U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

60–341 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: EXAMINING

THE BUREAU’S POLICY TO COUNT PRISONERS,

MILITARY PERSONNEL, AND AMERICANS

RESIDING OVERSEAS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 9, 1999

Serial No. 106–39

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

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

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

THOMAS B. HOFELLER, Staff Director

KELLY DUQUIN, Professional Staff Member

TIMOTHY MANEY, Professional Staff Member

DAVID MCMILLEN, Minority Professional Staff Member

MARK STEPHENSON, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 9, 1999 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Gilman, Hon. Benjamin, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Wisconsin ................................................................................................... 28

Green, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin ............................................................................................................. 20

Hamod, David, executive director, Census 2000 Coalition; Don Johnson,

vice president, Association of Americans Resident Overseas; L. Leigh

Gribble, secretary, American Business Council of Gulf Countries, and

executive committee member, Republicans Abroad; Dorothy van

Schooneveld, executive director, American Citizens Abroad; and Joseph

Smallhoover, chair, Democrats Abroad ....................................................... 59

Prewitt, Kenneth, Director, Bureau of the Census ........................................ 34

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

Green, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 24

Gribble, L. Leigh, secretary, American Business Council of Gulf Countries, and executive committee member, Republicans Abroad, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 82

Hamod, David, executive director, Census 2000 Coalition, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 64

Johnson, Don, vice president, Association of Americans Resident Overseas, prepared statement of ......................................................................... 73

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

of New York:

Apportionment tables ................................................................................ 8

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16

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

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 3

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

of ..................................................................................................................... 43

Smallhoover, Joseph, chair, Democrats Abroad, prepared statement of ..... 104

van Schooneveld, Dorothy, executive director, American Citizens Abroad:

Collection of statements on census 2000 ................................................. 87

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 96

(1)

OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS:

EXAMINING THE BUREAU’S POLICY TO

COUNT PRISONERS, MILITARY PERSONNEL,

AND AMERICANS RESIDING OVERSEAS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room

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

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Miller, Gilman, Ryan, Maloney, and

Davis of Illinois.

Staff present: Tom Hofeller, staff director; Erin Yeatman, press

secretary; Jo Powers, assistant press secretary; Kelly Duquin and

Timothy Maney, professional staff members; Michelle Ash, minority counsel; David McMillen and Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff members; and Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk.

Mr. MILLER. Good morning. With a quorum present, we will

begin the hearing of the subcommittee. I will have a brief opening

statement, and I believe Congresswoman Maloney will have one,

and then we will proceed.

As we begin this hearing today, let me be clear that everyone

gathered here shares the same goal. We all want the most accurate

census in 2000. As part of our effort toward achieving an accurate

count, we are here this morning to discuss three pieces of recently

introduced census legislation that focus on the enumeration of

overseas Americans, prisoners, and military personnel.

We are honored to have Chairman Ben Gilman, as well as Congressman Mark Green and fellow subcommittee member, Paul

Ryan, here to discuss their proposed legislation. I am also pleased

to welcome back Census Director Prewitt as a witness to discuss

Census Bureau policy in enumerating these groups and any concerns that he may have with these proposals. I also look forward

to hearing from some very informed witnesses regarding these proposals. I understand that some of these witnesses have traveled

great distances to be here today, and we do appreciate their efforts

that they have made to be here.

Chairman Ben Gilman has just introduced today a resolution

that will affect the 3 million Americans who live and work abroad.

At present, the Census Bureau does not plan to enumerate these

citizens. This resolution raises concerns that, while the U.S. GovVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:53 Jan 23, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\60341 pfrm03 PsN: 60341
2

ernment officials living abroad were counted in 1990 and will be

counted in 2000, private citizens who play a key role in advancing

our national interests around the world are not included in the census count.

Through the Census 2000 Coalition, Americans living abroad

have taken the initiative to have themselves included in the census

count. Many of these Americans maintain ties to the United States

by voting and paying taxes and feel they should be included in the

census count. I look forward to discussing current Bureau policy regarding this issue and examining the viability of this question.

Another piece of legislation we will discuss is H.R. 1632, which

was recently introduced by my colleague from Wisconsin, Mark

Green. This particular piece of legislation seeks to affect how prisoners will be enumerated in the 2000 census. At present, many

States have export policies with regard to prisoners, meaning many

prisoners are incarcerated in States other than where they were

convicted.

For purposes of the 2000 census, the Census Bureau will attribute counts of prisoners to the States in which they are incarcerated. H.R. 1632 seeks to attribute the counts of the prisoners to

their home State or the State in which they were convicted, provided that State can claim more than half the costs associated with

the incarceration of the prisoners.

I know this is of particular interest to my colleagues, Mr. Green

and Mr. Ryan, as it is believed that the State of Wisconsin could

add as many as 10,000 people to their apportionment count with

this method. I will look forward to hearing about this proposal as

well as Dr. Prewitt’s views on this matter.

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

3

4

5

Mr. MILLER. And last but certainly not least, my fellow subcommittee member, Paul Ryan, has drafted legislation which will

require the Census Bureau to attribute the counts of individuals

who serve in the Armed Forces to their homes of record. At

present, the Bureau will attribute these individuals to the State in

which they are stationed on April 1, 2000.

Again, I believe all of these proposals address legitimate concerns

and I look forward to an open and informed discussion today. We

have several informed witnesses with us today, as well as Census

Bureau Director Prewitt who, I am sure, will be able to advise us

on the viability of these proposals.

Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you for calling this meeting and for all of the witnesses, many of whom came from abroad to be here.

Today, we will consider three related issues, all of which deal

with how and where to count certain populations during the census. As Director Prewitt has pointed out, the census is not just

about counting people. The census must count all of the people and

match them to specific addresses as of April 1.

As the census has evolved over the past two centuries, the rules

governing where people are counted have evolved to meet the

changing character of society. It is quite proper for Congress, which

is constitutionally charged with conducting the census, to consider

who should be counted in the census and where they should be

counted. However, if we are going to examine residency rules for

the census, we would be better served if we pursued it in a more

systematic fashion and in a timeframe that allowed for the proper

consideration of these ideas.

We are 298 days from census day. Any change we make today

increases the risk of a failed or less accurate census.

Let me say at this point, Mr. Chairman, that I am pleased that

you called this hearing today. There are a number of issues on

which this subcommittee should be holding hearings, and I hope

that you will see to it that they are addressed. Results from the

dress rehearsal have been in for some time, and we have yet to

hold a hearing on them. This hearing clearly shows the need for

a hearing on residency rules and how they are applied.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I ask that you call a hearing on how

the census is progressing toward meeting the milestones for the

2000 census. I believe we should give the Census Bureau Director

an opportunity to keep the Congress informed as we count down

to census day. Perhaps we could ask the Director to provide us

with an electronic census clock that counts down the days to April

1, 2000.

Turning again to the issues of the day, the first resolution, introduced by the distinguished chairman of the International Relations

Committee, Ben Gilman, from the great State of New York I might

add, is a sense of the congressional resolution which advocates that

all Americans living overseas be provided with the opportunity to

be counted in the 2000 census. Let me say, on the outset, that I

am sympathetic to the desires of overseas Americans to be counted.

It is a laudable patriotic motive which we should do all we can to

support and accommodate.

6

However, the proposal raises a number of complicated questions

which I hope our witnesses and the Director can address today.

The counting of overseas Americans can only be done on a voluntary basis of self-enumeration, much as the mailout, mailback

portion of the decennial census is done. What cannot be done is any

equivalent of the nonresponse followup the Census Bureau conducts in this country. As a result, the accuracy of the count of

Americans overseas is questionable. In fact, without a more precise

definition of who we are trying to count, a census or a complete

count of this population is impossible.

A second question is whether overseas Americans should be allocated to States for purposes of apportionment and, if so, to which

State should they be assigned? Last residence? Legal residence?

Leave it completely voluntary, which means they would only go to

nontax States like yours. Some have suggested using voter registration; however, it is my understanding that the majority of

Americans overseas do not vote.

Finally, the voluntary nature of such a count, coupled with the

vagueness of where these people should be counted, establishes a

dangerous situation. As we will see in discussing the other proposals on the table today, the temptation to try to gain a few more

people is tremendous. We could be unintentionally setting the stage

for States to try to influence the count of Americans overseas in

order to add to their numbers.

It is in order, however, to answer the most important question:

How many Americans are living overseas? I am drafting legislation

which would require a special census of the overseas population as

soon after the census as is practicable. That information can be

used by the Census Bureau to more precisely define this population, and, in turn, will allow Congress to consider the inclusion

of this population in the 2010 census. Without in any way criticizing the professionalism of the Census Bureau, I believe that

such a survey would be much better in quality than anything the

Bureau could improvise now at this late date in an ad hoc manner.

I will be providing each of the witnesses with a discussion copy of

that legislation. I would hope that, after careful consideration of

the draft, you would contact me with your reactions to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I hope this is one thing we can agree on. And I

hope it will be a bill that we can work together on to solve part

of the solution to this problem.

Today, we will also consider two other bills. H.R. 1632, introduced by Representative Green, requires that prisoners housed out

of State be counted as residents of the State paying for their incarceration. A bill proposed by subcommittee member, Representative

Ryan, requires that active duty military personnel and their dependents be counted at their home of record. These bills were presumably introduced with the intent of boosting the population totals of Wisconsin, which may lose a seat after the 2000 reapportionment.

I certainly understand the motives of these bills. New York is

slated to lose two seats if the current projections hold true. But,

these bills also raise troubling questions and would overturn precedent about where people are counted that date back to the very

first census. What is more, these bills apparently would not have

7

their desired effect. An analysis of the proposal on the military

done for me by the Congressional Research Service shows that assigning military personnel to their ‘‘home of record’’ would not shift

any seats in the House. And even if all of the prisoners housed out

of State were counted in Wisconsin, I doubt it would be enough to

affect its apportionment.

And then, if you start with prisoners, then to use my own State,

we not only have prisoners out of State, we have prisoners moved

from one section of the State to another section that is densely populated. Then, would you shift the count there? Just to use my own

State, we also have foster care children that we pay for in other

States, college students, I am sure there are many other government programs. So, it would start a whole host of other problems,

or rather challenges, to get an accurate count.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the apportionment tables created by the Congressional Research Service included in the record

and, also, my draft legislation.

[The information referred to follows:]

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Mrs. MALONEY. The Census Bureau uses the concept of ‘‘usual

residence’’ to decide where to count individuals, a principle established by the First Census Act in 1790 and upheld by the courts

as recently as 1992. Usual residence is defined as the place where

a person lives and sleeps most of the time. Mandating exceptions

to this rule must be done very carefully, if at all, because it raises

serious questions.

As I said before, I would welcome a thorough congressional study

on the use of usual residence in the census. In fact, I believe that

such a study would benefit both Congress and the Census Bureau.

We could begin by examining the exception to that rule provided

for Members of the House and Senate. However, we start down a

treacherous path when we encourage changes in census procedures

without a thorough understanding of both the intended and unintended consequences.

Again, I thank you for calling this hearing.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

Without objection, your requested document for the record will be

included.

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

16

17

18

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Davis, you don’t have an opening statement?

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, yes, I do.

Mr. MILLER. Oh, OK. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Normally I forgo an opening statement,

but I think that these matters are so important. I also think my

staff has worked so hard on the issues that I just wouldn’t let the

opportunity go by, Mr. Chairman.

So, I want to thank you for convening this hearing today to examine issues regarding the counting of Americans residing overseas, prisoners, and military personnel.

This hearing raises a number of interesting questions as we prepare to conduct the 2000 census. As I have indicated before in previous hearings, our main objective must be accuracy and the assurance that everyone is counted.

The issue of a growing number of Americans living abroad has

become more prevalent as technology improves. It is not uncommon

to have breakfast in Europe and dinner in America on the same

day.

Our technological advances have allowed us to dwarf distance

and place, time and change. We have made the world a community.

Therefore, as more Americans begin to live abroad, we must find

a way to ensure that they count in America.

I am certain that because this is such an important issue and the

census has become so politicized that we must proceed with

thoughtful and careful deliberation on this question.

The Census Bureau has a plan for counting military personnel,

Federal employees, and their dependents living abroad. However,

I am interested in hearing how they plan to work with overseas

Americans to make sure that they count either in this census or

certainly, the next one.

Today we also examine H.R. 1632, a bill that would require the

Census Bureau to count prisoners in the State that pays more than

50 percent of the cost of their incarcerations. It has been a long established tradition that prisoners, residents of nursing homes, VA

hospital patients, and other institutionalized populations should be

counted as residents of the State in which the institution or facility

is located.

The court upheld this principle in 1992. According to CRS, as of

January 1998, approximately 5,877 prisoners were housed out of

State, approximately 0.5 percent of all State prisons. In fact, in Illinois we currently have approximately 30 out of 44,000 plus prisoners housed out of State.

To require that those 30 prisoners be counted in Illinois would

establish a precedent that could lead to endless exceptions to current census resident rules and create an administrative nightmare.

However, I look forward to my colleague, Representative Green,

presenting the case as to why this legislation should be adopted.

Finally, we will examine legislation pending by Representative

Ryan that would require that military personnel be counted at the

individual’s home of record. In the 1990 census, military personnel

overseas were counted for purposes of apportionment at their

homes of record. They were then subtracted out of State population

totals for all other purposes.

19

This legislation would require the Census Bureau to count military personnel for apportionment purposes from the State they enlisted until they leave the military. Currently, the Census Bureau

counts U.S. based military personnel as regular citizens via standard enumeration. I am concerned because this legislation would require the Census Bureau to create a whole new design for counting

military personnel and could add delay to the 2000 census, which

may possibly jeopardize accuracy.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming today to testify. I appreciate all of your efforts, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that we

get through this process and thank you very much for the opportunity to present this statement.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

I think, Mr. Ryan, your opening statement is really relating to

your piece of legislation. So, we will call Mr. Green and Mr. Gilman, and we will start with you first as a statement regarding

your specific legislation. So, Mark Green, if you want to come up

and sit at the table; and then, when Mr. Gilman comes in, we will

proceed. But, we will proceed with you as a first statement concerning your piece of legislation.

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to address the

two opening statements that my colleagues on the minority just addressed.

I introduced, last night, legislation that I feel is essential to

achieving an accurate count in the census. This is not an attempt

to get an extra congressional seat in Wisconsin. It has nothing to

do with that. This is an attempt to get a good enumeration count,

to get the best census count we can achieve.

The military personnel are a unique group because they often

pay taxes and vote in a State in which they are stationed. Now,

it is difficult to clearly define their actual residence. I absolutely

agree with that. Most would not be residing in the place that they

should be stationed were it not for their military service. Many

have families in other States. My bill would provide clarity by ensuring that military personnel are allocated in their home of

record. This will ensure that Federal funding and redistricting are

based on an accurate count of the population.

Currently, the Census Bureau plans on using home of record

data for counting military personnel who are stationed overseas. I

am bringing this, extending it to domestic use. This bill requires

that the Census Bureau work in partnership with the Department

of Defense to count military personnel who have been stationed in

the United States as well.

This bill is not a radical shift in the policy for census. In the census of 1990, as well as the 1970 census, the Department of Commerce utilized the home of record data. In 1992, the Supreme

Court stated that the Secretary of the Department of Commerce

was acting within the law when he used the home of record data

from personnel files to count military personnel in the 1990 census.

There is precedent. This is not a radical shift in policy. It was buttressed by the Supreme Court in 1992.

I am not seeking to uproot years of tradition here today. I am

merely fighting to ensure that the census is done in a fair and eqVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:53 Jan 23, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60341 pfrm03 PsN: 60341
20

uitable manner. I think Congressman Green’s legislation does the

exact same thing.

Accounting for all U.S. citizens in their proper homes is what we

should achieve to do. These men and women have claimed a State

to be their home. Why shouldn’t we honor that claim? There are

many States that, merely based on location, have been chosen to

house military personnel. Counting military personnel as residents

of these States when they are actually voting and paying taxes

elsewhere simply just doesn’t make sense. I urge my colleagues to

join me in supporting this legislation.

And, I just want to reemphasize the earlier comments. This is

not an attempt try to rig the numbers. This is not an attempt to

try to help a State that may lose a congressional seat. This is an

attempt to have an accurate enumeration. This is an attempt to

apply the same standard used for overseas military bases to domestic military bases. We have a lot of people in Wisconsin, but I am

sure there are a lot of people in New York and Illinois and other

States who are sent to other States but who still pay taxes in those

States and vote in those States they will return to after their military service is done within the same decade. I think it is very important that this legislation be passed and this will help our actual

enumeration.

Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

We will proceed with Mr. Green next. And hopefully Mr. Gilman

is here, and then we will go to questions.

Mr. Green, welcome.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. GREEN. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, members of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, as we approach the 2000 census, we also need to

ensure a fair and accurate enumeration of the population. I know

the chairman and the members of the subcommittee have been diligent in working toward this end, and I am grateful for this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee on my proposal regarding

census protocol for prisoners who are convicted and sentenced in

one State and temporarily incarcerated in another.

To put it simply, I believe these prisoners should be counted as

residents of their originating State for a number of common sense

reasons.

First, as we are all aware, a significant portion of Federal funds

are distributed to States based upon population counts. In fact, the

Census Bureau cites access to Federal dollars as a compelling reason to fill out census forms. If we count prisoners temporarily

housed in other States as residents of those States, then the originating States will lose out on Federal dollars, and the temporary

host State will essentially be paid twice.

Second, despite the temporary location of prisoners in another

State at the time of enumeration, the originating State continues

to bear both financial and legal responsibility for the prisoner.

21

Third, if the purpose of the census is to provide an accurate

count that is accurate for any extended period, counting prisoners

in the temporary host State will be inaccurate, as many of the prisoners only temporarily reside in those States. Every single prisoner

who leaves the originating State starts off in that State and is required by contract to return to that State before they can be released or paroled. And during the period of parole, they will be in

that originating State.

And fourth, originating States like Wisconsin already compile all

the data that the Census Bureau needs to effectively carry out an

accurate enumeration of prisoners sent out of State. I say respectfully, contrary to the concerns raised by the Census Bureau Director, it is easy to count such prisoners. Arguably, this method will

save the Census Bureau money.

By way of background, as of June 4 of this year, Wisconsin

housed over 3,700 prisoners in the States of Texas, Tennessee,

Oklahoma, Minnesota, and West Virginia. This number, as the

chairman alluded, is expected to grow by an additional 6,159 prisoners by the year 2001, bringing the total number of incarcerated

persons outside of Wisconsin close to 10,000, over 50 percent of our

prisoner population.

I am here today because of the recently restated practice of the

Bureau of the Census to enumerate the prisoners in the county in

which they are incarcerated. While this policy may make sense for

traditional incarceration models, I do not believe it makes sense

with respect to the relatively new practice of States leasing prison

space in other States. In other words, temporarily transferring

such individuals to other States for incarceration before returning

them to the originating States.

This situation, I emphasize, is different than the prisoner counting scenarios that have traditionally been dealt with by census policy and the courts.

Now, under the Census Bureau’s current interpretation of the

usual residence rule which you will hear a lot about today, there

is currently no regard given to the fact that a prisoner’s incarceration is being paid for by the taxpayers of another State, the originating State. And I think that is wrong.

The Bureau bases its current practice of counting prisoners on

the definition of usual residence as stated in the U.S. Court of Appeals. However, when the courts later reviewed the issues arising

in that case in the district court case of D.C. v. United States Department of Commerce in 1992, the court stated clearly,

The application of the usual residence rule could well be called into question by

States which bear some of the costs for prisoners located in out-of-state penitentiaries. The level of support a locality needs to provide in order to claim residents

for census purposes is clearly a decision for which there are no judicially manageable standards available.

Despite the temporary location of prisoners elsewhere, States

like Wisconsin, and there are about 30 such States in the Nation

right now, clearly bear the majority of the costs associated with the

prisoners’ incarceration. They bear those costs during the out of

State placement. Furthermore, because all such prisoners must return to Wisconsin before release or parole, Wisconsin bears substantial costs after the placement as well.

22

Looking at it another way, if the 2000 census enumerates prisoners as residents of States that only temporarily host them, then

those States which temporarily host those prisoners are essentially

being paid twice for the same individual, once through the Stateto-State agreement or contract and a second time through increased Federal aid distributed on the basis of those temporary

prisoners.

The other side of that, of course, is that the originating State is

paying twice. Its taxpayers are paying much more than their share.

Beyond the fiscal ramifications, the practice of counting prisoners

as other than the residents of their originating State flies in the

face of the basic purpose of the census. Again, since we know that

these temporarily hosted prisoners under current practice, are only

hosted for a short period of time, in most cases a year or less, we

know that they must return to their originating State for processing, further incarceration, or parole prior to release. We know

that there is a definite ending point to their temporary housing in

the other State. Presumably the census was not intended to treat

this short stay in another State as with a definite returning point

and a definite location as residence.

Does this all really matter? Well, I believe it does. The purpose

of this legislation is not to deal with the issue of whether Wisconsin will lose a congressional seat. I tend to concur with the

statement of Mrs. Maloney. I don’t believe this will affect whether

or not we have a congressional seat. At least, I hope you are correct.

Instead, as we know, according to the Bureau of the Census, numbers are used to help determine the distribution of over $100

billion in Federal funds and even more in State funds. The GAO

issued a report earlier this year which suggested the grants that

may be apportioned will total $185 billion. While the numbers

vary, the message is clear: The numbers matter.

It is important to note that extensive information is compiled on

prisoners in Wisconsin before they are transferred for temporary

housing in another State. Wisconsin Department of Corrections collects data regarding the inmate’s personal information, the county

of conviction, and incarceration. This information is kept on the

prisoner wherever they go, and in the case of a prisoner incarcerated in another State, that information is shared jointly between

the two States.

In fact, in Wisconsin, and I am guessing it is the same in most

other States, all outgoing inmates are added to a data base where

the aforementioned information is made available. Every Friday,

the State updates the number of prisoners who are incarcerated

elsewhere. The department of corrections in the States that house

our prisoners can know in a matter of seconds where a prisoner is

located and in what county the individual was convicted and incarcerated in.

If the Bureau of the Census would partner with the State department of corrections, they could effectively gather this information

to enumerate the prisoners in their home States; and instead of

costing more money, you could argue it would actually cost less.

It is the current practice of the Census Bureau to allow an institution to self-enumerate, which means that the institution staff

23

would conduct the enumeration after being trained and sworn in

by a census crew leader. The census crew leader then returns to

pick up the forms. This was most often done for hospitals, prisons,

and nursing homes. In the same manner, a Bureau crew leader

could deputize an individual at the department of corrections who

would be able to assign prisoners local originating addresses for

census purposes.

The Bureau of the Census has said that priority one for census

2000 is to build partnerships at every stage of the process. I would

encourage the Bureau to partner with the State department of corrections for the benefit of a more accurate census. There is still

plenty of time to count prisoners in their home States in the 2000

census. This information is already compiled. However, it is imperative that the Census Bureau and the State administrative agencies effectively partner to gather this information. It can be done.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify. Thank

you.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark Green follows:]

24

25

26

27

28

Mr. MILLER. And we are pleased now to have the chairman of

the International Relations Committee and a member of our full

committee, Mr. Gilman.

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our colleagues for conducting this important hearing. I am here to stress

the importance of including Americans abroad in the 2000 census.

This morning, I come before you as a member who served many

years on the International Relations Committee, but I also served

on the former Post Office and Civil Service Committee, where we

dealt with the issue of providing an accurate census count for many

years. And I feel that that is so important, and I am pleased you

are addressing this problem.

In those roles I have had numerous dealings with our American

citizens living and working overseas and can attest to the increasingly important role that that segment of our population plays in

our Nation’s economy and in our relations with other countries and

their citizens throughout the world. As a matter of fact, in the last

election, some 750,000 citizens living abroad did vote, and they estimate there are close to 3 million living abroad who are working

in government and in business overseas and want to be included

in any census and want to be included in any political activity.

In this era of growing globalization, we are well aware of the importance placed upon our Nation’s exports and goods and services

overseas in an effort to provide a strong and versatile economy. Not

only are we reliant on Americans abroad to carry out exports for

the creation of U.S.-based jobs, but we rely on these citizens to best

promote and advance our interests throughout the world.

Nevertheless, the Census Bureau does not count private-sector

Americans residing abroad despite the fact that government employees working overseas are currently included in the U.S. census.

So, we have a discriminatory factor.

This is an inconsistent and inappropriate policy, especially if the

Census Bureau is true to its word that it wants census 2000 to be

the most accurate census available.

Accordingly, I am introducing a resolution expressing support for

the inclusion in census 2000 of all Americans residing abroad, and

I will be joined in that effort by Senator Spencer Abraham, who is

introducing a companion measure in the Senate. Our resolution

will direct the U.S. Census Bureau to include all American citizens

residing overseas in its census 2000, not just federally affiliated

Americans, and expresses the intention of Congress to approve legislation authorizing and appropriating the funds needed to carry

out that directive.

And in closing, I would like to reiterate the need for our Census

Bureau to count all Americans, including private citizens living and

working abroad. Not only will such a policy provide an accurate

census 2000, but it will allow Congress and private-sector leaders

to realize how best to support our U.S. companies and our citizenry

abroad. U.S. citizens abroad vote, they pay taxes in our country,

yet they are discriminated against by our government solely because they are private citizens. Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will

29

join with us in allowing us to change this policy to include privatesector Americans residing overseas in the census.

American citizens abroad have devised an official overseas citizen

census card that will obviate the necessity for having much bureaucracy involved. A very simple statement can help take care of

that problem. And they can register with their passport numbers

so there will be proper identification.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleagues for your patience.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, and I thank all three of you for your

statements.

As you know, we do have a vote going on. But, Mr. Gilman, as

you may know, we have Director Prewitt coming up next on the

panel who can respond to a lot of the concerns and questions raised

by all three of your statements, and after that, we have five members representing the different groups advocating the need to count

overseas Americans that I look forward to hearing from. So, I am

going to reserve my comments and questions concerning overseas

to the next couple of panels.

You are going to be able to return, Mr. Ryan. Are you going to

be able to return, Mr. Gilman? You have other hearings, so you

may not. I understand that. Do any of the members have questions

of Mr. Gilman? Otherwise, we will take a break and come right

back and continue with our questions for Mr. Green and Mr. Ryan.

Mrs. MALONEY. I would just like to compliment the gentleman

from the great State of New York for his testimony today and his

leadership on so many issues that are important to our Nation.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you.

Mrs. MALONEY. And also to my colleagues, Mr. Ryan and Mr.

Green. And I think you raised an important point. I know I am not

supposed to question you now, but I just have to raise one area.

When I read it, immediately I started thinking about New York

State. And as Ben knows, we not only export prisoners but we

move them around the State to the less populous areas of the

State, the wilderness, and build prisons. So, if you take this to the

next step the question is, would you then count them where they

are in residence in a different area of the State?

Also, in New York, as Ben knows, many social service agencies

export foster care, adoption-ready children. There are a number of

areas—we would have to research it—where we literally pay for

the service. For example, in foster care we have some sites in

Pennsylvania where many New York children go to sort of a country environment to be helped.

So, you raise a lot of questions that not only apply to prisoners

but all the other sort of government programs that move people

around, whether out of State or within a State. And I think it is

an issue that needs to be really studied on its ramifications, because if you are going to do it for prisoners, then the argument is

you should do it for every other incident or example where someone

may be moved around the State or out of the State yet still provided for mainly by the State.

I just raise that as a question to be looked at, and again I thank

anyone who has a thoughtful statement and interest in getting a

more accurate count.

30

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Davis, do you have a specific question for Mr.

Gilman?

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Ryan.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, very much. Mr. Green, if you will come

back, we will recess for 10 minutes or so. As soon as we get our

vote over, we will come right back.

[Recess.]

Mr. MILLER. The hearing will continue, and we will reconvene

the hearing. We will start with some questions.

Mr. Gilman will not be coming back. Mrs. Maloney will be a little

while before she is back and Mr. Green will be back. But let me

start, if I may, with Mr. Ryan to clarify a little bit.

This whole issue of military residents and the issue of prisoners

brings up the complexity of the job that the Census Bureau really

has. If someone signs up in the military and then moves to Pensacola and is stationed there, and family is there in school and they

vote there, would they be counted there or how does your bill address it?

Mr. RYAN. It is the home-of-record data. The Census Bureau

went through this same quandary back in 1990. They chose to go

with the home-of-record data over legal residence and other definitions because they thought this was the best way to do it. You don’t

have an income tax in Florida.

Mr. MILLER. Correct.

Mr. RYAN. In States like Florida, legal residents and other definitions don’t apply because they rely on income tax data, which you

don’t have. So, they chose in 1990 to go with the home-of-record

data, which the court upheld 2 years later. What it means is for

people, say from Wisconsin, who go to Pensacola and who continue

to choose Wisconsin as their residence, pay taxes there, vote there,

but are based in Pensacola, their home-of-record data is Wisconsin.

They will be counted in Wisconsin. If they move to Pensacola and

choose to claim Pensacola as their home of record, they will be

counted in Florida. I think a lot of military residents do change

their home of record to Florida because of income tax purposes.

Those military personnel would be counted there.

What we are saying is extend the same principle and policy that

you use for overseas military personnel as you do for domestic military personnel.

Mr. MILLER. Let’s take an overseas person. If they officially

claimed Florida residence because of no income tax, but they are

really from Wisconsin, where do they get counted?

Mr. RYAN. Let me go to the definition of home of record, because

I think that is the best way of clearing this up.

In the fall back positions as defined in the Census Bureau in

1990, and my bill too, if there is no home-of-record data, you go to

legal residence and then usual residence, the address a military

member had upon entry into the service. This is the definition of

home of record.

Home of record is not the same as legal residence. If a military

member changes legal residence after entering on active duty, he

or she may not revert to claiming the home of record as legal resiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:53 Jan 23, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60341 pfrm03 PsN: 60341
31

dence without reestablishing physical presence and intent to remain in the State.

Legal State of residence, that definition is: One must have or

have had physical presence in the State and simultaneously the intent to remain or make the State his or her home or domicile. A

person can only have one legal residence and specific actions must

occur, such as what is listed for withholding income tax or where

one is registered to vote. Because of States like Florida and Texas

that don’t have the income tax data, the Census Bureau, in 1990,

decided to go with the home of record.

So, it really comes down to that first definition, home of record.

If that data isn’t available, then it reverts to legal State of residence, but the home-of-record data is included in my bill to protect

States like Florida and Texas, that don’t have income taxes, that

don’t have that kind of data.

Mr. MILLER. We are operating under the 5 minute rule, but we

don’t have lights. But they are going to get cards flashed or something.

Mr. Green, is there anything comparable to the prison situation—an analogy? People in nursing homes in another State or college students? Is there anything comparable to how they treat

that?

Mr. GREEN. In a way there is, by implication. The situation I am

referring to is unique, or different than the other scenarios that

have been raised, in that the individuals involved will begin their

sentence in the originating State. They will return to the originating State. They will complete their sentence in the originating

State. They will be paroled in the original State, so on and so forth.

Part of my logic is that the temporary host State is already compensated for any services it provides, and the only services it provides, are those that are defined in my contract. In the case of students, for example, one reason that students are counted in their

actual location, the temporary resident State, is that they consume

services in that other State for which they are presumably compensated through the Federal Aid System.

That same logic, if we decide State of residence for Census Bureau purposes based upon where they consume services, again I

would argue that that logic would mean the originating State

should be the State since that is the State which is paying for services and providing services. So, by implication, I guess that would

be the parallel I draw. In terms of a precise scenario, I am not

aware of one.

Mr. MILLER. I will be looking forward to Director Prewitt’s testimony following this. How large of an issue is this? You said 3,500

in Wisconsin?

Mr. GREEN. Temporarily projected to grow to 10,000 by the year

2001.

Mr. MILLER. How many States export prisoners? This is a new

issue to me.

Mr. GREEN. It is a new issue. This particular scenario is fairly

new. That is why we bring it up now. This was not a common practice until rather recently. It is my understanding this didn’t begin

until the mid-1980’s. It didn’t begin in Wisconsin until the mid1990’s; 1995 or 1996 is when it came in, so it is a fairly new issue.

32

Our best information is that about 30 States export prisoners.

Those numbers are harder to come by than you might think. We

have been talking with the council for State governments, NCSL.

That is our best information.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. With all due

respect to you and the State of Florida, I don’t think I want to use

that example when I ask my question. It seemed to be too many

incentives. But, at any rate, Representative Ryan, do you know if

there is any data on the number of individuals who might change

or who have actually changed their residence in terms of point of

origin or individuals who did go into the military and after having

been stationed, maybe——

Mr. RYAN. Change the home of record.

Mr. DAVIS. Yeah, and another State actually changed their home

of record?

Mr. RYAN. I can’t answer that question. We don’t have that data,

but we just asked DOD for home-of-record data. I just got this

spreadsheet handed to me so we know that, as of July 1998, a total

of 1,229,360 military personnel stationed in the 50 States have

home-of-record data. Illinois, this would affect 29—a little over

29,000 military personnel. 54,000 military personnel are exported

from New York to domestic bases. In our home State of Wisconsin

19,000 military personnel—this is a question that was just asked

me before.

I didn’t have this spreadsheet until now. I don’t have the actual

difference between people who change their home of record who

leave the State, but this answers part of that question.

Mr. DAVIS. I know we are trying to get at the whole question of

fairness and the issue of fairness and when we talk about fairness,

I am often reminded of the discussion between the worm and the

bird and somebody asks, is it fair for worms to eat birds or is it

fair for birds to eat worms. And if you are a worm, you have got

one answer. If you are a bird, you have got another answer. And,

I guess, in terms of the numbers that States are looking for or just

in terms of the accuracy, there is some unfairness that would probably result either way if they are individuals who would be stationed in one location home of record, but for all practical purposes,

they have become residents of where they are. But let me go to

Representative Green and ask a question——

Mr. RYAN. If I could just mention one point on that. None of

these definitions are perfect. One of the bases of the home of record

definition that the Supreme Court used is that the Defense Department will pay moving expenses for a military person who, say, has

an honorable discharge, leaves the Army, leaves the Navy and then

goes back home. DOD will pay all his moving expenses.

Home-of-record data applies to where they would send those people back, how they would cover those as moving expenses provided

the person goes back to their home of record. If a person is in Illinois, goes to Fort Bragg in North Carolina; when their term expires

in the military, where would they go? If it is back to Illinois, that

would be their home-of-record data.

So, that is the best attempt to try and get at the true home of

the person in the military. If the person chooses to stay in North

33

Carolina, reside in North Carolina, pay taxes in North Carolina,

and after their term expires, live in North Carolina, then that is

also included partially in this definition.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Representative Green, do you know how

many other categories of individuals would need to be looked at if

we took your position relative to the counting of prisoners?

Mr. GREEN. I am not aware of any that would necessarily be. The

reason I say that is because this scenario is different than nearly

every other one that has been raised so far. The relationship and

the location of the prisoner is defined by contract entered into between two sovereign States and is unlike the open-ended scenarios

where a student goes to another State for a university and may not

return and may not receive benefits from the originating State. In

this case, we are talking about individuals that must begin their

sentence in the originating State and must end their sentence in

the originating State.

They come back. It is definite. Unless they pass away, they have

to come back and be processed. So, I think that makes it different

than all the other scenarios that have been spoken of.

And second, in this scenario, the temporary hosting State is compensated. It is compensated financially from the originating State.

So, they are being offset for all costs incurred by reason of the prisoner being there and that is defined by contract.

Mr. DAVIS. Would that not be the same for individuals who are

sent out for treatment purposes? If the State of Illinois contracts

with the State of Colorado to handle 50 young people with special

mental health needs, would that not be the same?

Mr. GREEN. Those individuals, again, would all depend on what

type of order they are under. Those individuals wouldn’t necessarily return to the home State.

In my scenario, they have to. By law, they have to return, and

I guess I am not as familiar with what the financial responsibility

is. I am going for the State of origin.

Mr. DAVIS. These are business arrangements. They are contractual business arrangements.

Mr. GREEN. I guess what I mean is, in the originating State, in

the Wisconsin scenario, the one I am most familiar with, Wisconsin

during that entire time is paying over half the cost for those prisoners. I don’t know what the scenario would be that you are referring to.

Mr. DAVIS. Full cost.

Mr. GREEN. That wouldn’t be the case. Would those individuals

have to come back and complete some kind of ordered time in their

home State?

Mr. DAVIS. They are citizens of the State of Illinois. I mean, they

aren’t Illinois residents and Illinois has the responsibility for caring

for them. They just don’t have the facility nor the service, or they

find that it is more cost efficient to do it another way, as I would

imagine that the State of Wisconsin is finding with its prison population.

Mr. GREEN. I guess what I mean is, are those individuals being

committed to the home State under a judicially imposed order with

a beginning and starting point? That is the distinction I am trying

to draw.

34

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Ryan.

Mr. RYAN. I would like to ask Mr. Green a couple of questions.

Just to clarify. What happens to a prisoner if the term expires

while they are incarcerated in another State?

Mr. GREEN. The term of sentence?

Mr. RYAN. Yes.

Mr. GREEN. They have to return to the home State for processing. They are still currently paroled in Wisconsin; they have to

go back.

Mr. RYAN. That is an important point, I think, as well. What do

you think about the Bureau’s response to your legislation that

there is not enough time to implement the program for testing and

evaluation?

Mr. GREEN. With the case of Wisconsin, that simply isn’t true.

All the information that would be necessary for the Census Bureau

to complete its work is already compiled and is updated weekly by

the department of corrections.

Again, since the State bares legal and financial responsibility,

that information is absolutely accurate and is readily available.

Mr. RYAN. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. Did you have a concluding comment?

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to a question raised

by Mrs. Maloney before we broke just to clarify. She appropriately

raised a question that I believe will be raised by the Census Bureau as to what the county of residence would be, and that is actually already determined under State law. It is the county of incarceration, or if there isn’t a determinable county of incarceration, it

is the county where those prisoners are processed.

In Wisconsin, that is Dodge County. If the committee would be

more comfortable by spelling it out explicitly in this legislation, we

could do so; and I don’t believe that would substantively change

current law.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. I have seen in articles, I think it was

the Pine Bluff Arkansas, the annex for prisons into the county or

city in order to increase their population.

Some cities don’t want the prisoners. It becomes a local issue too.

Well, thank you very much for your presentation here today, Mr.

Green and Mr. Ryan, as part of the panel. Thank you very much.

We will proceed to the next panel. Director Prewitt will be coming

up and we will proceed.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. MILLER. Let the record show that Dr. Prewitt answered in

the affirmative.

We have three issues brought up by the Members and I would

like to let you proceed and enlighten us.

Mr. PREWITT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to Mr.

Davis, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. MILLER. Put the microphone a little bit closer to you.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH PREWITT, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF

THE CENSUS

Mr. PREWITT. I started with the obligatory thank you. I would

like to rerecord my thank you to the chairman, to Mr. Davis, Mr.

35

Ryan, and Mrs. Maloney for this opportunity to testify this morning.

I want to emphasize at the outset that the issues that have been

put on the table are difficult and complex, as has already been alluded to. But they are also ones with which it is very easy to sympathize and appreciate the motivations behind the bringing these

three pieces of legislation to the table.

They are difficult and they do, we think, deserve a thorough

study before we would change major policy, especially policy with

respect to usual resident concepts, either with regard to prisoners

or U.S. military personnel outside their home State. It is extremely

important that any policy changes are consistent with the original

intent of the census to determine the whole number of persons in

each State for purposes of apportionment.

And if the Congress believes that all America’s private overseas

citizens should be included in the decennial, then we would urge

that, at first commission, some indepth studies that would shed

light on these complexities, and I will get to these complexities momentarily.

Let me address first the issue of Americans overseas, as it has

been recommended by Mr. Gilman. The Census Bureau staff did

meet with representatives of the Census 2000 Coalition on this

issue in early May to discuss their reactions to our concerns and

their proposals for overcoming these concerns.

And after carefully reviewing the coalition’s proposals and studying the viability of the technical aspects involved, the Bureau has

concluded that it cannot credibly enumerate the population of

American citizens living abroad for census 2000. There are conceptual issues, such as whether to count retirees and other persons

unlikely to return to the United States. We have serious concerns

about our inability to validate responses and, of course, about the

complex operation of such a worldwide enumeration.

I would like to, at this moment, simply draw your attention to

the form which has been presented here for our attention. And I

would like to say for the record, sir, that I would urge that before

these forms are circulated any wider, that they say in bold print

that this is not an official government document.

It does not say so now. It gives every resemblance to something

that is an official U.S. document. It uses the official U.S. Bureau

Website. If you turn over to the address page, anyone picking this

up would presume they should mail this back to the U.S. Bureau

of Census. I only use this to suggest how complex this issue is and

how very well-intentioned efforts to cooperate can run up against

some difficulties, even the presentation of forms which would suggest that the U.S. Census Bureau has decided to count the population and already has designed a form and distributed it.

So, I would urge our friends and colleagues who are concerned

about this issue to please not circulate this document without identifying it as not an official government document. Thank you.

Let me then turn to the question of accuracy and why we have

such concerns about the accuracy of the information we could obtain from any attempt to enumerate private American citizens

overseas. The difficulty is we cannot accurately estimate the size

of the universe of this population, so we do not have the means of

36

controlling and checking its progress as we do here at home, where

we use the master address file to control the enumeration.

Embassy and consulate lists of American citizens living in their

jurisdictions generally are outdated or incomplete, since there is no

requirement for citizens to register with them upon entering or

leaving the country.

What we do, as you appreciate in the census, of course, is we do

ask people to mail in the questionnaire. For those who don’t, we

have very precise processes of doing a non-response followup. Up

to six return calls, three personal calls, three telephone calls, making all kinds of efforts and then close-out procedures because we

start with some sense of the universe that we are trying to reach.

And we use the address file as the marker or the denominator for

what we think the universe is.

With respect to the Americans overseas, we simply have no way

of knowing what that universe is and, therefore, no method of trying to find the non-respondents. So, in effect, it converts the overseas census into a voluntary census, which is fundamentally different from the stateside census which is not a voluntary, but a

mandatory census. And the Census Bureau does everything it can

to reach everyone.

We are not sure what the procedures are by which we would try

to reach everyone. As Mr. Gilman said, his resolution calls for us

to count all Americans overseas. It is not clear how we will do that,

and that is why I want to stress that there is something fundamentally different between the proposal that’s on the table and the

stateside census which starts with a control factor, the master address file, and then uses non-response followup to try to reach as

complete a count as it possibly can.

Now, what are the implications of that? Congressman Miller, in

your covering memo, you used the estimate of 3 million Americans

and then suggested that perhaps we would count as many as 1 million of them. That is, you would recognize that there could be an

undercount of 66 percent, fairly high undercount as a census goes.

Ms. Schooneveld says that perhaps the number of American citizens abroad is 5 to 6 million. Let us say 5. If we counted a million

of the 5, we would have an undercount of 80 percent. There are

other documents, their own newsletter that says the overseas count

may be up to 10 million, which means we would have an

undercount of 90 percent.

So whether it is a 66 percent undercount or an 80 percent

undercount or a 90 percent undercount or only a 50 percent

undercount, we have every reason to presume it is a fairly high

undercount. Without the capacity to go out and check on it, we

don’t have a control factor like we have with the master address

file stateside.

Now, why is that consequential? There is no a priori reason to

presume that this high undercount would be distributed across

home of record proportionate to the true distribution of home of

record for the overseas Americans. Let me give you a simple example, hypothetical.

Let us say that we did a particularly good job in Mexico where

many, many Americans live in retirement communities and so

forth. We did a very poor job in Canada, where there are also a

37

very large number of overseas Americans. The reason we did a

poorer job in Canada, of course, is Canadian-Americans. Americans

living in Canada are not required to have passports. Whereas in

Mexico, let us say we did a better job.

Now, if that were to happen, we do better in some parts of the

world than other parts of the world, the question we would have

to ask ourselves: Are the people, the Americans who live in those

different parts of the world, randomly distributed or proportionately distributed according to home of record? My guess is that the

Americans living in Canada are much, much more likely to come

from the northern tier of the States, and the Americans living in

Mexico are much more likely to come from the southwestern tier

of the States.

So, if we did a very good job counting in Mexico and a very poor

job counting in Canada, then we would have produced a distortion

to the apportionment accounts. It is a distortion to the magnitude

that we could not estimate, nor could we correct for it. I think the

implications of not being able to reach 1 out of 3, or 1 out of 5, or

1 out of 10, or 1 out of 2, the magnitude of the undercount would

be such that we would necessarily introduce some distortions into

the apportionment account.

That would, of course, invite litigation and all the other kinds of

concerns that have already been expressed by this Congress with

respect to the implications of the undercount. When the undercount

is 1.5 percent and we have mechanisms to try to reduce it, then

it is a very different phenomena than if it is a 50, 60, or 70 percent

undercount because the level of distortion and apportionment numbers is accordingly large.

We take very seriously this question of accuracy and completeness, as you appreciate. And we have a particular problem with the

overseas Americans. We simply do not have a current solution to

that problem. If we had one, we’d put it on the table, and we would

be happy to talk to the U.S. Congress about how to respond to this

legitimate concern; but, we do not have a solution to this issue.

Second, we do not have a ready solution to the problem of validation and verification. We very much appreciate the work by the

counting citizens abroad group, in terms of trying to use passports

as a validation and verification process.

We feel there is real hope in that strategy. We’d like to investigate it further. There is a big difference between how we count

U.S. military overseas and how we would have to count the private

citizens overseas. The U.S. military overseas count is based upon

administrative records and the Federal employees overseas is

based upon administrative records.

We have every reason to presume that we get a complete count

or a reasonably complete count, and certainly a highly valid count,

from working with the Department of Defense and the Department

of State, with respect to their own employees.

The military and Federal employees differ from the private citizens. One is mandatory because you are using administrative

records. It is not that someone could self-select themselves out of

the count if you are in the U.S. military on a military base, but if

you are a private citizen, because it is voluntary, you could decide

38

not to be counted and we would have no way of knowing the magnitude of that.

Second, for the military Federal employees, we use administrative records. For private citizens, they are recommending we use a

postcard, the sort I already identified. For military and Federal employees, we have well-established procedures to make sure there is

no possibility of fraudulent responses. With respect to the private

citizens overseas, it would be extremely difficult to validate and

make sure every record did match the people that had responded

in the way they responded.

For military and Federal employees overseas, we have a low to

zero undercount problem. I have already suggested for the private

citizens, we’d have a very high undercount problem. And I have

suggested for the military and Federal employees overseas, we had

reasonably good precise ways of allocating them back to their home

of record because the administrative records make this very clear.

With respect to the private citizens, we have the potential for

high levels of misallocation, therefore the possibility of distorting

the apportionment accounts. So, the problem of accuracy and validation really does beset this very complicated problem when we

simply don’t know whether it is 2 to 3 million or 8 to 9 million residents.

Let me then just quickly turn to the operation of complexity.

Even if we could solve the problems of accuracy, validation and

verification, we would run into, as we appreciate, very complicated

operational problems. Processing results from this enumeration

would require the matching of files, development of procedures for

resolving matching problems, and deciding how to handle unmatched cases.

Where would these matching problems come from? Well, with respect to the military and the Federal employees living overseas, we

use the administrative record to count them and their dependents.

They don’t know they’ve been counted. We work that out with the

Department of Defense.

And so then, we would suddenly have a form like this floating

around. There is absolutely no reason to imagine that a dependent

for the State Department or military dependent wouldn’t see this

and say, oh, my goodness, we want to be counted in the census,

therefore we better send this in. We’ve already counted them in the

administrative records from the Department of Defense.

We have a serious matching problem, and we don’t have a mechanism by which we could unduplicate those forms, so we would be

introducing double counts, as well as undercounts, in the overseas

population.

Indeed, to make an earnest and effective attempt to reach this

population, the Census Bureau would need to obtain the commitment of considerable staff support from the State Department. The

State Department would have to provide address lists of embassies

and consulates by countries worldwide, along with the current estimates of the number of American citizens living in each embassy

and consular jurisdiction. We all know those records are defective

and incomplete.

The State Department would be the primary agent for most of

the logistics associated with the overseas publicity of the enumeraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:53 Jan 23, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60341 pfrm03 PsN: 60341
39

tion along with the distribution of the bulk of the census forms.

And, indeed, if the overseas form asked for passport numbers, as

has been recommended, the State Department would have to

match a file of passports on the overseas forms with their official

passport files.

And, indeed, we have been in contact with the State Department.

They do suggest to us that there are very complicated things involved in this and it would be costly. The Census Bureau, of course,

would have to compensate the State Department for its efforts in

this regard.

Indeed, I can conclude my comments on this with simply mentioning the cost. We would need 1999 funds because we would have

to start doing preparatory work immediately, which means another

supplemental. As we appreciate, it would not be difficult to get it

through the Congress at present. Of course, we would have to increase our 2000 budget. I can’t offer if it is a large number or small

number, but certainly we’d have to redesign our budget and redesign our master activity schedule. There would be a very large

number of procedures at this stage which we would have to introduce if we wanted to do this right.

Now, could we do a poor job, a sloppy job, an inaccurate job, a

job which might risk distorting the apportionment numbers? Certainly. Would the Census Bureau want to do that kind of job? Of

course not.

So, we would urge Congress that if we want to change policy

with respect to this very, very serious issue, that it is done so only

on the basis of some systematic work that has yet to be done. I can

only apologize that it has not been done, but it will itself be costly

and require some serious investigation of how to do it.

Let me turn quickly to H.R. 1632, which relates to how we would

count prisoners abroad. Now, many of the Census Bureau’s concerns have already been voiced by questions from Mr. Davis, from

yourself, and from Mrs. Maloney, when she was here. The way that

we count prisoners and other institution populations of the State

in which the institution or facility is located is, of course, consistent

with the usual residence concept the Census Bureau has used to

decide where to count people in the census. This is a principal first

used by the Congress for the census of 1790. It is defined as the

place where the person lives and sleeps most of the time.

Usual residence is not necessarily the same as the person’s legal

residence. The usual residence concept was approved by a U.S.

Court of Appeals in 1971 and reconfirmed in a 1992 decision by the

District Court for the District of Columbia, where some of these

questions of counting prisoners were addressed in the court system.

The judgment has been that the way we do usual residence is neither capricious nor arbitrary.

This legislation, if passed, would mandate an exception to the judicially approved usual residence concept and doing so, as the questions have already indicated, could open up a Pandora’s box or

pressures for other exceptions to our residency rules.

It has already been noted by Mr. Davis and Mrs. Maloney that

there are other out-of-State programs. I very much appreciate the

distinction that Mr. Green made with respect to whether they are

contractually obligated to come back to the State. That may be a

40

workable distinction. Mr. Green himself, in his testimony, spoke

compellingly of Wisconsin’s level of information on this, though Mr.

Green did say that their home of record in Wisconsin only took

them back to the county.

Now, as you appreciate, a major oversight committee for the census, that coding someone back to the county of residence is inadequate, of course, for redistricting purposes and Federal funding

purposes. We have to simply code them back to a lower geographic

detail than the county.

We appreciate the fact that Wisconsin may have very good

records, but we could not use them. We would have to get a home

address that we could geocode down to the block level, of course,

to be consistent with the rest of our census.

As Mr. Green himself acknowledged, he cannot even get a good

count of how many other States export prisoners, let alone how

many other States have data of the quality that Wisconsin has,

which is already defective for our purposes.

So even though we can acknowledge that there could well be this

data available, we would now have to visit all 50 States to find out

the quality of their recordkeeping for their exported prisoners, even

before we get to the issues that Mr. Davis raises, which are nonprisoner exported personnel.

It raises all of the issues that have already been put on the table,

and I don’t have to try to repeat them yet again. We would have

to also develop new procedures for working with prison administrators on a case-by-case basis. Without testing and evaluation, we

could not know whether prison officials would have good records

that would show the 50 percent marker, that is, is this particular

prisoner’s incarceration paid for at a 50 percent level.

A contract between States may indicate that one State has to pay

another a certain lump sum per prisoner, but not indicate the total

cost of custodial care. Therefore, it would be up to us to decide

whether 50 percent was met. It may well be that Wisconsin contracts make that very specific, but it may well be that some other

States are vaguer on that. It just simply may be a payment per

prisoner. We would then have to determine whether it met the 50

percent rule.

The bill is also silent on whether this is only for State-supported

prisoners and State-run correctional facilities or whether prisoners

and facilities at the local level, as well as privately run prisoners,

would be included. And, of course, the bill makes no reference to

Federal prisoners who are, in general, more likely to be incarcerated outside their home State. These are some of the issues that

would have to be resolved before we could begin to implement Mr.

Green’s legislative initiative.

Finally, if I can turn to Mr. Ryan’s legislation quickly, we have

had that legislation for a very short time. I appreciate how sometimes things take a while to turn themselves out. That’s even true

at the Census Bureau. And therefore, we haven’t given it the kind

of time and attention that we would like to.

As has been established, we do count U.S. military and their dependents assigned overseas back to their home of record using

again, I stress, agency administrative records. And I think what

Mr. Ryan would like us to do is try to extend the policy that we

41

now use for overseas military to stateside military, but I do want

to stress that in the overseas military populations we do not enumerate. We do not count individuals. We only use the administrative record and use the home of record back to the level of the

State, not down to the level of a district or a block or something.

So, we only put them into the apportionment count and not into,

of course, the districting or Federal funding formulas. We have

some concerns with Mr. Ryan’s legislation because, again, it mandates an exception to the usual residence concept for the U.S. base

military living stateside, and it could lead to other challenges to

the idea of usual residence. We are just reluctant to open that door

until we have done the kind of investigation that would find out

what kinds of exceptions might be put on the table, what would the

implications be, and what would this do to a 200-year practice of

usual residence.

Mr. Ryan makes reference, understandably, to paying taxes back

in the home State, to having a legal residence in the home State,

and so forth; and that does begin to change where you are living

and sleeping, which is our usual residence criteria. Mr. Ryan made

reference, for example, to the fact that the military does keep

records, so they know where they have to ship them back after

they’ve either been honorably discharged or in other words left the

military.

I can’t resist one anecdote. I lived abroad. I have lived abroad for

a large number of years at different times in my professional career. Back to the Americans overseas issue, I am aware that sometimes when I lived abroad, no one knew for sure where I was and

did not check in with local embassies or local consulates; but one

thing I do remember, Mr. Ryan, was that I was also under a program that allowed me to identify my home of record for purposes

of bringing me back.

Well, at that time, I was living in Chicago with my family, but

we also spent some summer time in California. Needless to say, my

home of record, because I was in east Africa, became California. It

became the point furthest from where I was, which then allowed

us maximum opportunity to return to almost any place we chose

to at the end of our tenure.

So, even home of record, for the purpose of moving people back,

is a manipulable, if you will, or changeable or self-designated criteria and is not necessarily consistent with one’s legal residence or

where they vote. I don’t know how good the military is at policing

that particular thing, but I wouldn’t, myself, want to count on it

as the marker of what recreates a usual residence.

With respect to U.S. military living stateside now, we do conduct

a standard enumeration. They are asked all of the same questions

asked of the civilian population that are included in all the detailed

accounts and characteristics we tabulate in the census.

That is, we would be very hesitant to move the stateside military

to an administrative count, only because, after all, they are living

in the United States. We would like all the kinds of standard demographics and characteristics we can for them. So, to enumerate

their home of record at this stage would either require—as Mr.

Ryan pointed out—matching our forms with the Department of Defense to make sure we had an accurate home of record recording,

42

or we would have to redesign our form to allow us to get them to

record what they judge to be their home of record, raising all the

questions that Mr. Davis has already brought to the table.

When do they make decisions about whether they want to be in

Pensacola, back in Wisconsin and so forth? And I would just suggest, without making a speech yet again, it is very late in the census cycle to try to change those kinds of procedures and not run

the risk of introducing errors into the census. Just as we sit here

today, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Davis, Mr. Ryan, there are 80

semitrailer trucks on the roads today delivering 136 million census

forms, which is only a portion of the census forms, to our redistribution center in Jeffersonville.

As we think of the census starting on April 1, the census has

started. We are now doing the things that make this census work,

and we are very hesitant to change fundamental rules of residence

procedures or change procedures of how we count the Americans

overseas at this stage in the decennial cycle.

Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Prewitt follows:]

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Dr. Prewitt. Let me ask you a couple

of questions about U.S. citizens overseas. Again, we’re under the 5-

minute rule ourselves here. It is a problem that obviously has been

around for a while, and I know you and the other people at the Bureau have met with the representatives of the different organizations. I know I have and I know my staff has. I think we philosophically agree they need to be counted because, as they point out,

we count illegal aliens in the United States; we count convicted felons serving time in prison; but Americans overseas don’t get counted.

I have a very legitimate argument. My impression is their motivation is being good citizens. They feel it is a right just like voting

is a right. So, the question is, what do we do about it?

Could you enlighten me a little bit on the history of this issue

at the Bureau? Obviously before your time, but have we tried to

do it in the past?

Mr. PREWITT. Yes, sir, we tried in 1960 and 1970, particularly in

1970. We were so disappointed with the count that we chose not

to introduce it into the apportionment counts. We were afraid it

would introduce more distortion than not. We made a count. We reported the count. We can find tabulations of American overseas living abroad in 1970, and we were unable to certify it to the level

with which we felt comfortable bringing it to the apportionment

counts.

We made a serious effort. We contacted the same kinds of groups

represented here: chambers of commerces, embassies, churches

which have missionary programs abroad, corporations, and so

forth. And at the end of the day, we felt like we had not done an

adequate job.

Could we do a better job in 2000? I would hope so. Could we do

an even better job in 2010? If we started with some better sense

of what the base population looks like and how they are distributed

and what the quality of the administrative records are at universities who send many, many scientists abroad, churches who send

many, many missionaries abroad and corporations who send many,

many employees abroad and the retiree population who simply

lives abroad and does not intend to come back. We simply need a

map of that phenomena before we would be comfortable doing the

level of job which we could come back and recommend to the Congress that it become a part of the apportionment counts. Yes, we

had a bit of experience; but it was not a very happy experience.

Mr. MILLER. For the past several years gearing up for the 2000

census, I am sure you have had people studying the issue and trying to figure out how to do it. Any ideas or possibilities how it could

be done? I am impressed with what this group has proposed. I

agree with you. We want to make sure that is not circulated as an

official form, but the fact they drafted their own form indicates a

real commitment and interest.

Mr. PREWITT. I appreciate it. With you, sir, I don’t dispute the

motivation or the legitimacy of the concern. I do remind you that

the U.S. Constitution requires us to count all residents of the

United States. That is why we count illegal aliens and felons. We

are being consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution, of course, is silent on counting non-resident citizens. So even

51

though this is a good faith effort, it is complicated, because we have

made the decision to count U.S. military and Federal employees

overseas.

The policy that guides that decision is that we have every reason

to presume that this is a temporary assignment overseas, and that

they are coming back. The groups concerned about overseas Americans have brought to our attention that they do have large numbers of Americans who do not intend to come back but still have

a right to be counted.

I think that is an understandable statement on their part, but

it is a fundamental change in policy. I would urge the Congress not

to make that change in policy without having a better sense of the

dimensions of that issue.

Mr. MILLER. The State Department estimates 3 million abroad.

We don’t know what the number is whether it is 5 million or 10

million. Your point of view is a voluntary overseas census that may

only get a 30 percent response is worse than zero?

Mr. PREWITT. Well, it is for apportionment purposes. Unless you

make the assumption that the volunteers and the non-volunteers

are distributed across the States proportionate to the true count—

Mr. Miller, you have taught this. You know that self-selected samples—we are talking about a sample, right, a self-select sample, a

volunteer sample is a biased sample.

It goes back to my illustration. If we ended up undercounting,

disproportionately, Canadians and overcounting, disproportionately, Americans living in Mexico, then unless the people living in

Canada and Mexico came equally from the same States, we would

have penalized and rewarded States differently.

So my concern is, yes, that a 1 out of 3 introduces air into the

apportionment count, unless we make a statistical assumption that

the people who are not counted are distributed across the State of

record exactly the way the people who are counted. Otherwise, you

are allowing volunteers to determine an apportionment count

which is inconsistent with the fundamental policies that govern the

Census Bureau.

Mr. MILLER. We will hopefully have a second round. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Prewitt,

you have talked about the discrepancy between projections. Some

people say there may be 3 million. Somebody else may say 10 million Americans living abroad. How do they make these projections?

And if there is that much discrepancy, could there be any reliability at all?

Mr. PREWITT. Well, Mr. Davis, I will let you ask the next panel.

I am quoting from their own newsletter and one of the witnesses

is the one who’s introduced the number of 5 to 6 million. Their

newsletter introduced the number of 10 million. I don’t know where

those numbers come from. The number of 3 million is, as I understand it, a State Department estimate based mainly on embassy

and consulate records.

I simply know too many Americans living abroad who have no

relationship with the local embassy. They have no reason to.

They’ve been retired in southern France. They’ve been working in

Canada for so many years that they simply don’t even manage to

52

maintain their passports. They think of themselves as permanently

living abroad.

They may still even want to vote for whatever reason, but they

don’t necessarily maintain a close connection with their embassy.

The State Department estimate is the only one I know that exists,

and I have no reason to presume that it is very accurate. So, a very

wide variation.

Mr. DAVIS. So when we got beyond the State Department, I

mean, they’ve got something to go on seemingly.

Mr. PREWITT. Right.

Mr. DAVIS. Then we just don’t have any idea of where the others

really come from; and if we did, we probably wouldn’t have much

possibility of finding those people anyway, would we?

Mr. PREWITT. Mr. Davis, I dislike talking about the census by

anecdote because I get too many anecdotes, and the census is about

systematic information. But I could give you anecdote after anecdote after anecdote of Americans I know living abroad who I know

the Census Bureau could not find.

What proportion that is, I don’t know, but I do know right now,

unless we did some pretty systematic work, there are large numbers of Americans—I asked my friends in statistics about Canada

the other day. I said could you help us count the Americans living

up there. They said, yes, if they are employed, because we could

use our work permit system; but if they are unemployed—they are

just retired—we don’t have any idea whatsoever.

That is an interesting revelation because it is much easier to get

import data than export data. That is true for trade data, as well

as people data, because States have a reason to sort of want to

know who’s coming into their country. They have less of a need to

know who’s leaving their country. So even Canada, which has very

good import data, could not tell me how many Americans were living up there unless they were employed and, therefore, had work

permits.

Mr. DAVIS. When you get through with the census, do you expect

to have any money left?

Mr. PREWITT. That’s a serious question, Mr. Davis. Let me answer it seriously. If the budget that we have now presented to Congress is passed—which we have our fingers crossed—and if the response rate is higher than our estimated 61 percent; and we are

getting increasingly enthusiastic about the power of our partnership program, our promotional program, our advertising program,

all of which are on track, we may get that response rate above 61

percent. If it gets very far above 61 percent, the census in 2000 will

cost less money than we are now projecting, yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. So, I guess my point is, if we went to some of the extraneous logistical difficulty of trying to count the individuals now

that we are talking about, trying to find them and also dealing

with the individuals in the military, we probably would have to appropriate or even authorize some more money in order to——

Mr. PREWITT. We could not afford to spend 2000 money on an additional procedure. All of the 2000 money is very, very tightly connected to the current procedures that we have recommended to the

Congress that we use. If we were to do a big study of this problem

in say, 2002, 2003, an investigation of how well we could do it, I

53

can’t sit here today and say there would not be resources left over

from 2000 to do that study.

If not, we would obviously have to come back to the Congress

and ask for an appropriation to do it. But certainly to do it in 2000,

this simply is not budgeted. It is not even budgeted in 1999. So we

clearly would have to be coming back immediately in 1999 for a

supplemental.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Ryan.

Mr. RYAN. I want to thank you for coming today, Mr. Prewitt. It

is nice to hear from you. I would like to ask you some historical

questions with respect to the military on their counting. Prior to

the 1990 census, how were overseas military personnel counted?

Mr. PREWITT. Help.

Do you have reason to know that we did not count them prior—

we counted many——

Mr. RYAN. Your methodology is what I was concerned with.

Mr. PREWITT. It was administrative record methodology, supplemented with a survey on home of record. Is that what you are getting at?

Mr. RYAN. Right, but home of record was introduced 6 months

prior to the 1990 census; is that correct?

Mr. PREWITT. The survey to do home of record, yes.

Mr. RYAN. So in 1990, 6 months prior to the census, they introduced the home-of-record methodology and the Census Bureau with

the Defense Department put together a partnership to share those

administrative records to then do so on the home of record.

Mr. PREWITT. Correct.

Mr. RYAN. So, the usual residence concept for military personnel

was changed by 1996 much prior to the——

Mr. PREWITT. The usual residence, I don’t think, was changed.

What we did was get better data.

Mr. RYAN. You used home-of-record data. You were planning on

doing the same kind of partnership with the Department of Defense with respect to these overseas personnel, correct?

Mr. PREWITT. With one new change. They are now making us

pay for it, but yes, sir.

Mr. RYAN. You have been appropriated that, right?

Mr. PREWITT. Right.

Mr. RYAN. In your testimony, you said with respect to activity of

military personnel overseas, that you have reasonably good and accurate ways of allocating them back to their home of record dated

10 years ago, doing it again with more precise methodology.

Doesn’t that same concept hold for those who are stationed here at

home?

Mr. PREWITT. I think you are absolutely right, Congressman.

With just two qualifications, if I could. One, I cannot tell from your

bill whether you would expect home of record to be geocoded down

to the block level for redistricting purposes or——

Mr. RYAN. Let’s use it for the argument, for the sake of apportionment.

Mr. PREWITT. That would be the first qualification. That helps a

lot. That makes the task much, much more easy than coding back

to some local address.

54

Mr. RYAN. Let me limit it, for purposes of apportionment. You

are already doing that. You have already got the partnership with

the Defense Department. You are doing it with overseas personnel.

You didn’t decide, but in 1990, they decided 6 months prior to the

census. And I realize you have a timeline; trucks are already leaving. But we are able to accomplish this kind of change with overseas personnel 6 months prior to the 1990 census. It seems fitting

that we could accomplish this at this point in time, with respect

to extending it to domestic stateside military personnel.

Mr. PREWITT. I understand your question, Mr. Ryan.

I think the big, big, big difference, however, in 1990 with respect

to that population group and in 2000, with respect to the population group you are concerned about, is the population group in

1990 starts out as an administrative record count, which we then

supplement so we are dealing with the people who manage the administrative records.

The population that you are concerned about, that is, the domestically residing military, we start out as an enumeration census,

not an administrative census. Therefore, it would require a fundamental and big time change in our procedures quite different from

what 1990 did; 1990 was a supplemental of an administrative

record. This is taking an enumeration census and somehow coordinating it to an administrative record census. Could we work on getting those procedures in place? We would certainly work on it if

this legislation passed. It is a different phenomena than 1990.

Mr. RYAN. It certainly seems like you could, because you already

have the partnership with the Defense Department. You already

have the administrative records available.

Mr. PREWITT. But we don’t for that population group. It’s a different partnership.

Mr. RYAN. In 1991, the Census Bureau determined that the

home-of-record data was more accurate for military personnel than

the legal residence definition or last duty station because legal residence was done largely for tax purposes. Last duty station is even

more imprecise because it could have been a very, very short duration. Why are you using home-of-record data? Isn’t it because of

those reasons that home of record seems to be a preferable definition for overseas personnel with respect to legal residence or last

duty station?

Mr. PREWITT. Correct.

Mr. RYAN. Why is that inconsistent to then extend that definition

to stateside personnel?

Mr. PREWITT. Because with stateside personnel, we have a real

residence. We have where they are living and sleeping and

therefore——

Mr. RYAN. They are living and sleeping in Germany and other

places.

Mr. PREWITT. No, no, no. That is very, very different. We don’t

have apportionment rules or districting rules governing living and

sleeping in Germany. We do have apportionment rules governing

living and sleeping in Pensacola or Fort Bragg. We have a usual

residence rule that for the domestically sided military does place

them into the official counts that this country uses for apportionment purposes, and it is where they are living and sleeping. It is

55

fundamentally different to sort of translate the overseas military

into the domestic situation.

Mr. RYAN. So, for the purposes of apportionment, it seems relatively easy, but so you are saying for the purposes of——

Mr. PREWITT. It is easier.

Mr. RYAN. More difficult and challenging for redistricting and

funding reasons, but the question probably then comes down to is

it easy? Probably not. Is it doable?

Well, I would contend that it is doable, simply because you have

the partnership with the Defense Department; records are available. Yes, it may take some more work, but at the end, isn’t the

most accurate enumeration our true goal here?

Mr. PREWITT. Yes, sir. We have defined most accurate enumeration, as when possible, using our usual residence rules, which we

do use for every other purpose other than the overseas military——

Mr. RYAN. Which were modified with respect to military personnel in 1990.

Mr. PREWITT. No, we used usual residence. Home of record was

our definition of usual residence. We didn’t modify. We simply got

a better record of that than we could get from the administrative

records. We didn’t modify the rule. I think I am correct on that.

Mr. RYAN. You adopted home of record as the basis for usual residence.

Mr. PREWITT. Yes.

Mr. RYAN. I see that my time has run out.

Mr. MILLER. Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. Dr. Prewitt, I have a draft bill. I

don’t know if you have had a chance to look at it but basically it

calls upon the Bureau to do a special survey of American citizens

overseas and have this survey done by, say, 2003, not connected

with the 2000 decennial census. And I would like you to read it and

get back to us. But could you give us some comments on whether

you think this special survey could be used to help make decisions

about the 2010 census? What are your thoughts basically, not only

on the survey, but in general, on counting Americans overseas, and

how we should do that?

Mr. PREWITT. Mrs. Maloney, I do appreciate that legislative initiative. I have had a chance to quickly review it, and I appreciate

the intelligence with which it is constructed. What it first asked us

to do is to consult with the witness panel and the representatives

here about the complexities of this, beyond what we have done.

And second, present to the Congress a feasibility, if you will, a

statement report within a year of initiation of this consultation

process. And on the basis of that feasibility statement, then say

how we would actually go out and conduct the count itself so Congress would have an opportunity to itself decide whether it was as

feasible and cost effective as it could be. The Census Bureau would

be delighted to cooperate with the Congress in that initiative.

I think as Congressman Miller said at the outset, and as I am

sure we will hear from our distinguished panel in a moment, it is

a new world. The next century is going to have many, many more

Americans living abroad in many, many complicated ways. And

what that means for our traditional concept of what the census is

supposed to do has to be addressed as a major policy question. And

56

we are very responsive to working with the Congress to address

that policy question.

I do not think that policy question has been adequately addressed. I think that you, the U.S. Congress, would have to decide

whether it made sense to count for apportionment purposes people

who never intended to come back to the United States. It is a policy question and many others are similar.

Mrs. MALONEY. One of the recommendations by the groups representing Americans overseas is to create a self-reporting form

which American citizens could pick up at embassies. If there is selfreporting, I have a concern that some States may start a lobbying

effort in an attempt to get the overseas population to self-identify

with their particular States, and can you comment on that concern?

Mr. PREWITT. Well, I can say the following: With or without a

lobbying effort, there is every reason to presume that the responses

from a voluntary self-enumeration census, where we would have no

opportunity to go back and try to find the people who do not volunteer, that that response pattern would be some sort of biased pattern with respect to the true distribution by State of record of the

overseas Americans.

There is simply no reason to presume that the volunteer part of

the population will resemble, in terms of State of record, exactly

what the total population looks like. So, by definition, we would be

introducing distortions into the apportionment count.

If somebody can convince me to the contrary that we will count

that volunteer part of the population exactly proportionate to what

the total population’s characteristics are, with respect to State of

record, we could be convinced. But since people don’t even know

what the universe size is, it is very hard for me to imagine they

could make a compelling case.

Mrs. MALONEY. Very last, because I know our time is running

out. I know we have a number of important resolutions and bills

before us today, but I would like to ask you, how are the preparations coming for the decennial census?

Mr. PREWITT. Well, I’d love that opportunity. If I could just

slightly edit your question, it is not only preparations, it is real implementation of procedures. I am delighted to report to the oversight committee that we have completed our block canvassing on

schedule and we are now back out in the community making some

corrections to our address file and that procedure is going very,

very well.

We have opened up all but three of our local offices or signed

leases for all but three. That is 517 out of 520. We are very pleased

with that. As I mentioned when you were out of the room, Mrs.

Maloney, there are today 80 semitrailer trucks on the roads on

their way to Jeffersonville with a very large percentage, but not all,

of our short form questionnaires. Many of our printing contracts

have been released. We have over 6,000 complete count committees

now up and running. We have over 400 partnership experts recruited. We have signed agreements with 450 tribal governments,

and so our creative work with our advertising campaign is on

schedule.

We have tested over 1,000, we are already casting and

wardrobing for 100, creative presentations for medium print and so

57

forth. Right now, I must say, despite all the complexities and difficulties getting to this point, for early June, we think our operations and procedures are on schedule to have a successful census

in 2001. We are very reluctant to create any kind of major disturbances to that procedure at this stage, for the reasons that we have

talked about so often in this committee.

Mr. MILLER. We have a vote, but we have a few minutes, so if

anybody wants to go back for a single question or such. I know I

have a question or statement. And we will break for our vote, and

we will come back for the next panel.

I think we have to come up with a way to count overseas U.S.

citizens. A lot of the decisions that have been made for the 2000

census were made obviously before your tenure at the Census Bureau; and maybe, with the recommendation of Mrs. Maloney, we’ll

lay the groundwork for what we want to do for 2010.

We just need to start off with the assumption we are going to

count U.S. citizens overseas. We may have to have different standards that we apply to counting overseas. It is going to be hard to

get that finite population. You are the experts on how we do that.

Maybe we have to lower our standards.

I see your concern about a voluntary type response. But these

are U.S. citizens. They vote and they pay taxes, a lot of them. So,

they have every right to be counted. It doesn’t affect redistricting,

as we know. It would only affect the issue of apportionment.

Since we count military and other Federal employees because of

administrative records, we need to find a way we can do it certainly for 2010; and we need to have a plan of some sort. We need

to get through next April 1, I recognize, and determine whether

there is anything we can do between now and April 1 to help. Explain to me, again, a voluntary response. I know you have to verify

but if you have passports, you know, they scan your passports and

all that. It seems like a computer system with the State Department would be capable.

Why is getting 30 percent of the people counted through embassies worse than zero percent?

Mr. PREWITT. Mr. Miller, if the 30 percent are distributed somehow across the 50 States, which they would be, of course, since we

are recording them back. The whole motivation of this, as I understand it, is to use this count to get back to the apportionment numbers. If the 30 percent are distributed across the States proportionate to whatever, the number of overseas residents that happen

to come from California, Florida, New York, or what have you, if

the remaining 70 percent had a different proportion across those 50

States, then you are simply introducing bias; and there is no way

to measure the magnitude of that bias.

So, we would have to presume that volunteers come from State

of record in exactly the same ratios as non-volunteers come from

the State of record. Otherwise, we introduce a distortion. But I am

really sympathetic with the thrust of your question. I am more

than happy to have conversations with this Congress about whether we should create a different position with respect to the overseas

Americans and have that policy discussion.

It would be very difficult to introduce a whole new policy into the

2000 census. Perhaps, Congressman Miller, we would be sitting

58

here in a year or two, talking about using sampling for non-response followup with the overseas Americans. That may be the procedure we would have to come back in and recommend.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you for bringing that issue up. We will have

to get the Supreme Court to rule on that one.

Mrs. Maloney, do you have a quick question?

Mrs. MALONEY. What about exiled Americans? A lot of Americans are patriotic citizens who are overseas for their jobs or education or whatever. But there are some people who prefer to be exiles, who don’t participate; how would we treat them? Would we

treat them differently?

Mr. PREWITT. We would have to, and we also have the issue of

dependents who are not American citizens but are married to or

children of American citizens. Do we count them as part of this

count? We have dependents who might want to become American

citizens but are not yet American citizens.

So, there are all of those issues. The problem with the U.S. Constitution, it says count residents. As soon as we leave the borders,

we get into a situation where we are now only trying to count citizens. So we changed the rules, as I understand it, but it gets very

murky. Exactly, what is a citizen? Somebody who has let their

passport lapse? Americans overseas have let their passports lapse.

Do we try to find them or not find them?

So, the conception of this population is work that has to be done.

This is the kind of work we will be allotted to do if your legislation

is passed.

Mrs. MALONEY. But, you would support the legislation?

Mr. PREWITT. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. Does anyone have a quick question?

Mr. DAVIS. I just have one question. I just want to make sure,

if I could, Dr. Prewitt, that I am interpreting your testimony correctly. And that is, it seems to me that you are saying that these

are serious issues. They are issues that need to be looked at, but

that we are too far along in the process to really talk about changing anything without causing a tremendous amount of disruption.

Mr. PREWITT. Yes, sir, that is correct.

In neither of these instances does the Bureau itself have a principled opposition, but it is a concern that it is not a good moment

to try to change major procedures. It might come up with a principled opposition after further reflection and discussion with Congress; but as of now, we would want the time to think through all

the implications.

For example, Mr. Ryan’s legislation we have only had for a couple of days. We have to think through the implications of that. So

I don’t want to foreclose the possibility of a principle—a concern,

but as of now, that is not the motivation. The motivation is what

can be done realistically and intelligently in the timeframe that is

available.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Dr. Prewitt. Some of us may

want to submit some written questions, and we would appreciate

your response on that. I think we need to start off with a strong

commitment, and in 2010 we will figure out a way to accomplish

59

the job. I am disappointed the Bureau, back in the early 1990’s,

didn’t really come up with a more concrete solution to the problem,

and I recognize the problem of timing right now. I look forward to

our next panel, talking about it very specifically.

Thank you very much for being with us today.

[Recess.]

Mr. MILLER. If we could have the next panel come forward,

please, and remain standing.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MILLER. Let the record show all answered in the affirmative.

Welcome. Thank you for sitting through the first part of the

hearing. I hope you found it of interest to hear the comments from

Director Prewitt. I am interested to hear him come after you, too,

but it is the procedure we are following.

Let me welcome all of you here. We will proceed, and the other

Members will be returning. There will be no more votes for the

next little while, so we won’t be interrupted again, and I apologize

for the delay.

We will try to hold to the 5-minute rule. Let me at this stage proceed with Mr. David Hamod.

STATEMENTS OF DAVID HAMOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENSUS 2000 COALITION; DON JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICANS RESIDENT OVERSEAS; L. LEIGH

GRIBBLE, SECRETARY, AMERICAN BUSINESS COUNCIL OF

GULF COUNTRIES, AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER,

REPUBLICANS ABROAD; DOROTHY VAN SCHOONEVELD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CITIZENS ABROAD; AND

JOSEPH SMALLHOOVER, CHAIR, DEMOCRATS ABROAD

Mr. HAMOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to Mrs. Maloney,

in absentia, for the opportunity to testify today and for holding this

useful hearing.

My name is David Hamod. I am the executive director of the

Census 2000 Coalition, an ad hoc bipartisan group dedicated to including all Americans overseas in census 2000. Our C2K coalition

is composed of all the major organizations representing U.S. citizens and U.S. companies overseas.

Mr. Chairman, before I go to my prepared remarks, let me just

share with you some personal perspectives. I do these now as an

individual, not on behalf of the coalition.

It saddens me deeply to have the Census Bureau turn its back

on millions of Americans overseas who, in our opinion, deserve to

be counted. I hear the Census Bureau saying they don’t fit our statistical models so they should be ignored. I hear the Census Bureau

saying this is the way we have always done it. We are not going

to change.

I want to reaffirm that this is not a nameless and faceless case

study. We are talking about people’s lives here, and I guess I am

a little bit ashamed that the Census Bureau has so cavalierly dismissed millions of Americans overseas, particularly when they

work so hard to track down every American here in the States.

It suggests to me that the Bureau is completely out of touch with

this very important segment of the U.S. population, and I guess I

have to say, it seems to me also that the Census Bureau may be

60

neglecting the very people that they were created to serve, that is,

the American people. Those are some personal comments and now

I will go on with my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman.

It may come as a shock to the subcommittee that no one knows

how many Americans live and work overseas. The population of

private Americans abroad may be as small as the greater metropolitan area of Sarasota, Bradenton, Tampa, St. Petersburg, and

Clearwater, about 3 million; or it may be as large as, say, New

York City.

The truth is, without the census, we just don’t know. But one

thing is very clear. If the Census Bureau excluded the residents of

western Florida and those of New York City from census 2000, I

am confident that there would be a hue and cry from your constituents. They would be outraged that the Census Bureau was treating

them as invisible U.S. citizens, ignoring some 3 to 9 million hardworking taxpaying Americans. Does this sound familiar?

Americans living and working overseas are an increasingly important segment of the U.S. population. This is a reflection of

America’s growing globalization and the essential role that U.S. exports of goods, services, and expertise now play in strengthening

our economy. As highly visible Ambassadors of the United States,

economically, politically, and culturally, U.S. citizens overseas play

a key role in advancing America’s interest around the world and

have a far greater impact on the United States than at any other

time in U.S. history.

With this in mind, it is all the more perplexing to us that the

Census Bureau is proposing to exclude private Americans overseas

from census 2000. We think they should be included for at least

four reasons.

First, competitiveness. In order for America’s public and private

sector leaders to give appropriate support to U.S. citizens and U.S.

companies overseas, it is important to get a better handle on how

many Americans live abroad and where they live.

Second, representation. There is no reasonable basis for excluding millions of Americans from census 2000 just because they are

living overseas. Like Americans who reside within the 50 United

States and the District of Columbia, U.S. citizens abroad vote in

the United States, pay U.S. taxes, and generally stay in touch with

their home communities in the United States.

Third, fairness. The U.S. Government employees and officially affiliated workers overseas are included in the census. It is wrong for

the U.S. Government to take care of its own and to discriminate

against those Americans who do not work for the government. We

believe that all Americans deserve the right to be counted, and I

should point out that the Federal people overseas are no more resident in the United States than the private people overseas.

And fourth, accuracy. The Census Bureau says it wants Census

Bureau 2000 to be the most accurate census ever but the Bureau

cannot willingly and knowingly exclude millions of Americans living overseas and still claim with any credibility that its work is accurate.

And I was a bit surprised, I have to admit, that the Director of

the Census Bureau this morning said that a 100 percent

undercount, which is what we have right now, is better than, say,

61

a 50 percent undercount. Right now, we are not counting any of

these private-sector Americans overseas, and I would suggest the

real distortion lies in not counting these Americans abroad.

The Census Bureau has expressed concern that it does not have

the resources to include all Americans abroad in census 2000. With

this in mind, members of the Census 2000 Coalition have volunteered to do the lion’s share of the work in getting the word out

to private U.S. citizens residing overseas. This is entirely consistent with the Bureau’s Census 2000 Partnership Program, and

we are hopeful that the Census Bureau will take advantage of our

offer to assist.

Again, it was with some disbelief this morning, that I heard the

Director say that the master activity schedule cannot be changed

in any way and that any modifications from here on out could endanger the very census itself. We find that that strains credibility,

and it is our impression that the master activity schedule is quietly

and continuously tweaked.

We also see our request not as interfering with the existing census; rather it is an add-on, and our perspective is this should not

interfere one iota with the existing census 2000 effort here in the

United States.

The C2K coalition is proposing an efficient and relatively inexpensive method of counting private Americans abroad. Our proposal is modeled after the Federal Postcard Application process

through which Americans overseas have voted successfully by absentee ballot for more than 2 decades. We see this as a simple fivestep process.

Step one, preparation of the overseas citizen census card. The

Census Bureau would review the card, modify it, and print the

card. Let me say, for the record, we are deeply apologetic to the

committee and to the Bureau. We didn’t mean to suggest in any

way that this was an official document and we will take steps immediately to reinforce the fact that this is only a draft.

Step two, dissemination of the OCCCs. The OCCC would be distributed to Americans abroad through three basic channels: on the

Web, directly to overseas American organizations and indirectly

through U.S. embassies and consulates. With this in mind, we applaud the Census Bureau’s recent decision to post forms on its

Website, where they can be downloaded easily from anywhere in

the world. For anybody who would suggest that the Census Bureau

can’t change its ways, this is proof positive that it can.

Step three, submission of the OCCCs. It is envisioned that the

OCCCs would be returned to the Census Bureau one of two ways,

either directly through the mail or indirectly through the embassies and consulates.

Step four, tallying the OCCCs. Once delivered to the Census Bureau, it is expected that the Bureau would enter the OCCC data

in the most efficient manner possible.

And step five, clarification and verification. The OCCC requires

Americans abroad to provide their passport numbers, which could

be checked against State Department records, if need be.

And I want to emphasize here, that there is a sense, it seems to

me, within the Census Bureau that Americans abroad are guilty

until proven innocent. We would suggest otherwise. They are innoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:53 Jan 23, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60341 pfrm03 PsN: 60341
62

cent until proven guilty, and Americans overseas, in our experience, have been some of the most patriotic, law-abiding Americans

you have ever met.

If the Census Bureau has additional questions concerning the

OCCC, the C2K coalition suggests following up with staff at the

embassies and consulates or contacting overseas Americans directly

by e-mail, fax, or telephone. The Census Bureau has expressed

some concerns about its ability to enumerate private Americans living and working overseas.

The C2K coalition recognizes that counting overseas Americans

may be a challenge for the Census Bureau, but in our assessment,

none of the obstacles that the Bureau has raised are insurmountable. And after hearing and reading Dr. Prewitt’s testimony this

morning, I feel and I think my colleagues feel more strongly about

this than ever. We regret that it has taken years, I repeat, years,

for the Census Bureau to study seriously the low-cost, commonsense proposals that have been put forward by Americans abroad.

As a result of this delay, which regrettably had been on the Census

Bureau’s side, valuable time and valuable opportunities have been

squandered.

The Census Bureau’s concerns, as they’ve been expressed to us,

can be divided into six major categories.

Cost. The Census Bureau says that an overseas count will cost

too much. The C2K coalition has seen no Bureau estimates of what

the cost would be. We are confident that the bill for counting Americans abroad will amount to a fraction of what it costs per capita

to count domestic Americans. The U.S. Department of Defense,

never known for its frugality, administers the highly successful

Federal Voting Assistance Program for under $3 million per year.

Can the Census Bureau get by with less than the Department of

Defense? We hope so.

Second, the extent of participation. The Bureau mounts strong

efforts to count as many U.S. and non-U.S. citizens as it can, and

they should apply this same level of commitment to the count of

overseas private citizens. The expected participation of private

Americans overseas in census 2000 should be at least as great as

their absentee voting in Federal, State, and local elections.

Third, data quality. For nearly a quarter century, Americans

abroad have used the Federal Postcard Application to vote by absentee ballot. This form has been accepted by U.S. voting officers

in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. According to the Defense Department, there has never been a pattern of abuse or fraud

by Americans abroad during this period. The OCCC goes one step

further than the FPCA, requiring that Americans abroad list their

U.S. passport numbers.

Next, allocation of overseas population by State. Census 2000

should include all Americans residing overseas in the State-byState population figures used to apportion seats in the House of

Representatives.

As we said earlier, the distortion is what’s taking place now, not

what we are proposing to do. Respondents would list their last U.S.

State residence on the OCCC, just as they currently do in submitting their FPCAs. Let’s not forget that the Bureau has already deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:53 Jan 23, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60341 pfrm03 PsN: 60341
63

parted from the usual domestic residence standard in counting federally affiliated Americans abroad for purposes of apportionment.

Operational issues. Including Americans abroad in census 2000

should be relatively straightforward in our assessment. The distribution of the OCCC to overseas private citizens should follow essentially the same channels as the FPCA involving U.S. embassies

and consulates, as well as American groups worldwide.

And finally, timing. If there is one thing we agree with the Census Bureau on, it is that time is of the essence, but the good news

is that no rocket science is involved in this effort and there is no

need to recreate the wheel. Using our system and with the wealth

of talent that the Census Bureau has at its disposal, we are confident that everything can be up and running by next April.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Maloney, it is high time

to overhaul an obsolete policy that treats U.S. citizens overseas as

nobodies rather than the valuable national asset that they are. Including Americans abroad in the census is long overdue, and this

would represent an important step forward for U.S. citizens and

U.S. interests worldwide in the global economy of the 21st century.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Maloney.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Hamod. I want to thank all of you

all for submitting your written testimony in advance because I did

have the pleasure of reading it yesterday and preparing some of

the thoughts for today’s hearing. So thank you very much for that.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamod follows:]

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

Mr. MILLER. We will now proceed with Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Miller, Mrs. Maloney. I am honored to be here today regarding the inclusion of private overseas

Americans in the census 2000.

My name is Don Johnson. I am vice president and chairman of

the census committee of the Association of Americans Resident

Overseas [AARO], a nonprofit organization founded in 1973 to represent U.S. citizens living abroad. I have come here from Paris,

France, so that I can give you firsthand the case for ensuring overseas private citizens the opportunity to be counted in census 2000.

My organization, AARO, played a key role in helping persuade

Congress to enact the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975.

And as a result of this law, overseas private Americans are registering and voting absentee in Federal elections in record numbers.

Now we think the time has come to include us in the decennial

census. Congress decided, a quarter century ago, that we count

enough to vote for the President, Senators, and Representatives.

Why would Congress now allow the Census Bureau to exclude us

from being counted in the census?

Having worked for at least 8 years in international assignments,

I know personally what it is like for Americans to live overseas. I

am a retired American businessman and electronics engineer who

has spent most of his career working for Texas Instruments. For

the last 21⁄2 years, I have been working on special projects at

AARO with emphasis on the census that started with a first letter

with Martha Feinsworth reaching back to April 1977.

We at AARO know that the Census Bureau can mount a successful effort to count overseas private Americans. Even though the

Census Bureau’s effort to include private Americans in the 1970

census did produce meager results, the Bureau at least overcame

the hurdle in that census of developing enough confidence to verify

the data.

In response to congressional pressure, the Census Bureau found

a way to include military and other government employees and

their dependents in the 1990 census from administrative records.

In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of their doing

so.

We agree that the inclusion of overseas private citizens would be

a bigger challenge than the count of federally affiliated Americans

abroad. We are confident, however, that the Census Bureau can do

this job if Congress tells the Bureau to do it and provides the Bureau with the necessary funds. I can assure you that AARO and

other citizens overseas organizations will make every effort to help

the Census Bureau get the job done just as we have worked side

by side with the Department of Defense in building up the rolls of

overseas voters under the Federal Voting Assistance Program.

We believe that the OCCC card, like the one you see here today,

would serve as an effective vehicle for counting overseas private

Americans in census 2000. The use of OCCC would be consistent

with the Census Bureau’s use of its own ‘‘be counted’’ card to identify U.S. residents who would not otherwise be enumerated.

The Census Bureau has long recognized that its domestic count

underestimates certain categories of U.S. and non-U.S. citizens in

72

the United States who are difficult to track down such as innercity poor, inhabitants of rural areas and the homeless. The Census

Bureau mounts strong efforts to count as many of these residents

as it can, and the Bureau should apply the same level of commitment to the counting of overseas private citizens.

The expected participation by private Americans overseas in census 2000 should be at least as great as their absentee registration

and voting in Federal elections. Based on U.S. Defense Department

and State Department data, at least 750,000 private U.S. citizens

overseas sought to register and vote absentee in Federal elections

in 1996, a significant increase since the enactment of the Overseas

Citizen Voting Rights Act of 1975. The Census Bureau’s reluctance

to consider acceptance of the OCCC seems to represent a presumption that overseas private Americans will file false statements.

We think this attitude of presumptive distrust of the overseas

private American community is simply uncalled for. Why should

overseas private Americans be presumed to file false OCCCs when

the Federal Voting Assistance Program has assured us that there

has never been a pattern of abuse or fraud in absentee voting by

Americans abroad?

The census has already established partnerships with over 100

organizations to assist in helping make sure census 2000 is the

best ever. These organizations include nearly a dozen groups representing American residents from almost every region of the

world. If the Census Bureau can make such a strong effort to count

Americans who have come to the United States from these overseas

jurisdictions, how can the Census Bureau now turn its back on

counting American citizens who have moved to Africa, the Middle

East, Asia, Latin America, and Europe from the United States?

The C2K coalition has prepared a preliminary to-do list which I

have attached here to my statement.

I think, at this point, I will thank you again for the ability to

give you some testimony today, and I look forward to meeting with

you again.

Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thank you for staying

close to the 5-minutes. I appreciate that.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Gribble.

Mr. GRIBBLE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Maloney.

Thank you for hearing us today. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to put forth our testimony.

My name is Leigh Gribble. I am secretary of the American Business Council of the Gulf Countries and a member of the executive

committee of Republicans Abroad. I am testifying today on behalf

of the American Chambers of Commerce Abroad and the international arm of the Republican party.

I am a retired naval officer and the owner of a consulting firm

that is incorporated and registered in the State of Florida. My family and I have lived in Kuwait in connection with my military service and now my private business for the past 7 years. However, we

pay taxes and vote in Florida’s Fourth Congressional District,

which is where we hope to return to live full-time within the next

few years.

I am honored today to give voice to the concerns of tens of thousands of American business people and Republicans around the

world. We want to be counted in the census 2000. We want to be

included alongside our fellow American citizens in this critical national event. We are worried, no I dare say we are certain, that unless you and your colleagues take action promptly, the Census Bureau will exclude us from the census 2000. In doing so, they will

demean our citizenship and our contribution to America. We continue to contribute to the Federal coffers, even as we live and work

overseas, through payment of personal and corporate income taxes.

We ask as citizens and taxpayers you do not allow us to be excluded from the rolls of the census.

As a naval officer who served in the Gulf war, let me tell you

something that really appalls me. I would be counted by a Census

Bureau in census 2000 if I had remained on active duty in the

Navy, but the Census Bureau counted me out of the census the day

I retired. How can you permit the Census Bureau to strip away

this important aspect of American citizenship simply because I

hung up my uniform to defend my country’s democratic principals

as a private citizen?

Some at the Census Bureau say Americans overseas do not want

to be counted. This is simply not true. American citizens in the

more than 160 country and regional chapters of the American

Chambers of Commerce and Republicans Abroad have stated clearly, in words and deeds, that they want to be counted. Their support

for my appearance here today attests to that tremendous desire to

be counted.

Further, these Americans have offered to join in partnership

with the Census Bureau to facilitate the enumeration of those citizens, who were overseas at the time of the census. We will assist

in locating members of the American community of our respective

countries. We will assist in disseminating census information and

forms. We will assist in gathering completed census forms and forwarding them to the United States. We want to be counted and we

are willing to assist the Census Bureau in any way we can to accomplish this.

Overseas, an American Chamber of Commerce is the private hub

of the American community. We have very strong ties with our

81

host countries to all the various American social and civic organizations, schools and, of course, U.S. companies.

We can and will use those ties to get census information out and

to help gather completed forms back from great numbers of American citizens. By the way, we found out this morning the board of

directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is the parent organization of most of our American Chambers overseas, adopted a

resolution supporting the inclusion of American overseas in census

2000. They did that at 11:30 this morning.

Republicans Abroad has been a source of voter registration and

absentee balloting information and assistance to overseas Americans for over 20 years. We can and will bring the organizational

expertise that we have developed in decades of getting the absentee

ballot out overseas to bear in assisting the Census Bureau with the

counting of U.S. citizens abroad. The overseas citizens census card

and the Census 2000 Coalition has drawn heavily upon the experience of using the Federal Postcard Application for voter registration and ballot requests.

Republicans Abroad stand ready, as I am sure our counterparts

and Democrats abroad do as well, to partner with the Census Bureau to do whatever it takes to count American citizens overseas.

In summary, American business people and other private Americans overseas contribute mightily to the fabric of American society

even though we may be far from U.S. shores. We generate U.S. exports in American jobs. We pay U.S. taxes. We are Ambassadors

of American values and democracy, and we actively participate in

the U.S. electoral process.

We private American citizens—residents abroad—should not be

penalized for our overseas contribution to the United States. Our

citizenship should be valued and we should be counted in the census just as overseas government employees and their families are.

We will do our part to ensure that Americans overseas are counted

in the census 2000. We respectfully ask that you do the same.

I just have one last little bit to throw in here before I conclude.

The census 2010 is too late for me. My family and I will be back

in Ormond Beach, FL within the next 2 or 3 years. I hope when

we get back that the infrastructure that will be generated by the

Federal revenues that I am contributing to now, and have been for

the past 5 years in Kuwait, will be there to meet me. I fear that

if we wait until the year 2000, the sewers, the highways and the

schools won’t be as good as they could be.

Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gribble follows:]

82

83

84

Mr. MILLER. Ms. van Schooneveld.

Ms. VAN SCHOONEVELD. Mr. Chairman, honorable members of

the subcommittee, I am pleased and privileged to address you

today on an issue of great concern to Americans abroad.

Before I start with my prepared statements, I would like to say

that my organization, American Citizens Abroad, first started trying to converse with the Census Bureau on this subject in 1993. We

launched a major campaign in 1996. I, too, am sad that it is summer of 1999 before we are before you, but we nevertheless feel extremely strongly that we want overseas Americans to be included

at the beginning of the new millennium, even if it is only a percentage of them.

My name is Dorothy van Schooneveld, and I am executive director of American Citizens Abroad, ACA, a non-profit organization

founded in 1978 to represent the concerns of the uncounted millions of private American citizens residing outside the United

States. I have flown here from Geneva, Switzerland, so that I can

thank you for lending your eyes and ears to this presently invisible

segment of the American population.

I would ask you to keep in mind that Congress granted overseas

private citizens the right to register and vote absentee in Federal

elections almost a quarter century ago with the passage of the

Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1957. They vote in your

States, in your districts. Some of them helped elect you. If you care

about representing all your constituents, and I know from experience that Members of Congress care deeply about their constituents, let them all be included in census 2000 so that you and others

know they exist.

Ironically, ever since overseas private Americans gained the right

to register and vote absentee in Federal elections, these overseas

citizens have never been included in a U.S. census count. We

Americans abroad are thus in the paradoxical position of being told

by our government, your vote counts, but you don’t. Who are we,

these uncounted Americans?

I am an American lawyer, member of the Indiana and Illinois

bars, presently employed by the World Health Organization. I have

lived abroad for a dozen years now.

For the last 7 years, I have been volunteering my services to

American Citizens Abroad. I have personally corresponded with literally thousands of Americans from Nepal to New Guinea to Brazil

to Iceland and countless places in between.

Americans residing abroad share many of the characteristics of

their fellow citizens at home. They are your parents, relatives,

neighbors, and friends who, for shorter or longer periods, are representing our Nation abroad and its industries, schools, churches,

labor unions, charitable organizations, banks, and factories. They

represent, just as do their families and friends at home, a talented

and varied mix of our national heritage.

American students working their way through school, mothers

working part-time; American men and women of commerce and finance traveling internationally, to trade, build, and invest for the

benefit of American industries, towns, cities, and States. Retired

military personnel and their families, senior citizens living in

sunny areas, American actors, painters, and musicians spreading

85

our culture to every corner of the globe and scientists and teachers

working to improve the quality of life for all of us.

These overseas Americans are loyal, patriotic U.S. citizens who

can vote in your districts and are subject to Federal taxation. They

constitute an asset to their country by spreading American Democratic ideals and cultural values in their foreign communities, exemplifying the American way of life and, incidentally, buying and

selling a substantial amount of American products.

They are in a very real sense our best Ambassadors abroad. And

yet, present policy permits the Census Bureau, which makes every

effort to count every American resident as well as overseas government personnel and their families, to ignore all of your overseas

private constituents. Their number is unknown. The State Department estimates that there are 3.2 million of them. Other organizations believe that there may be 5 to 6 million. The truth is that

nobody knows.

We are confident that a mechanism built on the model of the

Federal Postcard Application, FPCA, would be effective in achieving success and would guard against fraud. For nearly a quarter

century, Americans abroad have used the FPCA to vote by absentee ballot. This form has been accepted by U.S. voting officers in

all 50 States and the District of Columbia.

The Federal Voting Assistance Program has assured us that

there has never been a pattern of abuse or fraud by Americans

abroad during this period. Indeed, the overseas citizen census card

[OCCC] for census 2000 would go one step further, specifying that

Americans abroad must list their U.S. passport numbers, which are

not required for the FPCA. This will serve as a built-in mechanism

to monitor the U.S. citizenship of those persons submitting OCCCs.

Of course, information submitted on the OCCC, like that submitted

on the FPCA, will be subject to the Federal False Statements Act.

This requirement should further inhibit the possibility of incorrect

data.

The members of the C2K coalition believe that census 2000

should include overseas private Americans in the State-by-State

population figures used to apportion seats in the U.S. House of

Representatives. Respondents would list their last U.S. State residence on the OCCC just as they currently do in submitting their

FPCAs.

The Census Bureau already includes federally affiliated U.S. citizens overseas for apportionment purposes but does not include private Americans abroad. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1992, expressly upheld inclusion of federally affiliated overseas Americans

for purposes of apportionment in the 1990 census, noting that the

term usual residence can mean more than mere physical presence

and has been used broadly enough to include some element of allegiance or enduring tie to a place.

For overseas private Americans, the congressionally mandated

right to register and vote absentee is that enduring tie. The 1992

Supreme Court case Franklin v. Massachusetts is included in our

joint appendix. I would like to address specifically how my organization, American Citizens Abroad, and other organizations of private Americans abroad, could play a partnership role in helping to

attain a meaningful count of private overseas Americans in census

86

2000. ACA regularly corroborates with U.S. embassies and consulates and with the Defense Department’s Federal Voting Assistance Program in circulating FPCAs and other U.S. Government information to citizens around the world. We are prepared to join

with the Census Bureau in applying to census 2000 many of the

same highly successful techniques that we have honed all over the

world for several decades. This is our overseas expertise.

ACA, itself, has a mailing list of close to 9,000 Americans and

American schools, groups, organizations, members of the press, and

consular posts worldwide. Many of these recipients, in turn, disseminate information in our hard copy publications to their memberships and readerships.

In addition to its hard cover publications, ACA would devote

space on its Website, www.aca.ch, to promote census 2000 and

would send bulletins to the broad cyberspace network, which receives ACA’s biweekly on-line newsletter.

And finally, ACA’s entire worldwide system of country representatives, presently more than 60 contact persons in over 40 countries

on 6 continents, would be actively involved and encourage participation in census 2000 in their regions. Other American voluntary

associations represented here today would surely be as active as

ACA.

In closing, I would like to say the following: I cannot underscore

strongly enough the positive emotional message America would

send its overseas citizens by including them in census 2000. We

know you are there and we care.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into

the record a collection of short statements on census 2000 that

ACA has received in recent weeks from overseas private citizens

around the world.

[The information referred to follows:]

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

Ms. VAN SCHOONEVELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the other

distinguished members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to

appear today.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. van Schooneveld follows:]

96

97

98

99

100

Mr. MILLER. And we will now have Mr. Smallhoover. It is in nice

bipartisan fashion that we are in agreement as far as a goal and

objective. Mr. Smallhoover.

Mr. SMALLHOOVER. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Maloney, I thank you

very much for giving us the opportunity to testify today. My name

is Joseph Smallhoover. I am an American lawyer practicing my

profession in Paris, France. I am also the elected chair of Democrats Abroad, the official arm of the Democratic party overseas.

This is one of the very rare times that all of the main organizations representing Americans abroad are able to address a congressional committee on any issue of major concern to us, and this is

certainly the first time we have been asked to testify at all about

such an important question as the census.

The Democrats Abroad global convention held in Toronto, Canada, on April 28, 1996, unanimously adopted a resolution urging

that ‘‘all appropriate government action be undertaken to include

American citizens residing abroad, either permanently or temporarily, in the census.’’ Moreover, Democrats Abroad recently adopted a unanimous resolution, calling on Congress ‘‘to provide an adequate budget to include all Americans in the 2000 census, including Americans abroad and to direct the Commerce Department to

take all steps feasible to these ends.’’

Indeed, we Democrats residing abroad, like the thousands of

members of the organizations represented today in the Census

2000 Coalition, believe that it is important, for a host of reasons,

that we be counted in the census 2000.

Mr. Chairman, one could legitimately ask why Americans abroad

want to be included in the census count. It is, first of all, a feeling

of belonging to the American nation, of being part of the American

people, of wanting not to be ignored by our own government.

We are patriotic American citizens. We file our income tax returns and pay taxes in the United States. We vote in Federal elections. But when it comes to counting the entire American population, the Census Bureau does not think that we should be taken

into account. I believe, Democrats Abroad believes, that every

American, whether Democrat or Republican or independent politically, wholeheartedly agrees with the recent statement of Vice

President Gore that, ‘‘It is vitally important that we count every

American for one simple reason: Every single American counts.’’

While the patriotic impact of including Americans abroad in census 2000 cannot be overestimated, there are also a number of practical considerations which compel us to ask for our inclusion in the

census count. Americans abroad promote democratic ideals and

policies, individual liberty, free enterprise, the American way of

life, and last, but not least, American exports. We constitute a valuable national asset, one that many other nations understand and

promote but one which the greatest democracy on Earth seems to

denigrate.

Of course, it is easy to understand how our contribution and our

importance are underestimated since no one knows for sure exactly

how many of us there are or where we reside. How can the U.S.

Government effectively deal with issues, such as the impact we

have on trade, if it does not know how many of us there are or

what we do? How can the consulates and embassies deal effectively

101

with the services they must provide to us if they do not know the

number of Americans living in the country or how many the consulate or embassy serves? How can the Federal or State governments get a firm idea of the voter participation in elections if they

do not know the full extent of the potential voter pool?

How many American citizens actually live abroad? Since we don’t

get counted by the Census Bureau, your guess is as good as ours.

Nevertheless, here are a few figures. In 1989, the State Department estimated the population of U.S. citizens abroad, excluding

the military, to be 2.2 million but incredibly put the same figure

at an estimated 6.3 million just 3 years later in 1992.

Even more surprising, in 1993 the State Department estimate of

private American citizens residing abroad, that is, not including

U.S. Government and military and civilian employees and their dependents, was reduced to 2.6 million. In 1997, the estimate was

3.2. Absent huge and otherwise undetected population shifts, there

is something wrong with these numbers.

Based on our cumulative experience and activity within our communities, we have reason to believe that the recent figures are serious underestimates. Estimates of American organizations abroad

vary between 3 and 6 million. The truth, Mr. Chairman, is that nobody knows. Has the time not come for the greatest Nation on

Earth, with millions of its citizens abroad, to undertake a reasonably accurate count of this population?

The current exclusion of private American citizens residing

abroad from the national census raises an interesting legal issue.

Since the census is constitutionally mandated for the purpose of

achieving an equitable representation in Congress of the populations of the several States, the question naturally arises whether

it can ignore the existence of certain citizens entitled to vote for

Congress and represented in the House of Representatives in the

same manner as other citizens.

Congress decided nearly 25 years ago that Americans abroad are

entitled to vote in Federal elections in the States and in the congressional districts in which they last resided. We are thus treated

for the purpose of congressional elections as if we are residents of

those States and districts.

It appears to us, therefore, we should be included in the census

in order to achieve the equitable apportionment of representatives

among the several States. Congress and the Census Bureau must

have recognized the validity of this reasoning. As stated by the

Census Bureau, ‘‘For the 1990 census, as a result of strong bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress, selected components of the

overseas population were included in the State population counts

for purposes of calculating congressional apportionment. The selected components of the overseas population referred to by the

Census Bureau were members of the Armed Forces, Federal civilian employees and their dependents who, we are informed by the

Census Bureau, will be counted again in census 2000.

There is hardly a decision of the Bureau which rankles private

American citizens abroad more than this one. It seems to demonstrate to us that for the Census Bureau, private American citizens are not as valuable as those employed by the Federal Government. By what right, law, or constitutional provision are federally

102

employed Americans residing abroad so privileged to be taken into

account and calculated in the congressional apportionment, while

private American citizens with the same rights and obligations as

citizens of the United States are ignored.

Surely, there is something wrong here. The Census Bureau’s

reply has been that while it is easy to count federally affiliated citizens on the basis of the official administrative records, enumerating private U.S. citizens abroad amounts to a technical impossibility. It cites, as proof, the experience of the 1960 and 1970 censuses in which the Census Bureau attempted to count private

American citizens.

For several reasons, private U.S. citizens were vastly undercounted in those censuses. Many Americans abroad were not even

aware that the census was under way. Others were unable to get

to a U.S. embassy or consulate to attain necessary forms. These offices had no way of distributing the census forms, except where

Americans came to them voluntarily to obtain them. Moreover, involvement at the embassies and consulates was voluntary, with no

funding support from either the State Department or the Census

Bureau and thus, more than likely, the undercounts differed substantially from one geographic area to the other.

Inclusion of private Americans abroad in census 2000 would be

an entirely different matter. Americans abroad have now been and

will continue to be sensitized to the importance of this issue as evidenced by the stance taken by the main organizations represented

in the Census 2000 Coalition, some of which did not even exist in

1970. In the year 2000 our organizations do the lion’s share of the

work by publicizing the census, distributing specially prepared

overseas citizen census cards and helping to collect them and return them to the Census Bureau, directly or through U.S. embassies or consulates.

In other words, the process would be essentially the same as that

which has been used successfully for more than two decades for the

distribution and collection of Federal Postcard Application forms,

which allow Americans abroad to register to vote by absentee ballot.

Mr. Chairman, the testimony of the other witnesses representing

the Census 2000 Coalition should effectively rebut the various objections expressed by the Census Bureau. My testimony shows, I

hope, the inclusion of overseas private citizens in census 2000 is indeed feasible on the basis of objective and verifiable information.

Admittedly, counting private Americans abroad is more difficult

than counting federally affiliated Americans; but as the coalition

has shown, it can be done. Such a count would not be 100 percent

complete, but the fact that the 1990 census missed 8.4 million persons and miscounted another 4.4 million did not invalidate the census or result in its being discarded.

The overseas American community stands ready to ensure the

maximum amount of participation in the census of overseas Americans. The American organizations abroad are committed to every

possible effort to get all Americans abroad counted in the census

2000.

If the census group would join in this commitment, it would be

possible to obtain a reasonably comprehensive, objective and verifi

103

able account of these citizens. Mr. Chairman, the level of commitment on the part of the Census Bureau can be expected only if the

committee and the whole House of Representatives direct the Bureau of the Census in no uncertain terms to include all Americans

residing abroad in census 2000. On behalf of Democrats Abroad, I

strongly urge you to take this step. Give us the chance, and we will

see that the job gets done and that it gets done correctly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Maloney.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smallhoover follows:]

104

105

106

107

108

Mr. MILLER. I thank all five of you for your verifying testimony

today. We appreciate that many of you came long distances to be

here today. We appreciate that very much.

Let me say, first of all, that I regret also that the Bureau has

not come up with a plan to count U.S. citizens living overseas. It

is unfortunate at this late date we don’t have a plan. It is

unexcuseable to me. This goes back many years. It is not necessarily Dr. Prewitt, who just joined the Bureau September or October of last year.

As we become more of a global economy, and all of you are involved in that in one way or another, it is going to become an even

bigger issue as we go through. We need to address the issue.

Mr. Smallhoover, you addressed the question. Maybe someone

else can respond to that. I am impressed that you all are willing

to come this far and go through this much effort on this issue. So

many people are involved in the census. We heard Mr. Ryan concerned about Wisconsin. Mrs. Maloney’s State of New York, may

lose two seats in Congress. Mr. Davis is concerned about the city

of Chicago and the amount of Federal dollars that may flow there.

Everybody has a reason to have an interest. I haven’t figured out

the reason that motivates you, except just being good citizens and

proud of your citizenship.

Is there something more there?

Mr. SMALLHOOVER. May I answer that, Mr. Miller. It is right behind you. Right there. That flag.

Mr. MILLER. Anyone else?

Mr. GRIBBLE. In the business council, the chamber of commerce,

to sit down and try and make a trade bottom-line relation between

being in the census and not being in the census, you can’t do it,

but everybody has said they want to be counted. They want to be

full-up regular Americans. Again, it is our citizenship. It is our patriotism. That is the bottom line.

Mr. JOHNSON. Also, we feel if we vote that we should have some

representation in the House of Representatives, and we are invisible to that count at the present time.

Mr. HAMOD. Mr. Chairman, I also might be able to provide some

historical perspective. We see this as a continuum. For years Americans overseas have fought to enjoy the same rights as Americans

here at home, and I will give you just a few instances if the subcommittee will permit.

For example, for many years, for American children born overseas, in order to get the U.S. citizenship, the appropriate naturalization, their parents had to quit their jobs and move back to the

United States in order to become Americans. Well, with the help

of Congress, we changed that. Let me give you another example.

For example, for many years the U.S. laws said that the only people who could work in American embassies overseas and consulates

overseas were foreign service officers and spouses, that other Americans could not. Ironically, anybody else in the world could take

those jobs but not Americans and thankfully Congress stepped in

and the law has been changed. I will give you just one more example. I could give you many of them, but for example, when the DOD

schools, the Department of Defense schools, were shutting down in

Eastern Europe earlier in the 1990’s, they had many books and the

109

laws on the books said you either have to burn these books or send

them back to the United States.

And this was at a time when the State Department schools and

the American and international schools overseas were desperate for

books; and thankfully, once again, Congress stepped in and said

this doesn’t make any sense. It is time to change the law. And we

see this as just one more step in an ongoing process to say this is

a no-brainer.

It doesn’t make sense what we are doing now. Let’s change the

laws, and we welcome the opportunity to work with the subcommittee and the whole Congress to do that.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Hamod, you are the Census 2000 Coalition. Explain to me what that organization is.

Mr. HAMOD. This is an ad hoc organization that has come together in recent months. It includes the two main political groups

overseas, Republicans Abroad and Democrats Abroad. It includes

all of the major American chamber of commerce organizations overseas.

There are four of them. One in Asia Pacific, one in Latin America, one in Europe, and one in the Persian Gulf. It also includes the

major American citizens groups overseas. Again, it is an ad hoc effort. Three months ago, we didn’t exist. We have come together, all

of us volunteering our time, because this is an issue that is important to us. And we are very grateful to the subcommittee for the

opportunity to make our case today.

Mr. MILLER. I think a couple of concerns I have is the largest

population of people overseas would probably be Canada and Mexico, I am assuming. Probably overwhelming, I am sure, the majority of the total. I am guessing. And that is going to be even more

difficult because passports aren’t necessarily required, I guess.

I know you can visit those countries or the Bahamas without a

passport. You need a birth certificate. You get into problems with

large numbers along the Canadian border and Mexican border. It

is not an easy job.

I am going to have some more questions, but I think we will do

a second round. Let me ask Mrs. Maloney to proceed.

Mrs. MALONEY. First of all, I would like to thank all of you for

coming to our hearing. You probably came from a farther point

than most people than we have, and I want to thank you for your

tremendously well thought out presentations with ideas of how to

tackle getting a count of Americans abroad.

This is one issue that we agree on. Regrettably, the Census Committee has been among the most partisan in Congress; but this is

one that Mr. Miller and I have had several conversations on and

agreed that it should be done.

And actually, there has been some criticism that the Census Bureau didn’t come forward with this particular plan on how to take

care of this, but on the other hand, you could say that this committee actually should have had hearings and taken steps for

Americans abroad earlier than we have. As you know, we are coming right up to the census, to census day very quickly and time is

planned, as Dr. Prewitt has said on numerous occasions before this

committee.

110

Every day and every second is planned, and I believe we all

agree, including Dr. Prewitt, that we should support and work toward counting all Americans abroad. He has stated that he cannot

get it done for the 2000 census. I have prepared legislation, and I

hope all of you will look at it. I would like to hear your thoughts

on it, on calling for a special survey of American citizens overseas

by 2002, not connected with the decennial census, and that that

special survey could be used to help make decisions about the 2010

census.

In fact, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I would ask all

of you to comment on it and look at it. I would like to just go down

and hear your comments on it. I have a series of questions. In fact,

if I don’t get a chance to ask all of them, I would like to get them

to you in writing.

Should overseas Americans be included for all other purposes as

well, not just for apportionment, but say, the redistricting or Federal funds distribution? What are your feelings on that? Do you

think Americans abroad should be used in the Federal fund distribution formulas and for redistricting and apportionment?

Mr. GRIBBLE. I certainly wouldn’t want to dictate to all the various legislatures around the country as to how they want to handle

redistributing, but I certainly feel, as far as allocation of Federal

funds, yes. If there is a bottom line, if there is a business related

thing in this entire issue, again, my tax dollars have been going to

the Federal Government and not counting in the State of Florida,

in the county of Flagler, in the city of Ormond Beach, for 5 years

now since I have been out of the military.

That is not right. Why shouldn’t I have the same rights to Federal infrastructure, federally supported infrastructure, as everybody else that is living there now.

Mrs. MALONEY. Do you think each overseas American should be

designated to a specific address or just to a State or maybe a city

and State? How do you think they should be counted?

Mr. HAMOD. Mrs. Maloney, I would like to, if I may, and Mr.

Chairman, your eyes did not deceive you, there are six of us here.

With the subcommittee’s permission, we’d like to introduce another

of our colleagues, Gene Marans, with the law firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, who is doing pro bono work. If the committee permits, we’d

like to open up to questions for him as well, with your permission.

Mr. MILLER. Identify yourself, if you would.

Mr. MARANS. I’m Eugene Marans. I am in the Washington office

law firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, and we were involved 25 years ago also in helping obtain the legislation that

assures overseas Americans the right to register and vote absentee

in Federal elections in their last State of residence in the United

States.

In response to Congresswoman Maloney’s question, if one looks

at the form that is displayed now, which says unofficial draft clearly on top, I apologize again for that, the third column says State

or other U.S. jurisdiction of last residence in the United States. So,

the proposal is just to show the last State and not the hometown

or home county address.

Mrs. MALONEY. So, you all agree it should just be the State, not

the specific address?

111

Mr. HAMOD. The position of the coalition, at this point, is we believe that it would be very helpful to go down to the district level.

We also recognize that it would be a challenge operationally. Having said that, we welcome the opportunity to work with the Census

Bureau and the subcommittee to explore these opportunities.

Mrs. MALONEY. My time is up, but I have one last question. I

have actually a series of questions, but I want to ask you, do you

think there should be a time limit? What if a person hasn’t lived

in the United States for 20 years or 5 years or 15 years? Should

it make any difference if people declare that they never intend to

return to the United States?

These are the people representing the Americans abroad. I would

like to hear from them before I hear from an American living here.

I mean, this is the purpose of the panel.

Mr. JOHNSON. Could we say we never intend to pay taxes or to

vote?

Mrs. MALONEY. Most Americans abroad are very patriotic citizens and great Ambassadors for our country, but some Americans

have become exiles. They leave because they don’t like the country

and they are not supportive of the country.

I just want to say one thing. I think one thing that you raised,

Mr. Hamod, in your remarks, really all of you did, is how we are

really moving to a world committee and there will be, as trade increases, more and more Americans abroad. And this is a very, very

important point, and I truly do believe that you are the best Ambassadors we can have as you are in the different countries on our

values and our system of government.

But this whole thing about time, exiles, and how you treat these

people? Can you answer.

Ms. VAN SCHOONEVELD. I would like to speak on that, if I may.

I hate the term exiles, if I may. I know a number of Americans who

have lived 30, 40, 50 years abroad and still are extremely proud

of the flag and of their nationality. I don’t think you can draw any

arbitrary line where patriotism starts or stops.

I think you’ll find many Americans within the United States who

do not participate in the governmental process and are not interested in voting and certainly are not interested in paying their

taxes. We are not claiming to be better than any Americans in the

United States. What we are fighting against is the reputation of

being worse than Americans in the United States. We just want to

be on an equal basis with Americans in the United States, including being counted in the census.

Mrs. MALONEY. Other comments? Do you think they should have

to pay taxes?

Mr. HAMOD. Absolutely. It is the law.

Mrs. MALONEY. What about an exile, one who denounces their

government, would they be counted?

Mr. GRIBBLE. If they’ve given up their citizenship, they are not

American citizens. If they carry a passport, they are American citizens. In Kuwait, there are different classes of citizens. There are

people who are allowed to vote and people who are not allowed to

vote. There are people who get certain benefits and people who

don’t get those benefits.

112

We don’t have that in America. I don’t think we should have anything that allows us to have even a semblance of that happening

in America. If you carry a U.S. passport, if you are a U.S. citizen,

you fulfill your obligations to the country and pay your taxes, you

make a choice whether to vote or not to vote; but we don’t assign

levels of citizenship, and yet the Census Bureau does in a de facto

manner.

Mrs. MALONEY. May I ask another one?

Mr. MILLER. Let me go, and then we can go back. Who of the

panel has worked with the Census Bureau over the past years?

Any of you had meetings with the Census Bureau? I know they’ve

had meetings with representatives of citizens living abroad.

Mr. JOHNSON. I have had correspondence with them, several

pieces of paper.

Mr. MILLER. I know there have been groups that met with me

in the past year or so, but I don’t know if anyone here specifically

had.

One of the arguments the Bureau used a little while ago was

that a voluntary one is not statistically valid. That is the argument: how do you get a statistically valid count and is it proportionately distributed properly within the States? That is a problem.

The cost question came up and just to let you know, we are going to spend over $6 billion on the census this time around. This Congress and the previous Congresses have given all the money that

the Census Bureau needs. We’re spending $1 billion this current

year just getting ready for the census.

While it would cost money, I think we all said as a constitutional

requirement that we count everybody. And we should put all the

efforts and resources into the actual count as necessary. And so I

don’t think cost is an excuse, and I don’t think the Bureau would.

It is a legitimate question to raise, but it is not an excuse.

I saw a number. It was 750,000 overseas people voted; is that

right? Are you familiar with that number? Is it 750,000 non-military, non-government? How does that system work, this voting by

card? You have to register to vote in a specific county or parish;

is that right?

Mr. GRIBBLE. It depends on the individual State laws for voting

in the local elections. They all have different requirements. They

have different requirements obviously on establishing legal residence there for the right to vote. You fill out the form. You attest

to it based on what the requirements are in that State. Sometimes

it has to be attested to in front of a notary. Consular officers in

some States is not required.

The Federal Postcard Application basically allows you to do the

registration and also request a ballot. You get a normal absentee

ballot from the State. In fact, in the State of Florida, when I go in

for my absentee ballot, they hand it to you. If you are there to

physically pick it up ahead of the election, they just make you vote

ahead of time, and they hold it till the day of election. It varies

from State to State.

Mr. MILLER. Can you register just for a State election, or do you

need to register like in Ormond Beach to vote for city council, on

the school board and everything?

Mr. GRIBBLE. It depends on the State.

113

Mr. MILLER. Some States allow—a generic State—it would be difficult living overseas to decide school board races and such.

Mr. SMALLHOOVER. It depends a great deal on the State. Some

States will allow you to register only for Federal elections. Other

States will allow you to register for both.

Some States can tax us when we vote in Federal elections overseas citizens but they can tax overseas citizens if they vote in State

elections and some States don’t tax. It is sort of you’ve got 50

choices, and you pick and choose.

Mr. MARANS. With your permission, Mrs. Maloney, to clarify this

point, the Federal law that was passed in 1975 requires every

State to allow every overseas citizen to vote in Federal elections in

their State of last residence in the United States.

It does not require the States to allow overseas residents to vote

in State and local elections, unless that’s permitted under State

law. There is something else that the legislation provides. It says

that overseas American citizens should not have their voting in

Federal elections be taken into account for State and local tax purposes.

Overseas citizens are subject to Federal taxation, but the fact

that they would vote for Mrs. Maloney or for Mr. Miller in the congressional election in a particular State doesn’t mean they would

necessarily have to pay county taxes in Ormond. But if they wanted to vote for State elections in Florida, Florida may decide they

should be subject to State taxes.

There is both a Federal ballot and a non-Federal ballot, a complete ballot, but anyone can get a Federal ballot who’s an overseas

citizen and can show that he or she has a last State of residence

in the particular State.

Mr. MILLER. Does anyone know the number of registered voters

overseas?

Mr. SMALLHOOVER. Nobody knows that number.

Mr. MARANS. Actually, the concept of registered voter is a little

different for overseas citizens because many States regard this

process as a re-registration every time the card comes in, rather

than keeping overseas voters on particular rolls on a continuing

basis. So the card is a combination registration and request for ballot.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Can you tell us if you reviewed how the Bureau

attempted to enumerate U.S. citizens living abroad during the 1970

census? Did any of you work with the Bureau on this effort? And

do you consider that effort a success? I understand that in the 1970

census, the Bureau published a figure of 1,700,000 for the population abroad, and do you believe that that is an accurate number?

If not, how inaccurate do you think it is? Comments from the

abroad citizens.

Ms. VAN SCHOONEVELD. I think Mr. Smallhoover addressed that

quite a bit in his presentation. Why don’t you go ahead?

Mr. SMALLHOOVER. Thank you. I was not overseas in 1970, so I

can’t say whether they did a good job. The one thing that is clear

from the State Department’s numbers is that every time anyone

tries to put together a number—because things haven’t been done

on a proper basis—that number is simply wrong.

114

Now, there is a report that was done in 1992, by Ms. Mills from

the Census Bureau about those census efforts, which talked about

how they were conducted and the various flaws that she saw in

them.

One of the major things was, in fact, was that there wasn’t funding. The American overseas community was a different entity at

the time. In 1960 and 1970, Americans abroad did not have the

right to vote in Federal elections guaranteed by Federal law. It

wasn’t until 1975 that that right was granted to us. Through the

last 25 years we have, as groups at various organizations, been

very good at increasing the number of Americans abroad who participate in the American political system.

So, maybe in 1970 the number they put together was probably

1.7. My guess is that even then that was an incorrect number.

Today, we have a vague idea how much it is.

We don’t really know until we get counted, but what we do know,

is that our experience with each election in getting people to come

out to vote and getting the community overseas to understand the

simple fact that because they are overseas does not mean that they

are not Americans. The fact that they are overseas doesn’t mean

they can’t participate in the process. It is a very real thing; and it

is quite likely that with an effort by organizations, we can be very

helpful in expediting the process.

Mrs. MALONEY. One of your recommendations that came from

your organization is to create a self-reporting form which American

citizens could pick up from embassies or the Internet or wherever.

If there is self-reporting, I have a concern that many States may

start lobbying efforts in an attempt to get the overseas population

to self-identify with their particular States. The determination of

the last seat in the House often turns on very, very small numbers.

A lot of our elections are very close too, by the way, so this could

make a difference conceivably, and can you comment on this concern?

Mr. HAMOD. Did it happen in 1970? To the best of my knowledge,

no. And it is possible that States would undertake a lobbying effort

to get their people overseas to do that, but we believe it is highly

unlikely.

Mrs. MALONEY. Let the members talk before the lawyer talks.

They have come a long ways to be here.

Mr. SMALLHOOVER. Let me in a slightly more discordant voice

than the coalition, repeat what David just said. We saw this morning in one of the bills that Wisconsin is very concerned about

counting possibly 10,000 people who may have moved one way or

the other.

Now, I don’t know that they are going to bother to start sending

out fliers to all of the University of Wisconsin alumni to find out

where they are, but the answer is, we don’t have any way to tell

you whether a State will start lobbying to find us. In fact, in a way,

it would be great if they tried to find us, but we have no way of

knowing. Maybe Mrs. Maloney in New York should consider it. You

are likely to lose a couple of seats, I think.

Mrs. MALONEY. In addition, if the enumeration is completely voluntary and there is no documentation needed to prove State ties,

could imaginary people be created? We hear a lot of concerns about

115

manipulation of the data. Should we worry about manipulation of

the overseas American count?

Ms. VAN SCHOONEVELD. I am eternally distressed to hear of the

constant distress. I understand that verification is a very important

concept, particularly when amassing statistical data.

However, I must also confess to you and, probably the others feel

the same, that as Americans abroad, we are constantly put a bit

on the defensive because there is always this feeling: because you

are on foreign soil, how can we be sure you are honest?

The form, as we have designed it, does give space for the passport numbers. Since those could be verified via the State Department, I don’t see there should be additional problems.

Mrs. MALONEY. Anyone else like to comment?

Mr. HAMOD. Are you opening it up to all of us?

Mrs. MALONEY. Of course.

Mr. JOHNSON. As far as the voters are concerned and the idea

of trying to get this whole thing going again, it is conceivable to

me. I started corresponding with these people, the Census Bureau,

in April 1997. And I have had three letters since then. They all say

the same thing. Why that should be, I really cannot figure that out.

No one has really made an honest attempt to suggest what you

are suggesting, Mrs. Maloney, about the idea of a test pattern of

some kind. If that had been done even 3 years ago, we’d be well

on the way.

Mr. HAMOD. I guess I would raise the issue of the imaginary

passport number. We are doing the best we can to come up with

ways to meet the Census Bureau’s requirements. I hope you’ll give

us the benefit of the doubt for that.

If someone in Canada or Mexico does not have a U.S. passport,

and there are those who don’t, we are proposing some other ways

of doing it: voter registration card, birth certificate, certificate of

naturalization, consular report on births abroad.

We are trying to be as flexible and helpful as we can be to find

a way to make this work out. The problem we are facing is a

healthy dose of skepticism, which I hope we are dispelling today;

and, in the case of the Census Bureau, some real obstinacy. We are

hopeful that just by showing we can make this happen if Congress

works with us, and if the Census Bureau works with us, we can

do it.

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, I have legislation that would do it.

Mr. HAMOD. We haven’t had an opportunity to review it. We are

very grateful to you for submitting it, and I have to say from personal experience, your staff and the chairman’s staff are extraordinary.

We have had a fantastic exchange of ideas. We are extremely

grateful for that. We wish that your legislation, that Mr. Gilman’s

legislation, had come out 5 years ago. We wouldn’t be in the position today that we are in if it had. We have not had an opportunity

to review the legislation. We will give it our serious consideration

and we appreciate the two Members and their respective staffs’ efforts to help us work this out.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. We thank all of you for being here today. It has

been a very informative hearing. I want to thank you for your comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:53 Jan 23, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60341 pfrm03 PsN: 60341
116

mitment and motivation for being here, but also the preparation

that was put into the ideas of how to get the job done.

I don’t think you should feel there is a question of distrust at all

but whether we count homeless people and illegal immigrants.

They all have to be counted as part of our system. But there has

to be a verification to make sure it is accurate. There is a real concern that we have the most honest and accurate census as possible.

So, let me thank you on behalf of the committee and Mrs.

Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you all. I have a series of questions. I

didn’t get a chance to ask all of them on how to make this happen.

And I am going to ask if I could get them all to you and your attorney and see if we can get some answers, if that is all right.

Mr. MILLER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members and witnesses’ written opening statements be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. In case Members have additional questions for our witnesses, I ask for the record to remain open for 2

weeks for Members to submit questions for the record and witnesses to submit written answers as soon as possible. Without objection, so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that the collection of short statements on census 2000 mentioned by Ms. van Schooneveld be included in the record and without objection, that will also be included. Thank you once again and the hearing will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[The joint appendix to supplement testimony of Mr. Gribble, Mr.

Hamod, Mr. Johnson, and Ms. van Schooneveld, and additional information submitted for the hearing record follow:]

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182