[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1706-E1707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       NO CONSENSUS ON THE CENSUS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, September 9, 1997

  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, imagine the grocery clerk 
only glancing at your basket, then calculating your bill, not based 
upon the actual items selected, but based upon the statistical average 
purchase of other families like yours.
  Ridiculous as this may sound, it's exactly what the U.S. Census 
Bureau is promoting for the upcoming census. The bureau's proposal to 
use statistical sampling in 2000 has a potential price tag of more than 
$12 billion and threatens to skew the electoral process.
  Proponents of the idea point out that statistical sampling is good 
enough for public opinion polls and disease control. Why not use 
sampling when counting citizens too?
  In a recent letter, Denver Mayor Wellington Webb told me of his 
concern about ``the possibility of a serious undercount in Denver if 
sampling is not permitted.'' The last census overlooked 1.6 percent of 
the national population, he claims.

[[Page E1707]]

  Sampling, some say, would be more accurate than traditional census 
taking because census takers can't possibly reach all individuals by 
questionnaire, phone calls, site visits or other means.
  Debate over census methodology is as old as the census itself. In 
1780, the first census in the new United States reported 3.8 million 
persons. President George Washington thought the number was too low.
  Then, as today, the concern of various political jurisdictions was 
undercounts. With the advent of large Federal redistribution programs, 
live bodies equal money. To a mayor or Governor, anyone not counted is 
lost revenue.
  Furthermore more bodies can add political clout. Since legislative 
districts are drawn according to population, more people could mean, 
for example, additional seats in Congress.
  But not all congressional seats are identical. In Denver, a new 
district would likely favor a more liberal candidate. In Greeley, a 
conservative would be the likely choice.
  Clearly, the census entails more than just counting people. That's 
why our Nation's founders addressed the topic early in the 
Constitution. Article I, section 2 makes Congress responsible for 
conducting a census every 10 years and calls for ``the actual 
Enumeration'' of citizens. The 14th amendment takes it from there 
stating, `Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States 
according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of 
persons in each State.''
  Sampling opponents obviously rely on the Constitution and other laws 
to block sampling but they also point out the inaccuracies of sampling, 
and the method's propensity toward political manipulation.
  As one colleague of mine put it, `It may be cheaper to pay a few 
people to sit in a room and guess how many people there are in America, 
but when you do this, you don't have a census, you have a guess.''
  I agree. In America, every individual has a fundamental right to be 
counted, not estimated, to see their Constitution honored, not ignored.

                          ____________________