[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 37 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E531-E532]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CENSUS ACCURACY ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 20, 1997

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Census 
Accuracy Act of 1997. The Census Accuracy Act requires that 3 years 
prior to the census, the Census Bureau must submit to Congress its 
plans for carrying out the census. It must report what methods will be 
used to take the census, including direct counting methods, sampling, 
statistical techniques, and any other methods to ensure that the census 
is as accurate as possible. The Census Accuracy Act also specifies that 
when Congress requires the allocation of funds based on population or 
housing characteristics, unless otherwise specified, that data should 
be collected on the census at the same time as the information for 
apportionment is collected.
  Some critics of the Census Bureau's current plans for the 2000 census 
argue that title 13, U.F.C., prohibits the use of sampling to derive 
the population counts used for apportionment. In fact, the record is 
clear and overwhelming that just the opposite is true. The Department 
of Justice under Presidents Carter, Bush, and Clinton has concluded 
that the use of sampling is both legal and constitutional. Similarly, 
when asked to rule, the courts have consistently upheld the use of 
sampling. Nevertheless, some observers continue to question whether 
section 195 of title 13, U.F.C., permits the use of sampling to derive 
the population counts used for apportionment, even when read in 
conjunction with section 141 of the same title. Therefore, the purpose 
of this bill is to reaffirm the interpretation of the courts and the 
Justice Department that the use of sampling is both appropriate and 
desirable in order to make the census more accurate, and ensure that 
sections 195 and 141 of title 13, U.F.C, are in harmony as originally 
intended.
  In just 3 years, the 2000 census will be under way. That census is 
important to this body because it will determine how the seats of this 
House are apportioned among the States. That census is important 
because over the decade it will be used to allocate hundreds of 
billions of dollars to State and local governments. It will be used to 
enforce the Voting Rights Act to assure equal representation. It will 
be used by businesses to locate manufacturing plants where there is an 
adequate work force, and to provide services that are valued by the 
communities of which they are a part. It will be used by State 
governments to plan highways, and by local governments to assure 
adequate sewer and water facilities. We cannot afford an inaccurate 
census. The bill I am introducing today will assure all of us that the 
next census is as fair and accurate as possible.
  Our understanding of the accuracy of the census increases each 
decade. Both Thomas Jefferson, the first census taker, and George 
Washington knew there were errors in the 1790 census. But it took until 
1940 for census demographers to start measuring that error with sound 
scientific tools. Between 1940 and 1980 the net undercount decreased 
from 5.4 to 1.2 percent, but the differential undercount, the 
difference between black and nonblack undercount, went from 3.4 percent 
in 1940 to 4.3 percent in 1970 to 3.7 percent in 1980. In 1990, both 
the total net undercount and the differential went up. In fact, the 
differential of 4.4 percent between blacks and nonblacks in 1990 was 
the largest ever. In addition to increasing error in 1990, the cost per 
household, in constant dollars, went up. The 1990 cost was 25 percent 
higher than 1980 and 150 percent higher than 1970.

  Because of the errors in the 1990 census, California was denied a 
congressional seat that was rightfully theirs. The 1990 census missed 
over 10 million Americans. Six million were counted more than once. It 
is not fair that those 10 million Americans were left out of the 
census, and it is not fair that those 6 million were counted twice. We 
would not stand for those kinds of errors in our election results, and 
we should not tolerate them in the census.
  Is there anything that can be done about it? Absolutely. The Census 
Bureau has proposed a variety of changes in the 2000 census that will 
produce a more accurate census at a lower cost. The Census Bureau will 
make a greater effort to count everyone than ever before, and people 
will have more opportunities to respond than ever before.
  Before the census form is mailed, everyone will receive a letter 
telling them that the census is coming. Then each household in the 
United States will receive a form. About a week later, they will 
receive a letter thanking them for returning the form, and reminding 
them to mail it if they have not. About a week after the reminder 
letter, the Census Bureau will send out a second form so that those who 
misplaced it will have a replacement.
  In addition to the mail, the Census Bureau will use a variety of 
methods to make it easier for the public to be counted. Forms will be 
placed in super markets and community centers, post offices and 
government buildings, convenient stores and retail stores. Forms will 
be available in foreign languages, and there will be a toll-free number 
where people can call for help. There will also be a toll-free number 
where people can fill out their form over the phone. And, if privacy 
concerns can be addressed, it may be possible to return your form 
through the internet. There will be an advertising campaign to inform 
the public that the census is coming, and to explain why the Government 
is collecting this information. There will be programs for schools and 
civic organizations, as well as census employees whose job it is to 
work with community organizations to get out the count.
  Even with all of these efforts we know that not everyone will send 
back their form. For every 1 percent of the population that does not 
mail in their form, or respond over the phone, it costs an additional 
$25 million to count them. The best estimate of the experts is that 
even with all of these efforts, nearly 35

[[Page E532]]

percent will not be counted by mail or phone. At $25 million for each 1 
percent, that's $875 million to followup with nonresponding households. 
And even after hiring a half a million temporary employees, and 
spending weeks going door to door, not everyone will be counted. No 
census has ever counted everyone. The difference is that we now have 
the technology and scientific tools to estimate how many people were 
missed, and to correct the census so that it is as inclusive as 
possible.

  The 1990 census missed almost 2 percent of the population. If that 
were spread evenly across groups of people and across the country, not 
too many stakeholders would care. But the undercount is not random. 
Less than 1 percent of whites were missed, but over 5 percent of 
African-Americans were missed. On Indian reservation the census missed 
12 percent.
  In 1990 the census included an experimental method to correct these 
mistakes--to account for those who are missed and to correct for those 
who are counted twice. In the end, the Secretary of Commerce chose not 
to use those adjustments, and we have lived with those inequities for 
the past 7 years. Every year millions of dollars are lost by States 
whose population was undercounted.
  The vast body of scientific evidence shows that these errors can be 
corrected in a way that is fair to all. Three separate panels of 
experts at the National Academy of Sciences have recommended that these 
errors be corrected. The techniques for correcting the census have been 
endorsed by professional organizations like the American Statistical 
Association and by groups like the National Association of Counties. 
The inspector general at the Commerce Department has endorsed 
correcting these errors, as has the General Accounting Office.
  Well, you must be asking yourself by now, just who opposes a more 
accurate census. Unfortunately, some Members of this body will pay any 
price to get the wrong answer. They argue that we should throw more 
money at the old methods of doing the census, even though they will 
produce a count that is less accurate. Of course, the Members making 
this argument are not on the Appropriations Committee. The members of 
the Appropriations Committee have yet to fund the census at the 
requested level, much less, give the Census Bureau more money.
  One of the objections they raise to the methods proposed for the 2000 
census is that they are not allowed under current law. I disagree with 
their interpretation of the law. This bill makes it clear that once the 
Census Bureau makes a good faith effort at an enumeration, the count 
can be supplemented by other methods to achieve a more accurate count.
  Mr. Speaker, we must all work for the most accurate census possible 
in 2000. If we do not, it will be the American public who loses. My 
bill will make a more accurate census possible, and ensure that any 
confusion over current law is eliminated. I urge that it be passed 
quickly.

                          ____________________