not an effective program. And the Census Bureau does

learn by its mistakes. I’d be the last to deny that it makes mistakes, or that we made them in 1990. I think this is a case where

you look at all the different things you did, what worked and what

didn’t, and what needed to be changed, and then go toward trying

to get the address list in good shape at the time that is the census

period and when the maximum publicity is on being counted.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. My last question, Chairman. If we were

to pass 472, do you think it could be implemented in time to comply with the dates that have already been established?

Ms. BRYANT. Well, the dates are by law, and they have to be met

whatever form you’re in. And I do not want to get into the operational plans for 2000. I’m not the Director, and I will not micromanage the next Director’s census. So I’d rather you’d be talking

directly to Dr. Ken Prewitt or John Thompson, who is the civil

servant most high on the running of the decennial list.

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes, Mr. Congressman, if I may respond in part.

I read in the draft of this bill that the Secretary shall investigate

131

all challenges timely submitted under paragraph three, which is

something that if you were to pass this bill, you would want the

Secretary to do? And that by November 1st, he’ll take whatever action involved.

This, in essence, gives 39,000 local governments standing to sue

to investigate it in the appropriate fashion, and it in essence gives

us a license to go to court. The census has spent too much time in

court and not enough time in the hands of the career professionals

of the Bureau. I think that we should take every action possible to

reverse that flow and not accelerate it.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you both very much. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Doolittle, any questions?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I have no questions.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I have no more.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. I have none.

Mr. MILLER. Let me conclude with just a statement that I don’t

see what the harm is, and all we’re talking about doing is building

trust in the American people and the communities. And when you

see communities like Congressman Petri’s district or Mayor Archer’s city that it made a difference in real, why not give people

that opportunity, and that’s all we’re talking about.

So, with that, let me thank you both for being here today. I have

a couple of statements here. Thank you very much. I ask unanimous consent that all Members’ and witnesses’ written opening

statements be included in the record without objection. So ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for 1

week for those invited witnesses who were unable to be present at

the hearing but wanted to submit written testimony. Without objection, so ordered. And we will adjourn and reconvene shortly for

a mark up on the bill. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the subcommittee proceeded to other

business.]

Æ