[House Report 106-71]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 106-71
=======================================================================
LOCAL CENSUS QUALITY CHECK ACT
_______
March 19, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Burton of Indiana, from the Committee on Government Reform,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 472]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Government Reform, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 472) to amend title 13, United States Code, to
require the use of postcensus local review as part of each
decennial census, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Summary of Legislation...................................... 2
II. Background and Need for the Legislation..................... 2
III. Legislative Hearings and Committee Actions.................. 2
IV. Committee Hearings and Written Testimony.................... 3
V. Explanation of the Bill..................................... 7
VI. Compliance with Rule XIII................................... 7
VII. Budget Analysis and Projections............................. 7
VIII. Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office............ 8
IX. Specific Constitutional Authority for This Legislation...... 9
X. Committee Recommendation.................................... 9
XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1.......... 10
XII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104-4, Section 423. 10
XIII. Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) Section 5(b). 10
XIV. Changes in Existing Law..................................... 10
I. Summary of Legislation
H.R. 472 amends title 13, United States Code, to require
the use of postcensus local review (PCLR) as part of each
decennial census. PCLR affords local officials the opportunity
to pinpoint mistakes, such as clusters of missed housing units,
geographic misallocations (housing units listed in the wrong
location), or incorrectly displayed political boundaries, that
the Census Bureau may have made in their respective
jurisdictions before the final household counts are released.
Specifically, this legislation allows local governmental units
and tribal leaders to review household counts, boundary maps,
and other data the Secretary of Commerce considers appropriate
to identify discrepancies in housing unit counts before the
release of apportionment data on December 31, 2000. The bill
also establishes a time frame that provides both the Census
Bureau and the local governmental units the time necessary to
complete this review process and develop a challenge, and it
ensures that the local challenges are responded to in a timely
manner.
II. Background and Need for the Legislation
The Census Bureau's Operational Plan for the 2000 Census
does not include a review of the housing counts before they are
made official. Ten years ago, the Bureau determined that a PCLR
was necessary in order to allow those most familiar with their
communities to detect discrepancies in the count. In
preparation for the 2000 Census, the Bureau has been preparing
to conduct a census that uses statistical sampling, and one
that requires a full enumeration. As a result of the recent
United States Supreme Court ruling of January 25, 1999, finding
illegal the use of statistical sampling for determining the
population for purposes of apportionment of the House of
Representatives, the Bureau has had to further develop their
plan to conduct an actual enumeration.
The Bureau contends that PCLR is not needed, because their
precensus local review program, Local Update of Census
Addresses (LUCA), gave local leaders the opportunity to confirm
the address lists and that no other local review is necessary.
Unfortunately, a significant number of local governments were
either unaware of the opportunity the LUCA program provides due
to notification routing complications or did not have the time
and resources necessary to effectively participate in the
program.
Without PCLR, crucial information from local leaders may be
excluded from the census process. It is the sense of this
Committee that PCLR is not extraneous, but is a necessary
component of an accurate and trustworthy census.
In addition, the intent of this legislation increases the
feasibility of local participation by encouraging that all
governmental units participating in LUCA receive the list of
housing units for PCLR in the same format they were provided in
LUCA; whereas those not participating in LUCA shall receive the
list of housing units in block counts.
III. Legislative Hearings and Committee Actions
H.R. 472 was introduced on February 2, 1999 by the
Honorable Dan Miller, Chairman of the Government Reform
Subcommittee on the Census. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Government Reform on February 2, 1999, then
referred to the Subcommittee on the Census on February 9, 1999.
A mark up was held by the subcommittee on February 11, 1999.
The measure was ordered favorably reported to the full
committee by a voice vote.
On March 17, 1999 the full Committee met to consider the
bill. Ms. Maloney (D-NY) offered an amendment in the nature of
a substitute, to provide an opportunity for local review in a
manner and timeframe left to the discretion of the Secretary of
Commerce, as long as it allowed the Secretary to derive
quality-control corrected population counts (as proposed in the
census 2000 operational plan as part of the Accuracy Coverage
Evaluation). Ms. Maloney's amendment was defeated by a recorded
vote, 21 ayes, 23 nays. Ms. Maloney also offered another
amendment to the bill, which was defeated by voice vote. The
Committee approved the bill by recorded vote, 23 ayes, 21 nays.
The Committee then favorably reported the bill to the House by
voice vote.
IV. Committee Hearings and Written Testimony
The Subcommittee on the Census has held both a legislative
hearing and a markup on February 11, 1999.
Witnesses at the hearing included: The Honorable Thomas
Petri, Member of Congress; The Honorable Thomas Sawyer, Member
of Congress; The Honorable Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary of
State, Ohio and Co-Chair of the Census Monitoring Board; Ms.
Carol A. Roberts, County Commissioner, Palm Beach County,
Florida; The Honorable Timothy M. Kaine, Mayor, City of
Richmond; Mr. James Bourey, Executive Director, Maricopa
Association of Governments; Mr. Lanier Boatwright, President,
National Association of Developmental Organizations; Ms.
Barbara Welty, National Association of Towns and Townships; Dr.
Everett Ehrlich, U.S. Census Monitoring Board; Dr. Barbara
Bryant, National Quality Research Center, School of Business
Administration, University of Michigan; The Honorable Alex G.
Fekete, Mayor, Pembroke Pines, Florida; and Jessica F. Heinz,
Assistant City Attorney, City of Los Angeles.
Congressman Thomas Sawyer testified that the 1990 PCLR was
based on the good intention to incorporate local knowledge into
the census before it was completed, however it did not
effectively increase accuracy as intended. He contended that
trying to answer the appeals of local officials and track those
people missed up to 6 months after Census Day proved untenable.
The end results, according to Mr. Sawyer, were not worth the
cost. The Bureau revisited 20 percent of all Census blocks,
with a resulting increase of one tenth of one percent in the
final census count. He testified that according to the General
Accounting Office's assessment of the 1990 census, ``[e]xtended
reliance on field follow-up activities represents a losing
trade-off between augmenting the count and adding more
errors.'' After reviewing the 1990 PCLR, he concluded that
building an accurate address list before the count was an
essential element to an accurate census. For jurisdictions that
have the capacity to review and confirm a large set of address
information, Mr. Sawyer believes that the precensus activities
offer the best opportunity to get it right. He suggested as an
alternative to PCLR that the Bureau should provide local
governments with frequent reports on the progress of the count
as the census unfolds.
Congressman Thomas Petri testified that not even the best
Census team with the best plan could flawlessly count the 280
million people in this country. He contended that mistakes are
inevitable and that PCLR is basically an independent audit to
catch mistakes. A small town in his district was severely
undercounted in the 1990 Census and the PCLR enabled the local
officials to correct the error before the Bureau released the
official population counts. In his words, ``[t]he Census
Bureau's decision to provide no mechanism for review is either
a sign of the Bureau's recklessness in addressing accuracy
problems or a sign of its arrogance in believing that it can
avoid all such problems in the first place.''
The Honorable Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary of State, Ohio
and Co-Chair of the Census Monitoring Board, testified that the
congressionally-appointed Members of the Census Monitoring
Board recommended restoring PCLR to Census 2000. He argued that
trust is the most important benefit of PCLR. He stated that it
only takes one street to determine whether money goes to the
city or the county. Mr. Blackwell indicated that a couple
people may seem insignificant to a count in Washington, but in
Cincinnati a couple people make a significant difference. The
Census Monitoring Board (CMB) has repeatedly heard from local
officials who say that LUCA is a good idea, but, Mr. Blackwell
contended, it falls short of its promise, especially since many
of them have experienced extensive delays in receiving the
complete address lists to review. Using his experience as a
mayor, he argued that local officials would trust the count
only if they could verify it, and that PCLR is the best
opportunity to do so.
Carol Roberts, County Commissioner of Palm Beach County,
Florida, testified that as an experienced field operations
supervisor in the 1980 Census as well as a current county
commissioner, she supports the reinstatement of PCLR. As a
result of the PCLR in the 1990 Census, four of the cities in
her county had recounts resulting in population increases of up
to 17 percent. She is working closely with the Bureau on
precensus activities, but contended that local officials also
need to be given the opportunity to have a PCLR in order to
ensure the most accurate result before the finalization of the
2000 Census.
The Honorable Timothy M. Kaine, Mayor of the City of
Richmond, testified that the United States Conference of Mayors
has not taken an official stance on PCLR. The city of Richmond,
of which he is Mayor, participated in both the precensus local
review and postcensus local review of 1990. The city found the
Bureau non-responsive to their submissions of corrections,
citing that significant discrepancies remained that the Bureau
did not address. He listed consequences of an undercount in
terms of Federal funding lost to cities, including the fact
that the average loss to cities during the 1990s averaged
$1,230 for each person not counted. He contended that LUCA
compensates for the problems a PCLR would attempt to solve, but
that neither review program would individually make up for an
undercount as significantly as would sampling.
James Bourey, Executive Director of the Maricopa
Association of Governments, testified that he supports the
reinstatement of PCLR for Census 2000. The Census Bureau will
take the next 12 months to create their final master address
list, during which thousands of additional housing units may be
constructed. Postcensus local review provides one method for
identifying housing units that may have been missed because
they were never included in the Census Bureau's address list.
He argued that many more jurisdictions participated in the PCLR
Program than statistics would suggest. For many jurisdictions,
their review of the preliminary housing unit count before the
final census tally did not reveal a miscount. But these
jurisdictions did participate in local review and had an
opportunity to identify missed housing units. In Mr. Bourey's
region, local review resulted in the addition of 3,690 housing
units. Those units represented $36,900,000 in funds. He cited
several reasons that the Bureau cannot rely on LUCA without a
PCLR, and contended that PCLR would be a supplement to LUCA,
not a duplication.
Lanier Boatwright, President of the National Association of
Developmental Organizations, testified that the Census Bureau
should reinstate PCLR, because precensus activities, such as
LUCA, are not adequate substitutes for the PCLR. He cited the
fact that 85 percent of the nation's 39,000 units of local
government are in communities with less than 3,000 people. The
vast majority of local governments do not have the staff or
financial resources to fully participate in precensus
activities such as LUCA. He contended that local governments
should have an opportunity to ensure the accuracy of the Census
numbers before they are final. He cited a case in the 1990
Census where a small Alabama city informed the Bureau that the
city had been improperly counted. Unfortunately, the count was
not corrected. In Alabama, a municipality is designated a city
only when its population is 2,000 or more. As a result, that
city had to change its name and lost all the revenues that it
would have received with an accurate count. There are several
communities who participated in LUCA and still deem it
necessary to participate in PCLR. He argued that small towns
should receive an equal opportunity to be counted as do large
cities.
Barbara Welty of the National Association of Towns and
Townships testified that small communities are at an inherent
disadvantage in the census process as established by the
Bureau. Only 17,105 local governments to date are participating
in LUCA, which leaves 21,895 local governments with no
precensus involvement. The majority of local governments, 82
percent of which have a population of 5,000 people or less, are
not participating in the LUCA process ``due to both a
misunderstanding of the inherentspecial needs of smaller
communities, and a lack of Federal funding to help communities
participate.'' Ms. Welty also contended that the 15 days allowed for
PCLR in 1990 was insufficient, especially for the majority of small
communities who were not eligible to participate in the precensus
review, which allowed 45 days. Given that 82 percent of local
governments have not participated in LUCA, they have not had the
advantage of the extra review time it provides. For this reason she
endorsed the 45-day period allotted in this legislation for PCLR. She
emphasized that small communities expect to be treated equally in
Census 2000.
Dr. Everett Ehlrich, of the Census Monitoring Board,
testified that while the LUCA program for 2000 has been far
from perfect, it is an improvement over the postcensus local
review program used in 1990. In 1990, only 25 percent of local
governments participated in PCLR. The standards of review were
met for 168,255 of the blocks disputed, but the recanvass of
those blocks only added 124,900 people to the count and
identified 200,000 housing units recorded in the wrong
location. That is three percent of the number of people missed
in 1990, but the program cost $9.6 million and added six weeks
to the 1990 census schedule. Although LUCA has had some
problems, participation in LUCA is twice as high as
participation in the 1990 PCLR. He advised that any program of
local review should be both operationally feasible within the
schedule of the 2000 decennial census and cost effective. He
mentioned the concern that the Bureau must find some means of
covering the new construction that takes place in local
communities between the end of LUCA in mid-summer and Census
Day. He concluded that a repeat of the 1990 PCLR program would
be unwise but that the Bureau should consider other possible
ways to further involve local governments in the review process
without Congressional mandates for such.
Dr. Barbara Bryant, of the National Quality Research
Center, School of Business Administration, University of
Michigan, testified that PCLR in 1990 was an ineffective
operation because it added only 0.08 percent to the number of
housing units that had been counted prior to PCLR. She
attributed the failure of the 1990 local review programs to the
inability of the Bureau to share its address lists with local
governments. The result of which was a decrease in local
governments' perception of the Census Bureau's willingness to
cooperate. This problem has been solved by the Census Address
List Improvement Act of 1994, which allowed both the Census
Bureau and the U.S. Postal Service to share their mailing
lists. The Bureau has created LUCA for the 2000 Census to
replace PCLR, in which 45 percent of local governments are
participating to date. She conceded that the Address Control
file is far from perfect, but is a step up from the past. She
advised against passing H.R. 472, because it opens the door to
many other attempts to legislate micro-management of the 2000
census.
Alex Fekete, Mayor of Pembroke Pines, Florida submitted
written testimony that he, and the 135,000 mayors of the
National League of Cities (NLC), consider the reinstitution of
a postcensus local review to be very important. Since the LUCA
process was so new and had to be revised mid-stream, many
communities did not participate as fully as they desired. ``The
LUCA effort lays the foundation for making a reinstituted PCLR
process more valuable and powerful than it has been in the
past.'' In addition, he cited that H.R. 472 allows a 45 day
review period and allows cities to document the exact housing
units where discrepancies appear, whereas the 1990 PCLR only
allowed 15 days to review total counts of housing units by
blocks. He contended that the critical constitutional role of
the census far out ways the cost of PCLR and that it's
reinstitution would greatly enhance the accuracy and
creditability of the count in the eyes of local officials.
Jessica Heinz, Assistant City Attorney of the City of Los
Angeles, submitted written testimony explaining that the 1990
undercount of the City of Los Angeles was not due to address
misinformation but to a miscount of those residing in the
housing units enumerated. She contended that PCLR will not
significantly make up for the undercount, and that the Bureau
should instead rely on sampling to create a more accurate
population count.
V. Explanation of the Bill
Sec. 1. The short title is the ``Local Census Quality Check
Act.''
Sec. 2. This section adds ``Sec. 143 Postcensus local
review'' to Subchapter II of title 13, United States Code.
Included in section 143 are the following requirements:
This section reinstates a Census Bureau program called
postcensus local review, beginning with the 2000 Decennial
Census. Postcensus local review provides an opportunity for
local governmental units to review household counts, boundary
maps, and other data the Secretary of Commerce considers
appropriate to identify discrepancies in housing unit counts
before the completion of the decennial census. The benefit of
postcensus local review is the ease in checking and correcting
any miscounts while the census is still in progress.
During the year in which the census is taken, the
legislation provides the following time frame for postcensus
local review:
1. By February 1st, the Secretary of Commerce needs
to supply the local governmental units with the
guidelines and other pertinent information for
participation;
2. No later than 30 days prior to submitting the
housing units counts, the Secretary must furnish to the
local governmental units the block level maps and
listing of housing units;
3. No later than August 1st, or 30 days after the
completion of the nonresponse follow-up process, the
Secretary must submit to the local governmental units
the data subject to their review;
4. The local government units have 45 days to review
the data and submit any challenges;
5. No later than November 1st, the Secretary must
investigate all timely filed challenges, correct any
miscounts, and notify those local governmental units as
to any action taken in response to the challenge.
VI. Compliance With Rule XIII
Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, under the authority of rule X, clause
2(b)(1) and clause 3(e), the results and findings from
committee oversight activities are incorporated in the bill and
this report.
VII. Budget Analysis and Projections
The budget analysis and projections required by section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are contained in
the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.
VIII. Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 19, 1999.
Hon. Dan Burton,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman. The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 472, the Local
Census Quality Check Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Hadley.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 471--Local Census Quality Check Act
During the decennial census in 1990, local governments had
the opportunity to review household counts, jurisdictional
boundaries, and other data to identify potential problems
before the Bureau of the Census finalized the tabulation of
total population. H.R. 472 would require the bureau to provide
that opportunity to local governments for the 2000 census and
all future decennial censuses. The bill also would require the
bureau to investigate any discrepancies identified by local
governments.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 472 would cost between
$10 million and $20 million in 2000, assuming appropriation of
the necessary amount. Allowing local governments to review the
census cost about $10 million in 1990, when about 10,000 out of
nearly 40,000 local governments participated. Although
inflation and population growth since 1990 would make this
program more expensive, participation could be higher or lower
than it was in 1990. H.R. 472 also would increase the costs of
all future decennial censuses.
The extent of participation in a post-census review under
H.R. 472 is very uncertain. On the one hand, participation in
2000 could be lower than in 1990 because of the Bureau of the
Census provided local governments with an opportunity to review
the address list before the 2000 census, and according to the
bureau, about five times as many local governments are
participating in this review as participated in the pre-census
review in 1990. In addition, the bureau plans to ask local
governments to identify housing constructed during the last
four months prior to the census. Thus, a post-census review
could be viewed as unnecessary, and fewer local governments
might choose to participate. On the other hand, the National
League of Cities believes that local governments are very
interested in the census and that participation in a post-
census review would be higher than in 1990.
H.R. 472 would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 472
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Any costs incurred
by local or tribal governments would be voluntary.
The CBO staff contact is Mark Hadley. This estimate was
approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for
Budget Analysis.
IX. Specific Constitutional Authority for this Legislation
Clause 3 of Article 1, section 2 and clauses 1 and 18 of
Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution grant Congress the
power to enact this law.
X. Committee Recommendation
On March 17, 1999, a quorum being present, the Committee on
Government Reform ordered the bill favorably reported.
committee on government reform-106th congress record vote
Date: March 17, 1999.
Amendment Number 2.
Summary: Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R.
472, strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following * * *
Offered by: Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney.
Failed by Record Vote, 21 Ayes to 23 Nays.
Vote by Members: Mr. Burton--Nay; Mr. Gilman--Nay; Mrs.
Morella--Aye; Mr. Shays--Nay; Ms. Ros-Lehtinen--Nay; Mr.
McHugh--Nay; Mr. Horn--Nay; Mr. Mica--Nay; Mr. Davis of
Virginia--Nay; Mr. McIntosh--Nay; Mr. Souder--Nay; Mr.
Scarborough--Nay; Mr. LaTourette--Nay; Mr. Sanford--Nay; Mr.
Barr--Nay; Mr. Miller--Nay; Mr. Hutchinson--Nay; Mr. Terry--
Nay; Mrs. Biggert--Nay; Mr. Walden--Nay; Mr. Ose--Nay; Mr.
Ryan--Nay; Mr. Doolittle--Nay; Mrs. Chenoweth--Nay; Mr.
Waxman--Aye; Mr. Lantos--Aye; Mr. Wise--Aye; Mr. Owens--Aye;
Mr. Towns--Aye; Mr. Kanjorski--Aye; Mrs. Mink--Aye; Mr.
Sanders--Aye; Mrs. Maloney--Aye; Ms. Norton--Aye; Mr. Fattah--
Aye; Mr. Cummings--Aye; Mr. Kucinich--Aye; Mr. Blagojevich--
Aye; Mr. Davis of Illinois--Aye; Mr. Tierney--Aye; Mr. Turner--
Aye; Mr. Allen--Aye; Mr. Ford--Aye; Ms. Schakowsky--Aye.
Date: March 17, 1999.
Summary: Final Passage of H.R. 472.
Offered by: Hon. Dan Miller (FL).
Recorded vote: 23 ayes; 21 nays.
Vote by Members: Mr. Burton--Aye; Mr. Gilman--Aye; Mrs.
Morella--Nay; Mr. Shays--Aye; Ms. Ros-Lehtinen--Aye; Mr.
McHugh--Aye; Mr. Horn--Aye; Mr. Mica--Aye; Mr. Davis of
Virginia--Aye; Mr. McIntosh--Aye; Mr. Souder--Aye; Mr.
Scarborough--Aye; Mr. LaTourette--Aye; Mr. Sanford--Aye; Mr.
Barr--Aye; Mr. Miller--Aye; Mr. Hutchinson--Aye; Mr. Terry--
Aye; Mrs. Biggert--Aye; Mr. Walden--Aye; Mr. Ose--Aye; Mr.
Ryan--Aye; Mr. Doolittle--Aye; Mrs. Chenoweth--Aye; Mr.
Waxman--Nay; Mr. Lantos--Nay; Mr. Wise--Nay; Mr. Owens--Nay;
Mr. Towns--Nay; Mr. Kanjorski--Nay; Mrs. Mink--Nay; Mr.
Sanders--Nay; Mrs. Maloney--Nay; Ms. Norton--Nay; Mr. Fattah--
Nay; Mr. Cummings--Nay; Mr. Kucinich--Nay; Mr. Blagojevich--
Nay; Mr. Davis of Illinois--Nay; Mr. Tierney--Nay; Mr. Turner--
Nay; Mr. Allen--Nay; Mr. Ford--Nay; Ms. Schakowsky--Nay.
XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1
H.R. 472 amends Title 13, Chapter 5--Censuses to require
the Commerce Department to include an opportunity for local
governmental units to participate in postcensus local review in
each decennial census taken after the date of enactment of this
section. The original Act does not apply to the House of
Representatives or to the Senate, thus H.R. 472 does not apply
to Congress.
XII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104-4; Section 423
The Committee finds that the legislation does not impose
any Federal mandates within the meaning of section 423 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (PL 104-4).
XIII. Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), Section 5 (b)
The Committee finds that section 5(b) of Title 5 App.,
United States Code, is not applicable because this legislation
does not authorize the establishment of any advisory committee.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 13, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--CENSUSES
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--POPULATION, HOUSING, AND UNEMPLOYMENT
141. Population and other census information.
* * * * * * *
143. Postcensus local review.
SUBCHAPTER II--POPULATION, HOUSING, AND UNEMPLOYMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 143. Postcensus local review
(a) Each decennial census taken after the date of enactment
of this section shall include an opportunity for postcensus
local review, similar to that afforded as part of the 1990
decennial census, so that local governmental units may review
household counts, jurisdictional boundaries, and such other
data as the Secretary considers appropriate for the purpose of
identifying discrepancies or
other potential problems before the tabulation of total
population by States (as required for the apportionment of
Representatives in Congress among the several States) is
completed.
(b) Any postcensus local review afforded under this section
in connection with a decennial census shall be conducted in
conformance with the following:
(1) Not later than February 1st of the year in which
such census is taken, the Secretary shall notify local
governmental units as to the guidelines for, and shall
furnish them with any other information pertinent to,
their participating in the upcoming postcensus local
review.
(2)(A) Not later than 30 days before submitting to a
local governmental unit the data subject to its review
under this section, the Secretary shall furnish to such
unit the appropriate block level maps and lists of
housing units.
(B) Not later than August 1st of the year in which
such census is taken or, if earlier, the 30th day after
the date on which the nonresponse followup process for
such census is completed, the Secretary shall submit to
each local governmental unit the data which is subject
to review by such governmental unit under this section.
(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B), the date on
which the nonresponse followup process for a census is
completed shall be as determined by the Secretary.
(3) A local governmental unit shall have 45 days
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public
holidays) to review the data submitted to it under
paragraph (2)(B), and to submit any challenges relating
to such data.
(4) The Secretary shall investigate all challenges
timely submitted under paragraph (3), recanvass such
blocks or other units as the Secretary considers
appropriate in connection with any such challenge, and
correct any miscounts identified pursuant to any such
challenge.
(5) Not later than November 1st of the year in which
such census is taken, the Secretary shall, with respect
to each challenge timely submitted under paragraph
(3)--
(A) complete the measures required under
paragraph (4) with respect to such challenge;
and
(B) notify the local governmental unit that
submitted such challenge as to the measures
taken in response thereto.
(c) As used in this section--
(1) the term ``decennial census'' means a decennial
census of population conducted under section 141(a);
and
(2) the term ``local governmental unit'' means a
local unit of general purpose government as defined by
section 184, or its designee.
MINORITY VIEWS
H.R. 472, the ``Local Census Quality Check Act,'' would add
a new section to 13 U.S.C. (The Census Act). It would require a
Post Census Local Review (PCLR) program very similar to the one
conducted after the 1990 Census. We are opposed to this bill in
its current form. The principal effect of H.R. 472 would be to
undermine the accuracy of the census by preventing the Census
Bureau from using statistical methods to count those missed in
the traditional ``head count.'' For this reason, H.R. 472 is
widely opposed by local governments--the very entities that it
is supposed to assist.
The 2000 Census is an extremely complex undertaking that by
law must be completed in one year. It will take the Census
Bureau at least five months in the field to conduct its
traditional head count--and several more months to process and
tabulate the data. After completing this head count, the Census
Bureau plans to conduct an in-depth survey of 300,000
households (known as the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation or
ACE) to measure how many people were missed in the head count.
This correction process will take another two months in the
field, with additional time being required to analyze the
statistical data.
As the majority is aware, if the time consumed by the
conventional head count is extended, there will not be enough
time at the end of the process to conduct and complete the
statistical corrections. That is precisely the effect H.R. 472
would have: it would extend the period for the head count and
delay the beginning of the ACE program by nine weeks. If H.R.
472 were enacted, the Census Bureau simply would not have
enough time to correct the errors in the census and ensure that
all Americans are counted.
The Census Bureau shares our serious concerns with this
bill. According to Dr. Prewitt, Director of the Census Bureau,
the consequences of H.R. 472 ``for an orderly, timely and
accurate census in 2000 are just short of disastrous * * *
[Were it] to become law, the Congress would * * * require the
Census Bureau to field an operational plan which in our
judgment would decrease accuracy levels.'' As Dr. Prewitt wrote
in a memorandum forwarded to the Committee by Secretary Daley
on March 16, 1999, these concerns are significant enough to
warrant a veto recommendation:
The bill with the most serious potential consequences
is H.R. 472, the ``Local Census Quality Check Act.'' It
would mandate an operational change to the Census 2000
Plan which is neither timely, effective, nor cost-
efficient and would return us to inadequate 1990
operations that have now been substantially improved
upon.
Since the Bureau recognizes the importance of local
government participation, we have established a program
of local participation in address accuracy and boundary
readjustments which we believe is superior to the 1990
Post Census Local Review (PCLR) program. The Census
2000 Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) vastly
expands both the interaction between local governmental
units and the Bureau and the time local governments are
given to verify and correct addresses and boundaries.
To date, twice as many local governments are
participating in LUCA compared to PCLR in 1990.
Notably, these governments cover 85 percent of all
addresses in the country. In addition, our plan
includes a program to validate the boundaries for every
local and tribal government in the United States and a
new construction program that will resolve most of the
address problems uncovered in the 1990 PCLR. This new
program which is currently being reviewed by our
outside advisory groups, will give local governments
the opportunity to add new housing units to the census
Master Address File up to Census Day, April 1, 2000.
We strongly believe that the Census Bureau's current
plan is more efficient, more effective, more timely,
and will produce greater accuracy in the time frame
mandated for us by law than would the proposal in H.R.
472.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kenneth Prewitt, Director of the Census Bureau, Memorandum for
the Secretary, 1 (March 16, 1999).
The majority claims to be acting out of a sincere desire to
enhance local government participation in the 2000 Census. Yet
local governments have opposed this bill in its current form.
For example, the following are excerpts of some of the letters
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
we have received about the bill from local governments:
[A] lengthy, 1990-style Post Census Local Review
(PCLR) will do very little to address the persistent
undercount problem that many cities experienced during
the 1990 census * * * For this reason, we urge you and
all members of the Committee to oppose any legislation
that places at risk the Census Bureau's ability to
conduct a timely post enumeration survey or that is
intended to replace a coverage evaluation program to
measure and correct undercounts.''--J. Thomas Cochran,
Executive Director, United States Conference of Mayors
The bill prevents census counts from being corrected
for the undercount by April 1, 2001, which is critical
for distribution of federal funds. * * * I cannot
support H.R. 472 in its current form.'' Mayor Dennis
Archer of the City of Detroit, Michigan
I am also writing to request you oppose H.R. 472, the
Local Census Quality Check Act. * * * [T]he effect of
this legislation would prevent the Census Bureau from
utilizing the most effective scientific methods for
ensuring an accurate census.''--Mayor Lee P. Brown,
City of Houston, Texas
The City of Los Angeles is opposed to H.R. 472, a
bill which would require the Census Bureau to implement
a Post Census Local Review Program.''--John Ferraro,
President, Los Angeles City Council
I urge you to oppose H.R. 472, the Local Census
Quality Check Act. * * * I cannot * * * support
legislation that eliminates one of the tools that
scientists argue will give us a more accurate count;
that is, statistical sampling.--Mayor Alex Penelas of
the County of Miami-Dade, Florida
I am writing in opposition to H.R. 472, the Local
Census Quality Check Act. The post census local review
program for Census 2000 required by the legislation
would effectively prevent the Secretary of Commerce
from using statistical methods to produce the most
accurate census possible.--Speaker Peter F. Vallone,
Council of the City of New York
I am writing to express my concerns over H.R. 472,
the Local Census Quality Check Act. * * * The length of
the local review process required in H.R. 472
jeopardizes the ability of the Census bureau to correct
census counts for persons missed or counted twice in
the census.--Mayor Willie L. Brown, Jr. of the City of
San Francisco, California
Cook County is strongly opposed to H.R. 472. * * * A
more recent study found that 34 cities and counties
lost ``more than $500 million in federal and state
funds during this past decade'' due to the undercount
in the 1990 Census.--John H. Stroger, Jr., President
Cook County Board of Commissioners
In total, we have received over 30 letters from local
governments and organizations opposing the bill in the brief
time we have known about its markup.
Local governments have raised legitimate concerns about
participation in the creation of the census address list. These
legitimate concerns should be addressed through means other
than H.R. 472's approach. During the full Committee markup,
Representative Maloney offered an amendment which would have
given local governments the opportunity to assist the Census
Bureau in perfecting the census address list by: (1) making
sure all new housing construction was included in the census
address list; (2) giving local governments an opportunity to
review the counts of vacant addresses identified by the Postal
Service; and (3) giving local governments the opportunity to
make sure that the census properly identified the
jurisdictional boundaries of local governmental units. The
Maloney amendment left the details of this enhanced local
participation to the professionals at the Census Bureau so that
these activities can be coordinated with existing local
participation and with all other operational activities of the
census. This approach--unlike H.R. 472--accommodated both local
review and the use of statistical methods to produce the most
accurate census possible.
H.R. 472 has other serious problems. In particular, it
micro-manages the decennial census and would force the Bureau
to repeat a program which has proven ineffective in both the
1980 and 1990 censuses.
Following the 1990 Census, local governments were sent a
count of housing units for each block in their jurisdictions. A
governmental unit could then challenge the accuracy of the
census housing unit counts by providing documentation to the
Census Bureau that met specified criteria. Census Bureau
officials and local governmental officials then worked together
to resolve the differences.
Despite these efforts, post-census local review was one of
the programs of the 1990 Census that was judged by Congress and
outside experts to be neither cost-efficient nor effective. The
1990 program cost $9.6 million and added about 81,000 housing
units (about 0.08%) to the census rosters, and 30% of these
units added were vacant. Half of the units added were in two
cities, Detroit and Cleveland. About 25% of governmental units
participated in the program, and less than 20% filed challenges
that met the specified criteria. Finally, in 1990, about 12% of
the 124,900 people added to the census count were added
erroneously.
Dr. Barbara Bryant, Director of the Census Bureau during
the Bush Administration, has testified before the Census
Subcommittee that ``Postcensus local review in 1990 was a well
intentioned, but ineffective, operation. * * * Rather than
repeat postcensus local review, with its disappointing and
minuscule results, the Census Bureau determined to find a way
for local governments to more fully participate in the
census.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Dr. Barbara Bryant, Testimony before the Subcommittee on the
Census (February 11, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of these disappointing results, Congress passed, in
1994, the Address List Correction Act, sponsored by
Representatives Sawyer (D-OH) and Ridge (R-PA), amending Title
13 U.S.C. to create a pre-census local review process. This law
allows the Census Bureau to share its address list with local
government officials, and for the address list to be modified
based on local government input. In addition, the bill calls
for an appeals process to be designed by the Office of
Management and Budget. Governments that believe the Census
Bureau has not included sufficient housing units within its
jurisdiction can appeal the Census Bureau's decision. The
operational plan for the 2000 Census contains a program which
implements this law--the Local Update of Census Addresses
(LUCA).
The LUCA program represents a significant advance over the
PCLR of 1990. Instead of sharing block-level housing and
population counts with local officials after the census is
completed with a review window of 15 days, the LUCA program
permits the Census Bureau to share its entire address list with
participating local governments before census day. Local
governments can then refine the address list and reconcile any
discrepancies prior to the mailing of census forms. Another
major improvement is that LUCA provides local governments with
up to three months to review the address lists.
LUCA has already been more successful than PCLR was in
1990, as is ``borne out by the participation rates in the LUCA
program for the 2000 Census. The Census Bureau estimates that
18,000 local government jurisdictions will participate in LUCA.
* * * almost twice the number of participant governments as
[PCLR in 1990].'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Census Monitoring Board, Presidential Members, Report to
Congress, Government Printing Office, 19 (February 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the failures of PCLR in 1990 and the current
success of the LUCA program, there is little difference between
H.R. 472 and the 1990 PCLR with one exception--H.R. 472 expands
the time for local review from two weeks to nine. The program
as laid out in H.R. 472 also essentially duplicates activities
in LUCA. Although the desire to give local government officials
one last chance to increase their counts is understandable, any
such program should complement rather than duplicate other
census activities. The main effect this bill would have would
be to prevent the release of the most accurate census counts. A
much better quality control check is a fully funded Accuracy
and Coverage Evaluation (ACE) as planned by the Census Bureau.
Henry A. Waxman.
Tom Lantos.
Bob Wise
Major R. Owens.
Edolphus Towns.
Paul E. Kanjorski.
Patsy T. Mink.
Bernard Sanders.
Carolyn B. Maloney.
Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Chaka Fattah.
Elijah E. Cummings.
Dennis J. Kucinich.
Rod R. Blagojevich.
Danny K. Davis.
Jim Turner.
Tom Allen.
Harold E. Ford, Jr.
Jan Schakowsky.