[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.

                                
