<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:57800.wais]
OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: COMMUNITY BASED APPROACHES FOR A BETTER
ENUMERATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 29, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-21
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-800 CC WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DC
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
Carolina DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
LEE TERRY, Nebraska JIM TURNER, Texas
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
GREG WALDEN, Oregon HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
------ ------ (Independent)
------ ------
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on January 29, 1999................................. 1
Statement of:
Bourey, James M., executive director, Maricopa Association of
Governments................................................ 124
Celley, Scott, executive assistant to Governor Jane Hull..... 91
Gaddy, Levonne, founding president of Multiethnics of
Southern Arizona in Celebration [MOSAIC]................... 131
Jackson, Jack C., Jr., director of governmental affairs,
National Congress of American Indians...................... 103
Lewis, John, executive director, Intertribal Council of
Arizona.................................................... 93
Lewis, Rodney B., general counsel, Gila River Indian
Community.................................................. 72
Lumm, Esther Duran, president of the Arizona Hispanic
Community Forum............................................ 135
Makil, Ivan, president of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community.................................................. 53
McKenzie, Dr. Taylor, vice-president of the Navajo Nation,
Arizona.................................................... 42
Taylor, Wayne, chairman of the Hopi Tribe.................... 63
Thomas, Mary, Governor, Gila River Indian Community.......... 73
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bourey, James M., executive director, Maricopa Association of
Governments, prepared statement of......................... 127
Gaddy, Levonne, founding president of Multiethnics of
Southern Arizona in Celebration [MOSAIC], prepared
statement of............................................... 133
Hayworth, Hon. J.D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona:
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Various articles......................................... 28
Jackson, Jack C., Jr., director of governmental affairs,
National Congress of American Indians, prepared statement
of......................................................... 106
Lewis, John, executive director, Intertribal Council of
Arizona, prepared statement of............................. 96
Lewis, Rodney B., general counsel, Gila River Indian
Community, prepared statement of........................... 75
Lumm, Esther Duran, president of the Arizona Hispanic
Community Forum, prepared statement of..................... 137
Makil, Ivan, president of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community, prepared statement of........................... 55
Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 16
McKenzie, Dr. Taylor, vice-president of the Navajo Nation,
Arizona, prepared statement of............................. 44
Miller, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, prepared statement of.......................... 4
Taylor, Wayne, chairman of the Hopi Tribe, prepared statement
of......................................................... 65
OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: COMMUNITY BASED APPROACHES FOR A BETTER
ENUMERATION
----------
FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Phoenix, AZ.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in the
Phoenix City Council Chambers, 200 West Jefferson Street,
Phoenix, AZ, Hon. Dan Miller (chairman of the Subcommittee on
the Census) presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Shadegg, and Maloney.
Also present: Representative Hayworth.
Staff present: Chip Walker, communications director; Lara
Chamberlain and Kelly Duquin, professional staff members.
Mr. Miller. I'll call the meeting to order and welcome
everybody to the meeting of the Subcommittee on the Census of
the Government Reform Committee of the U.S. Congress. Welcome
to all of you here.
I'm delighted to have the ranking member, Carolyn Maloney,
from New York with us.
We're also pleased to have--they're not members of the
committee; they're members of the Ways and Means Committee--
Congressman Hayworth here with us today, and it was his office
that made it possible to set up this meeting, especially to
focus on the census issues concerning the American Indian
population.
So we thank you very much. Your staff was very helpful. We
appreciate that. It takes a lot of work to have a field hearing
when you're in Washington to orchestrate and organize it here,
and your office has been very helpful.
We will have some opening statements by the three of us.
It's possible Congressman Shadegg will be joining us. He
was a member of this committee. He has now left this committee,
but hopefully, he'll be joining us for part of this particular
meeting.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled that sampling
cannot be used for the apportionment of the House of
Representatives. The issue of sampling was one that the
Congress and the administration agreed would have to be settled
by the courts. Well, the high court has ruled, and now it's
time to go ahead and get to the business of counting people for
the 2000 census.
As I see it, the choice with Congress is clear. We can
dwell on the past, or we can work together and come up with a
comprehensive plan to count America. My choice and the choice
of the Speaker and the Republicans is to work together with the
Democrats to count all people in America.
I want to make it perfectly clear that Republicans are
prepared to move on and develop effective strategies to count
America. We welcome the input of the Democrats and the
President. In fact, I fully expect the President will come
forward with a good proposal to legally count America. I'm
looking forward to those proposals.
Two days ago, I outlined a plan to count America. The
``America Counts Today'' outline is focused on increasing the
resources, in many cases, the money, that the Census Bureau has
of specific programs to count the hard to reach.
I outlined four major community bases for improvements to
the 2000 census: To correct community awareness, to increase
the involvement of the community leaders, to reinforce
community based enumerations, and No. 4 was to strengthen the
Census Bureau's commitment to the community-based enumeration.
First of all, to increase the involvement with the
community leaders, my top priority there is to reinstate the
post census local review. Nobody knows better than the mayors
and the local officials, such as tribal leaders, where people
in your community or reservation live.
Post census local review will give you the opportunity to
review the census numbers before the Census Bureau makes them
final. This program was used in 1990 and added over 80,000
households but was discontinued in the 2000 census because the
Bureau felt it was too costly. The cost cannot be an impediment
to a successful census. You have the right to check the
numbers, and that can do nothing but help improve the count.
At the same time, I propose establishing matching grant
programs to local partnership groups and communities in the
hardest to count areas. This will provide needed resources to
conduct outreach efforts and to encourage participation in the
census in the respective neighborhoods.
Community awareness is critical and I am proposing to
quadruple the advertising budget from $100 million to $400
million, with a significant portion of the new money targeted
toward the hardest to count areas of the Nation, which would
include the American Indian reservations.
I also want to expand the Census in the Schools program.
This program is designed to raise awareness among our children
about the importance of being counted. It's unfortunate to say
there's only enough money for 10 percent of the schools. I
propose expanding that to cover all the schools in America.
Additionally, we can and we must triple the number of paid
Census Bureau partnership specialists and, again, target them
to work in the areas with the worst undercount.
The third major initiative involves reinforcement of
community-based enumeration. I propose that we add a minimum of
100,000 additional census enumerators, and we target them to
work in the hardest to count communities.
By organizing these enumerators into a unique team and
focusing their efforts exclusively on reaching the hardest to
count populations, we'll have a far more accurate count in
those areas.
I also propose to enlist Americorp volunteers in the census
effort. When a Republican proposes to expand the Americorp
program, you know something is different. If we are going to
have Americorp, I can think of no better civic service than
helping count America, and why not use this program to reduce
the undercount.
Next, I want to join with Congresswoman Carrie Meek to
provide waivers to Welfare recipients and retired military
officers and any others that are necessary who would like to
help count their neighborhoods but can't because of the
bureaucratic red tap that would cause them to lose their
benefits if they take a temporary census job.
At a recent meeting of the Census Advisory Committee, the
American Indian representatives lamented that a program on
Indian reservations called TANF, or Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families, was preventing many American Indians from
taking temporary jobs working as census enumerators. We must
remove these barriers for a full count in 2000.
The fourth issue is to strengthen the Bureau's community-
based enumerations. I propose, instead, of having a second
questionnaire mailed to households. In the 1998 dress
rehearsals, this was shown to increase the response rate by 7
percent. This would mean that up to 19 million people could be
added to the census rolls before we send the enumerators into
the field.
When I first talked about these programs the other day, the
ranking member, Congresswoman Maloney, was very quick to
dismiss some of these proposals. Let me say this about the
America Counts Initiative. For starters, the plan is legal. The
plan that has been proposed by the Clinton administration is
not legal.
Some of these programs have been tried before, and some
have never been tried before. For example, we've never had paid
advertising. We've never had it in the past, and I'm proposing
to increase it to $400 million.
Is there anyone telling me today that allowing American
Indians to work for the Census Bureau to help count their
people without losing there benefits is a bad idea and won't
help?
Is there anyone who, today, would say, in the local
government or the American Indian Reservations, they don't want
to have a chance to look at the numbers before the final count
to see if there were mistakes made in the census? We think
those are things that could help. And having the schools
involved is something that I think benefits the census.
So we have a plan. By working together with the Democrats
and the Republicans, having input with people that are here and
throughout the country, we think we can do a much better job in
completing the census.
I presented the programs for counting America, and I had
very positive support, especially on the issue of local census
review after the census is completed. So we are going to
conduct a legal census, the most accurate census in our
history, and we look forward to the input from all the people
here today.
At this time, I would like to ask Congresswoman Maloney for
an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.009
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
First of all, I'd like to thank my colleagues, particularly
J.D., for hosting us here today. We spent a wonderful morning
touring Indian reservations. And actually, I thank you, Dan,
for bringing us here to the field.
Any time we speak out on the census and we go to
communities and make them more aware, we are improving our
count locally. And I want to thank all witnesses that will be
here.
The State of Arizona, the city and communities of Phoenix,
and the American Indian tribes in this area were all
undercounted in 1990 at an unacceptably high rate. I am
committed to changing this in the 2000 census and will listen
with great interest to any ideas that the Indian tribes and
other governmental officials will have today and the
multiracial representative bloodline.
The 1990 census was full of mistakes, and many of those
mistakes were in the Southwest. New Mexico had an undercount of
3.1 percent, the highest undercount for any of the 50 States.
Arizona had an undercount of 2.4 percent, which is 50 percent
above the national average.
American Indians on reservations had an undercount of 12.2
percent, the highest group in the country in the undercount.
That means that 1 out of every 8 American Indians living on the
reservation was missed. The census also missed 1 out of every
20 Hispanics. The undercount of American Indians not on
reservations was 2.5 percent.
And when you're undercounted, your dollars--your Federal
dollars are less coming in because our dollars are tied to
census numbers, our Federal formulas, and the representation,
the people elected. Districts are drawn based on census
numbers.
So it's very, very important, not to mention good data,
good scientific data to plan for the future where our health
facilities need to be or other facilities.
The 1990 census was the most examined census in the history
of our country. Both Congress and the Census Bureau were
displeased with the results of the census. The total error rate
was over 10 percent.
Twenty-six million people were miscounted. There were 8.4
million people missed; 4.4 million people were counted twice;
and 13 million people were counted in the wrong place.
To make matters worse, the people missed and the people
counted twice are quite different. The people missed in the
census are minorities: American Indians, Latinos and Asians, as
well as urban and rural poor. The people counted twice in the
census tended to be affluent suburbanites.
I agree with the President who said in the State of the
Union Address, ``Since every person in America counts, every
American ought to be counted.'' That won't happen without the
use of modern, scientific methods. That is what we learned in
the 1990 census.
I would like to turn, very briefly, to the unique problems
of counting American Indians in the census. The relationship
between American Indians and the Federal Government is a
complicated one. Tribal government represents sovereign
entities, and as such, have a special relationship.
In 1992, tribes in the Northeast barred census takers from
their reservation. It was, as they argued, their right as a
sovereign nation, their right not to be counted.
Another complicated relationship exists between tribal
rolls and the census. The census is to count people based on
their usual residence on April 1. The tribal rolls, on the
other hand, are more concerned with identifying membership in
the tribe than with the residents on a particular day.
I am pleased that the Census Bureau has done a great deal
of work and improved its procedures on Indian reservations
since 1990. The Bureau is committed to the recruitment and
hiring of tribal members to count members of their tribe.
The Census Bureau is committed to working with the American
Indian nations to make sure that every operation of the census
is sensitive to the needs and the culture of those nations.
This will include the cultural sensitive advertising materials
as well as school program materials.
It is my understanding that hiring American Indians on
reservations for temporary census work has been hampered by
laws governing temporary relief payments. That is unfortunate
and unnecessary.
I am pleased that Representative Miller has stated today
his endorsement of a bill proposed by my good friend Terry
Meek, a Democratic Representative from Florida. I have
supported that bill for two Congresses now, but we have been
unable to get the Republican majority in the House to move the
bill.
If the House had acted on this bill last year, we would not
be having trouble on reservations today. So with all due
respect, I appeal to my colleague not to just support this bill
but to pass it in the U.S. Congress.
I see that my time is up, and I have a great deal more to
say, but let me just put into the record, and I ask unanimous
consent, editorials from the Washington Post, the LA Times, and
the New York Times.
And these editorials really lament the Supreme Court
decision, which was very narrowly drawn. It barred sampling for
apportionment, the drawing--the apportionment of seats between
the States--but allowed it for Federal funds for good data and
for redistricting.
Also I would like to put into the record a letter from the
civil rights community. It is a cross section, just to mention
a few, of the National Congress of American Indians, League of
Women Voters, Korean Cultural Center, Jewish Committee, Asian
Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, Chicanos, Latinos, Civil
Rights Liberties, and many, many others who have really signed
a letter in support of modern scientific methods.
And I will only quote briefly from their letter one line:
Direct counting methods alone do not have the capacity to
improve accuracy or reduce the differential undercount of
children, people of color, American Indians living on and off
reservations, and the urban and rural poor.
And I also would like to just clarify because my dear, good
friend Representative Miller, I believe, has misquoted the
Supreme Court. And may I quote from Sandra Day O'Connor the
majority opinion.
We do not mean to suggest, as Justice Stevens claimed, a
dissent that the 1976 amendments had no purpose, rather the
amendments served a very important purpose. It changed the
provision that permitted the use of sampling for purposes other
than apportionment into one that required that sampling be used
for such purposes if feasible. And I think that statement is
very clear.
I do know that the chairman has been very generous to bring
us out here to be with you. I have a great deal more to say,
but my time is up, and we need to very strictly adhere to that,
because we have many important speakers. Thank you.
May these be accepted in the record?
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney and the
information referred to follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.020
Mr. Miller. Without objection those will be included in the
record. And for those that have additional materials to include
in the record with their presentation, we will include that
with the record.
Thank you, Mrs. Maloney, for your statement.
And as I said, Congressman Hayworth, who represents this
area of Arizona, was very gracious to host us this morning and
make it possible. He's not a member of the committee, and we
have agreed that it's proper to have both Mr. Shadegg and Mr.
Hayworth.
So Mr. Hayworth, we'd like to hear from you.
Mr. Hayworth. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Maloney,
Congressman Shadegg, tribal leaders, representatives,
distinguished witnesses, and guests, thank you for the
opportunity to participate in what I believe is a very
important subject: The severe undercount of the Native
Americans in the census.
I welcome this opportunity to hear from so many leaders
across the width and breadth of the great State of Arizona.
And while it is not my intent to score debating points, for
purposes of making the record more complete, Mr. Chairman, I
would ask unanimous consent that we include in the record the
following editorials: the Daily Oklahoma, the Orange County
Register, the Florida Times Union of Jacksonville, the New York
Post, and the Post and Courier of Charleston of South Carolina
dealing with plots for a Supreme Court decision and the
champions of our Constitution.
As I said when it was my privilege in the 106th Congress
to----
Mr. Miller. Without objection, they will be accepted.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.027
Mr. Hayworth. I thank the chairman for that.
When I had the privilege to stand for the sovereignty of
Indian tribes and I pointed out to the assembled audience and
my fellow committee members that sovereignty is guaranteed for
Native Americans by Article I, Section VIII of the
Constitution, so too, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, when
I refer us all to Article I, Section II of this Constitution,
which uses the following terminology.
The actual enumeration--with reference to a census, ``The
actual enumeration shall be made within 3 years after the first
meeting of the Congress of the United States and within every
subsequent term of 10 years in such manner as they shall by law
direct.''
Actual enumeration is the terminology used here. I will
offer the observation that just as they champion Native
American sovereignty, so too let us remember the exact
terminology and mission our Congress gave us in the
Constitution as it exits.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, I represent eight tribes, and
nearly 1 in 4 of my constituents is Native American. Arizona is
second only to Oklahoma in Native population.
The Navajo Nation, which I represent, is geographically the
largest reservation in the United States, encompassing over
17\1/2\ million acres and transcending four State boundaries.
According to the 1990 census, it is also home to more than
225,000 Indian residents, which is equivalent to 11.6 percent
of the Native American population nationwide. The Navajo Nation
is second only to the Cherokee tribe in terms of membership
numbers.
The other tribes I'm honored to represent here today,
including the Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, while not as large as the
Navajo Nation, have significant populations, and it is equally
important that they are not undercounted when we conduct the
2000 census.
Mr. Chairman, I am disheartened by the fact that Native
Americans are the most severely undercounted segment of our
society. According to the Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal
Estimates Report, the total undercount in Indian country was
approximately 12.22 percent in 1990.
Think about it. Approximately 1 in 10 Native Americans, the
first Americans, were missed in this count. We must honor our
sacred, solemn treaty, and tribal and constitutional
obligations to our first Americans by counting every single
one.
The undercount has resulted in the loss of millions of
dollars to Indian Country. In my district, tribes depend on
funding for a variety of programs. The amount of funds they
receive is primarily determined by the decennial census count.
That means that tribes are receiving less funding for Tribal
Priority Allocations, the Indian Reservation Roads program and
Indian education programs.
With the Supreme Court's ruling this past Monday that
sampling is illegal, I believe it is imperative that the Census
Bureau begin taking active steps to reduce the undercount
throughout Indian country.
I think there are several ways that the Bureau can achieve
this. First, the Census Bureau must utilize the Local Update of
Census Addresses program created by the Census Improvement Act
of 1994. The main purpose of the program is to maintain a
quality master address file by creating partnerships with local
and tribal governments to improve address lists for the 2000
census.
Local and tribal governments will designate liaisons to
review the MAF for their particular jurisdiction. I believe it
is important that the Census Bureau nurture relationships with
Native American liaisons who are more likely to be accepted and
trusted by tribal members than local census employees. I
believe this program is a worthwhile investment in helping to
reduce the undercount in Indian county.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I believe the Census Bureau should
aggressively pursue the Be Counted national campaign, which
will provide a means for people to be included in the 2000
census who may not have received a questionnaire or believe
they were not included on one.
The Be Counted campaign is going to place particular
emphasis on developing ways to include population groups that
have been historically undercounted, including Native
Americans. Post offices, libraries, gas stations, or grocery
stores are some of the intended locations of the Be Counted
campaign.
In many Native American communities, these locations serve
as local gathering places. These outposts could serve as an
effective base to ensure that individuals are receiving
information on our census and would help guarantee that we are
counting as many Native Americans as possible.
Third, I would support efforts by the Census Bureau to
establish complete count committees [CCCs]. A CCC would be
composed of influential government officials, community,
business, and religious leaders.
A CCC would distribute materials by the Bureau. In
addition, a CCC would help develop and create public service
announcements. Again, I believe it's very beneficial to involve
the local communities whenever possible.
For instance, a CCC on a reservation could use its
influence in native languages to produce public service
announcements that would encourage tribal members to
participate in the census.
This leads to my fourth point, which is my support not only
for public service announcements, Mr. Chairman, but for paid
advertising. I know paid advertising includes time.
I see that four-letter word raise its head with the red
light here, but I would simply point out, in addition to asking
unanimous consent to include my entire statement in the record,
that the only way I believe the Census Bureau can reduce the
undercount in Indian country is by conducting a local review of
the official census before the Bureau submits the final count
to our President.
You talked about it in your opening statement. I find that
encouraging. I look forward to hearing from all of our
witnesses this afternoon, and thank the subcommittee members on
both sides of the aisle for joining us here in Arizona.
[The prepared statement of Hon. J.D. Hayworth follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.029
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Congressman Hayworth.
Unfortunately, he's on the very popular Ways and Means
Committee, and one of the recommendations I made and
Congresswoman Maloney has talked about also, is to create
waivers for people that would work for the Census Bureau so
that people in the local community could do that.
And some of that legislation may be blown to your
subcommittee, Mr. Hayworth, so do we have your support in that?
Mr. Hayworth. If the chairman would yield, I think I heard
the magic letters TANF, which deal with the Ways and Means
jurisdiction, so given that particular collection from the
alphabet, I think we will be crossing jurisdictions; look
forward to working with members of the subcommittee.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
I'd like to now welcome Congressman Shadegg. Congressman
Shadegg served on our committee for the past 4 years, and we're
sorry to see you move.
Thank you, very much, and thank you for joining us here
today. Congressman Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I did serve on this subcommittee and enjoyed my service on
the committee. I will miss not being able to serve with you as
you go forward.
I want to welcome the ranking member to Arizona. I hope
we're providing adequate nice weather for you and the chairman,
and thank my colleague Mr. Hayworth for bringing this hearing
to Arizona.
In the interest of time, I am not going to make, at this
time, Mr. Chairman, a formal opening statement but would like
to put some things on the record. I would like to make a few
brief remarks.
I commend the chairman for his efforts in this entire area.
I commend Mr. Hayworth for bringing the hearing here to
Arizona.
As a native Arizonan, I am deeply concerned about Arizona's
representation and about Arizona getting, as it were, a fair
share. I'm also very familiar with Native American reservations
and with their unique problems.
As it happens, while a member of the Arizona attorney
general's office, I sued the U.S. Government for breach of this
treaty to the Navajo people and it's obligation to educate
Navajo people in a lawsuit in which the Federal Government was
suing; we sued the Federal Government for failing to live up to
the 1880 treaty.
In that litigation, we tried to point out that had the
Federal Government lived up to some of those treaty
obligations, perhaps the State wouldn't be under so many
obligations.
But in that capacity, I've had a chance to get to know many
of Arizona's Native American peoples, and the unique problems
on the reservations. It is indeed a unique problem, and it is
vitally important that we ensure an accurate count.
And my goal here today, and I hope it's the goal of every
single person in the hearing, is to ensure that we do every
single thing possible to ensure that we have a complete and
full account of every single American, but particularly every
single Native American.
It is an outrage, no less than that, that there were so
many Native Americans undercounted in the last census. And I
notice, Mr. Chairman, in my conversations with you during my
service on the committee and my conversations with you in the
past that that's your goal as well.
I would point out that one of the things that I find
anomalous in this entire debate over sampling is worthy of
mentioning here today. We know the topic here today isn't
sampling, and indeed we're going to get to what really matters
in terms of getting a good count first.
But in the debate that pervades this, nonetheless, of
sampling, I think it's worth pointing out that in their plan,
the Census Bureau has consistently said they will not sample on
Native American reservations.
Indeed, to double check that this week, I had a staff
member contact the Census Congressional Affairs Office, and
they were told, ``There will be no sampling on Indian
reservations. We'll attempt to count 100 percent of the
population and then followup with an ICM.'' And ICM is the
integrated coverage measurement.
I have always found it anomalous and, indeed, problematic
and difficult for me to understand, since I represent a State
which has many Native Americans and as we know, Native
Americans were the most undercounted in the population in the
last census, that the mechanism designed to fix the undercount,
specifically sampling, is not to be used on reservations.
If it's a good measure to fix the undercount, why isn't it
being used on Native American reservations? I think that's a
fair question.
Nonetheless, in light of the Supreme Court ruling, I think
our job here today--I will conclude with this--is to do
everything we can to identify and to learn how we can maximize
the count and get an accurate 100 percent count of those
Americans living on Indian reservations and of all Native
American people.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak
today.
Mrs. Maloney. One clarification, if I could. It is true
that they were not using sampling for non-response follow-up,
but the Supreme Court decision knocked out non-response follow-
up. The Republicans won on that issue.
But the ICM is used. The ICM, we're now calling it the post
enumeration survey. That is sampling. That goes in after the
count to correct it, and we have Census Bureau officials here
that could speak further on it.
But for the record, sampling is used on Indian
reservations. It is the Census Bureau's plan to use sampling
for the post enumeration survey or the ICM. There will be no
sampling for non-response follow-up for anyone: Latino, urban,
rural, Indian reservations. There will be none of that for
anyone now because of the Supreme Court's decision.
But for the adjustment after the count, the ICM is used, so
sampling is projected to be used on Indian reservations.
Mr. Miller. But since the----
Mrs. Maloney. And the Census Bureau is here. They can speak
for themselves.
Mr. Shadegg. That's exactly what I said, that they will
have followup with ICM.
Mr. Miller. The ICM is unconstitutional. I mean, we won't
use ICM. That is sampling. So that will not be used. My
interpretation and the interpretation of the attorneys I've
talked to is that sampling will not be used, not only for the
apportionment, but also for redistricting.
For money, it's very clear. Sampling can be used, and it
very likely will be used. So money is a different issue. But
when you get to apportionment/redistricting, the consensus
turns to one issue. I think the interpretation by many
attorneys would be that it will not be used, but it----
Mrs. Maloney. Another point of information. If you look up
apportionment and redistricting in the dictionary, there are
two different definitions for it. They are two different
things.
The Supreme Court dealt with apportionment, only not
redistricting, so the interpretation of the Census Bureau, of
the President of the United States, of many like-minded
Republicans and Democrats is that it can be used for
redistricting. It will. It is supported by the President.
Mr. Miller. This will be settled by judges. We've already
had six Federal judges plus five Supreme Court Justices say
it's illegal, so----
Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Miller. Let's move--we need to move on, if you don't
mind. We have all this fun in Washington, but we really are
here to listen and learn. If you use sampling, you need to have
the best initial count we can. And we recognize that,
especially with the American Indians, that was the largest area
of the undercount, and we're here to listen and learn about
ideas and suggestions.
So what I'd like to do now is call forward the first panel.
If you will, come forward and have a seat at the table.
We have the Honorable Dr. Taylor McKenzie, who is the vice-
president of the Navajo Nation; the Honorable Ivan Makil,
president of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community; the
Honorable Wayne Taylor, Jr., chairman of the Hopi Tribe; Mr.
Rodney B. Lewis, general counsel for the Gila River Indian
Community; if they'd come forward.
I'd also ask Governor Mary Thomas if she'd come forward.
She will respond to questions, and we appreciate her being
here.
We want to say thank you, very much, for your hospitality,
Governor Thomas, today, and knowing that you just flew in from
Washington in the middle of the wee hours of this morning and
are joining us today, we are very much appreciative of your
being here.
Actually, as we do with hearings, if you all will stand,
those of you testifying, and take the oath here. And if you all
would, stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Miller. The record will identify they all said I do.
Thank you. Please, be seated.
And at this time, we'll begin with Dr. McKenzie, if you'd
like to begin.
The goal is we're going to be finished by 5 o'clock, and so
we use the 5-minute rule--try to live with the 5-minute rule.
We weren't too good up here, all three of us.
Please, try to use the 5-minute rule because we want to
have some time for some questions, and we have two more panels
today.
Dr. McKenzie.
STATEMENT OF DR. TAYLOR McKENZIE, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE NAVAJO
NATION, ARIZONA
Mr. McKenzie. Thank you, Honorable Dan Miller, Honorable
Carolyn Maloney, Honorable J.D. Hayworth--it's good to see
you--Honorable John Shadegg.
I'm pleased to be here today. And the president of the
Navajo Nation who was scheduled to be on this panel was unable
to be here today, and he did assign me to the task of being
here for this.
The president and I support the U.S. Census Bureau, and the
Navajo Nation coming together in partnership and consultation
to ensure the most accurate count possible. To achieve this, it
will require the cooperation of both the Navajo Nation and the
Federal Government.
However, to ensure an accurate count, which is useful to
all interested parties, the census match must recognize not
only the BIA agency boundaries, the chapter boundaries, as well
as State and county lines; the chapter being considered as the
smallest unit of local government, which then can be combined
to form agency government, which then can be combined to fit
into the State and county lines. It is possible to do an
accurate count combining all of these designations.
The persons recruited for collecting the census must be
prepared for the difficulties involved. This means that the
individuals must speak both fluent Navajo and English, and that
they cannot rely on street address or post office boxes. They
must encounter rugged, rural terrain to get to the households.
Those who work on the census must do the field work to get
the information. In view of that, adequate funding must be made
available to recruit adequate numbers of enumerators. It is
apparent that there are not enough people to do the job.
The publicity of the census must be in English and Navajo,
and must be oral as well as provided in written form. This
publicity must clarify some possible misunderstandings,
including possible confusion between the census number, which
is assigned to each individual member of the Navajo Nation, and
also those that are being counted in this count.
The Navajo Nation is committed to assist the Federal
Government in conducting the year 2000 census because it is
important to have an accurate figure so that we can meet the
serious needs of the Navajo people at the local level. It is
important that we have an accurate count so that we may have a
more justifiable access to resources that are so needed.
However, this will also require a commitment of the Federal
Government to address the unique situations based on the Navajo
Nation.
The Navajo Nation is prepared to cooperate and to be a
partner in this endeavor to achieve an accurate count. It has
provided a liaison person already in the President's office. It
will assist in the recruitment of persons who are qualified to
do the census, and these qualifications will be reviewed by the
people at the local chapter level.
The Navajo Nation is prepared to assist in the publicity of
whatever sort may be required. The Navajo Nation is prepared to
review the maps and advertising of the census as well. We have
maps that have been prepared that can be utilized by the Navajo
government, as well as by the census takers.
There is an agreement with the Census Bureau that has been
prepared, and because of the schedule of the Navajo Nation
government it has not been acted upon but will be presented
Monday. It will be approved, and if the Navajo Nation president
is absent that day, I will be glad to sign it for him.
On the other hand, what the Navajo Nation cannot do is the
chapter officers who have often been recruited to conduct the
field work, it will not be possible for them to do this
because, as we understand the program of enumeration, it is a
full-time job, particularly on the Navajo Nation where the
people are scattered and both the Navajo language and the
English language must be used. So it is a full-time job, and
the chapter officials cannot do it part-time.
It cannot do the census for the Federal Government.
Consequently, there must be adequate funding for Navajo people
who can do the job to be hired, and the job must be done
appropriately.
Conducting the count in the smallest unit of local
government will come closest to counting each individual Navajo
on the Navajo Reservation. The chapter unit must be considered
as a base unit in which the counting needs to be done, and from
there they can be combined, clustered, and conformed to agency.
There are five agencies within the Navajo Nation. And these
can be coordinated and collaborated with the State and county
lines without any difficulty. It is extremely possible to do an
accurate count if we put our minds to it.
Thank you, very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKenzie follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.038
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
We will continue with the panel with Mr. Makil. Is that
close?
Mr. Makil. [No audible response.]
Mr. Miller. Go ahead, Mr. Makil.
STATEMENT OF IVAN MAKIL, PRESIDENT OF THE SALT RIVER PIMA-
MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
Mr. Makil. Chairman Miller, Representatives, I appreciate
this time today and especially welcome back to the district
Congressman Hayworth; always enjoy time to discuss issues with
you and Mr. Shadegg as well. I always appreciate the
opportunity to visit with you while we're in DC. And here.
I'll make my comments very brief because I know that most
of this information you are familiar with. There's been, and
there will be today, many that will restate some of the facts
that I think we all know.
The facts that American Indians have been undercounted, and
until a process is developed that will provide an accurate
count, we will continue to be undercounted, and what our major
concern here today is, as has always been with tribes, is to
make sure that as our governments grow and develop that we
continue to provide opportunities to create productive
citizens.
And part of our ability to develop productive citizens lies
within those opportunities that come about as a result of the
census count. That's our primary concern, because without an
accurate counting, then it is difficult to assess a number of
other associated issues that come into play when you're dealing
with numbers of people.
While we can generalize and we can look at tribal records
and the roles of tribal membership, that is only part of the
story. That is only part of what the total population will be
within an Indian community because of intermarriages, etc. So
there are a number of problems there.
But again, our focus still ought to be on how do we get
accurate counts to be able to provide services and to continue
to education our people so that our people will grow up better
trusting the Federal Government system because that is a big
part of the consideration here.
When that trust is in question, then it makes it difficult
for people to want to participate, and so, it requires, as was
mentioned, local people from within the Indian nations
themselves to be a part not only of the counting process but in
the planning process, in the development of these programs.
While we know that there have been programs developed by
the Census Bureau that--at least in our experience--that
involvement or participation has been minimal, and there are a
number of other considerations that I'm sure would come out of
more involvement by tribes in these plans.
These true assessments--and let me go on and just say, with
some recommendations: Obviously, adequate training with tribal
liaisons and census takers; hiring tribal community members;
the exemption--income exemption for temporary census takers is
also an issue, which I know has been mentioned; the use of our
enrollment lists; and using high-volume tribal programs. In
every Indian community, there are the clinics, the hospitals,
the health and human service programs where you have high
volumes of traffic. And you can have centers for information
with questionnaires.
Those are the kinds of things that could be done. It takes
just a little bit of creativity; setting up booths at tribal
social events: fairs, rodeos, culture events, as well as tribal
governments getting behind this effort; and as was mentioned,
passing resolutions or Executive orders and actually committing
to become more involved.
Also we think that in the planning of these sessions, we
could have brainstorming sessions with tribal leadership and
representatives of tribes that might add some ideas to possible
marketing campaigns that would help to get the information out
to the general public in the area.
Many of the reservations, not just in Arizona but
throughout the country, have access to television and radio, so
that they have the opportunity to have information communicated
in their languages, as well as in our schools, getting into our
schools and having outreach programs there.
I see that the time has expired, and just in closing, I
would like to make sure that my written testimony can be
submitted for the record.
And if that can, then I will just conclude by saying that
while we know there have been long debates about the merits of
sampling, the fact remains that many of our people still are
undercounted.
And what's important here, as I stated in my opening
comment, is that it is critical, critical not only to Indian
communities but how our citizens become a part of the State and
the Federal contribution in producing productive citizens.
Until there is a program that is developed that can produce
an accurate count, I think that we have to use whatever means
is available to us to try to get that accurate count.
I believe the tribes have a keen interest in making sure
that those counts are accurate, whether it be by sampling or
any other form, simply because the production and the
development of productive citizens contributes not only to
Indian communities and to our economies and creates self-
sufficiency but that contribution goes to the county, State,
surrounding governments, and the Federal Government as well.
And with that, I thank you for the time and for your
interest in this issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Makil follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.046
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, and your statement will be
included in the record.
Chairman Taylor.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOPI TRIBE
Mr. Taylor. Good afternoon, Honorable Dan Miller, Honorable
Carolyn Maloney, Honorable J.D. Hayworth, Honorable John
Shadegg, and respected tribal leaders.
My name is Wayne Taylor, chairman of the Hopi Tribe. I
welcome this opportunity to submit testimony to the House of
Representatives Committee on Government Reform.
Our issue is to ensure accurate population count in the
conduct of the census 2000 on American Indian reservations and
on the Hopi Indian reservations in particular.
The U.S. Bureau of Census reports that, on average, there
was an undercount of American Indian people living on Indian
reservations in the 1990 census by 12.2 percent, as previously
stated.
The Hopi tribal government believes that for the Hopi
reservation, the undercount may be higher, in fact, much higher
than 12.2 percent. This belief is based on our membership
records as well as familiarity with local circumstances.
Using the 12.2 average undercount as an estimator for the
Hopi Reservation, this would result in a net undercounting of
861 of the reported reservation population of 7,059 Indian
persons. That includes Hopi, Navajo, and other tribal members.
Thus, the corrected 1990 American Indian population for the
Hopi reservation should be 7,920. Even at this level, we
believe the number is too low. The Tribe's own official
estimate of the 1990 reservation population was 9,395 Hopi.
This estimate was developed by a professional economist
retained as a consultant to the Hopi Tribe. His research
resulted in a cohort-survival population growth model that
takes as its starting point a 1986 population base established
from tribal enrollment figures.
The model incorporates Hopi birth and death rates obtained
from the Keams Canyon Indian Health Service Hospital and in-
and-out migration flows.
The census 1990 Hopi undercount was strongly objected to at
that time by our chairman then, Vernon Masayesva, in a letter
to the Census Bureau Regional Director, William Adams. This
letter also asserted the official Hopi reservation population
estimates given above.
While trying to come as close together as possible in the
estimates of the Hopi Reservation 1990 population, there still
remains a discrepancy of nearly 1,500 persons between the
Census Bureau's corrected count, 7,920 and the Tribe's official
1990 on-reservation Hopi population estimate of 9,395 people.
The most important result of this undercount for the Hopi
Tribe is a shortfall in the amount of Federal funding available
for delivery of governmental services to the Hopi people. Many
Federal agencies base their revenue sharing funding formulas on
the official census population count.
For Hopi, this would most likely be the uncorrected count
of 7,059 number. We believe, therefore, we have been
shortchanged in our share of Federal grant and transfer dollars
by at least 20.9 percent annually for the last 8 years.
When the undercount is translated into dollars, we estimate
that several million dollars have been lost over the past 8
years. This loss is made worse for us because we are a
nongaming tribe. When we lose benefits of Federal funding, the
social impact of that loss is doubly grievous to our villages
and communities. It cannot be easily replaced from other
sources such as gaming revenue.
We believe our situation, while perhaps extreme, is not
unique among American Indian tribes, and we believe that it
must not be repeated in the census 2000, neither on Hopi nor on
any other American Indian Reservation. The importance of
accurate census figures cannot be overstated.
Some solutions: Essentially, Congress should open the
possibilities for closer collaboration between the tribes and
the Census Bureau so that the work of the Bureau can be
facilitated but not at the expense of tribes, many, if not most
of whom, cannot afford the extra financial burden of doing U.S.
Government's business.
I have some recommendations for you, which I hope can be
submitted into the record in the interest of the time
restraints we have here.
The most controversial issue before you is that of applying
statistical sampling in the decennial census. I know that the
Supreme Court this week ruled that complete enumeration is
required by law for apportionment of congressional
Representatives among the 50 States. So be it.
I also know that as a result of the court ruling, more
accurate, statistical sampling methodologies can be, in fact,
must be applied to congressional redistricting and allocation
of Federal funds where the Secretary deems these methods
feasible.
Let it be known that the Hopi Tribe, for reasons of
achieving more accurate population estimates at a reasonable
costs, which would, without question, result in more equitable
distribution of Federal funds to the Hopi Tribe, unqualifiedly
supports the use of statistical sampling by the Census Bureau
to derive estimates of our population.
Last, I understand you were visiting the Gila River
Reservation today, and I applaud you for that. I want to
welcome you and invite you also to the Hopi Indian Reservation,
my homeland, and experience firsthand, as did the Census Bureau
Central Office managers, what it takes to collect census data
in Indian country.
I am certain that the Denver Regional Staff could repeat,
for your benefit, and enlighten the data collection scenarios
they derived earlier through these visits.
Thank you, very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.053
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis.
STATEMENT OF RODNEY B. LEWIS, GENERAL COUNSEL, GILA RIVER
INDIAN COMMUNITY
Mr. Rodney Lewis. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members
of the Subcommittee on the Census and staff. Of course, we
welcome you back, J.D. Hayworth, along with John Shadegg.
With me is Governor Thomas. Mary Thomas was able to adjust
her schedule to be here with us today, and she will make some
comments.
I'm pleased to provide this testimony regarding the
problems of historic undercounting of Indian communities in the
national census.
The Gila River Indian Community was created by an act of
Congress in 1859 and covers approximately 372,000 acres located
in south central Arizona, immediately south of the greater
Phoenix area.
Approximately 13,000 of our total 19,000 tribal members
live within the exterior boundaries of the community. Over the
past 5 years, our reservation population has grown by nearly 44
percent, due in part to increased economic and employment
opportunities available now for our community members.
Not only is our reservation population growing, but it's
getting younger. Of those members who reside on the
reservation, more than 51 percent are under the age of 21.
Indian reservations pose significant and unique challenges
to the conduct of a national census. The impact of
undercounting, of course, is extremely serious and significant.
Hundreds of millions of dollars each year are provided to a few
tribes through the Bureau of Indian Affairs under a Tribal
Priority Allocation methodology, TPA.
The Governor has recently been intensively involved in
those discussions and will have some comments about that.
The Indian Health Service also is funded with allocation
methodology. Both methodologies are relying on reservation
population as a key factor in distributing these moneys for
services for these tribes.
Census data is used to determine tribes' eligibility in
extending funding for nutrition programs for children and
pregnant women, training programs to facilitate the transition
from welfare dependency to self-sufficiency, community
development and economic assistance programs, juvenile
delinquency prevention programs, programs to provide victim
services, and police training for domestic violence.
At this critical juncture in history, it is a major
disservice to Indian people for the Federal Government to rely
on flawed data to determine representation of an already under-
represented group of people.
It is incumbent on the Federal Government, our trustee, to
begin this millennium by forging a partnership with Indian
tribal governments to develop cooperative methodologies for the
conduct of the national census.
We have several solutions, and I believe the problems that
we described--we join in the comments of the Hopi, Navajos,
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Reservations in describing
these problems.
But first, the Bureau of Census should examine the methods
employed by Indian tribal governments to update demographic
information of the tribe and to maintain up-to-date and
accurate tribal membership rolls.
Second, there are many different resources within Indian
tribal governments that can assist greatly in the conduct of
the national census. Some important resources include various
tribal departments to provide direct services to community
members.
Finally, it is critical that the Bureau of Census employ
and utilize tribal members. That, of course, is obvious as far
as the count and enumeration is concerned. Of course, tribal
members understand the reservation better, but in most cases
will be--members will be more responsive to community members.
At this point, I'd like to provide Governor Thomas with a
few moments here.
Ms. Thomas. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MARY THOMAS, GOVERNOR, GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
Ms. Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
It is an honor, and I also want to say how much I
appreciate the comments of the tribal leaders that are at this
table and the representatives and also general counsel.
We're all in concert in what is facing us in regards to the
census and of the undercounting that's been going on. And it's
a shame that we've had to rely on this census data since 1990
to try to apportion what little money we get from the Federal
Government.
As you know, the funding has been cut this year. So with
more heads being counted, there's going to be a great deal more
competition for those dollars going to the Indian tribes.
So in regard to the issue about sampling and about this
scientific method and the actual counting of heads, I wish I
had a stand on that right now, but I don't because I don't know
enough about it. It may work in some areas, but in most areas
that have millions of acres, compared to 372,000 that we're
sitting on, and with the attempts now to identify roads, name
roads, give house numbers, etc., we are still a long way from
completing that, but we are making strides to move in that
direction.
It's unfortunate that we are naming our streets Indian
names. It will be very, very hard to mention those or even
pronounce those and exactly what we mean.
Another problem we have is the term Indian. What is an
Indian? Is it a rural member? Is it an Indian who knows he's an
Indian but just not affiliated with any tribe? So those are
other concerns that have been, you know, in our thoughts.
So I'm just going to conclude them then by saying that we
have striven this far in order to be heard, and some of us have
come a long way, but we appreciate the time you take to listen
to our concerns, and I know most of our comments are written
and will be provided as part of our testimonies from all the
tribes.
Mr. Rodney Lewis. Mr. Chairman, we request that our written
statement be made part of the record.
Mr. Miller. Very well.
Mr. Rodney Lewis. We would like to conclude our remarks by
thanking our hard-working Representative in the U.S. House of
Representatives, Congressman Hayworth. We deeply appreciate all
of your efforts on our behalf.
I would like to thank Chairman Miller, Congresswoman
Maloney from New York City, and the committee for coming out to
Arizona to see Indian country first hand.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodney Lewis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.061
Mr. Miller. Thank you all, very much, for your excellent
presentations. They were all very helpful.
What we'd like to do now is each of us will have the 5-
minute rule chance to ask some questions and get some more
input and advice.
Let me start. I'm assuming you've all been working with the
Census Bureau already and developed your list. Is that correct?
I'm just curious, how has that relationship developed at this
stage so far, briefly?
Mr. Makil. While there have been meetings set up and that
involvement is to proceed, there really has been not good
communication in terms of having our folks involved, and I
think it's--that concerns us particularly because we're so
close to the metropolitan area. So it's not like it's a real
difficult thing to do. The problem just needs to be some
expression of some more effort to work on that.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. We have had a rather good working relationship.
And as I mentioned in my statement, we have had visits from the
Denver Regional Office. We've also had the manager from the
central office come to Hopi.
We understand that there was work done, specifically with
the Acoma Indian Tribe in New Mexico, where they did some test
sampling. They have also come to Hopi and Navajo and done some
test sampling.
So they are making what I believe are important strides to
try to understand reservations' situations and respond better
to that.
And we do have a liaison, and I have a liaison with me here
as well, Mike Kelly. And so we are doing our very best, and I
do appreciate the efforts that the Census Bureau has made to
make that happen.
Mr. Miller. Dr. McKenzie.
Mr. McKenzie. Thank you, sir. The Office of Navajo has been
working very hard and to try to provide us with details of the
progress programs. I think we are doing pretty good.
We have had the census--the Census Office has been out in
the area, working on proceeding with the program of census
taking. They have provided us with some detailed reports and I
think things are progressing very well, particularly the review
of the count that will be done. And they have advised that the
Navajos dropped the ball the last time, and we are prepared not
to drop the ball on that this time around.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Lewis, do you have a quick answer?
Mr. Rodney Lewis. We have a good relationship, and they've
been here for our council meetings and been subjected to
intense scrutiny by our council persons.
Mr. Miller. Let me ask, we have a 12 percent undercount in
1990 that we're all very concerned about, of course. And I'm
just curious. I mean, can you give me a specific reason why?
Dr. McKenzie, you mentioned the issue of maybe having
publicity in oral form. Is that a problem, not just in written
form more because of the literacy issues?
Can you give me a specific illustration of why people
aren't completing the form? Is it trust? Is it the written
form? Is it the enumerator? We're not communicating enough?
Mr. McKenzie. I think it's a combination of all of those,
and particularly that the Nation--the Navajo country itself,
where it is difficult for people to get to destinations because
of the terrain, and then dissemination of information is a
problem.
Of course, people that don't have a sense of urgency to
review the information that is provided, some simply don't
care. Some can't get to it. Some don't understand because of
the terminology. I think that has a lot to do with it.
And I suspect, also, that maybe the number of counters may
not have been adequate in the past, but that's a conjecture. I
believe if we did a review of the record, it would probably
show there were not enough counters and that the counting was
probably not done on a chapter level, the smallest of the local
government.
If this were done, then the possibility of counting every
household, every household member would give a much more
accurate count as we totaled the number of chapters in the
Navajo community.
Mr. Miller. Someone else want to say what we are missing?
Mr. Taylor. I think for Hopi, they are probably two primary
reasons. There's a really high unemployment rate. Hopi probably
have an average of 50 percent. And so many of our people have
temporary jobs, and we're a very mobile society as well, and so
that contributes to the undercount as well.
We have many in our population that are resistant to
participating in any government interaction, and so that
contributes to that.
The forms and the protocols, perhaps, that the Census
Bureau uses also contributes to that as well.
Ms. Thomas. I think one of the major underlying issues is
the sensitivity of giving out information for somebody you
don't know and what they're going to use it for, because in our
traditions, and maybe all of the tribes, have legends, stories,
songs and dances that are so sensitive. We do not even share it
with anybody except within ourselves.
So the more you give away information from yourself,
there's the propensity to believe that it will be used against
you at some point in the future, and that is--we have been
indoctrinated with that since the settlement of the West.
Mr. Makil. Just to add to Governor Thomas' comments on
trust and concern about how the information will be used is
really one of the major issues facing us in the Salt River
because as close as we are to the urban area, concern has
always been about how that information would be used. And
there's really a reluctance to share information.
Mr. Taylor. That is very true of the Navajo as well.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, very much, for your comments. My
time is up, but this issue of trust is so critical that we'll
work with the tribal leaders to get the best numbers, and I
think all of you here know the critical portion of this issue
is getting accurate numbers.
Congresswoman Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
First of all, I join my colleagues in thanking the Gila
River Community for their great hospitality and time that they
spent with us, with their skills, their hospitals. It was very
informative. And I hope, at our next meeting, to tour the
Navajo and the Hopi and the Salt River areas and appreciate
very much your invitation in your testimony today.
First of all, the census is absolutely fundamental to our
form of government. If you're not counted, you're not
represented, and it's very important that we get a very
accurate count. And I think it's very important to point out
that sampling, or modern scientific methods, are only a means
of last resort to count those who through apathy, ignorance, or
fear or they just don't want to be counted or unwilling to be
counted.
But one of the problems is if you don't want to be counted,
you hurt your neighbor because if you're not counted or a
person isn't counted, then the Federal funding, the
representation that's fair, is not there.
Now, I want to quote from Dr. Barbara Bryant, and I often
quote from her because she is a Republican, and she was the
head of the Census Bureau appointed by former President Bush.
And I quote from her because I think it's important because
when we talk about putting more resources behind the problem,
from her experience and that of the National Academy of
Sciences, and I quote from her, enumeration simply cannot count
everyone. Throwing more money at enumeration will not improve
the count.
And she states that in 1990, and I quote, we hit the wall
trying to count everyone by enumeration. We were adequately
funded. There was no shortage of funds for hiring local,
community enumerators or making additional efforts. She states
there was no shortage of funds.
But in fact, she states that when local communities
complained to her that their constituencies were undercounted
and gave the Census Bureau the locations, they went out to
those locations, mounted an expensive effort to send more
enumerators out there, which contained 20 percent of the
Nation's housing units, and that effort added only 0.1 percent,
that is, one-tenth of 1 percent to the final count.
And Congress then wanted to correct the undercount. The
National Academy of Sciences came forward with a plan. It was
this plan that the Census Bureau is implementing.
We know today that the American Indian community was
undercounted by 12.2 percent because the Census Bureau, in
1990, conducted an integrated--it's called a post enumerations
survey, or a quality control. So if we had not had that quality
control, then we would not know that there was an undercount.
So my question to you--and the quality control used modern
scientific methods to incorporate the solution or rather the
information that there was an undercount. And I'd like to know,
would you support this effort today to have the same quality
control to go back and see if there was an undercount? And I'd
like to ask everyone.
You know, if we don't have a quality control, we don't know
whether or not there's an undercount.
Ms. Thomas. Let me begin the discussion by telling you
this, that the curiosity of what goes on in Indian country has
led to sampling all along in our history.
Sampling of the diabetes that's prevailed in my tribe,
especially, has been announced across the world that we are the
highest in diabetic incidence. The alcoholism numbers are
attached to that. And the media picks up on this, and they just
blast the tribes that we are nothing but alcoholics; we're
lazy.
So this sampling, I guess the quality sampling, is what we
don't really know what it means. You know, is it going to be
used against us again? You know, are we going to be categorized
as being low, poor, unintelligent or things like that?
So it is still something that we need to take a real good
look at, but we have been doing sampling from day one, and it's
still ongoing.
We, on our own, do our own demographic studies, but there's
been a lot of sampling surveys in Indian country that we don't
know. That's when we just put our foot down and say no.
Mrs. Maloney. But it's only to count the number of people
involved in it.
Would anyone else have a comment?
Mr. McKenzie. Your Honorable Maloney, the Navajo Nation, as
a matter of fact, supports the use of statistical sampling as a
means of conducting the census, if it, in fact, makes the
census count more statistically accurate.
But there's congressional opposition, apparently, to this.
They support enumeration. However, if the statistical sampling
is to be used to do a full census counting, then we will
support that.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. I think the question is not necessarily the
count. The question is the error. We know that any time that
you do a count, there will be error. And the only way that I
really believe we can get the best numbers is to look at
reducing the error for the reasons that we have stated, and
it's predominate all over, not just on Indian reservations.
But I believe it is largely true on all of the reservations
that we're just not going to get the participation, so
statistical sampling is the way to do it.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, very much.
Mr. Makil. Well, what I would like to comment on is the
effort to challenge all of you to help to develop or find a
better form to eliminate the kind of undercounts that do occur.
Until there is a better program developed, I think that we
support whatever, whether it's sampling or any other type of
program, that will provide an accurate count. Those are the
things that we support.
We don't like to get caught in these types of issues as
tribes because we see our issues not as partisan issues or
issues of differences. We would like to see it for people to
get together to resolve this issue and find the best way
possible. And you know, some people support sampling; some
don't.
If sampling is all we have available to us as a way of
providing that accuracy where there are people missed, then I
think that's what needs to be done. But until there can be
other forms developed, maybe that's all we have. But we
encourage you to find those other forms so that we won't have
to go through this type of situation.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. The Supreme Court made the decision
for us, so I think we all need to work on other ways and get
the best ideas to get the best count.
I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Hayworth.
Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to extend a special welcome to Governor Thomas for
flying in late from Washington yesterday; for those of you who
have traveled great distances: Vice-President McKenzie and
Chairman Taylor.
I think the chairman has a point. We can sit here and have
a challenge trying to define terms and naming different actions
with different labels or descriptions.
Suffice it to say, whatever you call quality control, if
people are not counted to begin with and they are not contacted
in the followup for that quality control, it is a moot point.
They are left out of the count.
And Chairman Taylor, I thought your remarks initially, in
terms of touching on the trust in response to our friend from
New York, were especially perceptive. As long as there is a
problem of trust that undergirds and serves as the impediment
to an accurate count, whatever method is used will be
challenged.
Chairman Taylor, let me begin with you because in your
testimony, you said you had some ideas, but time would not
allow you to articulate some of the solutions dealing with the
unique challenges that you may face with the Hopi people.
What specific changes, in terms of the count, would you
make initially, in terms of getting people counted?
Mr. Taylor. I think what we need to continue to do is to
increase the effort to educate our people and to effectively
cooperate or collaborate with the Census Bureau, and we have,
in fact, been part of that.
But I introduced earlier our director of research and
planning, who happens to be our liaison with the Census Bureau,
Mike Kelly. Mike Kelly and his office, and there are other
programs and departments within the tribe, who attempt to work
with the Census Bureau, and we are paying these people.
It's a great expense. We're just trying to make these
efforts to make the census numbers more accurate, and so we
would like to see that there could be some funding that could
be brought to bear for the education process and to help with
the collaboration.
And I think, you know, as far as the next--we're heading up
to the 2000. I think we need to have in mind already the 2010
and the 2020 and being that education process immediately after
the April 2, 2000, date.
Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a brief show of hands of all our tribal leaders. Has
everyone established a liaison? Everyone. OK. That's a very
helpful sign.
The other point I wish to make personally with the others
serving, most of you as your U.S. Congressmen, if there is--
President Makil, you offered your testimony, for lack of a
better term a lapse of contact with census officials now.
I would ask all of you if you believe that the contacts
with the Census Bureau are deficient, please, contact us as
soon as possible so that we can bring the--one hesitates to use
the weight, given the physical evidence right here--so that we
bear--as constitutional officers can bring that to bear in the
census situation.
Chairman Taylor, you mentioned in your remarks, Vice-
President McKenzie, you mentioned in your remarks, the economic
challenges facing your particular and respective nations in
terms of economic development and serious unemployment.
You also made mention, particularly, employment that
exists. I think the good news is that we were taking into
account the enormous challenges faced by Indian country. The
chairman, in his remarks, offered a notion that we are
designating and trying to set aside more resources, precisely
to count people.
And I think there may be, indeed, economic opportunities
for people to develop across jurisdictional challenges that we
may face in terms of Ways and Means, lifting some restrictions
so that some people might be hired.
But also I would like to commend all of you for the remarks
you have made in terms of tribal sovereignty and priorities
based on your own unique cultures and situations.
Mr. Chairman, this is what I would call the myth of the
monolith that exists with a variety of different groups, the
notion that there is, perhaps, no diversity in the way that the
tribal governments deal with circumstances.
And as we saw today on the Gila River Tribe, as Chairman
Taylor mentioned when he said, please, come visit the Hopi
people, there is a wide disparity of circumstances there, and I
think it proves our point that if we work closely with
respective tribal entities to develop a plan, to hire
enumerators that are familiar and, indeed, comfortable in the
culture involved, we can have much better success.
It certainly does take the notion of transferring money,
power, and influence out of the hands of Washington bureaucrats
and pouring it into the hands of those elected leaders and
those sovereign leaders to help solve this problem. I think
we're heading in the right direction.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, very much. We really appreciate you
joining us, and we really appreciate having Mr. Shadegg join
us.
Congressman Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to make my
remarks, quite frankly, directing them at, with all due
respect, my friends from Florida and New York because, quite
frankly, Arizona is so unique and the circumstances here are so
stunning.
I happened to have had the good fortune to spend a number
of years in the Arizona Attorney General's Office and work on
election laws in that capacity and it was quite an education.
On the back of the registration forms in Arizona, at least
in rural counties, you will actually find a little cross hair
like this. And the reason for that is when you conduct
registration, as when you conduct a census, we begin in Florida
or New York with an address.
In the Navajo reservation--and I happen to have spent an
election day in Hard Rocks, Vice-President McKenzie, so I've
been out on the reservation on election day, and you can't
list--you can't go to a voter and say, well, put down your
address for voter registration purposes. So you'll see cross
hairs on the back of an Arizona registration voter form like
that.
And what people in rural Arizona, particularly on Indian
reservations, have to do is describe where they live by
references to these two lines. And what are the two lines?
They're often a trail, a dirt road, occasionally a paved road,
a ridge line of mountains, a fence line, a telephone pole line,
a riverbed, or a ditch--an irrigation ditch, and people
describe their home as 1\1/2\ miles north of the dirt road--
this particular dirt road and that particular ridge.
It gives you, Mr. Chairman, when you ask what are the
problems with regard to how do we get an accurate count on
Arizona reservations; when you come to New York or Florida,
perhaps you can't envision this kind of difficulty where people
describe their residence by reference to 1\1/2\ miles east of a
dirt road or a particular creek or river running through the
Navajo reservation. So I think that begins to give you some
idea of what we're are dealing with.
In addition, Vice-President McKenzie, I want to make some
reference to the question of oral language. Under the Voting
Rights Act, voting materials are required to be presented to
people in their native language.
And in this particular case, you probably don't know, that
the Navajo language is not a written language, and so the
Navajos need to be, as a matter of Federal law, provided voting
material orally in order for them to be able to understand and
make selections in a fair fashion like the rest of the
Americans.
That means that the Census Bureau has to provide its
information orally in order to comply with that law, certainly
to get an accurate count of Navajo people and other people. In
that regard, I think you begin to see some of the burdens that
we have in Arizona to get an accurate count.
I thought there were several comments that I wanted to
followup on, but I don't think they are pertinent to the
difficulty of getting an accurate count.
Governor Thomas, I think you make a great point regarding
trust and sensitivity, and it is clearly understandable to me
that Native American people would not want to answer questions.
And the first question that comes to me is they certainly
wouldn't want to answer questions if they were not being asked
by another member of the tribe.
So my first question to each of you is, do you know if on
your reservations in the 1990 census the enumerators used were,
in fact, members of your own tribe?
Ms. Thomas. Yes, they were.
Mr. Shadegg. They were.
Ms. Thomas. I want to also acknowledge somebody in the
audience. The director of the Maricopa Associations of
Government, Jim Bourey, who is sitting in the front row over
here.
He and his staff and the Maricopa Association of Government
have made a tremendous outreach to our particular community as
well as Salt River's in order to include this information on
the web sites dealing with the information for the year 2000
census, and we will do our part too.
Mr. Miller. Do any of you know if the enumerators used were
members of your tribe?
Mr. Taylor. The Hopi it was, yes.
Mr. Rodney Lewis. Yes.
Mr. Taylor. Salt River were some members hired but also
others.
Mr. Shadegg. I can see how it would be extremely important
that they would need members of their tribe in order to
understand the geography and the peoples.
By the way, I want to make a comment that, Mr. Lewis, your
testimony, I think, does an excellent job of highlighting the
difficulties--some of the physical difficulties in conducting a
proper census, and I commend each member of the panel.
The second question, do you believe--you've been asked
already about cooperation at this stage with the Census Bureau.
You have all indicated that there is some level of cooperation,
and I gather from your answers that you'd like to see greater
cooperation. And, I heard my colleague Mr. Hayworth invite you
to contact him so that he can weigh in on your behalf during
that process.
I guess I'm interested if you have reason to believe that
the Census Bureau is adequately working with you at this point.
I know that President Makil indicated that there was some of
that there, but not, perhaps, as much as he would like to see.
I think it is important that you understand that we think
it's important that they cooperate with you and particularly,
Chairman Taylor, you mentioned not just cooperating in doing
the census but cooperating in planning the census because if
they plan it wrong, not understanding the circumstances, then
you can't very well do it right.
And so I'd ask the question on that and urge you, by the
way, to be the squeaky wheel and trust the Census Bureau to do
their job. So the question is, do you agree that they are
working with you? Are they working with you on planning at this
point?
Mr. Makil. The planning part has been the part that has
been very minimal.
Mr. McKenzie. The Navajo has been good.
Mr. Rodney Lewis. We've had good cooperation.
I'd also like to emphasize, we need to do our part too--the
tribal governments. We need to make sure that we have a good
roll mark, road system documented. We need to make sure the
location of the houses are documented, and that's our
responsibility for our own purposes also. That's our
responsibility.
Mr. Shadegg. All right.
Ms. Thomas. I might also add that our planning should not
conflict with the planning of the Census Bureau. It has to be
constant.
Mr. Taylor. I just want to add that while the cooperation
has been good, we have been involved.
I mentioned earlier that resources aren't readily available
to the Hopi. And to the degree we want to be able to work with
the Census Bureau, it's taxing on our limited revenues, and I
think there needs to be some resources coming in so that we can
do our part to help with the census.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you all, very much.
Mr. Miller. I just want to thank you all for participating
here today. We will go now to our next panel.
Thank you, very much.
Ms. Thomas. Could I just make one more remark and that is
we appreciate the bill about the waiver on the people who are
possible candidates to conduct the census for us. That would be
a great help to all of us. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
If we can take a minute while we change the names--signs,
if the panel would come forward; our next panel will be Mr.
Scott Celley; Representative Doug Lingner is unable to join us;
and John Lewis and Mr. Jack Jackson, please, come forward.
I'd ask if all three of you would stand and raise your
right hands, please.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Miller. The record will show that they all said I do.
And we'll begin now with the opening statements, and we'll
give it to Mr. Celley. Is that correct?
STATEMENT OF SCOTT CELLEY, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO GOVERNOR JANE
HULL
Mr. Celley. Executive assistant to Governor Hull, State of
Arizona and I do express the Governor's regret that she could
not be with you here today, and she did want me to extend a
welcome to the visiting members of the committee and thank you
for making the trip out here and taking up such a critical
issue like ensuring a complete count for Native Americans in
the year 2000 census.
She also wanted me to convey her appreciation--our
appreciation and the State for the role that Congressman
Hayworth has taken in highlighting the challenges that exist
for our Native people. An accurate count of our Native American
population and, really, the unrelenting advocacy that
Congressman Hayworth has exhibited for a variety of needs that
the Indian communities in Arizona have and how all of us can
participate in meeting those and incorporating them in the rest
of our State's activities.
Likewise, Congressman Shadegg has been, as was mentioned
here earlier, very involved in this process in Arizona for a
long time. He is highly knowledgeable about it, and we are very
grateful that he has participated up to this point and uses his
spare time to continue to be involved in making sure that this
process works.
The Governor did have a statement, which, if I may, I'll
just submit in the record. I'll just make a few other comments
so we can keep moving along this afternoon.
As she knows well, having resided on the Navajo reservation
for a number of years, challenges there are unique. At the same
time, the contributions that our Native American population
make to the diversity and the cultural and historical nature of
our State make the incorporation accurate and complete
incorporation of Native American populations vital to getting
as many as possible in the family photo of the State of Arizona
in the national census next year.
Accordingly, we have been grateful, in conversations that
we have had with the Census Bureau, as some of the earlier
witnesses indicated, that they have made an aggressive effort.
And in my conversations with our folks at the regional office,
they have sought out, early on, members of tribes to be
employed and trained as Census Bureau employees for the count
next year so that an accurate job can be done on the
reservations. And in making that interaction that brings
confidence to the members of the tribe, which is members of
their own community that they know and trust.
The other issue that the Governor brings forward on every
occasion that is evident, I'm sure, to you as you travel around
the valley here earlier today is just how fast Arizona is
growing. And frankly, that is an area of major concern in the
census, and I know that Mr. Bourey will go into some greater
detail as far as Maricopa County is concerned.
But I think Congressman Shadegg, just a moment ago, painted
a very vivid picture of just how challenging it is in some of
the rural areas of our State to get an accurate count because
of how the information is displayed.
We found it sometimes helpful for people to know that just
in Maricopa County last year, as many people moved in as make
up the size of Manchester, NH; Berkley, CA; or Laredo, TX. We
had a whole city of that size move into this county just in the
last year. The same thing will occur between now and next year.
The big concern that the Governor has and that we really
seek your assistance on, as the Congressman indicated, we are
going to keep coming back to you for your help in helping the
Census Bureau keep up with that growth.
We've had many conversations and we're pleased that there's
notice that has been taken by the Census Bureau and their
accurateness, but as we understand it now, the address lists
for the 2000 census will be closed out at some point in time
prior to the actual census.
The estimates vary on this, but in a year's time, just
Maricopa County will add 40- to 50,000 new addresses. If you
break that down and we cut the list off 3 of 4 months ahead of
the census itself, we're going to miss 12- to 15,000 addresses
that would just not be on anybody's list.
So we are eager for the process with the Census Bureau to
perhaps meet with Arizona--Arizona and Nevada and a few other
States that are growing so fast, that allows us to come in and
recheck those lists and maybe reformat them and add to them the
addresses of homes that have been added to our county and our
State in the time they close out their list--or are scheduled
to close them out.
With that, I think I will dispense with the rest of the
sentiment of the Governor's remarks. You have a copy of her
statement today.
I would make one observation, having just heard, Chairman
Miller, your explanation of your plan here earlier, I think
with some confidence I would say that that would be greeted
with great enthusiasm by Governor Hull. You've hit on many of
the things that we really believe are critical as far as the
Federal Government and Census Bureau's assistance to us.
And just a quick touch on a couple other things. One is as
far as the advertising budget is concerned, it is clear, I
think, in earlier testimony that we have some unique
communities in Arizona with unique needs, especially the
education and assurance that they can rely on the
confidentiality of the census survey and also knowing how
important the census is to the benefits that they, their
families, and children receive. Having an increased promotional
program such as you suggested, I think, is very grievous.
I would make one observation, as Congressman Hayworth noted
earlier in conveying how important the Federal Government is to
the States, that if it would be possible for you to identify
both the advertising budget and matching program in a way that
allows the decisions and resources to be available on the local
level and decisions to be made on the local level.
But as Congressman Shadegg mentioned earlier, there are
very unique situations in Arizona. If the decisions about how
to use those resources for a more accurate census can be made
as close to, say, the chapter level, the better off the
census--the better and more accurate the census would be.
And we appreciate the opportunity to be here.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, very much. Let me ask one final
question. I think I saw a photograph in the paper earlier this
month that showed that all statewide elected officials in the
State Office in the State of Arizona are women. Is that
correct?
Mr. Celley. That's correct, yes.
Mr. Miller. Did you see that?
Mrs. Maloney. I most certainly did, and I was hoping one of
them would come and testify. But we did have the Governor here,
and she's the first woman to be elected Governor of a tribe, as
I understand it. So women are doing very well in Arizona. I
ought to spend some time out there, and find out how you made
that happen. I think it's great news.
Mr. Celley. Mr. Chairman, four of our five statewide women
officials are Republican.
Mrs. Maloney. One is a Democrat.
Mr. Celley. One is a Democrat, yes. Representative Maloney,
we do have a bumper sticker for sale in the gift shop at the
State Capitol that says ``Arizona, State for Women Leaders.''
Mrs. Maloney. I'll have to buy one of those.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, very much.
Mr. Lewis.
STATEMENT OF JOHN LEWIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERTRIBAL
COUNCIL OF ARIZONA
Mr. John Lewis. Chairman Miller, members of the committee,
my name is John Lewis, and I am the executive director of the
Intertribal Council of Arizona. The Intertribal Council of
Arizona is an association of 19 tribal governments in Arizona.
The ITCA appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on
census 2000.
I want to thank you for holding a field hearing in Phoenix
and providing tribes an opportunity to share their ideas on
achieving an accurate census count in the community and
certainly share the committee's thoughts on ensuring the fair
and accurate count of American Indian people.
And I think that on improving the count, as has been
stated, what I'd like to do is submit for the record written
testimony and highlight some of our thoughts and
recommendations for you.
And I think one is just in terms of improving the count as
has been shared with you, the working relationship really does
need to be based on trust between the Congress and the agency
and the tribes. We need to really work toward that and ensure
the working relationship there, and the outcome will be very
successful.
And certainly appreciate the approach the committee has
reflected in the opening statements. A number of things that
you have identified that you want to do, particularly in
relation to making changes to improve this effort, were very
well thought out and we really appreciate the committee and its
approach.
On hiring, again, I think the Census Bureau should continue
to recruit and hire American Indians on the reservations that
represent the population to be enumerated, with special
consideration of the hiring of Indian elders, again, due to the
large and growing numbers of elderly tribal members who are
more likely to trust other elders; and also share the efforts
of Congress to approve legislation that would waive certain
income limits for recipients of Federal benefits who serve in
the temporary positions during the census.
That education and outreach program and funding be
appropriated and maintained through the Census Bureau to
facilitate direct consultation with American Indian
representatives for the purpose of seeking input on media
campaigns, education materials, and promotional items; ensure
that census media campaign materials are available in languages
other than English, especially for the audio and visual
communications.
We also urge the Census Bureau to distribute census
promotional materials to tribes as early as possible in 1999,
and particularly develop education and materials for problem
members to inform them on how to specify their tribal
membership on both the short and long form. For the data and
reports to be useful, the tribes must have access to tribally
specific and residential numbers.
In the area of census methodology in Arizona, the majority
of tribes have requested the method termed update and enumerate
for counting in the 2000 census. This method ensures the census
workers visit the households and assist household members in
completing the census form. If household members are not home
at the time of the visit, the census worker would revisit to
ensure an accurate count.
We urge Congress to allocate the necessary funds that all
tribes may, if they desire, use this method and for the Census
Bureau to consult with tribes to educate and motivate American
Indians to respond to the census.
Also the Census Bureau's continuing research and
development of technological advances, including but not
limited to laptops and geographical mapping, which can assist
in improving the enumeration of tribes in remote locations.
In the area of tabulation of data on American Indians, that
it's important for tribes to have the knowledge to use the
information from the census and opportunity to have reports and
data available to them in a user friendly format.
All census reports include separate American Indian
tabulations by tribe, irrespective of their small
representation; that procedures be developed to allow tribes
access to data bases of small numbers of less than 50,000
records.
I think this is the information that is needed by tribes to
be able to assess and provide a baseline data for evaluation of
community needs and program planning.
In the area of improving the accuracy of the count, that--
we do know that the Supreme Court recently ruled that current
law prohibits the use of scientific sampling for apportioning
congressional seats among the States.
While the court's decision prohibits the use of these
methods for purposes of apportionment, it does not restrict
these scientific methods for redistricting or for the
distribution of resources tied to census numbers. We'd
recommend the scientific sampling supplement aggressive direct
counting method.
We'd also like to see Congress provide funding to employ
the most up-to-date scientific methods for nonapportionment
processes.
And I'd like to conclude by saying that we'd like to
acknowledge the efforts of the Census Bureau in Denver Regional
Census Center. They have recruited American Indian staff to
work closely with the tribes in Arizona. The Tribal Partnership
Program is strengthening the government-to-government
relationship between the tribes and the Census Bureau.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. John Lewis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.068
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Jackson.
STATEMENT OF JACK C. JACKSON, JR., DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL
AFFAIRS, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS
Mr. Jackson. Chairman Miller, Representative Maloney,
Congressman Hayworth, Congressman Shadegg, good afternoon.
On behalf of Ron Allen, president of the National Congress
of American Indians and chairman of the Jamestown S'Klallam
Tribe located in Washington State, I would like to thank you
for this opportunity to present a statement on concerns facing
American Indians in the decennial census.
My name is Jack Jackson, Jr. I am a member of the Navajo
Nation and was born and raised in Arizona. I am the second son
of Arizona State Senator Jack Jackson, Sr., who represents
District Three and is in the audience today.
Currently, I am director of governmental affairs for the
National Congress of American Indians, the oldest, largest, and
most represented Indian organization in the Nation. On behalf
of our 250 member tribes I want to thank this committee for
holding a field hearing in Phoenix to enable tribal leaders an
opportunity to share their ideas on obtaining an accurate count
of our people in the 2000 census.
We all know that the 1990 census undercounted the American
Indian population by 4.5 percent. There were 175,000 missed;
12.2 percent of those living on reservations were not counted.
It should come as no surprise, then, that the American Indians
will not settle for a similar outcome in 2000.
We applaud enactment of the Decennial Census Improvement
Act in 1992, a law that directed the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a thorough review of the census process and
recommend ways to increase the accuracy. We also applaud the
Census Bureau's efforts to simplify census procedures and
operations and to form early and more extensive partnerships
with tribal government.
We commend this committee for seeking the view of those who
best know and understand the pulse of their communities and who
can recommend the most effective ways to encourage
participation in the census.
We are hopeful that this early, sustained effort to improve
the census process will lead to a fairer and more accurate
count of the American Indian population in the 2000 census.
We have several recommendations, which are included in my
written testimony, and I just want to highlight the most
important ones.
One is that the Census Bureau must abide by the
constitutional-based government-to-government relationship set
out in the President's 1990 Executive order. To this end, we
urge the Census Bureau to sign its American Indian and Alaska
Native Policy, which recognizes and commits to a government-to-
government relationship with federally recognized tribal
governments that will be reflected in all its policies, plans,
and programs.
Chairman Miller, Representative Maloney, we firmly believe
that these recommendations for culturally sensitive activities,
guided by knowledgeable tribal leaders, as we heard today, will
go a long way toward improving the count of American Indians in
the 2000 census.
At the same time, we recognize that the barriers to an
accurate count on Indian reservations are often pervasive and
difficult to overcome, no matter how well intentioned the
effort. We are not willing to start the next century with an
incomplete portrait of our people and their homelands, a
portrait that might exclude nearly 1 out of every 8 Indians
residing on our diverse tribal lands.
Earlier in my statement, I mentioned the National Academy
of Sciences study requested by Congress shortly after it became
clear that the 1990 census had fallen far short of
expectations. The panel of experts convened by the Academy,
along with the vast majority of experts who have studied the
census process, reached a sobering conclusion: Traditional
census methods alone cannot reduce the differential undercount
of American Indians, Alaska Natives, and other people of color
that have plagued the census for so many decades.
Mr. Chairman, there are many tribes that have come to share
the belief of these many scientific experts that the census
must change because our country is changing. Intense
preparation and counting efforts are critical components of the
census regardless of whether sampling techniques are a part of
the design.
That is why NCAI and the tribes will be do everything
possible to assist the Census Bureau in compiling a high-
quality address list, preparing and distributing appropriate
educational and promotional materials and identifying qualified
tribal members to serve as crew leaders, enumerators, and
outreach specialists.
But even a massive coordinated counting effort will
inevitably miss millions of people, far too many to ignore. We
must build promising, new methods into the traditional process
in order to give life to these invisible people.
Therefore, we expect and urge Congress to support the
Census Bureau's plan for a census that uses sampling and other
statistical methods to improve the accuracy of a so-called
traditional census count.
We are fully aware of the Supreme Court's ruling earlier
this week, finding that the law prohibits the use of sampling
in calculating the population totals used by congressional
apportionment. But we are heartened by the court's recognition
that the law does not prohibit, and may require, the use of
sampling methods to produce data that can be used for other
purposes, such as the allocation of Federal aid.
It is the second planned use of sampling in the Bureau's
original 2000 census plan, the Integrated Coverage Measurement
Program, that is designed to eliminate the persistent and
highly disproportionate undercount of minorities and poor.
This statistical program was planned for communities of
every kind, including on Indian reservations. We believe it
represents the only real hope for avoiding the unacceptably
high undercount of American Indians and Alaska Natives that
occurred in 1990.
We believe that Congress must consult with the Census
Bureau immediately to determine the feasibility of adjusting
the census counts for any undercounts and overcounts. Then
Congress and the administration must ensure that the Bureau has
the fiscal and personnel resources it needs to get the job
done.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present
this statement in connection with this vital issue. I thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today and would be
happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.080
Mr. Miller. Thank you all, very much.
Congressman Hayworth had a funeral to attend and had to
leave, so he won't be joining us this afternoon.
Before we begin questions, first of all, I want to welcome
Senator Jackson. It's nice to have someone from the State
legislature join us. Thank you, very much, for being with us
this afternoon.
Congressman Shadegg, thank you, again, for your
explanation. We both represent fairly urban areas, and you
represent the extremely urban area of Manhattan. But this is
part of the process that I think we're here, is to help get a
better understanding of the problems. So I think we gained a
great deal by our visit this morning, by Governor Thomas and
other people who are here.
As a former statics professor, I have taught statistics for
many years, and I respect the use of sampling. But the fact is,
you know, the Supreme Court has spoken, so what we need to do
now is move forward and do the best job we can.
And I came out with a proposal to provide as many resources
as is possible to throw at this issue to get the best count
possible. That is the reason that, knowing that the American
Indian is an undercounted population, we really want to work as
much as we can on this very specific problem because we just
kind of dwell on that.
And I actually think--there's no question the Supreme Court
ruled on the issue of apportionment, and I think it--legal
authorities tell me because of districting. But for money,
you're right. It does. And the court made it very clear that
you can use any method you have to. We just have to have a
number to trust. And when you get to larger populations, county
populations, city populations, it's a little different issue in
statistics.
But anyway, as I have proposed, there are a lot of ways to
increase the spending for paid advertising. We've not used the
paid advertising program in the past. With $100 million
proposed, and I propose increasing it to $400 million, I think
the President will probably be coming out with a proposal.
Hopefully, he will propose an increase too. But we are willing
to spend the money.
I'm curious about how you would suggest targeting
advertising that would be most effective? And maybe advertising
is not the most effective way. Maybe it's just the partnership
program. How do you think is the most effective way to handle
that?
Mr. John Lewis. Some of the ideas and thoughts were
presented by the tribal leadership, but I think the audio and
visual. And many of the tribes have access to radio programs
either in their own language or by their own radio stations or
by the nearby off-reservation radio stations that provide
programs for them and advertising. I think that the use of that
and television would be possible and would be very important.
So identifying the links, the communication, particularly
radio and TV that go into the reservations, would be very
important, and that is something that does have its benefits in
terms of communication at this time. I think that needs to be
looked into and dealt with.
Mr. Jackson. I'd like to say that any media campaign must
adhere to the principle of tribal consultation. I know that in
the past there was a big problem with the radio campaign, and
that stemmed from lack of consultations with the tribal
leadership.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Celley.
Mr. Celley. I think one of the other aspects of your
program that might have more use, I think there are, in certain
areas, 21 registered tribes in Arizona.
And one of the points that we all want to make is that
there is incredible diversity in the populations and the way to
reach them differs. You cannot just put a cookie cutter down
and say this is the way we're going to communicate with tribes
because the tribes are different.
One of the initial possibilities with the partnership
program and also just putting specialists out in some of these
areas is potentially having census specialists available in
these areas.
As we mentioned earlier, especially Navajo reservations,
they are organized by chapter houses; put on specific events in
those areas where the community is used to gathering anyway,
have a presentation made by leaders in the community who are
trusted and who everyone relies on, more accurate information
could be provided.
That isn't an advertising campaign. That is a very specific
culturally sensitive way of using the resources we have
available for getting an accurate count in those hard-to-reach
communities.
Mr. Miller. I didn't have time to ask the question of the
previous panel, but how accurately do the Indians know their
population within their reservations right now? A lot of them
are in very remote areas. But how accurate is the list that
they keep today? Are you aware of a registration program or
what have you?
Mr. John Lewis. The tribes do a very good job looking at
the enrollment and wanting to have tribal enrollment and
keeping these records up, and it is required for many of their
activities that they do that.
That's a constant, ongoing effort by the tribe in achieving
that. And certainly, with the high-technology age, it has
become a little easier, but that is a continuing challenge for
the tribes to maintain that.
As far as identifying people throughout the tribal lands,
again, a lot of that is well-known by the tribe. But again, as
a matter of how best to access or get to map that, and the
tribes are proceeding in doing that as well. So they are well
on the way to doing a very good job in maintaining that
information.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. I would like to add my voice in thanking all
the panelists for coming today, particularly Mr. Jackson who
came all the way from Washington. We appreciate your testimony.
We appreciate you being here, and I must acknowledge your
father.
I didn't realize he was a State Senator here in Arizona and
has probably been through redistricting several times and knows
how important it is to get an accurate count not just for
planning purposes but for representation purposes.
Mr. Lewis, I had a wonderful day today with your brother.
He was with us on our tour of the reservation, and I just
wanted to mention how much I enjoyed the company of your
brother.
I loved your testimony. You went right to the point,
recommending that scientific sampling supplement aggressive
direct counting methods as a result of post enumeration survey.
But my question today is really directed to Mr. Celley. As
you know, Phoenix joined a lawsuit in 1990 objecting to the
undercount, as the city officials saw it, and they were a
plaintiff in a 1990 lawsuit suing the Commerce Department
because the city of Phoenix wanted modern, scientific methods
sampling adjustment of the census to occur.
Can you tell us why the city was in that lawsuit?
Mr. Celley. Mr. Chairman, Representative Maloney, I could
make a flippant observation that it was another of the unwise
decisions by the mayor. I do not know why they did that.
I know from my conversations with the city of Phoenix
officials presently, that they know that under any scenario
that you conduct a census, you've got to have an accurate and
complete--or complete as possible base from which to base any
additional statistics or adjustments.
And so I think the commitment has been, this time around--
in fact, I know there's contemplation of a lawsuit by the city
this time, and they are not, as far as I know, participating in
it because a decision was made that every resource needed be
made to the most full and complete actual count of people under
any scenario the Census Bureau makes use of hereafter.
Mrs. Maloney. Well I, must say that Dr. Bryant, who was a
Republican, stated that sometimes they enumerated every door
six times, and if someone doesn't want to answer the door, yet
everyone knows there's people in there, there's a problem.
I thought one of the most telling questions was asked by
Stevenson on the Supreme Court. He asked: What if everybody in
the community knows a family of six lives in a building but
they won't answer the door, and the Census Bureau goes there 20
times and they still won't answer the door? How would those
people be counted?
And the person arguing said as a zero. Bryant said, what if
the lights go on and off at night? It would still be counted as
a zero.
But I want to ask you another question, and I know that it
pertains to legislation that I support, that the chairman is
working on with my colleague Carrie Meek. They are making an
effort to hire people from welfare to work on the 2000 census.
But unfortunately, in some States, taking a temporary
position with the Census Bureau can cost an employee certain
benefits, such as health care. In addition, these workers--one
particular employment can--you have to wait up to 6 months for
their benefits to be reinstated.
Can you explain Arizona's welfare laws with regard to
temporary employment? As you've heard, there is an effort, and
the tribal leaders have supported it, that we hire welfare
recipients to help with this count. Would Arizona--can you
comment about the laws in Arizona? Would they be deprived of
their health care and their benefits for 6 months? Do you know?
Mr. Celley. If I may, if I could just respond to your
earlier comment as to people being home and not responding and
as we've discussed here earlier today, it is a very real issue,
especially in the reservation communities. I would suggest
also, within a very few blocks or miles of here in Hispanic
areas of our city that confidence in the census process needs
to be established.
I think the chairman's proposal to spend more money
advertising and have more people in the community with
confidence and with neighbor/neighbor relationships so that
there is not concern about that person knocking on the door, is
an extremely useful way of getting at that.
It's a big issue for us here, and it is very helpful to
spend some time and some money establishing just the base
confidence of this process and understanding by those.
Mrs. Maloney. I agree. I agree. I think we should spend all
the money, have all the visits and everything, but they still
have had an undercount.
Mr. Celley. Just to your welfare-to-work question as well,
I am not an expert in that area and cannot in detail respond to
it. But I would say, we actually are in the state of flux in
Arizona with our welfare-to-work program, and not all of our
rules have been established yet, partly because it is sitting
on our waiting list and has been for a year now, to approve to
allow participating in that program.
But we have been working with the Census Bureau on our
State welfare-to-work program because I agree that is a
marvelous way, especially in the economy such as we have, that
everyone who wants a job, basically, has a job.
Mrs. Maloney. I certainly support the Chair's comments on
that. Very briefly, I----
Mr. Celley. If I could just say, this is a tremendous way,
we think, and the Census Bureau is an advocate, wherein people
who do not have a job skill and trying to get off of welfare
can get training by the Census Bureau in a short-term
situation; and in that experience, learn job skills that they
could use elsewhere.
Mrs. Maloney. If you could get back to our committee in
writing, maybe we should reach out to all of the States to get
this information.
My last question, very briefly, is if the undercount is
eliminated or at least significantly reduced for the State of
Arizona in the 2000 census, do you know if Arizona would gain
two more seats in the U.S. Representatives?
Press reports estimate that if the undercount was correct
in Arizona, you would gain two congressional seats. Have you
looked at that, or do you have any----
Mr. Celley. Mr. Chairman, Representative Maloney, I believe
the estimates to date, based on the numbers such as we know
them, does award both a first and second division seat in
Arizona with some narrow margin. So it is something we've got
to keep a very careful eye on.
One of the things that we have some confidence in is the
way that we were growing and the pace that it continues to
grow, even presently growing faster than had been predicted,
that we may have a little more of a cushion than we thought.
Mrs. Maloney. That's probably why Arizona joined the
lawsuit.
Mr. Celley. I think it was a narrower loss, actually.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, what would be the impact on the State
legislature if the undercount was significantly reduced? Do you
have any feeling for the impact on the State legislature?
Mr. Celley. Mr. Chairman, Representative Maloney,
Congressman Shadegg knows well, we have a hard time predicting
exactly what it's going to look like after the next count
because it's uncertain who's going to be deciding how to draw
the lines and who will be drawing them.
There is a proposal in the legislature to farm that out,
and it may be established in a way none of us have ever seen
before.
Mrs. Maloney. My time is long over. Thank you all.
Excellent testimony from all of you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, very much. You're welcome to have
some of my time Mrs. Maloney. I enjoyed the questioning. I do
thank the panel for its participation.
Let me focus on one issue that I found fascinating. In your
testimony, Mr. Jackson, which I thought, by the way, was some
of the most comprehensive I've seen, I noticed you said at one
point the census is planned at the national level but carried
out at the local level, and you point out that that's very true
on Indian reservations and trust lands.
And then I was particularly interested in your first
recommendation, which is the government-to-government
relationship. And you say, specifically, we urge the Census
Bureau to sign its American Indian and Alaska Native Policy,
which recognizes and commits to government-to-government
relationships with federally recognized tribes and that that
will be reflected in all its policy, plans, and programs.
If you recall, Chairman Makil made some point about the
importance of involving tribes and tribal government and tribal
leadership in the planning of the census.
I guess I would like to have you explain to me, if you
could briefly, the Census Bureau's American Indian and Native
American policy. Explain to me, if it's not been signed, why it
hasn't been signed. Let me know if you have a perspective of
the degree with which the Census Bureau is cooperating with
tribes in planning the census on Indian reservations and in any
Indian trust lands across the country.
Mr. Jackson. As far as the Bureau's policy, my
understanding is it's been sitting at the Census Bureau for the
last 3 years. I don't have an answer as to why it hasn't been
signed.
As far as to answer your second question, we do sit on the
Secretary's 2000 Advisory Committee, and we have had an
opportunity for the last 5, 6 years to provide recommendations
as we hear them from our member tribes. And I would like to
commend the Census Bureau for listening to those
recommendations and working with us.
They continue to provide representatives to our national
conferences. We do hear from the Secretary as well as the
Director of the Census Bureau. So on a national level, we do
work with the Census Bureau and continue to do that. And we
hope that in our upcoming conference that we will also continue
to have that input from the Census Bureau.
Mr. Shadegg. You mentioned in your testimony that your
specific recommendations are--I mean your oral presentation
here, your specific recommendations are set forth in your
written testimony, and it numbers at least seven that I can
read. I presume all of those have been provided to the Census
Bureau and that they are working with you on all of them.
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Shadegg. The discussion, of course, always consists
over this issue of sampling, and some people are going to carry
that fact forever and ever. I think the chairman made a good
point, and that is the Supreme Court has written its decision.
It is the very highest court in the land. The Supreme Court has
said that sampling cannot be used for apportionment.
They left the door open. I'm not knowledgeable about that.
I believe the door is open on the question of districting and
really open on the question of allocation of resources.
Would I be accurate in saying that you have your greatest
concerns with regard to the allocation of resources? If
sampling can improve--I'm not necessarily saying that it can,
but if it can improve--the count for purposes of allocation of
resources is that something you would like to see occur?
Mr. Jackson. We have not taken a formal position on that.
We do take a position on particular issues relying on member
tribes, but we do hear some of the tribes on an informal basis
and that would be, probably, the main objective.
Mr. Shadegg. I appreciate that. You can't live in the State
all your life, as I have, and not see that there are crying
needs for resources everywhere but particularly in all sorts of
minority communities and particularly on the American Indian
reservations.
Mr. Chairman, I don't believe I have anything further at
this time.
Mr. Miller. OK. Let me ask. Is everyone scheduled at this
time for full post census local review? Are you familiar with
that? In 1990 they allowed communities and reservations to get
the number before they became official to see if there were any
mistakes made.
That's something that was used in 1990 so that counties or
cities or tribes had the chance to make sure that the Census
Bureau did the right job, and they had a few weeks to review it
before they became official numbers. That is not going to be
allowed by the Census Bureau right now--the 2000 census. I
don't quite understand why.
Mr. Celley. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with that, but
that is a question I would encourage you to present to Mr.
Bourey.
Mr. Miller. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman, your legislation would allow
that, though.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Shadegg. And would enable, for example, tribal leaders
to look at the preliminary count before it goes to the Census
Bureau to correct any apparent errors that they find. Is that
correct?
Mr. Miller. Right. It would allow the 2000 census to give
the most trusted numbers; and if you find mistakes, you can go
back and correct them.
With that, let me thank you, very much, for the excellent
testimony and excellent response to the question. You've been
very helpful. Thank you, very much.
I will ask the next three panelists to come forward and
have a seat.
We'll take a 5-minute break.
[Recess taken from 2:15 p.m., to 2:30 p.m.]
Mr. Miller. If the three members will rise and raise their
right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Miller. The record will state they all stated
affirmatively.
And let us begin with Mr. Bourey.
Mr. Bourey, by the way, I used to work with him for a time
in the Ninth Congressional District. So it's nice to see you.
STATEMENT OF JAMES M. BOUREY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARICOPA
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Bourey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you for providing me
the opportunity to testify in this field hearing.
Holding an accurate census 2000 is very important to me,
both as executive director of the Maricopa Association of
Governments and as a representative of the International City/
County Management Association on the Census 2000 Advisory
Committee.
Aside from its use in determining congressional
representation, the census is used to distribute $180 billion
in Federal funds annually. We estimate that in Maricopa County
alone, each housing unit counted represents $10,000 in Federal
and State funds to local governments in the decade after the
census. With so much at stake, we work together to achieve an
accurate census count.
I have four recommendations to help us accomplish that
objective: To account for new growth right up to the day of the
census; to conduct a post census local review; to meet all
census program deadlines; and to designate a highly visible
census 2000 advocate.
I will address each of these recommendations for you.
States with rapidly growing metropolitan areas, such as
Arizona, is presented a particular challenge for census 2000.
Since the last census in 1990, Maricopa County has added
683,000 residents, more people than currently reside in
Washington, DC, alone.
We are constructing housing units at the rate of more than
100 a day. Our population has been increasing between 85,000
and 100,000 people a year for the past 3 years. The Bureau of
Census is currently assembling its master address file, which
contains addresses for housing units throughout the United
States.
However, during that time period between the preparation of
the address file and the start of the census 2000, another
40,000 housing units may be constructed and more than 100,000
residents added to our region.
In fact, this is a 1991 aerial photo that identifies an
area in the northwest region that was an unincorporated area.
By 1998, an additional 3,000 housing units have been
constructed in this 4-square-mile area. This is happening in
many areas throughout our region.
We recommend the Bureau of Census take the following steps
to ensure that this growth is taken into account.
No. 1, rely on building permits issued in 1999 to predict
the new housing units that will be in place on April 1, 2000.
The Census Bureau could then send questionnaires to these
addresses. We have this information in the data base, so we can
call up that data with the addresses and provide that to them.
Work with U.S. Postal Service, where possible, to assist in
identifying new housing units that are not included in the
address file.
Next, to use local government personnel to supplement
Census Bureau efforts to make available and deliver extra
census questionnaires to newly identified housing units.
The current census 2000 operational plan does not include
an opportunity to review preliminary post-census housing-unit
counts as was done in the 1990 census. Instead, local
governments are being given an opportunity to participate with
the Bureau of Census in updating the address file and housing
unit counts prior to the start of the census.
While I commend the Bureau of Census for this proactive
approach, many jurisdictions have not participated in the
program. Those cities will be given their final housing unit-
count population figure without having ever provided input.
Even if entire subdivisions have been missed, there will be no
chance to correct the count other than to file an appeal.
I strongly urge you to consider taking whatever steps are
necessary to include a post-census local review as was done in
1990 to supplement the precensus address followup update.
The post-census review would involve providing estimated
housing unit counts by block to local jurisdictions and giving
them adequate time to review those counts and report any missed
housing units to the Census Bureau. The Bureau would then
undertake followup efforts to verify those addresses.
For the past several years, deadlines for programs
associated with the census 2000 have been missed. These include
the deadlines for providing us with information for updating
addresses, updating city and town boundaries, and recommending
changes to census tracts and block groups. One thing is
certain: The April 2000--April 1, 2000, deadline for conducting
census 2000 is firm.
Therefore, we must agree and recognize that schedules need
to be met. To achieve this, I recommend that the Bureau of the
Census do several things.
Enter into a variety of creative partnerships with other
government agencies and the private sector to obtain
information needed for census 2000. This includes updated
address files and maps, changes to census geography, and
updated city and town boundaries.
Also establish a method to confirm receipt of information
from local government agencies and to notify them, also, about
whether that information is being utilized.
Next, to deploy more resources and streamline the process
for resolving discrepancies between local government address
files and Census Bureau files. The current reconciliation and
appeals process is cumbersome and requires extensive
communication between local communities and the Census Bureau
in a relatively short period of time.
Next, to reexamine work schedules of the Census Bureau
employees to ensure that important issue areas are adequately
covered at critical times. We've experienced situations where
the only individual qualified to respond to a specific question
on a time-sensitive matter is not available.
And finally, to increase the number of hours that staff is
available in the regional offices and in Washington. Currently,
the time differences and flex time practices provide a very
narrow window for communicating with key individuals.
Especially with the 3-hour time difference, they are there
on the job from 7 to 3. We have got, basically, a couple hours
in the morning before they go to lunch.
The complexity of preparation for census 2000 and a wide
range of technical and political issues have resulted in
dissension among groups that ultimately must work in harmony to
achieve a successful census 2000 count.
Therefore, I recommend that you consider a highly visible
census 2000 advocate to be designated, who can champion the
census 2000 on a regional or national level. The advocate would
work to unify a wide variety of interests and secure bipartisan
support on the importance of the census.
Mr. Chairman, committee members, given the significance of
the census 2000 and the recent Supreme Court decision on
sampling, I urge that these recommendations be addressed as
soon as we can. I would be happy to assist in those efforts in
any way I can.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bourey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.084
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Gaddy.
STATEMENT OF LEVONNE GADDY, FOUNDING PRESIDENT OF MULTIETHNICS
OF SOUTHERN ARIZONA IN CELEBRATION [MOSAIC]
Ms. Gaddy. Thank you all for inviting me here today for
this testimony.
My name is Levonne Gaddy. I'm representing the MOSAIC
Multiethnics of Southern Arizona.
Comedian and actor Steve Martin in the opening scene of the
movie entitled ``The Jerk,'' stood amongst a large family of
African American individuals and stated forlornly, I was born a
poor, black child.
The contrast between the dark faces and Mr. Martin's
whiteness, his obvious lack of rhythm, and the sheer
ludicrousness of the scene invoked laughter and chuckles from
audiences.
Well, the truth is that in a small, segregated, rural North
Carolina town, I was born a poor, black child. Many times
during my childhood and early adult years, people chuckled as I
insisted that I was black. That hurt.
As a youth, I was taught that race is a biological fact.
Can you imagine the insanity of believing I was biologically
black and seeing in the mirror that I was white?
America's rigid, racial, categorizing system has harmed
countless youth. I and millions of others have been forced by
our government to lie about our racial makeup. Multiracial
people have a history of being denied, shamed, quieted. We have
been America's secret. I lived one-third of my life in a
country where it was against the law for me to exist.
The marriage in the late 1800's of my grandparents, two
people of different races--different race was an illegal union.
How bad was the act of marrying someone of a race different
than one's own? The abolition of anti-interracial marriage laws
in 1968 laid the foundation for multiracial individuals to
legally exist.
Thirty years after the Supreme Court ruling, for the first
time in the history of this great Nation, we multiracial people
can finally be acknowledged by our government and have the
opportunity to be truthful by checking all the racial heritages
that we identify with on a government form on the census 2000.
The Office of Management and Budget, Directive No. 15,
revision of 1997, mandates that multiracial people have the
option to check one or more boxes when we racially self-
identify. We were no longer forced to lie, and the citizens of
American can no longer lie to itself about our existence.
Over the last 20 years, 70 to 80 grass-roots, multiracial,
support organizations have sprung up across America.
In her research, Cornell University Ph.D. Kim Williams has
concluded that the multiracial movement in America may be the
fastest growing social movement in America's history and may
have accomplished more in a short time than any other.
It is my firm desire that Directive No. 15 mandate be
funded and that Americans will be educated about this change in
racial identity policy, that multiracial Americans clearly
understand how they can and why they should, after centuries of
oppression, express their racial truths.
I ask you to continue to move us forward from America's
racial insanity toward truth and sanity by involving
multiracials in every way possible in the census 2000 response
campaign.
Specifically, target the multiple checkoff respondents with
a sustained, national media message detailing the new policy;
involve leaders of the community in training and sensitizing
enumerators to the historical change; engage multiracial
leadership in local public relation campaigns, speaking
engagements with schools, and others impacted by the change.
We, in the multiracial community, are a network of all
races of people who are committed and willing to assist with
census 2000.
I appreciate this opportunity to share my ideas with you.
And I, along with the multiracial communities' leadership,
thank you for your willingness and commitment to partnering
with us in this period of historical change.
I and the proud, uncounted multiracial people of our
country wish our fellow citizens could be as proud of us as we
are of ourselves. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gaddy follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.086
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Lumm.
STATEMENT OF ESTHER DURAN LUMM, PRESIDENT OF THE ARIZONA
HISPANIC COMMUNITY FORUM
Ms. Lumm. Honorable Carolyn Maloney, Honorable Dan Miller,
Honorable John Shadegg, thank you for the opportunity to
address you in this very important matter: census 2000.
My name is Esther Duran Lumm, president of the Arizona
Hispanic Community Forum, an advocacy organization comprised of
seven chapters throughout the State of Arizona. I believe my
remarks today reflect the feelings of many people in the
Hispanic community as well as other people of color.
We are deeply, deeply concerned about the undercount's
impact past census counts have had on children, people of
color, American Indians living on and off reservations, and the
economically disadvantaged people living in urban and rural
areas. Many Latinos and African Americans live in areas of the
city where accessibility is extremely difficult if not
impossible.
Any community person involved in walking door to door to
distribute information--and I speak from experience--can tell
you that you're fortunate to make contact with 4 out of 10
houses, and that's not counting unapproachable homes where
Dobermans guard the gates. The same situation exists for
American Indians living on reservations or widely separated
rural areas.
The end result in the past census efforts has been
economically devastating for people of color and other people
who are economically disadvantaged.
According to Census Bureau evaluations, the 1990 census
excluded at least 2 percent of Phoenix' residents and 2.4
percent of the State's residents, both higher than the net
national undercount of 1.6 percent. These results are
devastating and result in our county and city residents being
denied fiscal resources and political representation.
The undercount rate for Hispanics is a shocking 5 percent
and even more shocking for American Indians living on
reservations at 12.2 percent. This trend will continue unless
we take steps to make changes, and we believe the time for that
change is with census 2000.
With all due respect, your Honorable Dan Miller's views on
the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court is final, thank
God we live in America and we have freedom of speech.
We fully support scientific sampling as a method to use in
resolving the problem of undercounting and are disappointed and
displeased at the decision to disallow scientific sampling for
purposes of apportionment. We agree and believe that scientific
sampling will result in more accurate counts on all levels:
national, State, congressional, and in the census tracts.
Opponents contend that to use scientific sampling will
result in a violation of the Constitution in that it
specifically calls for a physical head count.
While we have the greatest respect for the Constitution of
the United States and believe it is the greatest document ever
written for governing, we do not believe that the great minds
that wrote it expected the Nation to remain unchanged.
The days are gone when we could count people physically.
The population has grown and the culture with it. We must
employ whatever scientific and technological tools are
available to us to ensure fairness to the people.
Other methods to enhance the census procedure include:
Recruit and hire a local work force that represents the
multicultural diversity of our city and State; removing legal
barriers that prevent low-income and elderly from applying for
census jobs.
Census materials available in multi-languages are crucial
to the success of the census. This needs to be ensured by
allocating funds for hiring staff at questionnaire assistance
centers rather than relying on volunteers. For Spanish-speaking
people, the forms should be in bilingual format and
advertisement targeted on Spanish language media.
Census promotional materials must be distributed to local
community groups in a timely manner, early enough to make an
impact, and Congress should expect to provide funds to assist
organizations with limited funds in their mission to outreach
and educate the community, publicity, and through special
target efforts via the schools.
Regarding the census taking for American Indians, the
preparation of tribal liaison materials should be completed in
a manner that respects culture and promotes a voluntary census.
In conclusion, we urge you to do the right thing. Do not
get caught up in partisan panic.
We have heard so much about family values this decade, yet
children were missed more than twice as often as adults. At
least 3 percent were not counted. And children of color, again,
paid the price--the highest price.
Seven percent of black children were not counted. Five
percent of Hispanic children were not counted. And 6 percent of
American Indian children were not counted. Did they not lose
out on the Federal assistance?
Taking care of children is a priority. Please, let's put
some action behind the family value concept and do what is fair
and just. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lumm follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]65952.089
Mr. Miller. I would like to thank everyone for your
comments.
Mr. Shadegg, you have to leave now. Do you have a quick
question you would like to ask? Then we'll let you go, and then
we will proceed.
Mr. Shadegg. I don't really believe I do. I think it was an
excellent presentation by all three panelists. I know there are
some specific questions of Mr. Bourey, and I thought his
testimony was very technical, but the other testimony was very
compelling, and I commend you all for testifying today, and
I'll leave the questioning in your capable hands.
Thank you very much. I apologize. I do have to leave.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much for joining us.
Mrs. Maloney. You added an important dimension to our
hearing.
Mr. Miller. As I said before, the Supreme Court stated--we
can argue sampling and argue sampling. The job is we've got to
get the census done. We're prepared to offer as many resources
as we can. In fact, the Congress appropriated about $200
million more for the census in the current appropriation bill--
in last year's appropriation bill than the President even asked
for.
So we have spoken by giving the resources to the Census
Bureau, more money than they even asked for. My ideas and
suggestions are going to cost money, but we just need to work
together to get the job done.
Members listening to the debate, Thomas Jefferson was
involved in the first census in 1790, and they had their
problems. Back in 1790, they had to do it horseback. So instead
of arguing sampling, I think we need to forget about it.
Let me talk to Mr. Bourey about this most post-census local
review issue. Where were you in 1990? Were you here, or you
were in Florida?
Mr. Bourey. I was in Florida in 1990.
Mr. Miller. OK. Were you familiar with the post-census
local review back then?
Mr. Bourey. Somewhat. I wasn't directly involved. I've also
researched some of what went on here.
Mr. Miller. Well, tell me what happened here in Phoenix in
1990 with the post-census local review.
Mr. Bourey. Well, the jurisdiction--the city was given
housing count information after the census was conducted. They
were then given, I believe, 15 days, I believe, to be able to
address their concerns and provide to the Census Bureau places
where there were undercounts, and the Census Bureau, then, did
a review of those.
And from what we have been able to tell, they did not
review all of those, just the top blocks that were missing--the
largest number of housing units. They did come back, then, and
do an adjustment for the housing count, and they adjusted about
3,700 units in this region.
Mr. Miller. How many?
Mr. Bourey. About 3,700.
So there was a significant adjustment if you look at the
population. If you consider a housing unit for State and
Federal was about $10,000 per housing unit for the decade, that
represents quite a bit.
Mr. Miller. I'm a little baffled about why the Census
Bureau doesn't want to do that. Money can't be the problem. We
have provided resources.
We spoke to the conference of mayors. The mayors were
pretty upset about it. The mayor of Detroit, I spoke with him
afterwards. He was very critical of the 1990 census in Detroit
and how very much it was needed this time around and the
support, and maybe we can get the support from the mayor here
to send a letter to the President to encourage him and push for
legislation for that.
It gets back to trust. That's part of the issue. You know,
one of the things that we are saying in the front end is to
look at the address list, but we want to look at the tail end
numbers to do the audit.
Your statements have visited the problems of working
together with the community on the address list. Is that right?
Mr. Bourey. Mr. Chairman, committee members, we have
received information, not in as timely a fashion as we would
like. The information came in bits of half and half and then
file.
We have been surprised--and this is not to lay the blame on
the Census Bureau. We have been surprised at the extent to
which the addresses are not provided--were missing from the
file that we have--from the address file to what we know is out
there.
In some cases, in some jurisdictions, it was upwards of
more than 50 percent, the addresses that were missing in some
areas. So it was a very, very significant amount of addresses,
so we had a large concern. We have yet to receive feedback
about how they've been incorporated in the file--the address
file, so there's concern over that, and then they were
obviously concerned about overtime.
Mr. Miller. You have a field update address file. But you
say as much as 50 percent error in some municipalities here?
Mr. Bourey. Mr. Chairman, yes, more than 50 percent in some
jurisdictions. The addresses, for some reason, are not on the
post office records.
Mr. Miller. Ms. Gaddy, your organization is MOSAIC. What's
that stand for? Is that an acronym?
Ms. Gaddy. Yes. Multiethnics of Southern Arizona in
Celebration.
Mr. Miller. How long has that group been around?
Ms. Gaddy. We've been around for about 15 months at this
point, and we have about 30 families and individuals--
individuals plus family memberships.
Mr. Miller. Is there a national organization?
Ms. Gaddy. Yes, there is. It's the Association of
Multiethnic Americans, and they are headquartered in
California.
Mr. Miller. And you're part of that nationally. Is that
right?
Ms. Gaddy. Yes. We're affiliated with the national
organization.
Mr. Miller. Now, as part of the Census Bureau goes this in
year, you're reasonably satisfied as far as the forum.
Ms. Gaddy. I have not been as involved in the details of
what's happening with the census. Ramona Douglass is a member
of the Federal 2000 Census Advisory Committee, and I trust that
she is doing her part to make sure that we are getting--she's
having the input that she wants to have and needs to have for
all of us. So I guess the answer is yes.
Mr. Miller. All right. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. I join you, Mr. Chairman, in thanking all of
the witnesses for their very moving and excellent testimony. I
particularly thought it was important to hear from the Latino
community, which is very, very large here in Arizona, and I
would like to ask you, Ms. Lumm, several questions.
I appreciated your comments and your testimony about how
overcounts do not balance out undercounts. They are different.
They're apples and oranges. Can you tell us what effect a large
undercount has had on the Hispanic communities of Arizona?
Ms. Lumm. Mainly, it has been economic. They have not been
able to benefit from Federal funds for different types of
benefits that normally are given to them through the schools,
Head Start Programs, these kinds of things.
Because I was told that I would be limited to 5 minutes and
did not realize it was going to be in this change, I did not
bring any specific notes that tell me exactly where those areas
were. However, it's been mainly economic for the Latinos.
Mrs. Maloney. You think you lost maybe State representation
in the State?
Ms. Lumm. That goes without saying. We were definitely not
represented, and that's why we're so disappointed to see that
the sampling was not being used for the apportionment because
we have had to fight through decades for representation.
And even now, you see the representation in south Phoenix
and in areas where there are heavy populated Latinos, this is
the only place where we're able to elect officials that are
Hispanic because--it is ludicrous.
For example, I live in a neighborhood right now that's
predominately Republican. It would be a waste of my time and
money for me to try to run in that area. There is no way that I
could win.
For one, I didn't even mention, because it's just so
obvious, the fact that we are not equally represented. However,
the economic portion has been very devastating also.
Mrs. Maloney. Given what you know about the issue and the
effectiveness of all the coverage and improvement programs that
we talked about and we all support hiring more enumerators, we
all support hiring within the specific culture, in the Indian
culture, the Latino culture, the multiethnical culture in the
areas and the language, do you believe that the undercount can
be eliminated without the use of scientific methods sampling?
Ms. Lumm. Absolutely not. Because, as I stated when I told
you that I was speaking from experience, I've been door to door
in the barrios. It is impossible to get to some of the houses.
In fact, today I spoke with a woman, a friend of mine, that
actually took work with a census and went door do door. I asked
her, I said, what do you do when you come to a house that you
can't go into because there's a dog or because they won't
answer the door?
And she said, well, I just skip it.
And basically, this is what's happening. It is impossible
to get the count. Also between the culture, the mistrust. There
is no way.
That's why the sampling is so very important. That's why
it's so crucial because that is the only way we're going to get
represented. That's the only way that we're going to get fair
representation, is through sampling. This is why we supported
it so heavily.
You can add as many people, you can advertise as much as
you want, but in the end, it's going to have to be sampling
that gives us the proper representation.
Mrs. Maloney. I quoted earlier from Dr. Barbara Bryant, who
happens to be a Republican and head of the Census Bureau, and
she said when she was the director, they had enough money to
hire all the enumerators they wanted.
Some of them went six times to homes and still could not
count them, that it was then that they appealed to the National
Academy of Sciences--or it was Congress that appealed to them
to come forward with a plan that supported modern scientific
methods.
And I just want to, for the record, make one correction to
my dear friend and colleague Dan Miller. We disagree on a few
things, but it's never personal. We have a good personal
relationship.
But sampling is different from estimation. We don't want
guessing. Sampling is a scientific method that is supported by
every scientific organization and statistical organization.
It's not estimation. It's a scientific method. I just want to
add that clarification.
I want to ask Mr. Bourey--I know my time's up. Could I ask
him one brief question?
You know, I appreciate the concerns, and you showed us how
the new construction is jumping all over Arizona and probably
growing much higher than other people. But when--you explained
that some of the governments are not participating in the
review program, which is the prefinal where the local
governments work with the census on the address list.
So my question is and we know that the last time we had
local review it only added--124,000 people were added as a
result of this procedure, and 46 percent were in the cities of
Detroit and Cleveland, so that's about 80,000 housing units,
and that's less than one-tenth of 1 percent.
So the Census Bureau said let's not wait until the end.
Let's, before the end, try to involve a partnership. And so
they came up with the local review, and they involved a
partnership and doing address lists and working together.
But my question is, if governments would not participate in
the preperiod, what makes you think that they would participate
in the post census period?
You testified they were not participating in the
prepartnership period. And I was wondering if they wouldn't
participate in the prepartnership period, why would they
participate in the postpartnership period?
Mr. Bourey. Chairman Miller, Honorable Maloney, we have
relatively good participation in this region through the local
process. We think it's a very good process, and we're going to
support the process. And we're recommending it be extended so
there's continual update to the address file. That is the best
way to get a complete file.
I think some communities around the country really have not
felt they had the resources to be able to participate; or maybe
they didn't know how the program works. They didn't know,
necessarily, that it would result in a better address list file
that would be more productive than not.
So I'm not sure why they don't participate, but we have
very, very good participation here. But there is so much that
will happen between that time and the time of the actual
census.
In addition to that, we have no feedback today about how
our information we've sent to the Census Bureau will or will
not be incorporated. In fact, we have seen, many times we have
sent information to the Census Bureau, and it has not been
incorporated.
There's a very recent example of that--I don't think I need
to go through the specifics of that.
We don't know what's going to be included and what's not
going to be included in an address file. So that's why it's
incredibly important for us to be able to have the opportunity
to provide that information after.
I think the history behind it is that there has been post
census local reviews, so because of that and because of the
finality of it, there will be a number of communities
participating.
I don't really believe the adjustment was as full as it
might have been in the last census, because as I learn more
about what the Census Bureau actually did to make the
adjustments, I could see why the adjustment wasn't accurate.
They didn't use all the information they were sent. They
overlooked, as I understand, 5 percent of the information that
was sent. We're still learning more about exactly how it was
conducted so we can offer suggestions on that.
Mrs. Maloney. I will join, and I'm sure the chairman will
join with me, in making sure that we get the information back
to you however the information is incorporated. I'm sure we
will be getting back to you, but we will followup on that and
make sure you get that information and the information on the
other aspect.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, very much. Mr. Bourey is on the
Advisory Board in Washington, the chairman of the Advisory
Board. Is that right?
Mr. Bourey. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our report is due February
19th.
Mr. Miller. The Advisory Board has recommended the local
post census review. Is that right?
Mr. Bourey. Yes, your Honor.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, very much, for your statement. It
was very helpful, and I appreciate that.
And Ms. Gaddy, I want to thank you again for giving us your
statement earlier; appreciate that very much.
Let me thank you--all three of you all.
I need to do a couple of things before we adjourn.
In case there are any additional questions that Members may
have or witnesses may have, I ask that the record remain open
for 2 weeks for Members to submit questions to the record and
witnesses to submit answers as soon as practical.
Any additional written statements may be entered into the
record within 2 weeks, only with prior approval, without
objection.
So I also ask unanimous consent that written and opening
statements of all the witnesses be included in the record
without objection.
So on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank
everyone very much for being with us today. We appreciate it.
It has been very worthwhile, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
-