[House Report 104-821]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                 Union Calendar No. 449

104th Congress, 2nd Session -  -  -  -   -  - House Report 104-821

 
     SAMPLING AND STATISTICAL ADJUSTMENT IN THE DECENNIAL CENSUS: 
                           FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS

                               __________

                           FOURTEENTH REPORT

                                 by the

                        COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
                          REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

                             together with

                    ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS


                                     



                                     
 September 24, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed


              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

        WILLIAM F. CLINGER, Jr., Pennsylvania, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York       CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois             
DAN BURTON, Indiana                HENRY A. WAXMAN, California           
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois        TOM LANTOS, California                
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland     ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia    
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut     MAJOR R. OWENS, New York              
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico          EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York              
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida       JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina   
WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, Jr., New        LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, New York   
  Hampshire                        PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania       
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York           GARY A. CONDIT, California            
STEPHEN HORN, California           COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota         
JOHN L. MICA, Florida              KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida             
PETER BLUTE, Massachusetts         CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York          
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia          THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin          
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana         BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan        
RANDY TATE, Washington             ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of    
DICK CHRYSLER, Michigan              Columbia                            
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota           JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia              
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana            GENE GREEN, Texas                     
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, New Jersey     CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida               
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida           CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania            
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona           BILL BREWSTER, Oklahoma               
MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania              
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire     ELIJAH CUMMINGS, Maryland             
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio                     ------                    
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South   BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent)
  Carolina                                                               
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland                                         
SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin                                                 


                 James L. Clarke, Staff Director
                  Kevin M. Sabo, General Counsel
                    Judith McCoy, Chief Clerk
               Bud Myers, Minority Staff Director



                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                  House of Representatives,
                                Washington, DC, September 24, 1996.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: By direction of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, I submit herewith the 
committee's fourteenth report to the 104th Congress.
                                 William F. Clinger, Jr., Chairman.

                                     


                            C O N T E N T S

                               __________
                                                                   Page
  I. Summary..........................................................1
 II. Background.......................................................3
III. Findings.........................................................4
 IV. Recommendations.................................................16

                                 VIEWS

Clarifying comments of Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr...............    19
Additional views of Hon. Steven Schiff...........................    20
Additional views of Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.....................    21
Dissenting views of Hon. Cardiss Collins, Hon. Henry A. Waxman, 
  Hon. Tom Lantos, Hon. Major R. Owens, Hon. Edolphus Towns, Hon. 
  John M. Spratt, Jr., Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Hon. Gary 
  A. Condit, Hon. Bernard Sanders, Hon. Karen L. Thurman, Hon. 
  Carolyn B. Maloney, Hon. Barbara-Rose Collins, Hon. Eleanor 
  Holmes Norton, Hon. James P. Moran, Hon. Gene Green, Hon. 
  Carrie P. Meek, Hon. Chaka Fattah, and Hon. Elijah E. Cummings.    23
Additional views of Hon. Thomas M. Barrett.......................    33
Additional dissenting views of Hon. Carrie P. Meek...............    35
  


                                                 Union Calendar No. 449
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2nd Session                                                    104-821
_______________________________________________________________________

     SAMPLING AND STATISTICAL ADJUSTMENT IN THE DECENNIAL CENSUS: 
                           FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS

                                _______
                                

 September 24, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
                        submitted the following

                           FOURTEENTH REPORT

                             together with

                    ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

    On September 18, 1996, the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight approved and adopted a report entitled ``Sampling 
and Statistical Adjustment in the Decennial Census: Fundamental 
Flaws.'' The chairman was directed to transmit a copy to the 
Speaker of the House.

                               I. Summary

    The decennial census is mandated by the Constitution in 
order to apportion the Congress. Census data are used by every 
State for congressional and State redistricting. They are also 
used to enforce the Voting Rights Act. Numerous Federal and 
State programs, distributing billions of dollars each year, use 
decennial census data, or the intercensal estimates derived 
therefrom, for their implementation.
    On February 28, 1996, the U.S. Department of Commerce and 
the Bureau of the Census publicly announced plans for a 
``reengineered 2000 Census.'' The plans call for the use of 
statistical methods in two separate instances: (1) to sample 
and estimate the final 10 percent of the population failing to 
respond in the actual enumeration\1\ (`sampling'), and (2) to 
use a separate sample of houses to estimate those persons 
missed in the actual enumeration and the sample for nonresponse 
and revise it accordingly (`adjustment').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``Actual enumeration,'' for purposes of this report, means a 
count based upon physical evidence using methods such mail-out forms, 
administrative records, and enumerator visits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Statistical techniques have been used by the Census Bureau 
to assess the accuracy of census counts since 1950, but have 
never been used to ``correct'' the original number for use in 
apportioning Congress.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ In the 1970 Census, the Census Bureau did rely on sampling to a 
limited extent when, at the 11th hour, it was discovered that a number 
of occupied housing units had been erroneously listed as vacant. This 
was not repeated in subsequent censuses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After the Secretary of Commerce decided in July 1991 not to 
make a statistical adjustment to the 1990 Census, over 50 
lawsuits erupted, culminating in the 1995 case considered by 
the Supreme Court, United States v. City of New York. The 
Court's decision, handed down in March 1996, upheld the 
Secretary's decision.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Supreme Court of the United States, Syllabus, Wisconsin v. City 
of New York, et. al., No. 94-1614. Argued January 10, 1996--Decided 
March 20, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The committee finds that the problems that surrounded the 
issue of statistical adjustment in the 1990 Census also plague 
the plans for the 2000 Census. This is compounded by the plans 
to incorporate sampling to complete the actual enumeration.

Findings

    1. Sampling/statistical adjustment are inherently 
problematic given the subjectivity in the various decisions 
comprising the methodology.
    2. The legal provisions that concern the use of sampling 
for apportionment purposes, both in the Constitution and in 
Federal law, are variously interpreted.
    3. The inherent uncertainties of sampling/statistical 
adjustment may undermine public confidence in the decennial 
census and reduce public participation.
    4. The Commerce Department and the Census Bureau have not 
clearly distinguished between the two statistical methods 
proposed for the 2000 Census: (1) sampling for nonresponse 
follow-up, and (2) sampling for the Integrated Coverage 
Measurement (ICM); nor have they clarified issues of accuracy 
respective to the two sampling techniques.
    5. The sampling method for nonresponse follow-up introduces 
additional error into the process and may compromise the 
accuracy of small-area data which are important for 
congressional and State legislative redistricting.
    6. The complexity of the two different sampling techniques 
being planned for the 2000 Census adds a great deal of risk to 
the operational feasibility of the Bureau's current approach.

Recommendations

    1. Congress should work to clarify existing Federal 
statutes with regard to the use of sampling to make statistical 
adjustments to the census for apportionment purposes.
    2. The Bureau should not use sampling methods to complete 
or adjust the actual enumeration of the 2000 Census which is 
constitutionally mandated for purposes of apportionment.
    3. The Department of Commerce and the Bureau of the Census 
should prioritize the constitutional mandate of the decennial 
census--apportionment of the House of Representatives.
    4. The Bureau should emphasize and strengthen its 
cooperative relationships with State and local elected 
officials, as well as members of local organizations, who are 
vital in helping increase response rates to the decennial 
census.
    5. The Bureau should strengthen its plans for a thorough 
quality check of the 2000 Census and maintain open access to 
all processes for internal and external review and analysis.

                             II. Background

    On October 25, 1995, Congressman William H. Zeliff, Jr., 
chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, 
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, held an oversight 
hearing to examine testimony from Census Bureau officials 
regarding their plans for conducting the 2000 decennial census. 
Witnesses included Dr. Martha Riche (Director, Bureau of the 
Census, U.S. Department of Commerce), Francis DeGeorge 
(Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce), and Nye 
Stevens (Director of Federal Management and Workforce Issues, 
U.S. General Accounting Office). At the hearing, the Bureau 
announced a number of new initiatives, including the use of 
statistical sampling to complete the actual enumeration.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Martha F. Riche, testimony on behalf of the Bureau of the 
Census, before the House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee 
on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, 
October 25, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 28, 1996, Commerce Department and Census Bureau 
officials publicly announced that sampling would be used in two 
different instances to compile the 2000 decennial census. The 
first use of sampling would be for nonresponse follow-up. After 
counting 90 percent of the population of a county by an actual 
enumeration, a sample would be selected from the remaining 
nonresponding addresses, at a rate of 1 in 10. (Sampling will 
not be used to complete the enumeration on American Indian 
reservations, in Alaska Native villages, in the Virgin Islands, 
or in the Pacific Island territories.) \5\ The results of this 
sample would then be used to estimate the remaining 10 percent 
of the population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ The Plan For Census 2000, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department 
of Commerce, April 5, 1996, p. III-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The second use of sampling would take place essentially 
after the Bureau has the first census number (based on the 90 
percent actual enumeration plus the 10 percent sample for 
nonrespondents.) This second sampling procedure, called an 
``Integrated Coverage Measurement,'' or ICM, would begin with a 
survey of 750,000 households. The Bureau would then match the 
responses in the ICM survey to the initial census results, and 
``equitably determine[s], for states and racial/ethnic groups, 
the number of people and housing units missed or counted more 
than once.'' \6\ The Bureau would then integrate these 
statistical adjustments to the initial results to produce a 
``one-number'' census by the legal deadline of December 31, 
2000.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ The Plan, p. III-41.
    \7\ December 31 of every decennial census year is the legal 
deadline for submission of the census numbers by the Secretary of 
Commerce to the Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 29, 1996, the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight held a hearing to gather testimony from Members 
of Congress and outside experts regarding the Bureau's new 
methodology. Witnesses included Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), 
Congressman Thomas Sawyer (D-OH), Congressman Thomas Petri (R-
WI), Bruce Chapman (president, Discovery Institute, Seattle, 
WA), Dr. Barbara Bailar (vice president, Survey Research, 
National Opinion Research Center), Dr. Steve Murdock (director, 
Department of Rural Sociology, Texas A&M University), Dr. 
Kenneth Wachter (professor of statistics and demography, 
University of California at Berkeley), Dr. Charles Schultze 
(senior fellow, the Brookings Institution), and Dr. James 
Trussell (director, Office of Population Research, Princeton 
University).
    On June 6, 1996, the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight held another hearing to air questions and concerns 
about statistical methods planned for the Census 2000. The 
witnesses were Dr. Everett Ehrlich (Undersecretary of Commerce 
for Economic Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce), and Dr. 
Martha Riche (Director, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department 
of Commerce). Congressman Thomas Petri delivered a brief 
statement on his bill, H.R. 3589, to prohibit the use of 
sampling in the 2000 Census. However, he did not receive 
questioning by Members of the committee.

                             III. Findings

1. Sampling/statistical adjustment are inherently problematic given the 
        subjectivity in the various decisions required

    The committee is seriously concerned about the subjective 
nature of sampling as an estimation technique. The basic 
decision involved in any sampling methodology is the choice of 
the sample itself. The determinations of exactly who is in the 
sample and exactly what characteristics belong to those 
individuals are inherently subjective. The population and 
characteristics derived from a sample drawn by one person could 
look quite different from those drawn by another person.
    For ICM, the sampling universe is divided into ``post 
strata''. Post strata are demographic subgroups with certain 
characteristics such as ``black male renters age 30-49.'' An 
undercount rate is estimated for each post stratum, then 
assumed to hold constant across relatively large geographical 
areas. Failures in these assumptions of constancy, called 
``heterogeneity,'' caused major problems in the 1990 attempt to 
statistically adjust the census using a sample of the 
population, called a post-enumeration survey (PES).\8\ Dr. 
Kenneth Wachter, who was a member of the Special Advisory Panel 
on Census Adjustment of the Secretary of Commerce from 1989 to 
1991, reminded the committee in his February testimony that 
heterogeneity impaired the results of the 1990 adjustment 
sample, and he warned that it is still a problem which remains 
unsolved as we approach the year 2000.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ The 1990 adjustment was to be based on a post enumeration 
survey (PES) of 150,000 households. A PES is a matching study in which 
an independent sample of households are interviewed at some point after 
Census Day. The information gathered is compared to census 
questionnaires from those same households to determine whether each 
person was correctly counted, missed, or double-counted in the census.
    \9\ Kenneth Wachter, testimony before the House Government Reform 
and Oversight Committee, February 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is also the question of the adjustment methodology 
itself. For example, in its plans to implement the 2000 census 
ICM sample survey, the Bureau has yet to decide between two 
distinct estimation methodologies, ``CensusPlus'' and ``Dual 
System Estimation'' (DSE). In a Census Bureau document 
detailing the results and decisions of the 1995 Census Test, a 
discussion of these two methodologies gets to the heart of the 
problem. According to the memo:

          The potential sources of error and the implications 
        of the quality of the raw data for the two methods are 
        examined. The effects sometimes are different for the 
        two methods because the assumptions underlying them are 
        different.\10\ (Emphasis added)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Memorandum No. 46, ``1995 Census Test Results,'' by E. Ann 
Vacca, Mary Mulry, Ruth Ann Killion, Decennial Statistical Studies 
Division, April 1, 1996, p. 25.

    In fact, in a final comparison between the two choices for 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
implementing the ICM, the Bureau memorandum states:

          As designed and implemented in the 1995 Census Test, 
        dual system estimation (DSE) increases the estimate 
        after nonresponse follow-up in the traditionally 
        undercounted groups, primarily Blacks and renters, 
        while CensusPlus does not. However, both CensusPlus and 
        DSE increase the post nonresponse follow-up estimates 
        for Hispanics. Only DSE increases the estimate for 
        Asians and Pacific Islanders.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Id., p. 38.

    That a choice of estimation methodologies, or a change in 
assumptions, can so directly change the results of the survey, 
is very disturbing to the committee. The inherent subjectivity 
of sampling, and choices of estimation methodologies, whereby 
outcome can be manipulated by a change in assumptions, bears 
directly upon issues of quality, accuracy, and fairness.
    In deciding against adjustment in 1990, Commerce Secretary 
Mosbacher expressed concern that ``adjustment would open the 
door to political tampering with the census.'' \12\ Secretary 
Mosbacher noted the important distinction between actual 
enumeration and statistical adjustment. The unsettling danger 
of statistical adjustment ``is that the choice of the 
adjustment method selected by Bureau officials can make a 
difference in apportionment, and the political outcome of that 
choice can be known in advance,'' while ``the outcome of the 
enumeration process cannot be directly affected in such a 
way.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Decision of the Secretary of Commerce on Whether a Statistical 
Adjustment of the 1990 Census of Population and Housing Should be Made 
for Coverage Deficiencies Resulting in an Overcount or Undercount of 
the Population, July 22, 1991, 56 Federal Register 33582 at 33583.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The legal provisions that concern the use of statistical adjustment 
        for apportionment purposes, both in the Constitution and in 
        Federal law, are variously interpreted

    There remains an important legal issue of whether sampling/
adjustment for apportionment among the States is actually 
permitted by the Constitution. Article I calls for an ``actual 
Enumeration . . .'' and Section 2 of the 14th Amendment reads: 
``Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States 
according to their respective numbers, counting the whole 
number of persons in each State . . .''. In addition 13 U.S.C., 
Section 195 reads: ``Except for the determination of population 
for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress 
among the several States, the Secretary shall, if he considers 
it feasible, authorize the use of the statistical method known 
as ``sampling'' in carrying out the provisions of this title.'' 
Interpretations vary with regard to both the Constitution and 
Title 13.
    In ``The Plan For Census 2000,'' the claim is made with 
regard to statistical methods that, ``[w]e are on solid 
Constitutional grounds. Our proposal will withstand all legal 
challenges . . .'' \14\ The committee is concerned about the 
use of such claims when the issue of the constitutionality of 
statistical methods has never been decided by the Supreme 
Court--the final court for constitutional questions. In 
addition, the issue of sampling for nonresponse to complete the 
actual enumeration has never been before any court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ The Plan, p. II-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The inherent uncertainties of sampling/statistical adjustment may 
        undermine public confidence in the decennial census and reduce 
        public participation

    Two concerns Secretary Mosbacher raised in his decision not 
to adjust the 1990 Census were that: (1) the uncertainty of 
sampling and the potential for political manipulation would 
erode public confidence in the census numbers; and (2) by 
making a statistical adjustment, participation would decline 
both at the State and local levels and at the individual 
level.\15\ Committee hearings have shown that these concerns 
still remain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Secretary Mosbacher's Decision, 56 Federal Register 33582.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sampling/Adjustment May Erode Public Confidence

    In deciding against adjustment, Secretary Mosbacher found 
it ``unsettling that a subjective choice of statistical 
methodology can create such a dramatic practical difference in 
apportionment.'' \16\ The shortcomings generally inherent in 
statistical formulations are that assumptions are the basis of 
any statistical formula attempting to establish precise 
populations. These assumptions are subjectively chosen and 
weighed, and thus potentially wrong.\17\ In addition, adjusted 
numbers are no more than estimates and--unlike the actual 
enumeration, which is based on some verifiable physical 
evidence--entirely the product of statistical inferences with 
no physical evidence for verification.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Id., at 33583.
    \17\ Brief of U.S. Senators Herb Kohl, Arlen Specter and Russell 
Feingold, as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, United States 
Department of Commerce, et. al., v. City of New York, et. al., November 
9, 1995, p. 18.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because the assumptions on which the statistical 
adjustments rest are subjective, they are changeable. In 
comparing the two post-1990 census adjustment results released 
by the Bureau, it was found that minor technical differences 
caused substantial differences in results. The differences in 
terms of apportionment were extraordinary. Under one method, 
two seats in the House of Representatives moved, while under 
the other plan, only one seat moved.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Secretary Mosbacher's Decision, 56 Federal Register 33582 at 
33583.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to one expert reviewing post-1990 adjustment 
alternatives, among five reasonable alternative estimation 
methods, none of the resulting apportionments of the House of 
Representatives were the same. Eleven different States either 
lost or gained a seat in at least one of the five models.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the committee's February 29, 1996 hearing, several 
witnesses expressed concerns that the inherent uncertainties in 
sampling/adjustment may erode public confidence in the census 
numbers. Bruce Chapman, former Census Bureau Director under 
President Reagan, addressed the need to ensure that public 
perception is a key component of the Census 2000 plan.

          The current Census Director herself has spoken of the 
        three legs of the census stool that must dictate the 
        process: cost, accuracy, and public perception. The 
        first two legs are important, as I have acknowledged, 
        but if the latter breaks, the whole construction comes 
        down. The term ``public perception'' could also be 
        described as trustworthiness. In a time when public 
        mistrust of government is rife, I question a change 
        that would introduce the invention of statistical 
        persons into the census--robots constructed of sampled 
        data and intellectual abstractions--to stand in the 
        place of real human beings.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Bruce Chapman, testimony before the House Government Reform 
and Oversight Committee, February 29, 1996.

Congressman Tom Sawyer (D-OH) also underscored the importance 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of public confidence:

          I think that the underlying question that touches 
        every one of the concerns that has been raised is one 
        of confidence. If the count of the nation does not 
        enjoy the confidence of the people that are being 
        counted, it will not work, no matter what techniques, 
        technologies, or other kinds of re-engineering take 
        place.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Congressman Thomas Sawyer, testimony before the House 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee, February 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   A One-Number Census Will Not Avert Potential Criticism & Lawsuits

    ``For 1990, the release of the figures from the original 
enumeration and from the Bureau's statistical procedures and 
evaluations were available for independent analysis.'' \23\ 
Skepticism and criticism of the statistical procedures became 
public knowledge from many of those independent reviews. In 
addition, over 50 lawsuits were subsequently filed over the 
1990 census adjustment. However, the Bureau believes that by 
incorporating the sampling/adjustment procedures into the 
actual enumeration to produce a ``one-number census,'' and 
avoiding a two-number census, such comparisons will be 
precluded, lawsuits will be avoided, and public confidence will 
not be undermined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Kenneth Wachter, testimony before the House Government Reform 
and Oversight Committee, February 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Bureau Director Martha Riche's October 25 testimony, she 
stated, ``we must produce a `one-number census' that is right 
the first time and allows the decennial results to be 
determined by statisticians at the Census Bureau, not by 
lawyers and judges.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Martha Riche, testimony before House Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, International 
Affairs, and Criminal Justice, October 25, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indeed, it is the thinking of many that after the 2000 
Census, there will be, as there was after the 1990 census, a 
flood of lawsuits because of the controversial use of sampling 
to adjust the actual enumeration. Congressman Petri stated in 
his oral testimony before the committee on February 29, 1996 
that:

          It [adjustment] will not settle or end litigation; it 
        will just add to litigation, because you will have a 
        floating undercount estimated number added to the basic 
        head count, which then will be allocated on a political 
        basis and lead to endless litigation and uncertainty, 
        meanwhile undermining the integrity of the whole 
        process, increasing cynicism, and reducing 
        participation in future censuses.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Congressman Petri, testimony on February 29, 1996.

    Former Census Bureau Director Bruce Chapman echoed the 
belief that more litigation will result from the Bureau's 
efforts to statistically adjust the 2000 Census. Referencing a 
news article with the Bureau's claim that an adjusted ``one-
number'' census would help the Bureau get past the legal 
problems, he warned that, ``. . . you at least ought to 
consider the possibility that you will have far more lawsuits 
in the future if you undertake sampling.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Bruce Chapman, oral testimony on February 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Somewhat contradictory to its claim that lawyers and judges 
will not be determining the census totals, the Bureau's Plan 
for Census 2000 acknowledges that the Bureau must allocate 
funding for anticipated lawsuits because, ``regardless of the 
census design chosen, the Census Bureau must prepare for legal 
challenges to census results and procedures.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ The Plan, p. III-55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sampling/Adjustment May Discourage State and Local Participation

    In deciding not to adjust the 1990 census, Commerce 
Secretary Mosbacher expressed concern that adjustment would 
remove the incentive of States and localities to join in the 
effort to get a full and complete count.\28\ Historically, the 
Census Bureau has relied extensively on State and local leaders 
to encourage census participation. Acknowledging that it 
``cannot accomplish its goals for Census 2000 working 
alone'',\29\ the Bureau states that it ``must build 
partnerships with state, local, and tribal governments and 
community groups.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Secretary Mosbacher's Decision, 56 Federal Register 33582 at 
33584.
    \29\ The Plan, p. II-2.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because the census numbers are the basis for political 
representation at all levels and Federal funding allocations, 
States and localities have a vital interest in achieving the 
highest participation rates possible under traditional 
enumeration methods.\31\ However, if civic leaders and public 
officials believe that statistical adjustments will remedy 
undercounts, it will be difficult for them to justify expending 
large amounts of money and resources on promotion and outreach 
programs. Without their support in creating public awareness 
and a sense of involvement in the census, participation is 
likely to decline further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Secretary Mosbacher's Decision, 56 Federal Register 33582 at 
33584.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Committee members and witnesses at the February 29, 1996 
hearing also expressed concerns that sampling/adjustment would 
discourage both State and local promotion and outreach efforts 
as well as individual citizen participation. Congressman Thomas 
Barrett (D-WI) stated in questioning the panel of Congressmen 
that, ``the attitude that I think many Wisconsinites have on 
the attempts for the post-census adjustment was that we got 
these beautiful awards from the Federal Government telling us 
what a great job we had done and how proud they were of us, and 
that they were going to take away millions of dollars and [a] 
congressional seat as a result of the fine job that we did.'' 
\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Congressman Thomas Barrett, in questioning witnesses at the 
House Government Reform and Oversight Committee hearing, February 29, 
1996. The State of Wisconsin conducted a statewide public awareness 
campaign and a targeted outreach program which included a matching 
grant program aimed at traditionally undercounted groups. As a result 
of State and local efforts, Wisconsin had the highest voluntary mail 
response rate in the country--75 percent] compared to 64 percent 
nationwide. The Census Bureau formally recognized Wisconsin's efforts. 
Despite the accomplishment, the post-census adjustment proposed by the 
Census Bureau would have caused Wisconsin to lose a seat and a portion 
of its Federal funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response to Congressman Barrett's question of whether 
the Bureau's move toward a sampling/adjustment approach creates 
disincentives for States to conduct promotion and outreach 
efforts, Congressman Thomas Petri (R-WI), asked rhetorically, 
``if the adjustment is going to be done in any event, why 
should they spend any money at the local level to encourage 
compliance with the census procedures?'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Congressman Thomas Petri, testimony before the House 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee, February 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congressman Sawyer agreed with Congressmen Barrett and 
Petri that ``that kind of response, that kind of participation 
should always be rewarded in a democracy, and [he] would not 
want to do anything to undermine the importance of that in the 
public mind.'' \34\ Congressman Petri later stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Sawyer, testimony, February 29, 1996.

          We have an important national obligation, as a 
        Congress, to attempt to overcome [the declining 
        response rate] through the best public relations 
        campaign we can do of emphasizing to people that this 
        is a responsibility and privilege of citizenship to be 
        counted, and, if we think that people are not 
        participating in it, to reach out and communicate more, 
        and send people by, or try to get in touch with their 
        communities, and use 101 techniques to involve them in 
        the process, not just to give up and then try to adjust 
        it through the political process and think that we've 
        accomplished something.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Petri, testimony, February 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Sampling/Adjustment May Cause Further Decline in Public Participation

    Voluntary participation is the cornerstone of the decennial 
census because voluntary public response through mail-back is 
the most accurate, effective and efficient source of census 
data.\36\ The significance of a large mail-back response it not 
just that it reduces the staff, time and money required, but 
that it produces the best quality census data.\37\ When 
voluntary participation in the census declines, the costs rise 
exponentially while accuracy decreases. Each percentage point 
of mail-out nonresponse will cost an additional $25 million for 
the 2000 Census which is an $8 million increase over the cost 
of the 1990 Census nonresponse rate. Accordingly, a ``high 
level of public cooperation is the key to obtaining accurate 
data at a reasonable cost.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ General Accounting Office, ``Decennial Census: 1990 Results 
Show Need for Fundamental Reform,'' GAO/GGD-92-94, June 1992, p. 35.
    \37\ Id., p. 36.
    \38\ Id., p. 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although sampling for nonresponse to complete the count may 
reduce the need for staff and reduce costs, the use of 
statistical adjustments may discourage citizen participation 
and erode public confidence in the census numbers. While the 
Bureau's research shows that a number of demographic, 
socioeconomic and attitudinal variables affect public response 
rates, Bureau data also suggests that the public's willingness 
to cooperate is, at least in part, within the Bureau's 
control.\39\ However, sampling/adjustment is not an effort 
directed at increasing response rates, it simply is a response 
to declining public participation. The census questionnaire's 
length, complexity and intrusiveness have all been identified 
as discouraging respondents from completing the form. The 
committee is concerned that, if individuals believe they will 
be counted regardless, they will not expend the time and effort 
to respond, causing what Undersecretary Ehrlich referred to as 
``participation meltdown.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Id., p. 5. The Bureau is planning a number of improvements to 
increase response rates, i.e., more user-friendly forms, multiple 
mailings, reminder cards, making the forms more available, and forming 
partnerships with State, local, and community groups.
    \40\ Everett M. Ehrlich, oral testimony before the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, June 6, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau have not clearly 
        distinguished between the two statistical methods proposed for 
        the 2000 Census: (1) sampling for nonresponse follow-up, and 
        (2) sampling for the Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM); nor 
        have they clarified issues of accuracy respective to the each 
        of these sampling techniques

    In the public document entitled ``Plan for Census 2000,'' 
revised April 5, 1996, the Department and Bureau claim that 
sampling for nonresponse follow-up will reduce cost and improve 
accuracy. Specifically, on page II-5, the public is guaranteed 
that this sampling technique will ``ensure that Census 2000 is 
built around a solid core of field results, while reducing the 
cost and improving the accuracy of the data on the final 
increment of the population.'' (Emphasis added) This statement 
would have the public believe that the 10 percent sample of the 
hardest to reach populations will increase the accuracy of the 
count for these populations over a 100-percent physical 
enumeration.
    However, on May 17, 1996, at a meeting of the Census 2000 
Advisory Committee, Bureau Director Martha Riche stated that 
the 10 percent sampling for nonrespondents was only meant to 
address cost concerns; it was not an effort to address the 
differential undercount.\41\ This statement was reiterated by 
other Bureau officials on May 24, 1996, in a meeting with 
committee majority and minority staff. At that meeting, 
minority staff Ben Cohen questioned Bureau experts about 
whether their sample for nonresponse would improve the 
differential undercount. The Bureau's response was that they 
had no hard evidence that quality would be improved, but they 
``assume'' the quality would be improved; that the sample for 
nonresponse was primarily an effort to save money.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ House Government Reform and Oversight Committee staff notes, 
Meeting of the Census 2000 Advisory Committee, May 17, 1996.
    \42\ The meeting on May 24 included committee majority staff, Jane 
Cobb; minority staff, David McMillen, staff of Representative Carrie 
Meek, Ben Cohen; and Census Bureau officials Robert Marx, Paula 
Schneider, and John Thompson, among others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congresswoman Carrie Meek (D-FL), at the February hearing, 
stated that it concerned her that cost seemed to be the driving 
factor behind the push for sampling for nonresponse follow-up: 
``I am very concerned that one of the motives here, Mr. Sawyer, 
may be to save money. I don't think this is the place we can 
save money . . .''.\43\ Indeed, as Bureau officials have 
stated, saving money has been a primary element driving the 
Bureau toward use of sampling for nonresponse follow-up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Congresswoman Carrie Meek, oral comments, House Government 
Reform and Oversight Committee hearing, February 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. The sampling method for nonresponse follow-up introduces additional 
        error into the process and may compromise the accuracy of 
        small-area data which is important for congressional and State 
        legislative redistricting

    In hearings before the committee, concerns were raised by 
both Members and outside experts regarding the introduction of 
sampling error into the count. At the October 25, 1995 hearing 
of the Subcommittee on National Security, International 
Affairs, and Criminal Justice, GAO testified that, ``[t]he 
nature of sampling itself, however, increases the statistical 
uncertainty of the data on nonrespondents at lower geographic 
levels. The magnitude of statistical uncertainty is dependent 
on the size of the sample, the method used to draw the sample, 
and the size of the universe being sampled.'' \44\ In other 
words, the uncertainty of the sampling methodology for 
nonresponse follow-up is inherent given the indeterminate 
configuration of the nonresponding households which comprise 
that particular sample universe and the method used to select 
the sample households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ L. Nye Stevens, testimony of the General Accounting Office 
before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, 
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal 
Justice, October 25, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Bureau itself admits the negative implications of the 
10-percent sample for nonresponse follow-up. ``The Plan For 
Census 2000'' indicates:

          Visiting only a sample of nonresponse housing units 
        raises issues of equity, reliability, and the size of 
        the margin of uncertainty associated with the totals 
        obtained. These issues are particularly important for 
        small population groups and for populations in small 
        towns and neighborhoods.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ The Plan, p. III-35.

    The problem of accuracy was identified in testimony 
received at the October 25, 1995 hearing of the Subcommittee on 
National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice. 
In his evaluation of the Bureau's plans to conduct the 2000 
Census, Commerce Inspector General Francis DeGeorge testified 
that, ``using a 1-percent sample of the entire population to 
represent the last 10 percent may introduce statistical 
uncertainty, producing lower quality information. At 90 
percent, the people who have not yet responded are the hardest 
to count, so a disproportionate number of them will be 
represented in the sample, possibly leading to missing 
information and thus introducing statistical bias.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Francis D. DeGeorge, testimony of the Inspector General of the 
Department of Commerce before the House Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee, Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, 
and Criminal Justice, October 25, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In its April 5, 1996 version of ``The Plan For Census 
2000,'' the Bureau admits also that, ``[s]ampling for 
nonresponse will increase the margin of uncertainty for 
estimates obtained from the sample form data items.'' \47\ The 
sample form, or ``long form,'' which gathers socio-economic 
information, goes to one in six households during the decennial 
census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ The Plan, p. III-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In testimony received by the committee on February 29, 
1996, issues of accuracy and the erosion of data quality were 
major concerns among the witnesses. Dr. Robert Murdock, a rural 
demographer and professor at Texas A&M University, testified 
that:

          I am particularly concerned about this issue from our 
        experience base in working in rural areas across the 
        south, because the areas that we have found it most 
        difficult to get an adequate sampling frame have been 
        those areas that have hard to enumerate populations, 
        particularly rural minority populations. In sum, about 
        this issue, I am concerned that the use of sampling to 
        complete the census count will lead to a degradation in 
        the quality of statistics, the quality of data from the 
        census for small rural areas. According to Census' own 
        figures, 48 percent of the 39,000 governmental units in 
        the United States in 1990 had populations of less than 
        1,000. And two-thirds, more than 67 percent, had less 
        than 2,500 persons.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Robert Murdock, oral testimony before the House Government 
Reform and Oversight Committee, February 29, 1996.

Dr. Murdock observed further in his written statement that, 
``[s]ince these elements of inaccuracy would, in turn, likely 
disproportionately impact minority racial/ethnic groups, such 
problems could also impact the capability of the Integrated 
Coverage Measurement procedures to produce accurate estimates 
of the level of undercount.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Murdock, testimony, February 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the same hearing, Congressman Sawyer also expressed 
concerns about losing quality data with sampling. He states in 
his written testimony that:

          I am also concerned about the Bureau's statement that 
        it plans to hold long form distribution to `smallest 
        possible sample of households'. . . . If, however, the 
        sample is as small as it can be, I have increased 
        concerns about the use of statistical methods in the 
        completion of nonresponse follow-up in the final 10 
        percent of households. Long-form data is used for a 
        wide array of applications. It forms the basis of 
        important economic and societal models. The private-
        sector uses the data for broadly public goods--where to 
        place a 500-job factory, for instance. And local 
        governments--the largest non-Federal user of census--
        use that information to plan traffic patterns, locate 
        schools and do critical urban planning. A suspect 
        result will compromise expert and public confidence in 
        these numbers that the nation needs to make myriad 
        decisions on long-term planning. . . . Clearly, there 
        are trade-offs in the use of statistical methods. The 
        Bureau must work to limit any potential loss in the 
        quality of the data.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Thomas Sawyer, testimony before the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, February 29, 1996.

    Dr. Charles Schultze, chair of the National Research 
Council's ``Panel on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and 
Beyond,'' while stressing the cost and difficulty of achieving 
accurate counts in the hardest to enumerate places, admitted in 
his testimony that, ``[o]n the other hand, the use of surveys 
and sampling techniques will mean that the estimates for very 
small areas will have greater variation above and below the 
true count.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Charles Schultze, testimony before the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, February 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Schultze's testimony centered around the findings of 
the Census 2000 panel, which produced a book entitled 
``Modernizing the U.S. Census'' (1995, National Academy of 
Sciences). According to the findings of the panel, data 
accuracy is relative to the particular size of the geographical 
or political area.\52\ In other words, a census incorporating 
nonresponse sampling and an adjustment based on the ICM sample 
could raise the level of accuracy for a numeric estimate at the 
national level (numeric accuracy). However, the degree of error 
introduced by those techniques increases as the estimates are 
applied to the State and then sub-state levels (distributive 
accuracy). This has implications for congressional and State 
legislative redistricting, as well as distribution of Federal 
funds at the State level and below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Modernizing the U.S. Census, National Academy of Sciences, 
National Academy Press, 1995, p. 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ultimately sampling, be it for nonresponse or ICM, does not 
allow for knowing definitively the individual attributes of the 
population it is imputing into an area. In particular, sampling 
does not allow for knowing where the people missed actually 
live, so the accuracy of the population distribution becomes 
inferior. For congressional redistricting and for local-area 
decisions that involve smaller areas, the relative accuracy of 
the population count for blocks and aggregations of blocks is 
very important. In sum, the committee found overwhelming 
concern among Members of Congress and outside experts that 
sampling would compromise the quality of data at the small, but 
critical, geographic areas such as blocks and aggregations of 
blocks.
    Again, while driven toward nonresponse sampling primarily 
by cost concerns, it appears that the fundamental 
constitutional purpose for the census--to apportion Congress--
has been de-emphasized. The Department of Commerce and the 
Bureau of the Census should prioritize the constitutional basis 
of the decennial census as well as their use for congressional 
and State legislative redistricting. The Bureau should strive 
hardest for accuracy and fairness in getting the proportional 
distribution of the population physically right among 
geographical and political units in order to fulfill our 
constitutional mandate, first and foremost.

6. The complexity of the two different sampling techniques being 
        planned for the 2000 Census adds a great deal of risk to the 
        operational feasibility of the Bureau's current approach

    In 1990, in the attempt to adjust the census, the Bureau 
sampled 150,000 households in what it called a ``post 
enumeration survey,'' or PES. The results of the survey were 
matched to the original count to adjust for the estimated 
undercount/overcount. This was one of the largest surveys ever 
undertaken, and it was not free from error, as indicated below. 
For the 2000 Census, the Bureau plans to sample 750,000 
households, or five times the number of households in the 1990 
sample. The committee has concern about the sheer volume of 
this sample and the capability of the Census Bureau to 
operationally carry out a sample of this magnitude and 
complexity in the time to meet the statutory deadline for 
completion of the census. The Members are concerned as well 
that there are no plans for independent analyses of the survey 
to measure its quality prior to its use in adjusting the 
census.
    Dr. Wachter, who testified as an expert witness for the 
Government in the 1980 and the 1990 lawsuits over census 
adjustment, expressed his concern at the February hearing about 
the complexity of the plans for the statistical adjustments to 
the 2000 Census:

          The first priority should be a `Fail-Safe Census'. 
        Statistical methods need to be simple and direct so 
        that malfunctions will be detected and corrected. 
        Unfortunately, the Bureau's plans for Census 2000 add 
        further layers of complexity onto the complications of 
        1990, and leave the final numbers even more vulnerable 
        to statistical error.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Wachter, testimony, February 29, 1996.

    Indeed, with either statistical methodology contemplated 
for ICM, CensusPlus or DSE, the potential for added error 
appears great when one considers the numerous sources of error. 
In the Census Bureau memo detailing the results of the 1995 
Census Test (Memorandum No. 46, April 1, 1996), a host of error 
sources are evaluated, and include: (1) contamination error, 
(2) reconciliation bias, (3) outmover error, (4) rostering 
error, (5) combined data collection error, (6) CensusPlus 
residency coding error, (7) DSE matching error, (8) missing 
data, and (9) sampling error.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ ``1995 Census Test Results,'' Memorandum No. 46, by E. Ann 
Vacca, Mary Mulry, Ruth Ann Killion, Decennial Statistical Studies 
Division, April 1, 1996, p. 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The importance of assessing the quality of a survey, or 
sample, cannot be overstated. The General Accounting Office, in 
its 1991 report entitled ``The 1990 Census Adjustment,'' 
indicates that:

          The difficulties in successfully completing the PES 
        and the fact that the PES, like all surveys, is subject 
        to a variety of errors, underscores the importance of 
        completing sound and careful assessments of the quality 
        of the PES. . . . The value of the PES estimates will 
        be appreciably reduced if the error in those estimates 
        is considered significant. Thus assessments of the PES 
        form a critical part of the data the Secretary of 
        Commerce will need to make the adjustment decision.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ ``1990 Census Adjustment,'' General Accounting Office, GAO/
GGD-91-42, March 1991, p. 16.

    Yet, under the Bureau's concept for a ``one-number census'' 
there will not be a set of figures for the actual enumeration 
(completed with or without the sample for nonresponse) against 
which to independently evaluate the ICM estimate. Only the 
final ICM version will be made available to the public. Dr. 
Wachter, in his testimony before the committee, also expressed 
concerned about this issue. ``The figures behind the final 
figures will not be available outside the Bureau. If choices of 
detail shift a dozen seats in the House of Representatives, we 
shall never know. If the problems of 1990 are brought under 
control by the Bureau's new initiatives, we shall never know.'' 
\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ Wachter, testimony, February 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Bureau's Plans Limit Quality Control

    In addition, the Bureau, citing funding constraints, plans 
only a limited quality control program compared to the 1990 
program where quality control was conducted for more operations 
and with higher sampling rates.\57\ For the 2000 Census, the 
Bureau will implement quality control operations only to detect 
major errors in data collection and processing operations. The 
most serious implication of this plan is stated by the Bureau: 
``Data collection and processing operations may yield results 
of lower quality than those achieved in the 1990 Census.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ The Plan, p. III-39.
    \58\ Id., p. III-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even with the quality control procedures in place for 1990, 
the committee was reminded of a major problem that arose with 
the 1990 attempted adjustment. Senator Kohl stated at the 
hearing in February that, ``[i]n retrospect, we were extremely 
fortunate that we did not adjust the 1990 Census. Several 
months after that contentious decision in July of 1991, the 
Census Bureau discovered an error in the adjustment procedures 
that significantly reduced the undercount.'' \59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ Senator Herb Kohl, testimony before the House Government 
Reform and Oversight Committee, February 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Wachter echoed this concern about potential errors. He 
recalled that, ``If Secretary Mosbacher had decided to use the 
statistically adjusted numbers as 1990 census counts, a seat in 
the House of Representatives would have been shifted from 
Pennsylvania to Arizona by an error in a computer program. It 
affected a million people in the count. It remained 
undiscovered for months after the Secretary's decision, buried 
under layer upon layer of complications in the statistical 
procedures.'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ Wachter, testimony, February 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The computer coding error, according to Dr. Wachter:

          epitomizes the problems of statistical adjustment in 
        1990. Complications were added in pursuit of 
        incremental gains in accuracy. However, many small 
        gains can be offset by a few large errors. In 1990, the 
        complexity of their modeling systems made it hard for 
        the Bureau to detect big mistakes and uncertainties, 
        until long after the critical decisions had been made. 
        Indeed, we and others inside and outside the Bureau 
        later found systematic errors in the procedures 
        originally used to evaluate the adjustment proposed to 
        Secretary Mosbacher: the original evaluations 
        overstated the merits of adjustment. The more complex 
        are the modeling systems used, and the tighter the 
        constraints of time and money, the harder it becomes to 
        make realistic assessments of the statistical 
        uncertainties in the model outputs.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ Id.

    Dr. Barbara Bailar, former Associate Director for 
Statistical Standards and Methodology at the Census Bureau, 
testified about her concerns for the ability to carry out 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
quality control with the complex plans for the 2000 Census:

          I am concerned that the Bureau is instituting so many 
        new procedures and processing steps without having 
        adequate quality control. Not that I am advocating 
        quality control for documentation purposes only, but I 
        believe procedures should be built into the census 
        processes that tell the Census staff quickly if 
        something is going wrong. That the Bureau staff 
        worrries that funding constraints limit their quality 
        control program makes me very concerned.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Barbara Bailar, testimony before the House Government Reform 
and Oversight Committee, February 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          IV. Recommendations

1. Congress should work to clarify existing Federal statutes with 
        regard to the use of sampling to make statistical adjustments 
        to the census for apportionment purposes

    The reason there are so many lawsuits over the issue of 
sampling/adjustment is because Federal statutes have been 
interpreted in various ways. It is the desire of this committee 
to avoid the numerous lawsuits that came after Secretary 
Mosbacher's decision not to adjust the census. Litigation is 
expensive for the American taxpayer. Though we do not have 
exact figures, we expect that it has cost plenty for the 
Federal Government to argue its cases before the courts. 
Congress should clarify its intent with respect to sampling/
adjustment by amending 13 U.S.C., sections 141 and/or 195.

2. The Bureau should not use sampling methods to complete or adjust the 
        actual enumeration of the 2000 Census which is constitutionally 
        mandated for purposes of apportionment

    Congress should not allow sampling/statistical adjustment 
to modify or replace the actual enumeration. The primary reason 
is that a statistical adjustment is inherently subjective and 
open to potential manipulation of the final count. It is also 
possible that sampling/adjustment could undermine public 
confidence in the census and erode participation by State and 
local groups, and individuals.

3. The Department of Commerce and the Bureau of the Census should 
        prioritize the constitutional mandate of the decennial census--
        apportionment of the House of Representatives

    It appears that the fundamental constitutional purpose for 
the decennial census--to apportion the House of 
Representative--has been de-emphasized. However, this is the 
element that must take precedence--regardless of cost. The 
Bureau should strive hardest for accuracy and fairness in terms 
of getting the proportional distribution of the population 
physically right among geographical and political units. The 
committee believes this can only be achieved by performing an 
actual enumeration.

4. The Bureau should emphasize and strengthen its cooperative 
        relationships with State and local elected officials, as well 
        as members of local organizations, who are vital in helping 
        increase response rates to the decennial census

    The committee recognizes and is concerned that there has 
always been an undercount, and that in the 1990 Census there 
was an increase in the differential undercount of minorities. 
This is not the fault of the Bureau of the Census. Socio-
economic changes have impacted greatly on the ability of the 
Bureau to locate everyone. Additionally, there are more people 
who are skeptical of ``government'' and who refuse to cooperate 
with the census. These people exist in all areas of this 
country, urban, rural, and suburban. However, no-one is 
omniscient. We do not know for sure exactly what these people 
look like. We do not know, nor have we ever known, the ``true'' 
population.
    The Bureau is spending considerable time and resources 
developing ways to improve response rates and encourage 
participation in the census. A major effort will be in 
encouraging stronger relationships with State and local elected 
officials, as well as nongovernmental organizations, who can 
help educate communities about the importance of the census to 
individuals personally. They know their communities better than 
anyone. And it is clearly in their interest to make sure 
everyone is counted. To embark on a program of estimating the 
last 10 percent of the population would certainly undermine 
this important effort.

5. The Bureau should strengthen its plans for a thorough quality check 
        of the 2000 Census and maintain open access to all processes 
        for internal and external review and analysis

    It is disturbing that the Bureau is so dramatically de-
prioritizing quality control in the 2000 Census. In doing so, 
not only is the Bureau jeopardizing the quality of the 
decennial census, but it is jeopardizing its reputation as the 
finest statistical agency in the world. Resources must be made 
available to evaluate the complicated steps in an undertaking 
of this magnitude. This country can ill-afford a $4 billion 
mistake.
          CLARIFYING COMMENTS OF HON. WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR.

    There are many subjective elements in the adjustment 
process, including choices of adjustment methodology, 
statistical models for estimation, post stratification, and 
sample design. Experience in 1990 showed these choices had 
substantial impacts, and introduced undesirable, arbitrary 
elements into the census process. However, with the probability 
sampling techniques used by the Census Bureau, given the sample 
design, the choice of the sample itself is objective.
                                       Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr.
                 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. STEVEN SCHIFF

    The decennial census and how it is conducted have always 
been sensitive and controversial matters. The data from the 
final census are used for a variety of purposes. The 
Constitutional mandate to apportion the U.S. Congress is by far 
the most recognized purpose of the Census. But, census data are 
also used in the allocation of billions of dollars each year in 
Federal and State grants.
    The Census Bureau has decided for the first time to use 
sampling techniques in the 2000 decennial census to adjust the 
actual enumeration. With the stakes being so high for States 
and localities, this is undoubtedly a very important decision.
    I agree with many of the recommendations in the committee's 
report. I especially agree with the recommendation that the 
Bureau should enhance partnerships with State and local 
officials in order to provide the most accurate survey 
possible. This would be most helpful for those areas, such as 
New Mexico, which have a significant percentage of the 
population who for a variety of reasons do not wish to respond 
to the initial mail-out form. In my view, the Bureau should 
make every effort in conjunction with State and local 
governments to account for nonrespondents by physical means.
    All reasonable efforts should continue to be made to 
achieve a maximum actual count of individuals. However, after 
such count is complete, I believe that there is still 
additional room for finalizing population numbers through the 
use of sampling.
    No one believes that any process of individual 
identification will produce a totally accurate result. Using 
reasonable sampling techniques, after a detailed count, will 
help us achieve a more accurate final result, than by an 
individual count, alone.
                                                Hon. Steven Schiff.
              ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN

    I have several comments about the committee report: 
``Sampling and Statistical Adjustment in the Decennial Census: 
Fundamental Flaws'' which I am stating here for the record.
    The report rejects the use of statistical adjustment to 
help address the undercount problem in the 1990 census, and in 
particular, the undercount of minority population. I believe 
that a statistical adjustment must be looked at as a possible 
way to improve the census count, but that we must ensure that 
accuracy is not sacrificed in any adjustment for an undercount.
    I am deeply concerned about a possible undercount in the 
next census in 2000 which would unfairly impact on my home 
State of Florida and other areas throughout the Nation with 
high growth rates and high minority populations. The Census 
Bureau estimates that the last census failed to count 340,000 
people in Florida or approximately 2.6 percent of the 
population and over 60,000 people or 3.0 percent of the 
population in Metropolitan Dade County. This compares with a 
2.1 percent undercount of the total U.S. population at the 
national level, and an undercount of 4.8 percent of the black 
population and 5.2 percent of the Hispanic population 
throughout the Nation.
    This undercount costs Florida and other areas untold 
millions of dollars in Federal funds. It is essential that the 
2000 census be as accurate as possible since it determines such 
important matters as the size of each State's Congressional 
delegation, its votes for President in the Electoral College, 
the boundaries of numerous districts at all levels of 
government, and the determines the distribution of government 
funding formulas.
    I believe that the Census Bureau's proposed plan for 
sampling for nonresponse in the 2000 census needs further 
modification, especially in ensuring accuracy for small area 
population figures which are important in assuring fairness in 
redistricting based on the census figures. I have joined with 
my Miami colleague, Rep. Carrie Meek, in co-sponsoring H.R. 
3558 which would require the Census Bureau to count 90 percent 
of the population at the census tract level before sampling.
    This approach of sampling at the census tract level is 
supported by Chuck Blowers, Chief of Research and Oliver Kerr 
of the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Planning, 
Development and Regulation. They agree that this requirement 
``will result in more accurate census counts, especially in 
areas of minority concentration and those with many recent 
immigrants.''
    I strongly concur with the report's recommendation that the 
Census Bureau ``should emphasize and strengthen its cooperative 
relationships with state and local elected officials, as well 
as members of local organizations, who are vital in helping 
increase response rates to the decennial census''. My local 
county planning officials would appreciate having access to the 
Census Bureau's address listings by tract and block far enough 
in advance so that they can make corrections to it prior to the 
next census.
                                          Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
 DISSENTING VIEWS OF HON. CARDISS COLLINS, HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, HON. 
  TOM LANTOS, HON. MAJOR R. OWENS, HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, HON. JOHN M. 
SPRATT, JR., HON. LOUISE MCINTOSH SLAUGHTER, HON. GARY A. CONDIT, HON. 
 BERNARD SANDERS, HON. KAREN L. THURMAN, HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY, HON. 
BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, HON. JAMES P. MORAN, 
   HON. GENE GREEN, HON. CARRIE P. MEEK, HON. CHAKA FATTAH, AND HON. 
                           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS

    The majority has proposed a report that rejects sampling to 
count the most difficult to count in the census, and adjusting 
the census for those that cannot be found. Yet both have been 
proposed by the Census Bureau to constrain the cost of the 
census and make it more accurate. This outright rejection of 
sampling and adjustment, without any proposal for achieving the 
dual charge from Congress of a more accurate and less expensive 
census, is untenable.
    There has been considerable confusion about the proposals 
to use sampling in the 2000 census. The Census Bureau has 
proposed two uses of sampling: once 90 percent of the 
households have been counted, the Census will draw a 1 in 10 
sample of the remaining households (commonly referred to as 
``sampling for nonresponse''); and second, a separate survey 
will be conducted to determine who was missed or counted twice, 
and the population counts adjusted accordingly (called 
Integrated Coverage Measurement by the Census Bureau). Several 
members have expressed concerns about the implementation of 
sampling for nonresponse, for example, Rep. Meek has introduced 
H.R. 3558 to constrain the geography used for this sample.
    Passing this report puts the committee on record opposing 
any adjustment. If the 2000 census is not adjusted for the 
undercount of minorities, it would continue a 60 year tradition 
of measuring the problem, but doing nothing about it. Congress 
has repeatedly called for a more accurate census. With the 
passage of this report, we will be settling for an inaccurate 
census.
    Dr. Barbara Bryant, Director of the Census Bureau under 
President Bush, in testimony before the House Committee on Post 
Office and Civil Service, said that the census had reached the 
limits of what could be done with traditional methods. Congress 
has called for a census that is less expensive and more 
accurate.\1\ Three separate panels of experts convened by the 
National Academy of Sciences have recommended the use of 
sampling and statistical methods to achieve these goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Dr. Barbara Bryant, testimony before the House Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service, July 16, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We agree that the plans laid out by the Census Bureau need 
further definition, and that the plans for sampling for 
nonresponse need to be modified. Where we differ is the 
resolution. The Republican report offers no solutions. We must 
be sure that methods used to improve accuracy and reduce costs 
are, as Dr. Kenneth Wachter testified before this committee, 
``simple, direct, and fail-safe.'' However, to prohibit new 
methods that could reduce cost or improve accuracy is 
premature.

                                findings

    1.The fundamental purpose of the decennial census of 
population is to account for all residents of the United States 
for the purpose of apportioning the seats in the House of 
Representatives among the States.
    2. Sixty years of research on the census has shown that 
there will always be some residents for whom the census has not 
accounted. The net undercount has come down from 5.4 percent in 
1940 to 1.2 percent in 1980, but rose to 1.8 percent in 
1990,\2\ suggesting that we may have reached the limit to which 
we can expect the census to go using traditional direct 
enumeration methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Hogan, Howard and Gregg Robinson, ``What the Census Bureau's 
Coverage Evaluation Programs Tell Us About Differential Undercount,'' 
unpublished paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    3. It is unlikely that the census can account for the final 
1 to 2 percent of the population without employing some type of 
statistical procedure. In order for these methods to achieve 
widespread public acceptance, they must be simple. The results 
cannot be altered by changing the assumptions within the 
method, and they must be subject to widespread independent 
review by both the public and the professional community.
    4. The cost of a traditional census has increased 
dramatically, doubling in constant dollars from 1970 to 1980, 
and increasing another 25 percent in 1990. Part of the cost 
increase is the result of a declining percentage of forms 
returned by mail, from 78 percent in 1970 to 75 percent in 1980 
to 65 percent in 1990; however; the largest increase in cost 
does not correspond with the largest drop in the mail-back 
response rate.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Decennial Census: 1990 Results Show Need for Fundamental 
Reform, U.S. General Accounting Report GAO/GGD-92-94, June 1992. Other 
factors for declining mail returns, cited by the General Accounting 
Office, include illiteracy, non-English-speaking immigrants, concerns 
about privacy, the hectic nature of modern living, undocumented aliens, 
growth in commercial mail and telephone solicitations, lack of 
confidence in civic institutions, and increasing numbers of 
nontraditional households and family arrangements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    5. The Census Bureau has proposed a budget of $3.9 billion 
for the 2000 census,\4\ with major savings achieved by 
accounting for the last 10 percent of the population through a 
1 in 10 sample. However, Congress has shown a reluctance to 
fund the census at this level. Both the FY 1995 and FY 1996 
budget resolutions funded below the requested level, and the 
chairman of the Commerce, State, and Justice Appropriations 
Subcommittee has indicated that the Census Bureau will not be 
funded at the requested level for FY 1997.\5\ Both the House 
and Senate Appropriations subcommittees have proposed funding 
only about two-thirds of the increase requested to fund 2000 
census activities in FY 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ The Plan for Census 2000, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department 
of Commerce, April 1996.
    \5\ Roll Call, May 6, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    6. The implementation of sampling to account for the last 
10 percent has not received wide-spread public acceptance. 
Members of Congress, as well as the Census Bureau's African-
American Advisory Committee,\6\ have expressed strong 
reservations about the choice of geography and detrimental 
effects on the count of minorities. On the other hand, a 
National Academy of Sciences panel,\7\ convened at the request 
of the Census Bureau, strongly supported sampling to account 
for the last 10 percent. In testimony before the Government 
Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, 
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, both the General 
Accounting Office \8\ and the Department of Commerce Inspector 
General \9\ supported sampling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ ``Minutes of the December 1995 Meeting of the Minority Advisory 
Committees'', U.S. Bureau of the Census, unpublished.
    \7\ White, Andrew A. And Keith F. Rust, eds., Sampling in the 2000 
Census: Interim Report I, Panel to Evaluate Alternative Census 
Methodologies, Committee on National Statistics, National Research 
Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, June 1996.
    \8\ L. Nye Stevens, Director of Federal Management and Workforce 
Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office. Testimony before the House 
Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, 
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, October 25, 1995.
    \9\ Francis DeGeorge, Inspector General, U.S. Department of 
Commerce. Testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight 
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal 
Justice, October 25, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               background

Finding 1. The fundamental purpose of the decennial census of 
        population is to account for all residents of the United States 
        for the purpose of apportioning the seats in the House of 
        Representatives among the States.
    The decennial census of population was created in Article 
I, Section 2 of the Constitution:

          Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned 
        among the several States which may be included in the 
        Union, according to their respective Numbers, . . . The 
        actual enumeration shall be made within three Years 
        after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United 
        States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, 
        in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 2.

    The Constitution makes no mention of any criteria for being 
included in the census other than residence. Both the courts 
and Congress have affirmed that the census is to include all 
residents. In 1990, the U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, PA 
threw out a lawsuit that would have blocked the Census Bureau 
from counting illegal aliens in the 1990 census. A similar suit 
was dismissed in 1980.\11\ In August 1989, Congress rejected an 
amendment to the FY 1990 appropriations for the Department of 
Commerce that would have required the Census Bureau to exclude 
illegal aliens from the 1990 census count.\12\ Rep. Stephen 
Horn expressed these sentiments at the February 29, 1996 
hearing of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
``. . . as you know, the Constitution says nothing about 
citizens; it's `persons.' '' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Rich, Spencer, ``Suit to Block Illegal Aliens From Census 
Count Voided,'' the Washington Post, May 10, 1989, p. A 17.
    \12\ Biskupic, Joan, ``Dodging Touchy Census Issue, House Passes 
Funding Bill,'' Congressional Quarterly, August 5, 1989, p. 2047.
    \13\ Transcript of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
hearing ``The 2000 Census: Putting Our Money Where it Counts,'' 
February 29, 1996, p. 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Franklin v. Massachusetts \14\ the Supreme Court 
rejected a claim by the State of Massachusetts and two of its 
registered voters. Massachusetts argued that the method used by 
the Census Bureau to count Federal employees serving overseas 
was consistent with the constitutional language and goal of 
equal representation. The Supreme Court upheld the authority of 
the Secretary of Commerce to define the boundaries of ``usual 
residence''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ 505 U.S. 788 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding 2. Sixty years of research on the census has shown that there 
        will always be some residents for whom the census has not 
        accounted. The net undercount has came down from 5.4 percent in 
        1940 to 1.2 percent in 1980, but rose to 1.8 percent in 
        1990,\15\ suggesting that we may have reached the limit to 
        which we can expect the census to go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Hogan, Howard and Gregg Robinson, ``What the Census Bureau's 
Coverage Evaluation Programs Tell Us About Differential Undercount,'' 
unpublished paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There has been marked improvement in reducing the 
undercount since the first estimates from a Census Bureau 
program called Demographic analysis. Demographic Analysis is 
limited because it only gives measures for the whole country, 
and cannot provide estimates for ethnic groups or racial groups 
other African-American. However, it has a long history of 
research, provides more age detail than other measures, and 
provides greater confidence in describing differences in the 
undercount between groups.\16\ The table below gives the net 
undercount for the United States from 1940 to 1990.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Ibid. p. 5.
    \17\ Ibid. p. 5.

                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1940     1950     1960     1970     1980     1990 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.....................................................     5.4%     4.1%     3.1%     2.7%     1.2%     1.8%
Black.....................................................     8.4%     7.5%     6.6%     6.5%     4.5%     5.7%
Nonblack..................................................     5.0%     3.8%     2.7%     2.2%     0.8%     1.3%
Difference (Black - Nonblack).............................     3.4%     3.6%     3.9%     4.3%     3.7%     4.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While the net undercount for the United States has declined, 
the black/nonblack differential has increased with each census, 
with the exception of 1980, reaching the highest measured 
difference in 1990. This differential draws into question the 
equity of the census data, especially when used for 
apportionment, and by extension the electoral college, as well 
as for distributing Federal funds. It shows clearly that the 
census does not account for all residents of the United States. 
Over 4 million people were left out of the 1990 census.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ The undercount for the census is always reported as a net 
figure which includes both people counted more than once, and people 
not counted at all. In 1990 approximately 10 million people were missed 
in the census and 6 million people were counted twice, resulting in a 
net undercount of 4 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to racial differentials, the undercount varies 
by geography. Following the 1990 census, the Census Bureau 
conducted a ``post-enumeration survey'' which provides more 
geographic detail than demographic analysis as well as 
estimates for other racial and ethnic groups.
    The post-enumeration survey shows considerable differences 
in the net undercount from State to State, from a low of 0.3 
percent in Pennsylvania to a high of 3.4 in the District of 
Columbia. The undercount is often talked about in terms of the 
problems of enumeration in urban areas and the problems of high 
undercounts for minorities. However, many non-urban States with 
a larger than average rural population have undercount rates 
above the national average of 1.6 percent:\19\ Idaho (2.0 
percent); Montana (2.4 percent); Mississippi (2.1 percent); 
North Carolina (1.8 percent); and South Carolina (2.0 percent). 
Large undercounts also occur in States like California (2.7 
percent), Florida (2.0 percent); Louisiana (2.2 percent), 
Maryland (2.1 percent); New Mexico (3.1 percent) and Texas (2.8 
percent).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ The estimate of a 1.6 percent net undercount is from the post-
enumeration survey. The estimate of 1.8 percent is from demographic 
analysis. The two methods yield slightly different estimates for the 
same group, but there are no distinct differences.
    \20\ Hogan, Howard, ``The 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey: Operations 
and New Estimates,'' paper presented at the 1992 Annual Meetings of the 
American Statistical Association, August 1992, U.S. Bureau of the 
Census, Washington, DC, and unpublished tables provided by the Bureau 
of the Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding 3. It is unlikely that the census can account for the final 1 
        to 2 percent of the population without employing some type of 
        statistical procedure. In order for these methods to achieve 
        widespread public acceptance, they must be simple. The results 
        cannot be altered by changing the assumptions within the 
        method, and they must be subject to widespread independent 
        review by both the public and the professional community.
    The demands of a statistical adjustment are severe. The 
census counts people block by block across the country, and 
those counts by block are used to build congressional 
districts, State legislature districts, and to allocate funds 
for a variety of Federal programs like the grants to school 
districts for disadvantaged children under Title I of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
    Debate over the proposed adjustment for the 1990 census was 
fierce. Dr. Barbara Bryant, Director of the Census Bureau 
during the 1990 census, acknowledged that the procedures were 
ones over which reasonable demographers and statisticians could 
disagree. Some, like the State of Wisconsin, argued that 
adjusting the census would be unfair to those States that made 
an effort to get a complete count. Others argued for the 
fairness of an adjustment. Peter Chacon, then chairman of the 
California State Assembly Elections and Reapportionment 
Committee testified ``I would close my testimony by urging the 
Subcommittee to do all in its power to impress upon the 
Secretary of Commerce that he should order an appropriate 
adjustment of the 1990 census so that undercounted minorities 
can achieve the political representation to which they are 
entitled.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Chacon, Peter, testimony at the joint hearing before the 
Subcommittee on Census and Population of the House Committee on Post 
Office and Civil Service and the Subcommittee on Government Information 
and Regulation of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, March 
19, 1991, Serial No. 102-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The fundamental uses of census data require that any shift 
from the traditional methods be done with a clear focus on 
public perception. In his testimony before the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, Rep. Tom Sawyer said ``We are 
talking about accuracy; we are talking about cost; and we are 
talking about confidence.'' In answering questions he 
elaborated, ``I think we need to be able to adjust the 
techniques that we use, but we should do so in a way that 
sustains the broad public confidence and improves the 
accuracy.'' \22\ Dr. Kenneth Wachter echoed this sentiment when 
he said ``Statistical methods need to be simple and direct so 
that malfunctions will be detected and corrected.'' He went on 
to state, ``. . . if statistical methods are to be given a role 
in the generation of the Census 2000 counts, then those methods 
should be simple, direct, and fail-safe.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Transcript of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
hearing ``The 2000 Census: Putting Our Money Where it Counts,'' 
February 29, 1996, p. 21 and p. 44.
    \23\ Ibid., p. 117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding 4. The cost of the census has increased dramatically, doubling 
        in constant dollars from 1970 to 1980, and increasing another 
        25 percent in 1990. Part of the cost increase is the result of 
        a declining rate of forms returned by mail, from 78 percent in 
        1970 to 75 percent in 1980 to 65 percent in 1990, however; the 
        largest increase in cost does not correspond with the largest 
        drop in the mail-back response rate.
    Between 1984 and 1993, the Census Bureau spent $2.6 billion 
to plan, conduct, process, and publish the 1990 census.\24\ The 
Census Bureau and GAO estimate that the same census in 2000 
would cost $4.8 to $5 billion.\25\ The 1970 census cost $10 per 
household. In 1980, the cost per household, in constant 
dollars, was $20 per household, and in 1990, the census cost 
$25 per household. The $3.9 billion estimate would hold the 
cost in constant dollars to about $25 per household.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ According to Census Bureau figures, data collection accounted 
for 49.7 percent of the total cost. Data processing and geographic 
support accounted for an additional 28.6 percent. The remaining 21.7 
percent was for planning and direction (6.6 percent), data 
dissemination (5.8 percent), research and evaluation (4.4 percent), 
promotion and outreach (2.8 percent), and other activities (2.1 
percent).
    \25\ The Plan for Census 2000, Bureau of the Census, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, April 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the same time costs have been escalating, participation 
in the mail-out/mail-back portion of the census has been 
declining. In 1970 the Census Bureau began to use the U.S. 
Postal Service to deliver census forms. During that census, 78 
percent returned the form by mail. In 1980, 75 percent of the 
households returned the form by mail. For the 1990 census, the 
Census Bureau budgeted for a 70 percent mail-back return rate, 
however, only 65 percent were return by mail. Current research 
by the Census Bureau suggests that the comparable rate for 2000 
will be approximately 55 percent. Response rates also vary by 
geography. Large metropolitan areas usually experience the 
lowest mail-back rates, and 23 of the 32 largest cities had 
response rates lower than the national average. Boston, 
Chicago, Cleveland, New Orleans, New York, and Washington, DC, 
all had mail-back response rates below 55 percent.
    The decline in participation, particularly in returning the 
form by mail, is often identified as a major source of the 
increased cost of the census. The National Academy of Sciences 
panel on census requirements stated ``A substantial decline in 
the population's response rate to the mailed census 
questionnaire . . . has been an important cause of the cost 
escalation, . . .'' \26\ Similarly, Dr. Everett Ehrlich, Under 
Secretary for Economic Affairs at the Department of Commerce, 
at the June 6, 1996 hearing before the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, said ``The cost of the census per 
respondent in 1990 dollars went up very dramatically, 
particularly, in 1990, up to 25 1990 dollars per respondent, 
and it did so because of this fundamental failure of design 
that I discussed earlier. That is, participation rates were 
falling, . . .'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Edmonston, Barry and Charles Schultze, eds., Modernizing the 
U.S. Census, Panel on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond, 
Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council, National 
Academy Press, 1995, p. 44.
    \27\ Dr. Everett Ehrlich, transcript of testimony before the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, June 6, 1996, p. 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The doubling of cost between 1970 and 1980 corresponds with 
a 3 percentage point decrease in the mail-back response rate. 
Between 1980 and 1990, the mail-back response rate fell 10 
percentage points, but corresponded to a 25 percent increase in 
cost. The National Academy of Sciences panel suggests that this 
anomaly may be due to a more intensive effort to enumerate 
everyone through labor-intensive measures, a decline in the 
quality of temporary personnel, and an increased demand for 
accurate counts at small geographic levels.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Op. Cit. p. 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding 5. The Census Bureau has proposed a budget of $3.9 billion for 
        the 2000 census, with major savings achieved by accounting for 
        the last 10 percent of the population through a 1 in 10 sample. 
        However, Congress has shown a reluctance to fund the census at 
        this level. Both the FY 1995 and FY 1996 budgets were funded 
        below the requested level, and the chairman of the Commerce, 
        State, and Justice Appropriations Subcommittee has indicated 
        that the Census Bureau will not be funded at the requested 
        level for FY 1997.
    On February 28, 1996, the Census Bureau announced its plans 
for the 2000 census. Innovations to past censuses include a 
redesigned ``user-friendly form; plans to mail reminder letters 
and replacement forms to those who do not return their form by 
mail; a plan to account for the last 10 percent of the 
population with a sample (sampling for nonresponse); and an 
adjustment procedure incorporated into the census called 
``integrated coverage measurement.'' \29\ The estimated cost 
for the 2000 census is $3.9 billion; just under the $25 per 
household cost of the 1990 census. Sampling for nonresponse 
accounts for about $500 million of the $900 million savings 
over the estimated $4.8 billion cost of repeating the 
procedures from 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ The Plan for Census 2000, Bureau of the Census, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, April 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress has shown a reluctance to fund the 2000 census 
even at the $3.9 billion estimated by the Census Bureau. In FY 
1994, the first year of the 2000 census budget cycle, the 
Census Bureau requested $23.1 million for census 2000 
activities, and was allocated $18.7 million by the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and 
Judiciary. In FY 1995 the Census Bureau requested 48.6 and 
received $42.1 million. The Census 2000 request for FY 1996 was 
$60.1 million, and the appropriation was $50.6 million. In FY 
1997, the Census Bureau has requested a total of $105 million 
for the 2000 census activities. Following the Appropriations 
Subcommittee hearing on the Census Bureau budget, Chairman Hal 
Rogers was quoted as saying that the $3.9 billion is ``entirely 
too much money'' and said that he was ``disinclined to agree to 
the funding request'' of $105.\30\ Both the House and Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittees have proposed funding only about 
two-thirds of the increase requested to fund 2000 census 
activities in FY 1997. At the June 6, 1996, Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight hearing, Rep. Gene Green said, 
``. . . you cannot have it both ways. If we are going to cut 
the budget for the census, we are going to have to sample more. 
. . .'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Roll Call, May 6, 1996.
    \31\ Transcript of testimony before the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, June 6, 1996, p. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding 6. The implementation of sampling to account for the last 10 
        percent has not received wide-spread public acceptance. Members 
        of Congress, as well as the Census Bureau's African-American 
        Advisory Committee, have expressed strong reservations about 
        the choice of geography and detrimental effects on the count of 
        minorities. On the other hand, a National Academy of Sciences 
        panel, convened at the request of the Census Bureau, strongly 
        supported sampling to account for the last 10 percent. In 
        testimony before the Government Reform and Oversight 
        Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and 
        Criminal Justice, both the General Accounting Office and the 
        Department of Commerce Inspector General supported sampling.
    The implementation of sampling to account for the last 10 
percent has not received wide-spread public acceptance. At the 
February 28, 1996, announcement of the 2000 plan, the Census 
Bureau reported that following the second questionnaire 
mailing, it would either phone or visit households that had not 
mailed back the form, until it had counted 90 percent of each 
county. At the December 1995 meeting of the minority advisory 
committees, Dr. Robert Hill, a member of the African-American 
Advisory Committee, commented that he ``had not seen evidence 
that the Bureau would do extra outreach activities in minority 
communities; distributing paper advertisements will not 
suffice.'' \32\ Ms. Barbara Sabol, also a member of the 
African-American Advisory Committee supported his comments, and 
said that she ``visualized a disproportionate under 
representation of African-Americans. . . .'' She went on to say 
that ``the Bureau placed more emphasis on reducing the cost of 
the census than on reducing the differential undercount.\33\ 
Dr. Juliette Thorpe Okotie-Eboh, chair of the African-American 
Advisory Committee, criticized the choice of counties as the 
geographic level for sampling.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Minutes of the joint meeting of the Census Advisory Committee 
on African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian and 
Pacific Islander, and Hispanic Populations, December 11-13, 1995, p. 
53.
    \33\ Ibid.
    \34\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the Government Reform and Oversight hearing on February 
29, 1996, following the announcement of the census 2000 plan, 
Rep. Carrie Meek raised concerns about the use of sampling, and 
the possibility of aggravating the undercount.\35\ Rep. Meek 
subsequently introduced H.R. 3558 which would require the 
Census Bureau to count 90 percent of the population at the 
census tract level before sampling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Transcript of testimony before the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight February 29, 1996, pp. 54-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Others have been more strident in their criticism of 
sampling. Rep. Thomas Petri said ``As many members of this 
committee are aware, I believe sampling techniques should be 
used only for guidance in conducting the census and not for 
adjusting the final numbers. To rely on sampling rather than 
the final census count would be comparable to changing election 
returns if they are at variance with public opinion polls.'' 
\36\ Rep. Thomas Barrett said ``. . . it seems to me that 
reliance on sampling, then, would allow--using your statement 
of a bicoastal tendency--would allow Congress, the House of 
Representatives, since you have much more electoral strength in 
California, New York, Florida, those States, to use mechanisms 
that we pass here in the House to benefit those States. They've 
got the votes here. Let's just use a sampling that benefits 
those areas of the country.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Ibid., p. 31.
    \37\ Ibid, pp. 42-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the other hand, a National Academy of Sciences panel, 
the General Accounting Office, and the Department of Commerce 
Inspector General all endorse the use of sampling. Francis 
DeGeorge, Department of Commerce Inspector General, testified 
before the Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on 
National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, 
``The bureau has selected a design for the 2000 census that 
includes some sampling but does not go far enough. . . .'' \38\ 
L. Nye Stevens, Director of Federal Management and Workforce 
Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, testified ``We are 
particularly encouraged by the decision to adopt sampling among 
the nonresponse population as a basic foundation of the count. 
We have long advocated this step.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Transcript of testimony before the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, International 
Affairs, and Criminal Justice, October 25, 1995, p. 13.
    \39\ L. Nye Stevens, Director of Federal Management and Workforce 
Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office. Testimony before the House 
Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, 
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, October 25, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its first interim report, the National Academy of Sciences 
panel on census methodology stated ``We support the use of 
sampling procedures in the follow-up of households that do not 
respond by mail (or telephone call) to the census. . . .'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ White, Andrew A. And Keith F. Rust, eds., Sampling in the 2000 
Census: Interim Report I, Panel to Evaluate Alternative Census 
Methodologies, Committee on National Statistics, National Research 
Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, June 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Hon. Cardiss Collins.
                                   Hon. Henry A. Waxman.
                                   Hon. Tom Lantos.
                                   Hon. Major R. Owens.
                                   Hon. Edolphus Towns.
                                   Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr.
                                   Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter.
                                   Hon. Gary A. Condit.
                                   Hon. Bernard Sanders.
                                   Hon. Karen L. Thurman.
                                   Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney.
                                   Hon. Barbara-Rose Collins.
                                   Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
                                   Hon. James P. Moran.
                                   Hon. Gene Green.
                                   Hon. Carrie P. Meek.
                                   Hon. Chaka Fattah.
                                   Hon. Elijah E. Cummings.
               ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. THOMAS M. BARRETT

    I agree with the concerns expressed in this report about 
the sampling and statistical adjustments in the Census Bureau 
plan for the upcoming decennial census, and the subjectivity 
involved with such methodologies.
    As the 1990 Census demonstrated, our current decennial 
census methodology, based on actual enumeration, is far from 
perfect. The 1990 Census resulted in significant undercounts in 
many areas in our Nation, specifically in communities with high 
numbers of minority residents.
    The undercount problem must be addressed. The census 
determines how entitlement and other resources will be 
distributed and plays the central role in the apportionment of 
Representatives in Congress. The census updates the status and 
provides data about who Americans are and how Americans live. 
The census forms the base core of information that affects 
policy and planning decisions in all levels of our public and 
private sectors. Census results affect every American. For our 
Nation to obtain a useful accounting, every American resident 
deserves to be counted. If we are to have a fair and just 
society, the undercount problem must be resolved. Yet, we know 
we will never be able to count absolutely everyone.
    My concern revolves around how we remedy the undercount 
problem. I strongly believe that we must mount a strong and 
dedicated effort to vastly improve our system based on actual 
enumeration. The way to do this is to spend the dollars 
necessary for an accurate count.
    In converse to actual enumeration, sampling would reduce 
incentives for States and local governments to strive for an 
accurate count because they could rely on the inaccuracies of 
sampling to make up for deficiencies.
    In these politically volatile times, I do not believe we 
should go down the road of picking and choosing a census 
methodology reliant on sampling and statistical adjustments 
which contain subjective criteria and assumptions. A 
methodology that may benefit minority groups today could be 
later modified or exchanged for another that could be designed 
to the detriment of specific minority populations. As we well 
know, political and judicial winds do shift. The people, 
however, do not go away; and their actual existence cannot be 
politically modified. Therefore, we need to find ways to 
actually count them.
    Unlike many of my colleagues, I am not opposed to any and 
all proposals to adjust the census. I also disagree with many 
of my colleagues who seem satisfied with the status quo. Those 
of us who oppose the Census Bureau's sampling proposal must put 
the money
where our mouths are and adequately fund the Census Bureau and 
State and local entities involved with census efforts. I am 
disappointed that the majority of this Congress has expressed 
their disagreement with the Census Bureau's sampling proposals 
by slashing the Census budget.
                                            Hon. Thomas M. Barrett.
           ADDITIONAL DISSENTING VIEWS OF HON. CARRIE P. MEEK

    Not fully counting African-Americans in the decennial 
census originates with the Constitution. Article 1 section 2 of 
the Constitution, as ratified in 1788, provides that only 
three-fifths of the actual number of slaves should be counted 
in the decennial census for purposes of determining the number 
of Representatives each State shall have.
    While this constitutionally mandated undercount of African-
Americans was repealed in 1868 by the ratification of the 14th 
amendment, we continue to see its legacy in the taking of the 
census. The committee's report, unfortunately, takes a 
complacent view of the continuing failure to count all African-
Americans and other minorities.
    In August 1992, the Census Bureau reported that the 1990 
decennial census had failed to count about 4 million persons--
or about 1.6 percent of the Nation's population. This 
undercount was not random. The Census Bureau further reported 
that the undercount in the 1990 census was above average for 
African-Americans and other minorities. For African-Americans, 
the undercount was 4.4 percent. For Hispanics, the undercount 
was 5 percent. For American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts it was 
4.5 percent. For Asians and Pacific Islanders, it was 2.3 
percent. The committee's report could have stated these simple 
facts about the undercount, but inexplicably failed to do so.
    When I was a teacher, I noticed some students sat in front 
and always volunteered. Others sat in the back and never wanted 
to be noticed. They were all important to me.
    The Constitution now requires that we conduct the 2000 
census in the same way as a good teacher conducts a class. We 
must try to count everyone, not just those who are easy to 
count.
    The committee's report attacks the use of sampling, but the 
report is unfair because it does not explain why the Census 
Bureau is proposing use sampling in the 2000 census. Look at 
the six findings of the report. There is no finding explaining 
why the Census Bureau has recommended two types of sampling for 
the 2000 census. There is no finding explaining that the Census 
Bureau is proposing to use sampling for two simple reasons: to 
come closer to counting everyone and to reduce costs.
    One type of sampling--called Integrated Coverage 
Measurement--calls for a sample of 750,000 households to 
correct for the undercount that has been present in all past 
censuses and was worse in the 1990 census than in the 1980 
census.
    This undercount deserves recognition by the committee as a 
serious problem. But the 21 page single-spaced report almost 
completely ignores the undercount problem.
    There is no mention of the undercount on page 1.
    There is no mention of it on page 2.
    There is no mention of it on page 3.
    There is no mention of it on page 4.
    There is no mention of it on page 5.
    There is no mention of it on page 6.
    There is no mention of it on page 7.
    There is no mention of it on page 8.
    Pages 9 and 10 briefly refer to an undercount, but don't 
explain what the undercount problem is.
    There is no mention of it on page 11.
    On page 12 there is a brief discussion of whether sampling 
will help solve the undercount problem, but there is still no 
explanation of what the undercount problem is.
    There is no mention of it on page 13.
    There is no mention of it on page 14.
    There is a one-sentence reference to undercount on page 15, 
but again there is no explanation of what the problem is.
    There is no mention of it on page 16.
    There is no mention of it on page 17.
    There is no mention of it on page 18.
    There is no mention of it on page 19.
    Finally, in one sentence near the bottom of page 20, the 
report says the committee ``is concerned that there has always 
been an undercount, and that in the 1990 Census there was an 
increase in the differential undercount of minorities.'' That 
is the report's entire explanation of the problem that led the 
Census Bureau to recommend the Integrated Coverage Measurement 
type of sampling for the 2000 census.
    The committee's report is backward. The problem should be 
fully explained at the beginning, not barely mentioned at the 
end.
    Since the report almost completely ignores the undercount 
problem, it is important to remember the undisputed facts about 
the undercount in the 1990 census.
    The Census Bureau reported in 1992 that for some States the 
1990 undercount was above the national average of 1.6 percent. 
For example, in California about 835,000 people--or 2.7 percent 
of the population--were not counted. In New Mexico about 48,000 
people--or about 3.1 percent of the population--were not 
counted. In Florida about 260,000 people--or about 2 percent of 
the population--were not counted.
    The Census Bureau also reported in 1992 that the 1990 
undercount for certain areas within a particular State was well 
above the national average of 1.6 percent. For example, in Long 
Beach City, CA, 17,000 people--or 3.7 percent of the 
population--were not counted. In Dade County, FL, 74,000 
people--or 3.7 percent of the population--were not counted. In 
Fairfax County, VA, 15,000 people--or 1.8 percent of the 
population--were not counted.
    The other type of sampling proposed by the Census Bureau is 
the so-called ``sampling for nonresponse.'' For the 2000 census 
the Bureau proposes taking a 1 in 10 sample of nonrespondents 
after 90 percent of the households in a county have responded. 
The Census Bureau estimates that this type of sampling will 
save $500 million as compared to trying to count everyone 
directly.
    I have criticized the details of this proposal, and my 
bipartisan bill, H.R. 3558, would require that the sampling be 
done within census tracts and not within counties.
    But criticizing the details of a sampling proposal is a far 
cry from a wholesale condemnation of any type of sampling.
    The committee's report does not recognize that many experts 
support the use of sampling in the 2000 census if it is done 
carefully. The June 1996 Interim Report of the Committee on 
National Statistics of the National Research Council, entitled 
Sampling in the 2000 Census, concluded that ``A combination of 
sampling for nonresponse follow-up and for integrated coverage 
measurement is key to conducting a decennial census at an 
acceptable cost, with increased accuracy and overall quality, 
and reduced differential undercoverage.'' The September 1996 
report of a panel of the American Statistical Association 
concludes that the use of sampling in the 2000 census ``has the 
potential to increase the quality and accuracy of the count and 
reduce costs.''
    The committee's report is opposed by many groups whose 
members will use the 2000 Census. A letter form Ann Azari, the 
mayor of the city of Fort Collins, states that the Advisory 
Committee opposes the committee's report and supports the use 
of sampling to improve the accuracy and reduce the cost of the 
2000 census. The members of the Advisory Committee include the 
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Business 
Roundtable, the National Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People, the National Association of Counties, the 
National Association of Towns and Townships, the National 
Conference of State Legislatures, the National Council of 
LaRaza, the National Congress of American Indians, the National 
Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The 
Japanese American Citizens League, in a separate letter, says 
it opposes the committee's report because barring the use of 
sampling in the 2000 census means that ``the outcome of the 
2000 census will be no different from those past: unequal and 
unfair.''
    In conclusion, the committee's report is a one-sided attack 
on any use of sampling in the 2000 census. The report does not 
fairly reflect the concerns of those members of the committee 
who believe that the careful use of sampling in the 2000 census 
will help this Nation erase the bitter legacy of the original 
constitutional mandate to not fully count African-Americans.
                                               Hon. Carrie P. Meek.

                                   - 
