[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 141 (Monday, October 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks, and include extraneous material, on H.R. 5084.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today the House is considering the 
Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994. This legislation is an 
important step forward in preparing the Census Bureau to take an 
accurate census in the year 2000.
  I am pleased to have drafted the bill in cooperation with the 
subcommittee's ranking minority member, Representative Thomas E. Petri. 
The legislation was considered by the Subcommittee on Census, 
Statistics and Postal Personnel, which I chair, at a hearing on July 
21, and at a markup on September 28, where it passed unanimously.
  The legislation is designed to meet two primary goals: to improve the 
accuracy of the Census Bureau's address list (which directly affects 
the accuracy of the population count), and to reduce the cost of 
compiling a national address list.
  An important related goal is to strengthen the relationship between 
local governments and the Census Bureau.
  The 1990 census was the first in modern history that was less 
accurate than the one before it. The difference between the undercount 
of minorities and the White population was the highest ever recorded. 
And the price tag more than doubled from the census before it. States 
and cities spent their own money to promote the census and to gather 
evidence of houses and people they thought the Bureau had missed. By 
the conclusion of the census, many of those officials believed that 
their efforts were wasted. The frustration level was very high indeed.
  Census Bureau research showed that approximately \1/3\ of the 
undercount was attributable to missed housing units. Millions of 
housing units were never included in the Bureau's address list, and 
millions of others were, in fact, nonexistent or placed in the wrong 
area. The compilation and verification of addresses for the 1990 census 
cost almost $300 million dollars. Linking those addresses to a 
geographic mapping system cost millions more.
  Because the committee did not file a report, let me take a moment to 
explain some of the provisions and our intent. The subcommittee 
discussed at some length with the Census Bureau its plan to develop a 
program for ongoing interaction with the Postal Service and local 
officials to ensure that high-quality address lists and associated maps 
are ready prior to the census. The legislation is consistent with the 
subcommittee's understanding of the Bureau's intended program, and is 
designed to facilitate its success by allowing for appropriate access 
to information.
  H.R. 5084 will achieve the three goals by providing the Bureau with 
ready access to two important information sources--Postal Service and 
local government address lists--and by providing an opportunity for 
local verification of the Bureau's information.
  Fortunately, discussions about potential cooperative ventures between 
the Census Bureau and local governments are underway. The purpose of 
this bill is to build upon and strengthen those discussions.
  Collection and verification of address information in primarily 
electronic format will greatly reduce the amount of precensus field 
canvassing. In previous censuses, those efforts were expensive and 
often inaccurate. The new methods authorized in H.R. 5084 will save 
money and improve the accuracy of the census address lists.
  An obvious starting point for the development of a comprehensive 
address list is the U.S. Postal Service. The bill provides for monetary 
compensation or any reasonable exchange of services as part of the 
terms under which the Postal Service will provide address information 
to the Bureau. While the Postal Service should seek to minimize the 
cost of providing information to the Bureau, it should be compensated 
fairly.
  Obviously, the Postal Service would only be required to provide to 
the Census Bureau addresses that are already available from the Postal 
Service's existing information systems. The Postal Service should not 
be required to collect information at the Secretary of Commerce's 
request that would not otherwise be collected for its own purposes. 
Nothing in the legislation would preclude the Postal Service from 
voluntarily adapting its data collection to meet the Census Bureau's 
needs more fully, however.
  This legislation does not specify whether the Bureau should spend 
appropriated funds to receive local address information. Clearly, it is 
in a local government's best interest to ensure an accurate census 
count. That implies at least a limited expenditure of local dollars 
during the course of census planning and execution. However, the Bureau 
is already authorized under section 6 of title 13, United States Code, 
to pay for local information to further the goals of the census.
  H.R. 5084 also requires the Census Bureau to develop standards under 
which local governments may submit their own address information to the 
Bureau. These standards will help ensure that the Bureau does not 
receive address lists in thousands of different formats. They also 
should define clearly the types of addresses the Bureau needs. The 
legislation should not be construed to mean that the Bureau should 
refuse information submitted in non-standard format. The Bureau may 
choose to provide preferential treatment (faster response time, for 
example) in cases where information is standardized. However, every 
local government should be afforded the opportunity to participate in 
ensuring an accurate census.
  In addition, the Bureau will have more time to resolve address 
discrepancies with local governments that participate in the Bureau's 
entire address program. Incentives for local governments to get 
involved early in the process will help the Bureau to develop an 
accurate final address list before Census Day.
  The bill, as amended, also requires the Census Bureau to provide 
address information to individuals designated by a local government as 
census liaisons. In some cases, it may be easier for a local government 
to submit its own list to the Bureau. In other cases, where there is no 
readily available local list, the local officials may choose to 
designate a liaison and review the Bureau's preliminary list.
  In cases where a jurisdiction, such as a town or city, exists within 
a county, the bill provides that the census liaison is designated by 
the town or city. In cases where an area within a county is 
unincorporated, the county could designate a liaison for that area. The 
designated person does not have to be employed by the jurisdiction he 
or she represents. A town, for example, could designate someone 
employed by the county or the state. We envision that collaborative 
efforts by different levels of government would be very efficient and 
useful.
  If a local government submits and reviews addresses, the Census 
Bureau must inform that jurisdiction about the disposition of any 
discrepancies that arise. If a jurisdiction disputes the Census 
Bureau's final address list, it may appeal under procedures set up by 
the Office of Management and Budget's Statistical Policy Office. Our 
intent was to allow the process for disputes to be developed by a party 
independent of the Census Bureau. OMB would determine in advance the 
parties who would resolve disagreements concerning the address lists. 
However, the administration and funding of that process is the Census 
Bureau's responsibility.
  The authority in H.r. 5084 to appoint local census liaisons is 
distinct from existing authority to hire local officials as temporary 
employees. With regard to its existing authority the Bureau has 
developed a practice of ``swearing in'' temporary employees in person. 
That procedure might be time-consuming and expensive to carry out for 
individuals who are, by definition, located throughout the country. 
Therefore, the Secretary should provide census liaisons with an 
explanation of duties and responsibilities. There is no requirement to 
administer an oath in person.
  The subcommittee is well aware of, and sensitive to, concerns about 
personal privacy. It's probably true that most people do not view an 
address, without related names, as private information. Frankly, 
address information is widely available in today's society from public 
and private sources. However, for two reasons, the legislation allows 
for only limited access to this most benign piece of census 
information.
  The first reason is that it may be difficult to communicate clearly 
to the American public that the information in question does not 
contain names or any other identifying information besides the physical 
location of a housing unit. Given the special trust that must exist 
between the Census Bureau and much of the American public, we did not 
want to jeopardize the Bureau's ability to garner cooperation in future 
censuses.
  The second reason for limiting access is that the Bureau's definition 
of a housing unit is necessarily broad and may include information not 
generally known. For example, that definition includes illegally 
occupied garages, offices, basement apartments, and other structures 
not normally inhabited. But while the effort to include every structure 
where a person lives is essential for an accurate count, the Bureau 
might inadvertently have information on its address lists that 
indicates the existence of a structure not properly zoned for 
residential dwelling. If the census address information were misused, 
an individual might face some adverse result.
  In trying to protect privacy, H.R. 5084 also limits the geographic 
scope of addresses to which a census liaison is allowed access. Access 
is limited to information concerning addresses within the liaison's 
jurisdiction or an adjacent jurisdiction. (It is necessary to include 
adjacent jurisdictions because addresses that appear to be missing may, 
in fact, be allocated across a jurisdictional boundary.) In the past, 
many local governments disputed the Bureau's housing unit counts, in 
part, based on the grounds that those units were allocated to the wrong 
area. Correcting those errors is an important part of the pre-census 
address listing process. The Bureau should cooperate with the Postal 
Service and local governments on the geographic aspects of address 
listing, as well as the addresses themselves.
  H.R. 5084 tries to balance two competing priorities of local 
governments. First, local governments want to ensure that the Census 
Bureau has an accurate address list for the census. Second, they are 
interested in using any available source of high-quality information to 
update their own local records. But while promoting accurate records 
for a wide range of purposes for local governments is important, the 
subcommittee believed that this broader purpose was outside the scope 
of this legislation.
  As a further protection, census addresses can only be provided to a 
local official who is designated as a ``census liaison'' and is aware 
of his or her responsibilities under this act. One express limitation 
is that information received can only be used for the purpose of 
verifying the accuracy of the Bureau's information. A local official 
may not use the information to update local files or for any other 
purpose not expressly authorized, including law enforcement. Any 
liaison who violates the requirements of the Act would be subject to 
strict penalties.
  In addition, any information furnished to the Census Bureau by Postal 
Service under section 4 of H.R. 5084 would be subject to the 
confidentiality provisions of section 9 of title 13, United States 
Code. The Census Bureau should treat address information obtained from 
the Postal Service with the same degree of confidentiality that is 
required for other address information furnished to the Bureau.
  While the subcommittee is concerned about housing units missed 
entirely by the Census Bureau, it does recognize a competing concern. 
In recent censuses, the Bureau was criticized for making it extremely 
difficult to remove an address once it appeared on the list. 
Enumerators were required to make several in-person inspections to 
determine that a house was actually nonexistent. This exercise was 
costly and time-consuming.
  Local government representatives demonstrated aptly to the 
subcommittee that local address information can be of high quality. The 
trends indicate that the quality and availability of local information 
should be even better by 2000. Nonetheless, there will be a temptation 
by the Bureau to accept even questionable addresses in the spirit of 
cooperation. The effort required to verify those addresses (if 
subsequent attempts to collect information from residents are 
unsuccessful) could be costly.
  Therefore, the subcommittee encourages the Bureau to continue 
research to determine the most accurate and cost-effective methods for 
including or deleting addresses from its master files. The subcommittee 
also encourages the Bureau to develop standards that define clearly how 
local information would be most useful in promoting an accurate census.
  In closing, H.R. 5084 provides the Census Bureau with new tools to 
improve the conduct of the census in an accurate and cost-effective 
manner. I am pleased that the measure enjoys the support of the entire 
subcommittee, as well as a wide range of outside organizations. I 
believe it is an important contribution to preparations for the 2000 
census.

                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 1994.
     Hon. William Clay,
     Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter responds to your letter 
     dated September 28, 1994, requesting the Congressional Budget 
     Office to review H.R. 5084, the Census Address List 
     Improvement Act of 1994, as ordered reported by the 
     Subcommittee on Census, Statistics and Postal Personnel of 
     the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service on 
     September 28, 1994. CBO estimates that implementation of H.R. 
     5084 would save the federal government approximately $33 
     million over the next five years. Enactment of H.R. 5084 
     would not affect direct spending or receipts. Therefore, pay-
     as-you-go procedures would not apply to the bill.
       H.R. 5084 would require the Bureau of the Census to permit 
     officials from local governments to examine its address lists 
     that cover their jurisdictions. The bill would direct the 
     Census Bureau to perform various tasks that would ease 
     comparisons between its address lists and those of local 
     governments. It also would require the Office of Information 
     and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to establish a process for 
     states and local governments to appeal certain Census Bureau 
     determinations. Finally, it would require the Postal Service 
     to provide certain address information to the Census Bureau.
       The process of making federal address lists available to 
     local governments would initially increase costs of the 
     Census Bureau. In addition, permitting local governments to 
     examine Census Bureau address lists would likely encourage 
     more local governments to share their address lists with the 
     Census Bureau. Reviewing those lists would add to Census 
     Bureau costs. Additional costs would be $5 million to $6 
     million a year from 1995 through 1998.
       Over the long run, however, increased access to state and 
     local government address lists would result in savings to the 
     Census Bureau because the bureau would not require as much 
     effort to field-check its address lists or to review address 
     lists with state and local governments immediately before and 
     after the 2000 census. Based on information from the Census 
     Bureau, CBO estimates that implementation of H.R. 5084 would 
     result in savings of $55 million from 1998 through 1999, for 
     a net savings to the federal government of $33 million over 
     the five-year period.
       Based on information from OIRA, CBO estimates that 
     developing an appeals process would have no significant cost. 
     Requiring the Postal Service to exchange address lists with 
     the Census Bureau would not result in significant costs 
     because the costs to the Postal Service of exchanging the 
     lists would be roughly offset by savings derived from access 
     to the Census Bureau lists.
       Many state and local governments already share their 
     address lists with the Census Bureau, and this bill would not 
     require any to do so. The costs to those governmental bodies 
     that would choose to share their address lists as a result of 
     this bill are not likely to be significant.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are John 
     Webb, James Hearn, and Mary Maginniss, who can be reached at 
     226-2860.
           Sincerely,
                                             Robert D. Reischauer,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio, 
[Mr. Sawyer], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Census, 
Statistics and Personnel and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], 
the ranking Republican member and their staffs for all of their 
diligent work on this bill. The product we have before us is something 
we can all be pleased with. It was developed in consultation with 
representatives of State and local governments with a stake in 
improving the accuracy of the Census Bureau's address list.
  And regardless of how various Census stakeholders may feel about the 
Census adjustment issue, we all agree that we still need the best 
possible enumeration we can get. Our hope is that this bill will prove 
to be an important step in that direction.
  In addition, preliminary CBO estimates suggest that this bill will 
save the Census Bureau $33 million over the next 5 years--Further 
evidence that we can get better government at less cost.
  Finally, since there was no opportunity to file a committee report, I 
want to acknowledge that the chairman has submitted a longer statement 
for the Record explaining the Committee's intentions and concerns in 
drafting this legislation. I accordingly, urge my colleagues to support 
this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 5084, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________