The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CENSUS ACCURACY ACT OF 1997” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E531-E532 on March 20, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CENSUS ACCURACY ACT OF 1997
______
HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 20, 1997
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Census Accuracy Act of 1997. The Census Accuracy Act requires that 3 years prior to the census, the Census Bureau must submit to Congress its plans for carrying out the census. It must report what methods will be used to take the census, including direct counting methods, sampling, statistical techniques, and any other methods to ensure that the census is as accurate as possible. The Census Accuracy Act also specifies that when Congress requires the allocation of funds based on population or housing characteristics, unless otherwise specified, that data should be collected on the census at the same time as the information for apportionment is collected.
Some critics of the Census Bureau's current plans for the 2000 census argue that title 13, U.F.C., prohibits the use of sampling to derive the population counts used for apportionment. In fact, the record is clear and overwhelming that just the opposite is true. The Department of Justice under Presidents Carter, Bush, and Clinton has concluded that the use of sampling is both legal and constitutional. Similarly, when asked to rule, the courts have consistently upheld the use of sampling. Nevertheless, some observers continue to question whether section 195 of title 13, U.F.C., permits the use of sampling to derive the population counts used for apportionment, even when read in conjunction with section 141 of the same title. Therefore, the purpose of this bill is to reaffirm the interpretation of the courts and the Justice Department that the use of sampling is both appropriate and desirable in order to make the census more accurate, and ensure that sections 195 and 141 of title 13, U.F.C, are in harmony as originally intended.
In just 3 years, the 2000 census will be under way. That census is important to this body because it will determine how the seats of this House are apportioned among the States. That census is important because over the decade it will be used to allocate hundreds of billions of dollars to State and local governments. It will be used to enforce the Voting Rights Act to assure equal representation. It will be used by businesses to locate manufacturing plants where there is an adequate work force, and to provide services that are valued by the communities of which they are a part. It will be used by State governments to plan highways, and by local governments to assure adequate sewer and water facilities. We cannot afford an inaccurate census. The bill I am introducing today will assure all of us that the next census is as fair and accurate as possible.
Our understanding of the accuracy of the census increases each decade. Both Thomas Jefferson, the first census taker, and George Washington knew there were errors in the 1790 census. But it took until 1940 for census demographers to start measuring that error with sound scientific tools. Between 1940 and 1980 the net undercount decreased from 5.4 to 1.2 percent, but the differential undercount, the difference between black and nonblack undercount, went from 3.4 percent in 1940 to 4.3 percent in 1970 to 3.7 percent in 1980. In 1990, both the total net undercount and the differential went up. In fact, the differential of 4.4 percent between blacks and nonblacks in 1990 was the largest ever. In addition to increasing error in 1990, the cost per household, in constant dollars, went up. The 1990 cost was 25 percent higher than 1980 and 150 percent higher than 1970.
Because of the errors in the 1990 census, California was denied a congressional seat that was rightfully theirs. The 1990 census missed over 10 million Americans. Six million were counted more than once. It is not fair that those 10 million Americans were left out of the census, and it is not fair that those 6 million were counted twice. We would not stand for those kinds of errors in our election results, and we should not tolerate them in the census.
Is there anything that can be done about it? Absolutely. The Census Bureau has proposed a variety of changes in the 2000 census that will produce a more accurate census at a lower cost. The Census Bureau will make a greater effort to count everyone than ever before, and people will have more opportunities to respond than ever before.
Before the census form is mailed, everyone will receive a letter telling them that the census is coming. Then each household in the United States will receive a form. About a week later, they will receive a letter thanking them for returning the form, and reminding them to mail it if they have not. About a week after the reminder letter, the Census Bureau will send out a second form so that those who misplaced it will have a replacement.
In addition to the mail, the Census Bureau will use a variety of methods to make it easier for the public to be counted. Forms will be placed in super markets and community centers, post offices and government buildings, convenient stores and retail stores. Forms will be available in foreign languages, and there will be a toll-free number where people can call for help. There will also be a toll-free number where people can fill out their form over the phone. And, if privacy concerns can be addressed, it may be possible to return your form through the internet. There will be an advertising campaign to inform the public that the census is coming, and to explain why the Government is collecting this information. There will be programs for schools and civic organizations, as well as census employees whose job it is to work with community organizations to get out the count.
Even with all of these efforts we know that not everyone will send back their form. For every 1 percent of the population that does not mail in their form, or respond over the phone, it costs an additional
$25 million to count them. The best estimate of the experts is that even with all of these efforts, nearly 35 percent will not be counted by mail or phone. At $25 million for each 1 percent, that's $875 million to followup with nonresponding households. And even after hiring a half a million temporary employees, and spending weeks going door to door, not everyone will be counted. No census has ever counted everyone. The difference is that we now have the technology and scientific tools to estimate how many people were missed, and to correct the census so that it is as inclusive as possible.
The 1990 census missed almost 2 percent of the population. If that were spread evenly across groups of people and across the country, not too many stakeholders would care. But the undercount is not random. Less than 1 percent of whites were missed, but over 5 percent of African-Americans were missed. On Indian reservation the census missed 12 percent.
In 1990 the census included an experimental method to correct these mistakes--to account for those who are missed and to correct for those who are counted twice. In the end, the Secretary of Commerce chose not to use those adjustments, and we have lived with those inequities for the past 7 years. Every year millions of dollars are lost by States whose population was undercounted.
The vast body of scientific evidence shows that these errors can be corrected in a way that is fair to all. Three separate panels of experts at the National Academy of Sciences have recommended that these errors be corrected. The techniques for correcting the census have been endorsed by professional organizations like the American Statistical Association and by groups like the National Association of Counties. The inspector general at the Commerce Department has endorsed correcting these errors, as has the General Accounting Office.
Well, you must be asking yourself by now, just who opposes a more accurate census. Unfortunately, some Members of this body will pay any price to get the wrong answer. They argue that we should throw more money at the old methods of doing the census, even though they will produce a count that is less accurate. Of course, the Members making this argument are not on the Appropriations Committee. The members of the Appropriations Committee have yet to fund the census at the requested level, much less, give the Census Bureau more money.
One of the objections they raise to the methods proposed for the 2000 census is that they are not allowed under current law. I disagree with their interpretation of the law. This bill makes it clear that once the Census Bureau makes a good faith effort at an enumeration, the count can be supplemented by other methods to achieve a more accurate count.
Mr. Speaker, we must all work for the most accurate census possible in 2000. If we do not, it will be the American public who loses. My bill will make a more accurate census possible, and ensure that any confusion over current law is eliminated. I urge that it be passed quickly.
____________________
