U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

61–630 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: DISCUSSION

OF THE EFFECTS OF INCLUDING PUERTO RICO

IN THE 2000 U.S. POPULATION TOTALS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 22, 1999

Serial No. 106–66

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

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

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

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

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

———

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

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

JENNIFER M. SAFAVIAN, Chief Counsel

AMY ALTHOFF, Clerk

DAVID MCMILLEN, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on September 22, 1999 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Angueira, Teresa, Assistant Division Chief, Decennial Management Division ................................................................................................................. 63

Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from American

Samoa ............................................................................................................ 26

Prewitt, Kenneth, Director, Bureau of the Census ........................................ 40

Romero-Barcelo ́, Hon. Carlos A., the Resident Commissioner in Congress

from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ..................................................... 19

Serrano, Hon. Jose ́ E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York ................................................................................................... 17

Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:

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

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 16

Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from American

Samoa, prepared statement of ..................................................................... 28

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

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 9

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

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 4

Prewitt, Kenneth, Director, Bureau of the Census, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 46

Romero-Barcelo ́, Hon. Carlos A., the Resident Commissioner in Congress

from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, prepared statement of .............. 22

(1)

OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: DISCUSSION OF THE EFFECTS OF INCLUDING

PUERTO RICO IN THE 2000 U.S. POPULATION TOTALS

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room

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

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Miller, Davis of Illinois, Maloney, and

Ford.

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

M. Safavian, chief counsel; Timothy J. Maney, chief investigator;

David Flaherty, senior data analyst; Chip Walker, communications

director; Jo Powers, assistant press secretary; Amy Althoff, clerk;

Michelle Ash, minority counsel; David McMillen, minority professional staff member; and Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk.

Mr. MILLER. Good morning. With a quorum present, we will proceed with opening statements by myself and Mrs. Maloney, and

then we’ll proceed to the first panel with three distinguished Members of Congress.

Today, the subcommittee will be exploring a very interesting and

important topic: the collection, tabulation, and reporting of the

2000 census data from Puerto Rico.

The United States has long enjoyed a prosperous relationship

with the island of Puerto Rico, first as a hemispheric neighbor and,

in the 20th century, as a U.S. Commonwealth.

All Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, as provided by the Jones Act,

which was enacted into law in 1917. These citizens have made a

tremendous contribution to the United States. Countless Puerto

Ricans have served in our Nation’s armed forces, fighting in all of

America’s conflicts in the 20th century in order to protect the freedoms we all hold dear. Puerto Rico’s economy, its capable and industrious work force, and strategic location make it a vital center

of American commerce in the Caribbean and Latin America. And

many Puerto Ricans have chosen to immigrate to the mainland,

helping to expand our economy and enrich our cultural heritage.

American citizens, whether in Puerto Rico or in the 50 States

and the District of Columbia, have much in common. They share

the same values of hard work and honesty and appreciate the imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:16 Feb 23, 2001 Jkt 066424 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\61630 pfrm01 PsN: 61630
2

portance of family, faith, and freedom. As a result of the 2000 census, that connection will grow even stronger. They will be enumerated using the same forms in the decennial census.

In the previous censuses, Puerto Rico, as well as other U.S. Commonwealths and related territories, were counted using a different

census form than the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Different enumeration techniques were also used. In 2000, it is our

understanding that the forms and techniques to be used in Puerto

Rico will be far more similar, and in many cases identical to, those

techniques used in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. I

am sure Dr. Prewitt will be able to elaborate on this subject in detail during his testimony.

Thus, in the past, the Census Bureau used different forms and

different enumeration techniques in Puerto Rico than they did in

the 50 States while still seeking similar data. When it reported on

the data it collected in Puerto Rico in the 1990 census, the Bureau

placed it in a category separate from the data collected from the

50 States and the District of Columbia. Consequently, any national

data products and statistics from the 1990 census, such as the percentage of homes with two or more cars or the percentage of children living below the poverty line, did not include data from Puerto

Rico in the overall population totals on which they were based.

Under current policy, the total population of the United States does

not include Puerto Rico, or any other U.S. territory for that matter.

The population figures used by the Census Bureau for the total

U.S. population include only the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bureau has changed the way it will

enumerate Puerto Rico in the 2000 census. The same short and a

similar long form as used in the 50 States and the District of Columbia will now be used in Puerto Rico. As a result, the data gathered in Puerto Rico will for the first time be compatible with and

potentially could be included in the overall U.S. totals for official

Census Bureau data products, as I am certain Dr. Prewitt will explain for us.

This new compatibility of data leads to the important policy

question we will examine today. Should the Census Bureau include

the data from Puerto Rico in the overall U.S. totals or should it

continue to keep Puerto Rico separate from the total including the

50 States and the District of Columbia?

While this may seem to be just a simple change in calculating

the total population of the United States, the policy considerations

of this decision are not insignificant. There are many questions

that should be examined before a determination is made on how to

proceed with reporting the data. To highlight just a few: One, how

will the inclusion of Puerto Rico affect the numerous data products

produced by the Census Bureau and other agencies?

What effects will the inclusion of data on Puerto Rico have on

Federal policy decisions that primarily impact the 50 States and

the District of Columbia?

Would the inclusion of Puerto Rico negatively affect data comparisons from the 2000 census to earlier censuses, essentially rendering them apples and oranges?

3

If we decide to include Puerto Rico, should we then include the

population totals of other American Commonwealths, related territories and possessions as well?

Is this potential change significant enough to be better decided

by a separate vote on authorizing legislation on the floor of the

House and Senate, rather than nonbinding report language in an

authorization bill?

Is there sufficient time and technical resources for the Bureau to

make these changes in reporting data on Puerto Rico for the 2000

census?

Our colleague from New York, the Honorable Jose ́ Serrano, believes strongly that Puerto Rico should be included in the U.S. totals. He has proposed, through the use of report language in the

Commerce Justice State appropriations bill, to instruct the Census

Bureau to begin including Puerto Rico in the final data products

for the United States, including population totals. I’m pleased he’s

here to explain his proposal.

We are also fortunate to have with us the Honorable Carlos Romero-Barcelo ́, Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico and the official voice of the people of Puerto Rico in the U.S. Congress. Prior

to being elected Resident Commissioner in 1992, Mr. RomeroBarcelo ́ was elected Governor of Puerto Rico in 1976. I look forward

to hearing his unique insights and benefiting from his experience

on this issue.

We are also joined by the Delegate from American Samoa who

will provide a perspective on the people of American Samoa, whose

status in the official Census Bureau population reports is currently

similar to that of Puerto Rico.

And, finally, Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt is here to

give us the reaction of the Census Bureau to Mr. Serrano’s proposal. He will be commenting on the Bureau’s ability to collect and

disseminate the data from Puerto Rico and to advise us on any

technical considerations regarding the proposal.

On behalf of the ranking member, Mrs. Maloney, and the other

members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank all of our witnesses for coming here today; and we look forward to an enlightening and informative hearing.

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

4

5

6

7

Mr. MILLER. Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling

this hearing.

Unlike a number of the hearings we have had over the years now

that the Census Subcommittee has been in existence, I can say sincerely that I’m very pleased that the chair has called for today’s

hearing. How we plan to tabulate the census information for the

2000 census is clearly an important issue that benefits from a full

and open discussion.

I would also like to share that in preparing for this hearing I

learned a great deal. I’ve had a new education in the history of the

census, how it’s been conducted over the decades and territories

from the 19th century to the present, and I look forward to learning even more from our witnesses today.

I would like to commend the Delegate from Puerto Rico for the

work he and the Governor have done on this issue. I understand

that their hard work and partnership with the census has gotten

us to the point where I believe we’ll be having a very successful

2000 census on Puerto Rico.

I had an opportunity to meet Governor—Delegate RomeroBarcelo ́ when he was Governor, literally, of Puerto Rico. I went and

visited him there, and it’s been an honor to work with him here

in Congress.

I look forward also to my colleague, Carlos Eni Faleomavaega

from Samoa, who will be testifying. And we’ll be hearing from other

Delegates, too, maybe not in the hearing but in their prepared testimonies that they will submit.

I am especially pleased to welcome my fellow New Yorker, Mr.

Serrano, for having raised this issue in the first place. Regrettably,

I think we have been too distracted with other issues and have

been unable to focus on problems and policy issues like those that

Mr. Serrano has raised here today. I’m glad that we have the opportunity to turn to them now. I’d like to take this opportunity,

really, to thank Representative Serrano for his leadership and commitment, along with Mr. Miller’s, in securing the full funding for

the census.

And I just want to note that in today’s CQ Daily Monitor, Mr.

Young states that we’ll be going to a CR and that there won’t be

any extra emergency spending or policy provisions added on. So, we

will need to make adjustments for the census to make sure the

money is there for the ad campaign and all the other important

things that need to go forward. So, your work continues, thanks to

the work of the Census Bureau and partnership with the people of

Puerto Rico.

There is now the option of full inclusion of the people of Puerto

Rico in the census data provided to the Nation by the Census Bureau. If, as Mr. Serrano suggests, the Census Bureau is to tabulate

the people of Puerto Rico fully into the Nation’s totals, that would

mean that when the Census Bureau releases data on, say, the Nation’s Hispanic population, the statistics would include the residents of Puerto Rico. Similarly, were we to talk about how many

people of Puerto Rican descent there are in the United States fully

integrated, the census data today would finally give us a number

that actually includes the people on the island of Puerto Rico. By

8

raising this issue early enough for its consideration, we in the Congress, the Census, and the people of Puerto Rico can make an intelligent policy decision on this matter.

I look very much forward to the testimony by the Census Bureau. If there are sound scientific reasons for not including Puerto

Rico, as requested by Representative Serrano, I look forward to

hearing them. If not, I hope the Director will tell us what needs

to be done so that all the people of Puerto Rico will not only be

counted in the 2000 census, but fully tabulated, which I have

learned is as important as being counted. Based on what I’ve

learned so far, I think examining the issue of Puerto Rico counting

strategy is the least we should do.

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and

I look forward to the comments from my colleagues and other Representatives.

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

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.

I would make one comment about the issue of the CR that very

possibly will include Commerce Justice. We’re very aware of it. I

know Mr. Serrano, the ranking member, will be very supportive of

the necessity for the census to have a higher amount of money as

of October 1 because of the advertising in particular but also because of the dramatic buildup in the census that will be provided

for us. So we have been in communication with the Census Subcommittee and with the Commerce Justice Subcommittee and Appropriation Committee to make sure that we have that taken care

of. So, we need to be on top of that issue.

Mr. Davis, did you have an opening statement?

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I do have a brief statement

I would like to make.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for

convening this hearing.

Regarding the facts of including Puerto Rico in the 2000 U.S.

population totals, as census day rapidly approaches, it is important

that we continue to do everything that we possibly can to get the

most accurate census. We cannot afford to have the significant

undercount that we had in 1990. Of course, in my district alone,

the undercount for African Americans was triple that of the

undercount for Cook County. The undercount may have led to an

underrepresentation in government and fewer resources like the

schools’ Head Start programs and senior citizens facilities. Thus,

the question that confronts us today regarding whether Puerto

Rico’s census numbers should be included in the U.S. population totals for 2000 is a relevant one.

The proponents for this argument, of course, that Puerto Rico is

a territory, should be treated as the District of Columbia and have

its numbers put in with the U.S. totals. This is an interesting, as

well as I think relevant, concept.

Of course, the opponents argue that allowing Puerto Rico’s numbers to be included in the U.S. totals would disrupt the apportionment and the drawing of congressional districts. In addition, they

argue the numbers would skew formula distributions of Federal

moneys to States.

Obviously, all of us want to ensure that the States receive fair

resource allocation and representation based upon the populations,

and that is why I think it’s so important that we have this hearing

today. I certainly look forward to hearing the views of Dr. Prewitt

as it relates to the question. I also look forward to hearing any

other information that he would have to share with us.

I want to thank the witnesses, especially my distinguished colleagues, for not only their interest in the issue but also for bringing

the issue to the forefront so that we can analyze it, look at it, better understand it and hopefully end up with a conclusion that provides the fairest, most accurate, most representative census that

this country has ever seen. So I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and certainly look forward to the witnesses.

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

16

17

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

If the first three witnesses, all Members of Congress, would

please join us up here: Mr. Serrano, Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́, and Mr.

Faleomavaega.

Mr. Serrano, of course, is the ranking member of Commerce Justice, which has a very direct impact on the census since it funds

the census. While I do not have a large Puerto Rican population,

I do say I have some very important members of the Puerto Rican

community because I have Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́’s in-laws in my district and so he does visit my district in Sarasota to visit his inlaws. We all joined Congress together, both Mr. Faleomavaega and

Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́. Mr. Serrano.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

First, let me say that I remain totally committed, as the ranking

member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, to making sure the census gets complete funding. That is an issue you know we fought on that subcommittee, and we will continue to fight. As we go forward, we will

do everything that we have to do to make sure that the census gets

the proper funding on time so it can do the work that it has to do.

Second, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you in a kind of amazed

way for calling this hearing and putting it together. I’m amazed because I’m finding out as I get older in politics that sometimes what

appears to be the simplest of issues becomes the most discussed of

issues, and sometimes the more complicated issues get very little

discussion.

When I first proposed this in 1990 and then again in 1993 and

most recently with the language we are examining here for me, it

was such a simple issue that I thought I would either get a quick

yes or a total ignoring—which happened for years until you came

along—ignoring of the issue but never the attention that it’s getting now. So I thank you, in some sort of amazement, that this

very simple issue has become such a topic of discussion.

I see it as simple, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, because to me the relationship between Puerto Rico and

the United States has always been based on citizenship and not

necessarily on the status question. And so, until we resolve the status question of Puerto Rico—and we will some day, I am hopeful—

I think we have to take seriously the citizenship question.

And the question arises, how is it possible that 4 million Puerto

Ricans on the island, most of which are U.S. citizens—Puerto Rico

is no different than any other part of the United States. Under the

American flag there are X number of people who are living there

who are not citizens yet—close to 4 million people never get included in the census figures as part of the national count.

Now, one could argue that this is a constitutional issue. Well, I

submit to you that the Constitution in many ways is a work in

progress that needs our interpretation of what the framers and the

founding parents wanted it to be. In their time, there was no envisioning of American citizens living outside our territory except if

18

they were on travel or in the diplomatic corps or on business. But

certainly there was no talk in those days about the possibility ever

of granting citizenship outside the United States, if you will, and

how to deal with that.

So, now we find ourselves in 1999, and since 1917 there are

American citizens who don’t get included in our census count. They

are an addendum to our census numbers. And I don’t think any

American should ever be an addendum to any other American.

The irony of the situation, and the thing that has made me much

more aware of the need to change this is the fact that an undocumented alien who lives in my district gets counted in the national

figures but an American citizen who lives in Puerto Rico does not

get included in the national figures. Now, that does not make sense

at all.

And then the question to me is, when the census tells me that

there are X amount of people living in my Nation, what are they

talking about? Well, up to now, they’ve been saying X amount of

people living in the 50 States. I want to change that to X amount

of people living under the American flag because—understand that

these are folks who are subject to every Federal law that’s in place,

every allocation and every rule or regulation that is in place and

yet, when that family is counted, these folks become an addendum.

Now, let me be clear on one thing, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know

what my brother Carlos’ position is on this, but, for me, the language I presented to the Appropriations Committee and the issue

I have brought up since 1990 never spoke to anything having to do

with the status issue. It never spoke, nor does it speak now, to distribution of funds. It cannot speak to apportioning of districts, because Puerto Rico does not have Members of Congress as such. So,

it cannot speak to that at all. It doesn’t speak to any allocation of

funds. It speaks only to the issue of how do you not include in your

family count 4 million members of the family?

I also did not include in my language other territories, although

I would like to have them included, because I know that to make

any one of these changes we really have to hear from the representatives from those areas. This is something that the government of Puerto Rico and its representatives are in favor of in the

Puerto Rican community and that people throughout the 50 States

are in favor of.

Now, we include at present the District of Columbia’s population

in our total count. It does not get included as an addendum and

yet it is separated for purposes of reapportionment because they do

not elect Members of Congress. So, we’ve done this already.

And so, at the expense of setting a record for the shortest presentation ever on a very serious issue, I would just like to be able from

now on to say that the census reflects the count of all residents,

be they citizens or not, who live under the American flag. The census should reflect the relationship under that flag, which says that

these are American citizens and/or residents who are totally within

our laws, totally within our behavior, totally within our rules and

regulations.

How interesting that we know and include in our total figures

many people from Puerto Rico at one time or another. How many

people are serving in our armed forces, or at one time or another

19

are seeing action in battle, but we don’t know or include as part

of the family the total population of the island. In the future, as

Mrs. Maloney said, I would like when we say there are X number

of Hispanics in our country to include those who live in Puerto

Rico. While I as a Puerto Rican New Yorker now say there are 4

million Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico and close to 3 million in the

50 States, I would no longer have to make that statement. I could

simply say there are close to 7 million Puerto Ricans under the

American flag. And that is the way we behave from now on.

Now, as far as the data. As you know, this year the Census Bureau will be in Puerto Rico as it never has been before. The Puerto

Rican Government and its representatives are doing a marvelous

job getting the people involved in the census, as they have in the

past. So, at the expense of sounding like I know as much as the

Census Bureau, there is nothing really that has to be done differently than is being done now. All that is needed is the will to

say—when we submit the figures—there will not be a line that includes other people under it, but all Americans and all people who

reside next to Americans in the territories and States will be included.

For me, that is an important issue because, as we look to the future relationship of these two places, one the place where I was

born and one the place where I grew up and that I represent in

Congress, we have to take care of some unfinished business before

we move forward. And, if in 1917 everybody in Puerto Rico was

made a citizen, then we should be counted as part of the American

family, and I would hope that the subcommittee sees it that way.

Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.

Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́.

STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , THE

RESIDENT COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mrs.

Maloney, Mr. Davis, it’s a pleasure to be here today.

For the record, I want to state that my name is Carlos RomeroBarcelo ́. I am the sole elected Representative in Congress of the

United States of the 3,800,000 disenfranchised American citizens in

Puerto Rico. This is part of what the problem is—and I appreciate

this opportunity.

This is kind of like the chicken and the egg, which came first,

because the fact that we’re not included in the data then gives rise

to many other discriminations. And when we say, well, why are we

treated differently in Medicare even though we pay exactly the

same amount that everybody else does, they say, well, we don’t

have the data. So, this is one of the reasons why it’s so important

for us to be fully included in the census, to be counted as part of

the family, as Mr. Serrano says.

And, until recently, Puerto Rico and the other territories were

excluded from the U.S. census totals and reports as part of the U.S.

population, and this resulted in the critical undercount of Hispanics and other minorities in the Nation, with corresponding impact on the allocation of Federal resources, including even the Post

20

Office, even in the Coast Guard until very recently when several

Members of the Congress had gotten involved because of the drug

trade that was shifted from Florida to the Caribbean and particularly through Puerto Rico.

The U.S. summary reports of the census of population and housing, for instance, omit Puerto Rico and the territories. Although the

same information that is collected for the 50 States is collected for

Puerto Rico, it is published in a separate series of reports and is

excluded from the U.S. total counts. This segregation of information has caused many of the Federal Government agencies and congressional committees that exclusively rely on the U.S. summary

reports for Federal funds distribution to routinely omit Puerto Rico

and the territories. The omission in return results in the arbitrary

allocation of resources to Puerto Rico and is particularly felt in the

most significant safety net programs, including health.

I asked many times who is responsible for the national policy

that determines that the health and the lives of the U.S. citizens

who reside in Puerto Rico are worth one-tenth of the health and

the lives of the other U.S. citizens. The President, when I made

that statement in a meeting that we had of about 200 people, he

said, Carlos, what do you mean we value it at one-tenth? Because

that’s all we get. One-tenth in Medicaid. That means our health

and the lives of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico, that’s what they’re

worth. When you try to do anything in HHS, they say, well, we

don’t have the figures for Puerto Rico.

This is why it has become so important. If there’s going to be any

shift in policy then at least the facts were there, the numbers were

there, the data was there. And in Medicare, for instance, we pay

into it, and even though we pay into it, the benefits are not exactly

the same in Medicare; and then, at the same time, the payments

to the providers are completely different; and the excuses that

we’re being given, also the facts are not there.

So since my election in Congress, it has been my objective to ensure the American citizens in Puerto Rico receive equal access to

and treatment in all the Federal programs and services, and this

is one of the main barriers I ran across.

This is not a new problem. I want to point out that the national

census had been administering Puerto Rico since the early 20th

century, albeit with a slightly different questionnaire. When I became aware that one of the problems was the questionnaire, I met

with the people in Puerto Rico, I met with the Secretary of Commerce, then Ronald Brown, and I met with people in the Bureau

of the Census, and I talked to them. We analyzed this problem.

The census people from Puerto Rico came over here, the planning

board people of Puerto Rico came over here to meet with census officials, and now we’re finally ready to include Puerto Rico in all of

the count, but then we will be separate and we will not be included

in the totals, as Mr. Serrano has indicated. But I am pleased that

after my continuous prodding in the meetings with the Federal officials and the OMB in the White House and this past January 6,

1999, at a meeting with Ken Prewitt, the administrator for the census, the inclusion of Puerto Rico in the national summary data

products for the census 2000 was achieved.

21

We’re very happy about this and proud of this achievement for

Puerto Rico. It will mark a significant turning point in the data collection and resource allocation efforts starting with the critical census of 2000. This is a step in the right direction to ensure that the

census is fully representative of the entire population, particularly

the American citizens who reside in Puerto Rico and the other territories.

There is one additional issue that we are now bringing to your

attention. I would like to request your support also in the future

of the data collection for the Nation in the American Community

Survey, or the ACS as it is commonly known, and I urge you to

ensure that Puerto Rico is included in this important survey as it

is implemented in the next decade.

Finally, I would like to say for us also it is important to be considered as part of the family. I think if you’re excluded from the

total count of the population of the United States and the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico are not there, it’s like we are an appendage.

We’re something separate, something different. I think that creates

many, many problems from there.

And, as Mr. Serrano very ably pointed out, there’s no problem as

far as the distribution count and the geographical distribution and

how many Representatives each State is going to have and where

they’re going to be distributed, because that has always been done

with the District of Columbia. It has always been separated. All

they have to do is subtract the number from the total and you deal

with the rest of the number for that purpose. But for other purposes, it is important for us be considered as part of the Nation and

not separate, at least in the data. The policies and the issues, we

can deal with that separately some other time.

Thank you very much.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Carlos Romero-Barcelo ́ follows:]

22

23

24

25

26

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Faleomavaega.

STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE

IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We certainly appreciate your kind invitation to allow us to come and testify this

morning, certainly with my distinguished colleagues, Congressman

Serrano from New York and my good friend Resident Commissioner Romero-Barcelo ́ from Puerto Rico.

At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure there’s

no misunderstanding of the reason I am here. I do fully support

Congressman Serrano’s proposal about the inclusion of Puerto Rico

in the counting process.

This is my sixth term, Mr. Chairman, here in Congress, and I

find it very interesting reading through many bills and even reading through some of the laws that we have on the books, the 50

States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia are always included but, to the rest of these areas, it’s a common sea. Sometimes

we’re treated like foreign countries.

The irony of all this, Mr. Chairman, as Congressman Serrano

stated earlier, is it all right to count for 2 million plus Puerto Rican

U.S. citizens living in the 50 States, but not 1 U.S. citizen living

in Puerto Rico is counted as part of that process.

For the benefit and information of the committee, despite the fact

that American Samoa has had almost a 100-year relationship with

the United States, it was not until 1990 that the first census count

was ever made for American Samoa by the Census Bureau. How

all this came about I don’t know, Mr. Chairman, but I just wanted

to bring that to the attention of the members of the committee.

I recall the comments made earlier by one of our former Members who represented Guam years back, a retired Brigadier General in the Marine Corps, General Ben Blaz. He made this statement, Mr. Chairman, that I always think seemed so applicable

sometimes to the situation of those of us who come from the insular areas. General Blaz said, we are equal in war but not in peace.

Mr. Chairman, it’s always easier to print money in terms of

building equipment and hardware and bullets and all of that, but

I think for the sons and daughters of the insular areas who put

their life and blood on the line in defense of our Nation, that

should at least count for something. I sincerely hope you will take

it from that perspective.

Mr. Chairman, as Congressman Romero-Barcelo ́ explained earlier, under current procedures, the Census Bureau collects census

data from the 50 States, the District of Columbia and the insular

areas which include American Samoa, CNMI, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These totals

then are combined in many different ways, but the primary results

are tabulated, totaled and analyzed based on, ‘‘U.S. totals,’’ which

include the 50 States and the District of Columbia, but not the insular areas, including Puerto Rico.

It’s my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that part of the reason for

this methodology is that the insular areas do not use the same census forms that are used in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Over the years, the Census Bureau, in consultation with the

27

insular areas, has developed distinct census forms which adjust for

each location’s unique situation.

Our local governments have worked for years to develop forms

which accurately tally meaningful data. In some cases, and in this

regard I will speak only for American Samoa, the use of the standard census form in the insular areas will result in distorted data

because of the cultural differences which are manifested in different familial relationships and living patterns. For example, in

the United States, freehold and leasehold interests in real property

are the norm, while in American Samoa the great majority of land

is communally held by families and villages. The value of this communal land is not easily determined and, as a result of this distinction, census questions of the value or size of a person’s land holdings or family residence will yield entirely different results in different areas.

Mr. Chairman, I’m not here to speak in opposition to efforts to

include the data from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the

State and D.C. totals. Puerto Rico is many, many times larger than

the rest of us combined, including many States as well; and in

many respects I understand the value to Puerto Rico and to the

Nation as a whole of including the data on the 3.8 million U.S. citizens who live in Puerto Rico. This is, after all, 1.5 percent of the

Nation’s total population and to exclude them is a distortion of

data, in my humble opinion, in and of itself.

I would suggest, however, if Puerto Rico is included in the State

totals that, to the extent possible, the other insular areas should

also be included. I say to the extent possible, Mr. Chairman, because—and again at this point I can speak only for American

Samoa—the most useful data in American Samoa is obtained from

the forms derived by the joint effort of the Census Bureau and the

local government. Under no circumstances would I support forcing

the insular areas to use the standard census forms over local objections. I think this is where the rub comes, the problems that I’m

faced with as far as representing an insular area.

Mr. Chairman, I know there are broader issues involving the

subject under consideration this morning, but hopefully my discussion will convey the position of American Samoa and the narrow

points I have just addressed to the members of the committee. Mr.

Chairman, I sincerely hope that this can be done in the upcoming

census.

I don’t think I would be the last person to submit that as you

know, it’s required by the Federal Constitution. Every 10 years

there’s to be a census taken. Not only does it have far-reaching economic and social implications—as you well know, in the 1990 census, there was an undercount of well over 5 million Americans. Unfortunately, it got to the height of political partisanship; and I sincerely hope that that won’t happen in the census taken next year.

But, at any rate, I just want to thank you for letting us come and

testify.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Eni Faleomavaega follows:]

28

29

30

31

32

Mr. MILLER. We will proceed now under the 5-minute rule.

This issue, which I became aware of when it came up during the

appropriation process, sounded a little simple, but once you start

delving into it there are real complications. You mentioned how we

count illegals in the United States, but we don’t include our total

residents in Puerto Rico.

We had a meeting earlier this year concerning Americans living

abroad. I don’t know if you realize this, but we have several million

Americans who live abroad—retired Americans, maybe working

with Xerox, IBM, or something abroad. They have U.S. citizenship,

they pay taxes, and they vote in this country, but they cannot be

counted in the census. So, it gets very complicated and technical,

the reasons why.

We’ll hear from Dr. Prewitt in a few minutes about some of the

things.

Part of the question that gets raised, as Dr. Prewitt I think will

make in his statement, is a major policy change on statistics. I understand why there is concern here. But on the technical side, have

you all had any discussions with statisticians and such?

I don’t have a position at this moment, but if we did it, you are

comparing apples to oranges, for example, comparing unemployment data. What do you do with something like that? Have you

looked at it from position of our national statistics? It’s not just unemployment but all of our statistical data.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. The same thing that was done whenever

a new State was admitted to the Union, exactly the same thing.

Every time a new State was admitted to the Union, they have to

compare the new census with the past census. You need to make

a comparison. All you need to do is make the proper adjustments.

With the computers today and their programs, there’s no problem

to make the proper comparison, to make the proper inclusions. I

don’t see any real problem with that.

Mr. SERRANO. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but every 10 years

our population grows. So what I’m suggesting is that this time it

grows by another 4 million in addition to whatever it grew otherwise. So the same data that you collect, the same information that

you need, the same growth will take place.

Mr. Romero reminded me during the last presentation that one

of the interesting points about this is that Puerto Rico, compared

to the States, is larger in population than 26 or 27 States of the

Union, yet those figures are not included, as I keep saying, in the

American family. So, I really don’t see what the problem would be.

If the census is doing the job that we know they are doing and

they’re capable of doing, if the American population grew by 20

million or 10 million in the last 10 years, under my plan it would

grow by 14 million and those 10 million that it grew by, well, those

employment or unemployment rates were not included in the last

census. Their ownership of TV sets, cars, or homes, or lack thereof,

was not included in the last census. Their ages were not included.

Their ethnicity was not included. So, that would just be more numbers, instead of 10, 14 million.

Second, keep in mind that, in the case of Puerto Rico, and certainly the other territories, but in the case of Puerto Rico, all the

questions that need to be asked are already on our census form.

33

There is a specific area for marking yourself down as Hispanic.

There’s a specific area for marking yourself down as Puerto Rican.

And those who live in Puerto Rico who are either African-American

or, ‘‘white Americans or Dominicans or Colombians,’’ they’re all already part of the study. So, nothing new has to be invented.

And Mr. Romero’s last comment during his presentation I can’t

emphasize enough. He made a beautiful, as he always does, presentation not only about this issue but also for equality for Puerto

Rico. But he said those policy issues can be discussed later. I think

we have to be clear about what we’re discussing here, including the

numbers. Nothing changes, unfortunately. But nothing changes in

terms of how Puerto Rico gets treated by the United States. That

would take other major decisions to be made. The numbers are my

concern. Living under the American flag issue is my concern.

Now, one last point on the Americans living abroad. That is an

issue that we dealt with for many years, and we unfortunately

haven’t gotten to a solution. I don’t know what the answer to that

one fully is, but it’s clear to me that the Puerto Rico issue is much

simpler because those folks are all living under the American flag

and following all American laws and subject to all American rules

and regulations.

Mr. MILLER. Technically, I’m assuming the Bureau is capable of

including the numbers. Of course, a giant step forward is they’re

going to be doing the same methodology this year and collecting the

same data as in the States.

My time is up. What’s your sense of how the census is doing as

far as preparing for the census, awareness of the census and the

ability to get a successful census in Puerto Rico?

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. It’s going very well. I think the census

has always done a very good job in Puerto Rico. They’re prepared

for it. We have a very, very organized system of outreach to get to

the people because our political parties are very, very organized

and we have a large proportion of the mainland registered. They

have the aerial photos of the sections of all of Puerto Rico. They

know where each house is. They distribute that very carefully.

They’re doing it every 4 years. A lot of people do it. When they get

recruited for the census to do it, everybody is prepared. They know

how to do it. I think the census is doing a very good job.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Faleomavaega, do you have any sense of how

the census is prepared in American Samoa?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Certainly. From this 10-year experience

we’ve had since the 1990 census, we’ve gotten a lot smarter in the

procedure, and certainly the Census Bureau has been very receptive and responsive to the concerns and how the data is being collected, and so we’re pretty happy with the way things are proceeding right now.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In response to the comments on counting Americans abroad, I introduced legislation that I believe the Census Bureau supports that

really would require us to make sure we count in the next census

Americans living abroad. It calls for a dry run between now and

the next census. They should be counted.

34

I would like to ask the Delegates their response. And, Congressman Serrano, one option that’s been discussed is for the Census

Bureau to include Puerto Rico and the other territories in the U.S.

totals in print and for electronic publications but make it easy for

people to subtract, to include or exclude these areas from the census if need be. Does that sound like a good solution or a compromise to each of you?

Mr. SERRANO. At the expense of being dramatic, I don’t like the

idea of subtracting any American citizens from anything at any

given time. I don’t know why you would say we are counting American citizens who live under the American flag, who serve in the

armed forces and die for this country, but if you want to you can

subtract them. That’s similar to the time that the Delegates got a

vote on the House floor, something we Democrats did, and then

said, however, if it determines a bill, it doesn’t count—an amendment that was kind of bizarre.

Just to show you how bizarre the situation is, Mr. Romero just

pointed out to me—and he’s been giving me a lot of great side comments—if a Puerto Rican American citizen moves from Puerto Rico

to New York, New York gains in population. But when a Texan

moves to California the Nation doesn’t gain in population. This is

so bizarre. It should gain—here we go again—for purposes of reapportionment, right, but the American population of the United

States should not go up by one because an American citizen moved

from one place under the flag to the other, but yet it does under

the present system. So, this exclusion thing I would not be in favor

of, that we’re either in or we’re still out, but we shouldn’t be in and

on a given Tuesday morning we’re out.

Mrs. MALONEY. Any other comments?

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. It depends. I don’t want to differ from my

colleague, but, for instance in the distribution for election purposes,

there has to be a subtraction. Perhaps you have an asterisk or

something, make sure this includes populations of Puerto Rico,

whatever else, and then you just have to make the subtractions.

The figures will be there, and you make the subtraction. At least

for the distribution, election distribution, you need to make the

subtraction. I have no problem with that.

Mr. SERRANO. They should do that the same way they do the

District of Columbia now.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would like to associate myself with the

comments made earlier by Mr. Serrano. I think this has always

been the rub for those of us coming from the insular areas. Today

we’re considered U.S. citizens and equal, and then tomorrow we

might look like we’re aliens.

We’re having a very similar problem right now in our campaign

financing laws. Some Members think permanent resident aliens

should not participate. I, for one, certainly support the concept. In

fact, currently under the laws that we have in campaign financing,

permanent resident aliens can contribute to Federal contributions.

The fact is this is someone who’s legally here, paying income taxes,

working like anybody else, and hopefully, in the 5-year period, applying for U.S. citizenship.

Now, here’s an even more interesting situation, where here again

some of the quirks of the law is that we’re not U.S. citizens but

35

we’re U.S. nationals. Under the current immigration laws specifically, and I can memorize this thing practically, a U.S. national is

someone who owes permanent allegiance to the United States but

who is neither a citizen nor an alien. Figure that out.

Mrs. MALONEY. The census questionnaire for Puerto Rico is the

same as that used in the rest of the United States; is that correct?

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. For this year, for the first time, it will be.

That’s because we got together with the census and made the

agreement. Apparently, there was a difference, as Mr.

Faleomavaega had indicated, for all the territories.

Mrs. MALONEY. Then I understand, for the territories, the questionnaire is somewhat different, and Mr. Faleomavaega mentioned

it, that communal property was one example of how it was different.

I’d like you to elaborate in other ways how the census form

might be different, and I’d like to know whether you think your

government should conduct the census or the Census Bureau

should conduct the census and why do you believe that the form

that you use should be different from the census form used by everyone else.

And I’d like the Delegates please to share with us the experiences you’ve had with your government in working with the Census Bureau to develop the 2000 census. Have they been responsive?

Have they worked with you? Describe some of the interactions that

you might have had.

And could you elaborate a little more on how the census data is

used in your territory?

And, again, I just thank you for coming.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If I could just say very briefly, if we’re making such an effort to find out how many illegal aliens are in our

country, the least we can do as a government is find out how many

U.S. nationals, how many U.S. citizens we have in this government. It seems to me that that’s the bottom line, in my humble

opinion.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. As far as I know, the government at

home is working very closely with the Census Bureau, and we have

had no problems. We’ve been in touch. We’ve talked several times

throughout the year, and they never complained to me about any

problems at all with the Census Bureau. Everything seems to be

working all right. We changed the form, and I think there was no

real valid reason for having different questionnaires in Puerto Rico,

and we feel if that was an obstacle, that’s been removed.

Mrs. MALONEY. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, possibly we should

have a field hearing in Puerto Rico, especially in January. I think

it would be very important to go and see exactly how the field offices are working.

Mr. Serrano, I would love it if you could arrange for at least 2

or 3 million citizens to move to New York for purposes of the count

for New York City for distribution of aid and all that.

Mr. SERRANO. I understand Mr. Romero wants them to stay

there in anticipation of something else for himself.

Let me just say that I’m a big, big supporter of the Census Bureau. I think they’re doing a fabulous job. I’ve always said they’re

professionals who know what they’re doing, should be given all the

36

support—criticism when it’s necessary—but all the support, and

left alone to do this job. And I think that they will handle the count

properly throughout this country. And if given the extra responsibility, they’re going to handle the census count in Puerto Rico. All

they have to do is add the numbers. The computer can do that in

half an hour.

Let me just close this comment by saying to you that, again, I

can’t overemphasize how dramatic this issue is. I’m a Member of

Congress. There is no greater proof, I guess, of citizenship. The

Constitution is clear that you have to be a citizen to be a Member

of Congress. And yet, if I retire from Congress and move to Puerto

Rico, I no longer get counted in the census any longer. Now, my

citizenship just sort of dropped off the side of a table by moving

there. At least as I envision my retirement, let me get counted

wherever I go.

Mrs. MALONEY. I’d just like to note that Congressman Ford has

joined us, another member of the committee.

Mr. FORD. I’ll be there in Puerto Rico if you want to hold a hearing.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, definitely, no way would I

ever want to compare the numbers with my good friends here from

Puerto Rico, but I do personally invite all of you to come to American Samoa.

Now, I know with the last count there was supposed to be

120,000 members of my tribe living in California, but you talk

about being undercounted. The last Census Bureau count was only

30,000. Now, according to our numbers, we have currently about 20

Samoans that currently play in the NFL, and I think that maybe

this is probably our best export in the coming years. But I do want

to thank the chairman and the Members for allowing us to come

and testify.

Mrs. MALONEY. I want to thank the Members for their insights

and passion and commitment and particularly for their strong

words supporting the professionals at the Census Bureau to get the

best count possible. That’s important not only with the dollars that

Mr. Serrano and Mr. Miller worked on, but really supporting their

independence and moving forward to get an accurate count. Thank

you.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As I listen to the discussion and as I try to understand the issue,

it seems to me when people think of census-taking and when they

think of individuals being missed, the first thing you think of is apportionment. That is, you think of political representation and the

ability to be represented and the possibility of being represented.

And I’m hearing that what we’re talking about really would not affect in any way that line of thought or that process.

Then people think of resource allocation. They think of a direct

relationship between the numbers of people, their socioeconomic

characteristics and the ability to receive resources from their Federal Government.

And I was just thinking, when Moses started taking the census,

what resources were they going to distribute, or were they going

to divide the manna up from heaven in some other way? Which

37

really takes me to my question and the issues that I’ve heard many

people express in terms of any concerns that they would have.

If we move to the point of counting the individuals in Puerto Rico

and in some of the other territories the very same way, would this

in any way skew the distribution of resources differently than what

currently exists, even to the extent of having socioeconomic data

that may cause planning to be done with more information or with

different information that may put resources into categories or

areas of concentration differently?

And so it seems to me there is a purpose that sometimes people

don’t look at, and that’s the purpose of the need to know. That is

information generated based upon the concept of the need to know.

Because I don’t think Moses was elected by anybody. I don’t think

he was. If he was, I didn’t hear about it, and I’m not sure that they

had Medicaid and Medicare. Didn’t seem to me that they had day

care and Head Start. So would this change in any way or skew in

any way the allocation of resources?

Mr. SERRANO. This discussion has been going on in Puerto Rico

for years, way before I was in politics, but as a person who first

originated some language to include somewhere and brought up the

issue, I’ve always understood that the relationship between Puerto

Rico and the United States gets settled in different forums within

this House. It does not get settled in a census count.

Let me be clear on that. Nothing that I have proposed changes

in any way because it can’t under census rules. Census rules can’t

change the distribution of funds to Puerto Rico.

What I’m after, first of all, and then I’ll quickly answer your

question, is a matter of what is fair, what is right and what is correct in what the count of people who live under the American flag

is; and I think I’ve made that clear.

But I don’t think it would hurt if you also knew that living under

the American flag are people who lived under a certain index of

poverty. I don’t think it would hurt us to know if people living

under the American flag have a certain number of high school

graduates or high school dropouts or doctors or lawyers graduating

locally. What’s interesting about it is no one should panic at the

thought of setting off a chain of events by including these numbers

in the American family. In past years, but starting this year in a

very official way, data will be collected anyway in Puerto Rico and

that data will be looked at by people in different parts of the country as they look at the whole American picture.

My whole point continues to be, as simply as I can put it: Don’t

exclude American citizens from being counted.

Then this conversation continues, Mr. Davis, on a daily basis.

How should we treat our territories? How should I stand clear on

this? I have always felt American citizens should be treated equally, but this doesn’t speak to that. That’s another discussion in another forum. This speaks about including these numbers properly.

I repeat for the last time, though, if that information is available,

there’s nothing wrong with having that information because we

should know at all times how people live under the American flag

and under what conditions.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you.

38

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. I would like to add something to what

Mr. Serrano said.

There are two parts to this. What Mr. Serrano is trying to get

through with this amendment is merely to have the figures collected in Puerto Rico included in the totals of the Nation so that

we’re counted as part of the Nation. And the figures for Puerto Rico

now will be collected separately and will be made part of the census and all 50 States will be there, and Puerto Rico will be at the

end. All the figures will be collected.

Those figures on that side, that decision has already been made.

They will not provide for any policy change, but they will provide

the facts and the data if there is to be a policy change in regards

to distribution of funds. Then, the facts will be there.

Now, if we want to get a policy change on a distribution of funds,

one of the first things that the policymaker shows, we don’t have

the figures in Puerto Rico. We don’t have the facts. So, they’re

building an obstacle that prevents them from making any change

in policy. That’s why I said, like the story, which came before, the

chicken or the egg? Because when you try to make a change, the

big excuse is that the facts are not there. I think we should remove

that excuse from the table and then just deal with the policy issue.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, if I may add something very quickly to that?

Our language doesn’t change. The census already decided that

they’re going to take this count in Puerto Rico so the policy change

could come with those figures regardless of whether you’re involved

in the American family or not.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think, Mr. Davis, I appreciate your question. In my limited reading of the good book, Moses was a great

prophet, but he was a poor administrator, so he had to depend on

his father-in-law, Jethro, to tell him how to administer the kingdom. But I think, in line with what Congressman Serrano and Mr.

Barcelo ́ stated, the fact of the matter is these figures, these statistics, do not exist and how is the Congress ever going to better address the issues?

You know, the thing that really bugs me is that walking down

Independence or even down Pennsylvania Avenue, we have our fellow Americans sleeping on the streets, begging for food and to

think that this is the most powerful and the most prosperous Nation in the world, and we have this existing right in our own backyard. It’s the same thing that I would feel as coming from an insular area. I feel like we’re in the backyards, feel like we’re not being

counted, feel like we’re not being included as part of the process.

I could not agree more with what my friend Congressman Serrano

and Resident Commissioner Barcelo ́ have stated.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you very much.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Ford.

Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My colleague, Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́, really answered my question

with his last response. That’s really the only question I had. Always delighted to be with my colleague, Congressman Serrano. I

want to make sure I stay on his good side. As I ponder a Senate

race, I want to make sure I keep Mr. Serrano on my side.

Mr. SERRANO. You’re doing a great job with that.

39

Mr. FORD. I yield to Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. My good friend Eni and Mr. Davis raised Moses.

If I remember, Moses traveled through the desert for 40 years because he didn’t have a plan. So, what we really need to do is see

how this plan fits into the plan so that we do get an accurate and

good census.

I just have one last question, and it was sparked by the comment

of Mr. Serrano at the beginning. He said there’s a citizenship question and there is a status question and the citizenship question

should be separate from the status question. Could you clarify for

me where are we going with the status question? I know there was

a vote. Is there another vote coming up? And if Mr. Faleomavaega

would like to clarify the status question, also. But that’s my last

question.

Mr. SERRANO. Let me just respond briefly on that.

I believe that the status question is a serious question which has

to be settled and leads to all other issues. I have been very clear

that independence and Statehood are very acceptable to me as dignified options but that the Commonwealth status is a second-,

third-, fourth-, fifth-class citizenship that is unacceptable to me. I’ll

give you reasons.

If you and I now move to Puerto Rico, we’d have a wonderful

time, but I can no longer vote for a President. I can no longer vote

for a Member of Congress. I can no longer get any representation

properly. On the other hand, we’re not an independent nation that

can set its course throughout the world. So, how you feel about

that, that’s one issue.

There has never been—and this is the solution to me—there has

never been an option presented by the government that holds the

colony, the U.S. Government, our Congress, saying here it is. You

choose this or you choose that. And either say I will give you what

you choose or at least say by a certain date, as the Young bill said

and why I supported it, by a certain date I will take up the option

you pass so that you know where you stand with us.

This is totally my personal view that we should include options

that end the colony. Either integration into the family or separation from the family, but it should not include any more colonial.

Let me close with this. On some other issues we’ve been discussing recently, I’ve been saying for people like me, we look at the

United States, in my case, as my father and Puerto Rico as my

mother and for over 100 years, my father has held my mother in

a very unfair relationship. I think it’s time for him, for my father,

to either legitimize the relationship or to let my mother go, but this

continued bondage in some way is totally improper and should end.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. With respect to when we’re going to have

a vote, I think there’s a consensus in Puerto Rico that we should

try to get a bill through the House and the Senate sponsoring the

referendum in Puerto Rico because then we will be able to say this

is what Congress is willing to accept, willing to grant the people

of Puerto Rico. We’ve had too many privately state on their own,

where people are willing to say, well, we asked for it; what’s going

to happen? And the opposition always said, if Puerto Rico asks for

Statehood, it’s not going to be granted because there’s a lot of prejudice in the Nation. That’s how the opposition tries to beat down

40

Statehood, and people are afraid to ask for something that will be

denied because they’re too proud. So unless and until Congress

makes the statement clear, I think we will not have a real, valid

referendum. But as soon as that happens, we’ll have one, that’s for

sure.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. One of the unique features of being classified as a U.S. territory, if I may—for example, in American Samoa,

American Samoa is an unincorporated and unorganized territory of

the United States. But I say that Mrs. Maloney in a certain perspective, as my good friend Mr. Davis had raised the issue of Moses

the prophet. Well, when you think back to one of the greatest empires that ever existed, the Roman empire, one of the things most

unique in the new testament—as I recall, reading about Paul, the

Apostle, was that he was Jewish by ancestry, but he was a Roman

citizen, which afforded him all the privileges allotted to anybody

who lives under the Roman empire.

So, I kind of like to think, for those of us living in the insular

areas, even though we may call it a province—we don’t like the

word colonialism because we were a colony of the British empire— we are part of the American family. And if I were a U.S. citizen,

I don’t care where I live, I should be granted the same privileges

and immunities whether you live in Timbuktu, Africa, or wherever.

We should be extended the same privileges of a U.S. citizen, which,

by the way, is probably the most sought-after citizenship in any

place in this planet.

Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

Let me thank all three of our colleagues for being with us today

and bringing this important issue before us. Thank you all for

being here, and we’ll proceed on with Dr. Prewitt, our next panel.

Thank you.

Dr. Prewitt, as is procedure within the Government Reform Committee, would you raise your right hand?

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. MILLER. The record will reflect Dr. Prewitt said I do.

The presentation by the three Members of Congress, that raises

a very important issue, but it has some very significant implications of a change, of historic proportion, and so we’re very interested in the Bureau’s thoughts on that and also the thoughts within the statistical community, even though you’re the only one here

right now on that.

Dr. Prewitt.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH PREWITT, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF

THE CENSUS

Dr. PREWITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. I

would like to preface it by expressing my very strong appreciation

for the very strong words that you and Mrs. Maloney and Congressman Serrano have put on the table with respect to the importance of a continuing resolution that allows us to maintain the momentum as we move into October 1. That’s very seriously appreciated work and effort on your behalf. Thank you.

I’m going to have behind me Ms. Teresa Angueira, who is the Assistant Division Chief for our Decennial Management Division and

41

is in charge of planning for census 2000 in Puerto Rico; and, if

there are particular technical questions, I may wish to call upon

her for answers as well.

As has already been clear, Puerto Rico has been included in

every decennial census since 1910. Title 13 of the U.S. Code, which

sets out the basic law under which we conduct the census, specifies

that, in addition to the 50 States and the District of Columbia, the

census should include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands and such other possessions and areas over which the United

States exercises jurisdiction, control or sovereignty.

Our census plans in Puerto Rico, as you just heard, are moving

along on schedule. I was able to visit Puerto Rico in early August

at which time I had an informative luncheon with Congressman

Romero-Barcelo ́. I also met with him earlier on some of these

issues. I met with the Governor, Governor Rossello, and participated in an important census 2000 town hall meeting of mayors,

government officials, and data users.

Of course, I have had exchanges with Representative Serrano

about the need for a complete and accurate census in Puerto Rico

and, of course, also in New York.

The essential thing to remember about census 2000 operations

for Puerto Rico is that they will be comparable to the States. We

will conduct a full range of operations to ensure a complete and accurate enumeration.

I’m going to address, first, the issue of tabulations raised in your

letter of invitation and in the report language proposed by Representative Serrano. The report language states that the committee

expects the Census Bureau to include Puerto Rico in any electronic

access to census data as a State equivalent in the same manner as

the District of Columbia is included. It also suggests that any extracts of census data, like the 1990 Public-Use Microdata sample,

should treat Puerto Rico in the same manner as the District of Columbia.

Electronic access to 2000 data will be through a newly developed

system called the American FactFinder. This system is available

now on the Census Bureau’s Internet home page. Not only will

Puerto Rico be treated as a State equivalent, we are developing a

special Spanish-language interface for Puerto Rico. As for PublicUse Microdata samples, we did have comparable samples from

Puerto Rico in 1990 and would expect to do so again in 2000.

Report language also says that the committee expects the Census

Bureau to include Puerto Rico in any national totals in these national summary data products.

The issue of including Puerto Rico in the national counts would

differ from what we announced in Census 2000 Decision Memorandum No. 64. This memo, issued in November 1998, indicates

that the Census Bureau will include data for Puerto Rico in the national summary data products for census 2000. That is, unlike 1990

when data for Puerto Rico were included only in one national summary table showing total population, the data from census 2000

will display Puerto Rico in every national summary report.

The best way to understand the difference between the decision

memorandum and the report language is to compare 1990 with the

42

plan for 2000 and then the plan for 2000 with illustrative tabulations responsive to the report language.

Members of the committee, if I could draw your attention to the

appendices, the attachments at the end of my written testimony,

because I will now make reference to those.

I refer first to attachment 1, which has two pages. The first page

shows national summary totals for certain characteristics data as

presented in 1990. There is no line for Puerto Rico on this page.

Compare this with the second page of attachment 1, which illustrates the current 2000 plan. On this page you will see a separate

line for Puerto Rico at the bottom. We will display Puerto Rico

counts on all national summary tables that report population and

housing characteristics.

This is a full-table coverage effort and is a significant improvement in presentation of data for Puerto Rico compared to 1990. I

want to emphasize on any table in which you can find data for the

District of Columbia or for Florida or for New York or for Illinois,

you will also find data for Puerto Rico. This table does not address

but then does not preclude the issue that the report language introduces, which is including Puerto Rico counts in the national totals.

So, let me now turn to that issue and to attachment 2. Attachment 2 helps us see what we believe would be required by the report language that Puerto Rico counts be included in the national

totals. Page 1 of that attachment shows from 1990 the only table

produced where totals for Puerto Rico were included on the same

page as those for the United States, as traditionally defined. You

will see a line at the top that says total. This is the total population count for all areas and groups covered in the 1990 census including, of course, Puerto Rico.

Below that is a line ‘‘United States’’ and then separate totals for

each outlying area and the three categories of the U.S. population

abroad. This is how we presented the data in 1990. Mr. Chairman,

for purposes of this testimony, I interpret the line ‘‘United States’’

and not the line ‘‘Total’’ to be equivalent to the term national totals

used in the report language.

The remainder of my testimony will not be responsive to your

questions 1 and 6 in the letter of invitation if this misinterprets the

report language. So, I pause to make sure I’ve interpreted the report language because the report language uses the term national

totals, but I do think that what Mr. Serrano has in mind is equivalent to what we in this table call ‘‘United States.’’ What we in this

table call ‘‘Total’’ already includes Puerto Rico.

Mr. MILLER. I believe that’s right.

Dr. PREWITT. Thank you.

Then let me direct your attention to page 2. This page

reconfigures the 1990 table to follow our interpretation of the proposed report language. As you can see, we no longer have a separate line for Puerto Rico under outlying areas. And the 1990 U.S.

total, instead of being 248.7 is now 252.2 because it includes Puerto

Rico’s population. Had we presented the 1990 counts in this manner for the last 9 years, every ratio, proportion or other statistic in

the country that takes the U.S. population as its denominator

would have been different.

43

Under Decision Memorandum No. 64, it is the Census Bureau’s

plan to include Puerto Rico in national summary data products, as

illustrated in attachment 1, but not in national totals.

Though it is not our present intent, it is feasible to include Puerto Rico in the national totals. This decision, however, would have

to be made prior to April 30, 2000, in order to incorporate it into

our tabulation planning process. After that date, it would be difficult to implement a change from our present plans for the census

2000 tabulation.

I hope that my testimony to this point answers the questions

about tabulation posed for this hearing. However, I would also like

to take a few minutes to explain the logic behind Decision Memorandum No. 64.

The Census Bureau and other Federal statistical agencies historically have defined the ‘‘U.S. total’’ as the aggregate of the

States and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau would not

normally deviate from historic practice in such a major way without prior and thorough consultation with relevant stakeholders, including other members of the statistical system.

To tabulate Puerto Rico in the U.S. total for the 2000 census

would introduce a statistical redefinition of the United States.

There are many consequences to be considered.

First, let me refer you back to attachment 2 where the first page,

as I said, is a 1990 census table that displays not just population

but also land and water area. In the mock-up of this table, page

2 of the attachment, we have included Puerto Rico’s area measurements as well as its population in the U.S. total. The Census Bureau is unsure whether that is the intention of the proposed report

language. If not, the population measures and the area measures

would have inconsistent denominators as the area measure would

be for the United States and District of Columbia, whereas the population measure would be based upon populations of the States,

District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. So, we would have inconsistent denominators.

If it is the intent of the report language, however, then every

measure of population density, which itself is a denominator for

other statistical uses, would change compared to 1990.

This is but one of many examples as to how Census Bureau products would be affected.

There are also far-reaching consequences of data comparability

with products from other Federal statistical programs. Different

statistical definitions of the United States from one agency to another would affect comparability in all of our statistics: demographic, economic, health, education, agricultural, justice, and so

forth. For example, a recently released Bureau of Labor Statistics

report on Employment and Average Annual Pay for Large Counties, 1997, includes data from San Juan, Puerto Rico. The tabular

presentation includes a line called ‘‘United States,’’ and the Bureau

of Labor Statistics is careful to note, ‘‘calculations for the United

States do not include data from Puerto Rico,’’ which is to say the

Bureau of Labor Statistics has taken a position consistent with Decision Memorandum 64, which is to include data from Puerto Rico

but not to make it part of the national total.

44

For reasons of statistical consistency, the Census Bureau would

hesitate unilaterally to establish a new denominator. A statistical

system requires common definitions if it is to be a system. There

are few definitions more basic than what constitutes the national

total population. Any fundamental change in this definition should

be fully explored with stakeholders within and outside the Federal

Government.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is the recommendation of the Census

Bureau that the policies set forth in Decision Memorandum No. 64,

which will result in Puerto Rico being shown in all census 2000 national summary tables of population and housing characteristics

but not included in the national totals, be controlling pending

broad consultation and more intensive review of the implications of

altering the basic denominator for nearly every statistic generated

over the next decade.

Mr. Chairman, I’ve used up most of my time discussing the tabulation issue because I judge it to be the priority question for this

hearing.

I will very briefly reference my written testimony on questions

two or three of your invitation letter which focus on census procedure for Puerto Rico. I’m very pleased that the previous panel

spoke so favorably about the current plans. We are indeed on

schedule in Puerto Rico. As you have already heard, we are providing for the Puerto Rico census a questionnaire form which is

nearly identical—not completely, but nearly identical to the Stateside. This questionnaire for Puerto Rico was not submitted to the

Congress because that’s not our obligation, but it was approved by

the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

The basic census procedure in Puerto Rico will be update leave,

that is, enumerators will deliver the questionnaire and update the

address file. In constructing the address file, the address file for

Puerto Rico, we’ve had active involvement in our LUCA program.

One major difference for Puerto Rico compared to 1990 is that in

2000 they will be able to mail back the questionnaire. We will have

a nonresponse followup procedure that is similar to what we use

Stateside.

We have all of our coverage improvement strategies in place to

check the quality of our work and reach our goal of accounting for

100 percent of the policy. We will conduct the accuracy and coverage evaluation survey.

As has already been made clear, Puerto Rico is actively involved

in our outreach effort. We’ve mailed materials to 80 municipalities

to encourage them to form complete count committees.

As in the States, a program in which you’ve taken a keen interest, we have a very active census in the schools program. In partnership with the Department of Education, school kits will be made

available to every teacher in Puerto Rico.

We are partnering with community groups and professional associations. We partnered with the Museum of Art of Puerto Rico,

which permitted reproduction of a poster which we have displayed

here in the hearing room. We’re very proud of that poster, and it’s

now being very widely used around Puerto Rico.

45

With respect to paid advertising, we have Y & R Puerto Rico,

which has very nearly completed production of what we believe will

be a very successful campaign.

We are committed to a strong, high-quality census in Puerto Rico

and believe we’re on track to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Dr. Prewitt.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Prewitt follows:]

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

Mr. MILLER. We all know this is a complicated issue, and you

used the words historic change and issue of statistical redefinition.

And so, let’s start off with the question of statistical redefinition.

Would you explain that a little bit more? The question that Mr.

Serrano used is the national summary data products. If we included a redefinition, what does that mean and what are the implications of that?

Dr. PREWITT. It is unfortunate we don’t have precise language for

this information. National summary data products, an example of

which is in appendix 1 or attachment 1, in national summary data

products, Puerto Rico will be included and all of those that the

Census Bureau produces after 2000. That has been made possible

because we now have a questionnaire strategy and a methodology

in Puerto Rico that is practically completely comparable, which

means every table where any data are presented by region or

State, Puerto Rico will be identified. That means anyone who

wants to compare Puerto Rico with Maine or with California can

do it just like they can compare California and Maine or any other

kind of procedure.

That’s our national summary tables. Then there’s something in

the report language called the Nation’s total or the national total

and, as I said, we have interpreted that to mean the United States

for our purposes. In our tabular presentation, we have a line called

‘‘the United States.’’ That’s where we would not be putting the

Puerto Rico total. So, the statistical inconsistency would be that, if

we follow the report language. We would now be redefining that

line called the United States, as Congressman Serrano correctly

pointed out, approximately 3.8 million people.

We would not, under the report language, be including the overseas population, which we do count, the diplomatic and military

population, for example. We would still have two different counts.

We would have a total that had everything in it, including the

overseas population and the other insular areas but not Puerto

Rico. Well, everything because it includes Puerto Rico but then a

U.S. line that excluded the overseas population, the other insular

areas but not Puerto Rico. So that would be redefining the key line

that says the United States. And my simple point is we have not

had extensive conversations with other members of the Federal statistical agency, and my one example from Bureau of Labor Statistics suggests that we would then have a different definition of the

United States than would the BLS, unless we could somehow coordinate with them.

And we don’t know—I just haven’t had the time yet, Mr. Congressman, to explore exactly—I know this would be different from

how the Department of Education collects statistics, how the Department of Transportation collects and so forth. It’s not that it

can’t be done. It’s that it ought to be done in consultation with the

other agencies that will be affected by the decision we would be

making.

Mr. MILLER. When I raised the question with the previous panel,

they used the analogy that when we added States to the Union

back in the late 1950’s, the last time that happened, the numbers

were incorporated because they were much smaller population

58

States at that time than Puerto Rico. Because one of the problems

is the apples and oranges problem.

Dr. PREWITT. Let me refer back to 1950. Prior to 1950, we treated Alaska and Hawaii exactly as we’re treating Puerto Rico now.

Indeed, we treated Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii roughly in the

same way. After Statehood for Alaska and Hawaii in 1950, in the

1960 census, we obviously included Alaska and Hawaii as States.

However, we also presented tables that helped the user understand

what had happened so that we tried to help the user make comparisons back to 1950. So, we really ran a dual set of tables for

some of the key tables so people could understand what is happening because you do get a funny blip.

There’s no doubt we could do this with Puerto Rico. That is, we

could create after 2000, if we put Puerto Rico into the national

total, we would try to create a number of duplicate tables so that

the data users could try to see what had happened. It’s a bit different because we included Alaska and Hawaii in our definition of

the United States because they had become States. This would be

the first time in which we included an entity that was not a State

in the U.S. total. So, it would be a change from what we did in

1960. It’s feasible. It can be done. But it does have consequences.

Mr. MILLER. The proposal that you’re planning on using right

now basically allows anyone—because it’s readily available on the

computer—to do any calculation they want with or without Puerto

Rico. It’s just that the published numbers, especially when you get

to the definition of the United States, will not be. Mr. RomeroBarcelo ́ was saying we don’t have the data, but they will have the

data this time around. It’s not a question of not having the data.

It’s what’s going to be presented.

Dr. PREWITT. That’s right. Congressman Romero-Barcelo ́ basically in his commentary was referring to conditions prior to 2000

when the data were not available and created the obstacles and so

forth. The kinds of arguments he was making—and he, of course,

said this in his commentary, will not hold after 2000, because all

the data will be available, as attachment 1 indicates.

Mr. MILLER. Let me ask one more quick question. How are we

going to treat the territories, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands and such? Are we going to be doing the same census with

those areas? And why aren’t we treating them the same way we’re

treating Puerto Rico?

Dr. PREWITT. As Congressman Faleomavaega referenced, we do

the census completely differently. We contract it. It is done by the

local governments and their own statistical offices under technical

guidance from us. That is, we provide the guidelines, and the actual census is conducted there according to their own local needs

as he so eloquently pointed out. They are saying ‘‘We don’t want

a census imposed upon us because we have very different, different

kinds, in this case, land tenure patterns, different kinds of patterns.’’

We simply go to them and say, what makes the most sense for

you? And they say, this is the kind of data we need for our internal

planning purposes and government purposes. We say, good, we’ll

help you design that census.

59

We then actually pay them. That is part of the appropriation bill.

There is a sum of money for each of the insular areas where we

actually contract to them to do the work under our technical guidance.

We then process the data and tabulate it, but because it’s not

consistent at all, we have to have separate data products that describe the insular territories, and they’re different from one another

because they have different properties and different needs.

As he said, this is a perfectly comfortable relationship. There

would be nothing to prevent us because we do a total count—there

would be nothing to prevent us from putting the count of Samoa

or the Virgin Islands or Guam into the definition of United States.

It would again even make more complicated the denominator because, whereas some of the other statistical agencies do work in

Puerto Rico, they do not do much work at all in the insular territories. So we would have a denominator again in the official U.S.

total produced by the Census Bureau that would not be consistent

with the denominator of the United States being used by other statistical agencies.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Dr. Prewitt, for your testimony.

Looking earlier at the statistical abstract, there seems to be different total populations of the United States for 1990, and each one

had a different total. Two are labeled total resident population, but

the 1990 population is different. There is one labeled total civilian

population. Then there is the total civilian noninstitutional population used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These all differ from

the total U.S. population for apportionment. On the other hand,

your testimony seems to indicate that there is really only one total

U.S. population, and can you explain to me why we have all these

different total populations?

Dr. PREWITT. You’re quite right, Mrs. Maloney. There are different totals produced because they have different functions, and

the total that would be used by the BLS is the noninstitutional

labor force. The total we obviously use for apportionment counts

does exclude the District of Columbia because it cannot be in the

apportionment counts, so you simply do produce different totals for

different purposes. And, as I’ve said, it’s feasible if we want to redefine something——

There is a key U.S. total—and I take you back to attachment 2.

That line that says the United States is our basic U.S. total minus

all of the other categories that are listed on that page which are

the population abroad, the other possessions outlined, jurisdictions

and so forth. So, that is the total for apportionment purposes.

Mrs. MALONEY. Given that we already have all these different

definitions, why can’t the problems you raise be dealt with simply

by the addition of another definition and allowing agencies to

choose the denominator that is best suited for its purposes? That

is, the BLS uses the population number that’s best suited for it.

Could we not just add another definition that included—— Dr. PREWITT. Certainly. Indeed, you can take this table and you

can run as many different totals as you want to. We have a total

count. We have a U.S. residency total. We could then have a list

60

including/not including Puerto Rico, including/not including insular

areas, so on and so forth. We can run as many different presentations as you want.

These data are all electronic. Anyone can do that.

I haven’t talked to all of my colleagues in the other statistical

agencies. I have talked to BLS, which is the major other statistical

agency which has to worry about this question. But my guess is

that primarily, they would use as the U.S. total the 248,709,873 as

adjusted throughout the decade. And all I’m recommending is that

before we redefine something called the United States, that we

should do it with some sort of consultation, a thorough review as

to its implications. I don’t think they’ve all—I’ll give you one other

example. I’m sorry that Mr. Serrano is not here. The United Nations has a special entry for Puerto Rico, for example. It lists the

population of Puerto Rico independently of the United States. Now,

why the United Nations does that, I don’t know, but it does. I presume if we put Puerto Rico in—and they then list something called

the U.S. total.

If we put Puerto Rico into our U.S. total, I think the United Nations would have to drop Puerto Rico as one of its entries because

they would otherwise be double counting. So those kinds of implications, I don’t think somebody sat down and worked out the whole

array of them, and something of this magnitude has unintended

consequences. All I’m recommending to you today is that that work

be done before we move to a new statistical definition of the United

States.

Mrs. MALONEY. But both President Carter and President Bush,

in transmitting the apportionment data to Congress, presented a

total U.S. population that included the District of Columbia but not

Puerto Rico and the other territories. What will you recommend be

included in President Clinton’s submission? Will the total population include Puerto Rico and the outlying areas?

Dr. PREWITT. I’m surprised at what you just said. I thought the

apportionment numbers always exclude the District of Columbia

and only included the 50 States, including, I should say, the 50

States and the overseas population which is assigned to a particular State. Then, as you know, when we reproduce the redistricting data, we take out the overseas population because we can’t

put them down to the block level. Therefore, I’m sorry, I’m just illequipped to answer this question because it’s inconsistent with

what I thought we did.

Mrs. MALONEY. We have a document that says that’s what they

did.

Dr. PREWITT. I can’t imagine what then happened with the apportionment process if the District of Columbia count was in it.

Mrs. MALONEY. We’ll get it to you.

Is there any technical difficulty in presenting the census data as

requested by Representative Serrano? Is there any technical difficulty in doing it? Is there any scientific difficulty in presenting

the data as requested by Representative Serrano?

Dr. PREWITT. No, as I suggested, at a certain point we do write

the software that drives all the tabular displays and, as I’ve suggested, much later than April 30, 2000. By then, we’re trying to

61

close down all of our software preparation for tabular presentation.

So, up until then, there really is no technical impediment.

Mrs. MALONEY. Here is the data.

Dr. PREWITT. I’m interested.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you again for your diligent testimony and

your commitment and hard work. Delegates Romero-Barcelo ́ and

Faleomavaega mentioned how helpful the Census Bureau has been

in working with their two territories and getting an accurate count,

so I join my voice in thanking you. I have no further questions.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Prewitt, let me just reiterate the question that I asked the

Members relative to the distribution of resources. Would you see

any shift in resource allocation and distribution should we use the

Serrano language?

Dr. PREWITT. Mr. Davis, that’s a very complicated question in

which I can’t give you much intelligence. We tried to do a bit of

work on that this week and simply could not complete the work.

As Mr. Serrano said, it’s an issue of how Federal agencies and the

relevant congressional committees would write their formulas; and

I think it would create some uncertainties as to how those formulas

would be produced. They’re not unsolvable, but I don’t think you

can automatically presume there would be a redistribution of resources. But certainly every formula would have to take into account that they’re now working with a somewhat different denominator. Maybe in every formula they either back it out or put it in

depending.

Could I, while I have the floor, and something else because I

have the piece of paper Mrs. Maloney handed me. As I read it, it

says that the District of Columbia is excluded in determination of

apportionment, which is exactly what I thought I testified to.

Mrs. MALONEY. Is it included in the total?

Dr. PREWITT. This is included in the total, but that’s consistent

with what I just said about this attachment, which is we include

the District of Columbia in the total, statistical definition of the

United States, but, obviously, for apportionment purposes, we

would exclude it in terms of delivering the apportionment numbers

because we don’t apportion including the District of Columbia.

Sorry, Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. That’s quite all right.

Let me just appreciate your answer in terms of the complexity

of the question, and also I probably need to just make it clear that,

should it result in some shift in changes based upon the realities

of the population, I certainly wouldn’t have a problem with it. So,

it’s not suggested that I personally would have any problem with

it. I’m just trying to understand as best that I can the issue.

The final question that I have is, am I to now really understand

that the primary reason one would not necessarily want to use the

language that is proposed by Mr. Serrano is because there has not

been the time to work in comparability with other users, other

stakeholders, in that the Census Bureau would then perhaps have

data reported in a different manner than some other entities that

we coordinate data with?

62

Dr. PREWITT. Yes, sir. That is the Census Bureau’s hesitancy. I

come before you as a head of a statistical agency, not as a constitutional lawyer or as a policy advisor. There could be other kinds of

issues implicit in this that would not be ours, but from the point

of view of the Census Bureau, our hesitancy has to do with complications, difficulties, confusions, inconsistencies in the statistical

system it may create that we believe should be examined and make

sure we’re not doing some sort of harm.

We may, after examination, come back and say, look, we can fix

all of this. We’ve now had the kinds of conversations and so forth

and so on. But I can just say we’ve not yet had that opportunity.

We would see this, of course, because it would be interagency, as

the responsibility of the Office of Statistical Policy, not just the

Census Bureau’s responsibility.

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank you very much, and I have no further questions.

I’d also like to indicate my appreciation for the work that you did

and also the consistency relative to the way that you have looked

at technical issues and technical problems throughout the process,

and so I don’t see any deviation from that relative to the response

that you’ve given today. Thank you very much.

Mr. MILLER. I just have one clarification question.

This is a little description of the methodology you used for Puerto

Rico. This is the first time we’re doing the full-fledged census. Is

there any unique challenges, unique cost because of it that you’re

experiencing down there? Just describe it, very briefly, the process

that’s being used.

Dr. PREWITT. I think the biggest difference in Puerto Rico is that

we can’t really use just a mailout-mailback system. We’ve got to

use all update leave.

It was quite difficult. We’ve done it, but it was quite difficult to

assemble an address file. But the postal system in Puerto Rico is

not such that we can simply mail a questionnaire out. So we’ve got

to do a full update leave. And we have no idea because we haven’t

had this experience—see, all previous censuses in Puerto Rico, we

went out and did the enumeration ourselves. This time, we’ll be delivering the form and hoping they’ll mail it back. We don’t know

what to expect in the mail response rate, for example. We think it

creates all other kinds of implications. What size labor pool are we

going to need for a nonresponse followup? If we had a high response rate, we would need a much smaller pool, of course, but we

have no historical experience to make a guess as to what the response rate is likely to be in Puerto Rico. So that’s a technical

issue.

There are some very complicated questionnaire issues which we

have worked out with the Puerto Rico authorities. When they actually unfold, they’re going to say, ‘‘Oh, I didn’t know that’s what the

implication of that would be.’’ But we’ll work with those as we go.

But I think, operationally, by far the most complicated thing is it

is a very highly scattered population, but we’re optimistic that our

address file work gives us the basis and that our update leave will

work, but until we’re actually out in the field—Terry, you want to

add anything?

Does she need to be sworn?

63

Mr. MILLER. It’s policy that we do it. If you would just stand and

raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

STATEMENT OF TERESA ANGUEIRA, ASSISTANT DIVISION

CHIEF, DECENNIAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION

Ms. ANGUEIRA. I just wanted to add that it’s the first time we’re

using the update leave methodology. We will have to cover the

ground twice in Puerto Rico, once to create the address list, which

we have already done, and once to deliver the questionnaires.

As far as cost, the cost comparison, Dr. Prewitt was talking

about nonresponse followup. What we did in 1990 was conduct the

census with a list enumerating methodology, which is basically 100

percent nonresponse followup, if I can use that term freely. In

other words, we were using the nonresponse followup methodology

at every household, delivering the questionnaire for the first time

at that moment and collecting the interview at that moment. We

hope to reduce that cost by using the update leave methodology

and hope to receive a substantial proportion, which is hard to predict, of the questionnaires in the mail and reduce our nonresponse

followup workload.

Mr. MILLER. Let me thank you.

I think we should all be pleased. As I think Mr. Serrano also acknowledged, we’re making a giant stride in the right direction to

get comparable data, so we’ll have that, but it does raise, as you

say, historic redefinition problems in the statistical community that

we need to address and think through thoroughly before you jump.

So, with that, the hearing is now concluded. Thank you.

Excuse me. I withdraw that. I need to ask unanimous consent.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members’ and witnesses’ written opening statements be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. And if the Delegate, Donna Christensen of the

U.S. Virgin Islands, who was not able to be with us today, wishes

to have something submitted for the record, I ask unanimous consent that that be included in the record.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ