[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 54 (Tuesday, May 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2748-H2749]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            YEAR 2000 CENSUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, this afternoon, the 
Subcommittee on the Census of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight will be meeting for the second time and addressing the issue 
of a potential failed census in year 2000.
  Many people believe that the census in the year 2000 is moving 
towards failure. This comes from reports from the General Accounting 
Office, who has said actually in every report, including the most 
recent one in March, that the risk of a failure has increased.
  The Inspector General has talked about the potential of a failed 
census. This is because this Clinton administration has proposed the 
largest statistical experiment in history to take place in year 2000.
  This is a very dangerous situation, because the census, which is 
required by our Constitution and by law to be done every 10 years, is 
the basis, is fundamental to our democratic process of elected 
government here in the United States.
  All Members of Congress, most elected officials in America are 
elected based upon census information. If we have a census that the 
people do not trust, we are threatening the entire elective process in 
America.
  So it is absolutely essential that we save the census, that we have a 
successful census, that we have the most accurate census possible. That 
is what we need to strive for and work together, Democrats and 
Republicans.
  The hearing today will be focused on what happened in 1990 so we can 
learn from the experience of 1990 and not repeat the mistakes, but also 
do what needs to be done to improve the census. There were some 
problems in the 1990 census. But in 1990, we counted 98.4 percent of 
the American people; 98.4 percent of the people were counted. That was 
not a bad census actually. That is a pretty good census, the second 
most accurate census in history, and some people think it was the most 
accurate census in history. So it was successful in counting 98.4 
percent of the people.
  But the way the census took place in 1990 was, after you did the full 
census, the full enumeration, and counted that 98.4 percent, then a 
sample was conducted of about 150,000 households. The thought was let 
us take that sample and adjust the full enumeration.

[[Page H2749]]

  What happened in 1990 was the failure was on the sample. Sampling was 
the failure in 1990. That is the concern that we have today because now 
the Clinton administration only wants to rely on sampling. It was a 
failure in 1990, and they are going to totally rely on it in year 2000.
  What happened in 1990 when they used sampling, Secretary Mosbacher 
had the choice of, at that time, whether to use sampling and adjust the 
census. What the recommendation of the Census Bureau was back in 1981 
was to adjust the census, take away a congressional seat from 
Wisconsin, take away a congressional seat from Pennsylvania, give them 
away based on adjustment, based on statistics.
  I mean, how do you explain that to the States that they are saying we 
counted these people, but the statisticians in Washington think they 
are not right. Thank goodness Secretary Mosbacher rejected that 
recommendation, because we found out in 1992 there was a major computer 
glitch. It was a computer error, and it would have been done by error 
and by mistake.
  What would people in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania say knowing they 
would have lost a congressional seat because of mistakes by the Census 
Bureau? So sampling was a failure because what they did with the 
sampling is they delete people from the census.
  There are census tracts and areas all over the country where the 
Census Bureau would come in because of the computer analysis and said, 
on average, we do not think all those people are there, so we are going 
to delete people, not because they double-counted, not because of 
mistakes, just because of averages and statistics, and we could allow 
that.
  Another thing we found out in analyzing the 1990 census, and the 
Census Bureau says this, that the numbers are not accurate below 
100,000. So the accuracy becomes less accurate when we get to districts 
of under 100,000.

                              {time}  1245

  When we work with the census, we deal with census tracks and census 
blocks, and those are the building stones, the cornerstones to building 
a Congressional District, a State Senate district, a State House 
district, a county commission district, a city council. And the 
accuracy is less by adjustment than having the full enumeration. So the 
Census Bureau admits that that is a problem. And now the Clinton 
administration wants to rely on this potentially inaccurate 
information.
  In fact, the Census Bureau, when they reviewed the 1990 census, 
decided not to adjust even for the intercentennial census, which is 
when they adjust between 1990 and 2000, because it was not accurate 
enough to use, and they did not even use that 150,000 use of sampling.
  So what does the Clinton administration propose in the year 2000? 
They have proposed first, instead of using a full enumeration and 
counting everybody like they did in 1990, they say oh, no, we are only 
going to count 90 percent of the people; ninety percent of the people 
in 60,000 separate samples, because there will be one for each census 
track.
  So we start off without the full data, and then they will do a sample 
of 750,000 households, five times larger than they used in the sampling 
experiment back in 1990. But they will do it in half the time, with a 
less experienced work force.
  So they are going to sample five times as many people in half the 
time, with a less experienced work force, and use that to adjust the 
sample today data they started with at 90 percent.
  So we are moving towards a very complex system that will lead to 
failure, and it threatens our entire Democratic elections process in 
this country.

                          ____________________