<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:60341.wais]
OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: EXAMINING THE BUREAU'S POLICY TO COUNT
PRISONERS, MILITARY PERSONNEL, AND AMERICANS RESIDING OVERSEAS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 9, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-39
__________
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
60-341 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
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 PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California (Independent)
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
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
------
Subcommittee on the Census
DAN MILLER, Florida, Chairman
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Thomas B. Hofeller, Staff Director
Kelly Duquin, Professional Staff Member
Timothy Maney, Professional Staff Member
David McMillen, Minority Professional Staff Member
Mark Stephenson, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 9, 1999..................................... 1
Statement of:
Gilman, Hon. Benjamin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin......................................... 28
Green, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin............................................... 20
Hamod, David, executive director, Census 2000 Coalition; Don
Johnson, vice president, Association of Americans Resident
Overseas; L. Leigh Gribble, secretary, American Business
Council of Gulf Countries, and executive committee member,
Republicans Abroad; Dorothy van Schooneveld, executive
director, American Citizens Abroad; and Joseph Smallhoover,
chair, Democrats Abroad.................................... 59
Prewitt, Kenneth, Director, Bureau of the Census............. 34
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Green, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin, prepared statement of........................ 24
Gribble, L. Leigh, secretary, American Business Council of
Gulf Countries, and executive committee member, Republicans
Abroad, prepared statement of.............................. 82
Hamod, David, executive director, Census 2000 Coalition,
prepared statement of...................................... 64
Johnson, Don, vice president, Association of Americans
Resident Overseas, prepared statement of................... 73
Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York:
Apportionment tables..................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Miller, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, prepared statement of.......................... 3
Prewitt, Kenneth, Director, Bureau of the Census, prepared
statement of............................................... 43
Smallhoover, Joseph, chair, Democrats Abroad, prepared
statement of............................................... 104
van Schooneveld, Dorothy, executive director, American
Citizens Abroad:
Collection of statements on census 2000.................. 87
Prepared statement of.................................... 96
OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: EXAMINING THE BUREAU'S POLICY TO COUNT
PRISONERS, MILITARY PERSONNEL, AND AMERICANS RESIDING OVERSEAS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Census,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Miller
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Gilman, Ryan, Maloney, and
Davis of Illinois.
Staff present: Tom Hofeller, staff director; Erin Yeatman,
press secretary; Jo Powers, assistant press secretary; Kelly
Duquin and Timothy Maney, professional staff members; Michelle
Ash, minority counsel; David McMillen and Mark Stephenson,
minority professional staff members; and Ellen Rayner, minority
chief clerk.
Mr. Miller. Good morning. With a quorum present, we will
begin the hearing of the subcommittee. I will have a brief
opening statement, and I believe Congresswoman Maloney will
have one, and then we will proceed.
As we begin this hearing today, let me be clear that
everyone gathered here shares the same goal. We all want the
most accurate census in 2000. As part of our effort toward
achieving an accurate count, we are here this morning to
discuss three pieces of recently introduced census legislation
that focus on the enumeration of overseas Americans, prisoners,
and military personnel.
We are honored to have Chairman Ben Gilman, as well as
Congressman Mark Green and fellow subcommittee member, Paul
Ryan, here to discuss their proposed legislation. I am also
pleased to welcome back Census Director Prewitt as a witness to
discuss Census Bureau policy in enumerating these groups and
any concerns that he may have with these proposals. I also look
forward to hearing from some very informed witnesses regarding
these proposals. I understand that some of these witnesses have
traveled great distances to be here today, and we do appreciate
their efforts that they have made to be here.
Chairman Ben Gilman has just introduced today a resolution
that will affect the 3 million Americans who live and work
abroad. At present, the Census Bureau does not plan to
enumerate these citizens. This resolution raises concerns that,
while the U.S. Government officials living abroad were counted
in 1990 and will be counted in 2000, private citizens who play
a key role in advancing our national interests around the world
are not included in the census count.
Through the Census 2000 Coalition, Americans living abroad
have taken the initiative to have themselves included in the
census count. Many of these Americans maintain ties to the
United States by voting and paying taxes and feel they should
be included in the census count. I look forward to discussing
current Bureau policy regarding this issue and examining the
viability of this question.
Another piece of legislation we will discuss is H.R. 1632,
which was recently introduced by my colleague from Wisconsin,
Mark Green. This particular piece of legislation seeks to
affect how prisoners will be enumerated in the 2000 census. At
present, many States have export policies with regard to
prisoners, meaning many prisoners are incarcerated in States
other than where they were convicted.
For purposes of the 2000 census, the Census Bureau will
attribute counts of prisoners to the States in which they are
incarcerated. H.R. 1632 seeks to attribute the counts of the
prisoners to their home State or the State in which they were
convicted, provided that State can claim more than half the
costs associated with the incarceration of the prisoners.
I know this is of particular interest to my colleagues, Mr.
Green and Mr. Ryan, as it is believed that the State of
Wisconsin could add as many as 10,000 people to their
apportionment count with this method. I will look forward to
hearing about this proposal as well as Dr. Prewitt's views on
this matter.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.002
Mr. Miller. And last but certainly not least, my fellow
subcommittee member, Paul Ryan, has drafted legislation which
will require the Census Bureau to attribute the counts of
individuals who serve in the Armed Forces to their homes of
record. At present, the Bureau will attribute these individuals
to the State in which they are stationed on April 1, 2000.
Again, I believe all of these proposals address legitimate
concerns and I look forward to an open and informed discussion
today. We have several informed witnesses with us today, as
well as Census Bureau Director Prewitt who, I am sure, will be
able to advise us on the viability of these proposals.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for calling this meeting and for all of the
witnesses, many of whom came from abroad to be here.
Today, we will consider three related issues, all of which
deal with how and where to count certain populations during the
census. As Director Prewitt has pointed out, the census is not
just about counting people. The census must count all of the
people and match them to specific addresses as of April 1.
As the census has evolved over the past two centuries, the
rules governing where people are counted have evolved to meet
the changing character of society. It is quite proper for
Congress, which is constitutionally charged with conducting the
census, to consider who should be counted in the census and
where they should be counted. However, if we are going to
examine residency rules for the census, we would be better
served if we pursued it in a more systematic fashion and in a
timeframe that allowed for the proper consideration of these
ideas.
We are 298 days from census day. Any change we make today
increases the risk of a failed or less accurate census.
Let me say at this point, Mr. Chairman, that I am pleased
that you called this hearing today. There are a number of
issues on which this subcommittee should be holding hearings,
and I hope that you will see to it that they are addressed.
Results from the dress rehearsal have been in for some time,
and we have yet to hold a hearing on them. This hearing clearly
shows the need for a hearing on residency rules and how they
are applied.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I ask that you call a hearing on
how the census is progressing toward meeting the milestones for
the 2000 census. I believe we should give the Census Bureau
Director an opportunity to keep the Congress informed as we
count down to census day. Perhaps we could ask the Director to
provide us with an electronic census clock that counts down the
days to April 1, 2000.
Turning again to the issues of the day, the first
resolution, introduced by the distinguished chairman of the
International Relations Committee, Ben Gilman, from the great
State of New York I might add, is a sense of the congressional
resolution which advocates that all Americans living overseas
be provided with the opportunity to be counted in the 2000
census. Let me say, on the outset, that I am sympathetic to the
desires of overseas Americans to be counted. It is a laudable
patriotic motive which we should do all we can to support and
accommodate.
However, the proposal raises a number of complicated
questions which I hope our witnesses and the Director can
address today. The counting of overseas Americans can only be
done on a voluntary basis of self-enumeration, much as the
mailout, mailback portion of the decennial census is done. What
cannot be done is any equivalent of the nonresponse followup
the Census Bureau conducts in this country. As a result, the
accuracy of the count of Americans overseas is questionable. In
fact, without a more precise definition of who we are trying to
count, a census or a complete count of this population is
impossible.
A second question is whether overseas Americans should be
allocated to States for purposes of apportionment and, if so,
to which State should they be assigned? Last residence? Legal
residence? Leave it completely voluntary, which means they
would only go to nontax States like yours. Some have suggested
using voter registration; however, it is my understanding that
the majority of Americans overseas do not vote.
Finally, the voluntary nature of such a count, coupled with
the vagueness of where these people should be counted,
establishes a dangerous situation. As we will see in discussing
the other proposals on the table today, the temptation to try
to gain a few more people is tremendous. We could be
unintentionally setting the stage for States to try to
influence the count of Americans overseas in order to add to
their numbers.
It is in order, however, to answer the most important
question: How many Americans are living overseas? I am drafting
legislation which would require a special census of the
overseas population as soon after the census as is practicable.
That information can be used by the Census Bureau to more
precisely define this population, and, in turn, will allow
Congress to consider the inclusion of this population in the
2010 census. Without in any way criticizing the professionalism
of the Census Bureau, I believe that such a survey would be
much better in quality than anything the Bureau could improvise
now at this late date in an ad hoc manner. I will be providing
each of the witnesses with a discussion copy of that
legislation. I would hope that, after careful consideration of
the draft, you would contact me with your reactions to the
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this is one thing we can agree on. And
I hope it will be a bill that we can work together on to solve
part of the solution to this problem.
Today, we will also consider two other bills. H.R. 1632,
introduced by Representative Green, requires that prisoners
housed out of State be counted as residents of the State paying
for their incarceration. A bill proposed by subcommittee
member, Representative Ryan, requires that active duty military
personnel and their dependents be counted at their home of
record. These bills were presumably introduced with the intent
of boosting the population totals of Wisconsin, which may lose
a seat after the 2000 reapportionment.
I certainly understand the motives of these bills. New York
is slated to lose two seats if the current projections hold
true. But, these bills also raise troubling questions and would
overturn precedent about where people are counted that date
back to the very first census. What is more, these bills
apparently would not have their desired effect. An analysis of
the proposal on the military done for me by the Congressional
Research Service shows that assigning military personnel to
their ``home of record'' would not shift any seats in the
House. And even if all of the prisoners housed out of State
were counted in Wisconsin, I doubt it would be enough to affect
its apportionment.
And then, if you start with prisoners, then to use my own
State, we not only have prisoners out of State, we have
prisoners moved from one section of the State to another
section that is densely populated. Then, would you shift the
count there? Just to use my own State, we also have foster care
children that we pay for in other States, college students, I
am sure there are many other government programs. So, it would
start a whole host of other problems, or rather challenges, to
get an accurate count.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the apportionment tables
created by the Congressional Research Service included in the
record and, also, my draft legislation.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.009
Mrs. Maloney. The Census Bureau uses the concept of ``usual
residence'' to decide where to count individuals, a principle
established by the First Census Act in 1790 and upheld by the
courts as recently as 1992. Usual residence is defined as the
place where a person lives and sleeps most of the time.
Mandating exceptions to this rule must be done very carefully,
if at all, because it raises serious questions.
As I said before, I would welcome a thorough congressional
study on the use of usual residence in the census. In fact, I
believe that such a study would benefit both Congress and the
Census Bureau. We could begin by examining the exception to
that rule provided for Members of the House and Senate.
However, we start down a treacherous path when we encourage
changes in census procedures without a thorough understanding
of both the intended and unintended consequences.
Again, I thank you for calling this hearing.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Without objection, your requested document for the record
will be included.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.011
Mr. Miller. Mr. Davis, you don't have an opening statement?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, yes, I do.
Mr. Miller. Oh, OK. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Normally I forgo an opening
statement, but I think that these matters are so important. I
also think my staff has worked so hard on the issues that I
just wouldn't let the opportunity go by, Mr. Chairman.
So, I want to thank you for convening this hearing today to
examine issues regarding the counting of Americans residing
overseas, prisoners, and military personnel.
This hearing raises a number of interesting questions as we
prepare to conduct the 2000 census. As I have indicated before
in previous hearings, our main objective must be accuracy and
the assurance that everyone is counted.
The issue of a growing number of Americans living abroad
has become more prevalent as technology improves. It is not
uncommon to have breakfast in Europe and dinner in America on
the same day.
Our technological advances have allowed us to dwarf
distance and place, time and change. We have made the world a
community. Therefore, as more Americans begin to live abroad,
we must find a way to ensure that they count in America.
I am certain that because this is such an important issue
and the census has become so politicized that we must proceed
with thoughtful and careful deliberation on this question.
The Census Bureau has a plan for counting military
personnel, Federal employees, and their dependents living
abroad. However, I am interested in hearing how they plan to
work with overseas Americans to make sure that they count
either in this census or certainly, the next one.
Today we also examine H.R. 1632, a bill that would require
the Census Bureau to count prisoners in the State that pays
more than 50 percent of the cost of their incarcerations. It
has been a long established tradition that prisoners, residents
of nursing homes, VA hospital patients, and other
institutionalized populations should be counted as residents of
the State in which the institution or facility is located.
The court upheld this principle in 1992. According to CRS,
as of January 1998, approximately 5,877 prisoners were housed
out of State, approximately 0.5 percent of all State prisons.
In fact, in Illinois we currently have approximately 30 out of
44,000 plus prisoners housed out of State.
To require that those 30 prisoners be counted in Illinois
would establish a precedent that could lead to endless
exceptions to current census resident rules and create an
administrative nightmare. However, I look forward to my
colleague, Representative Green, presenting the case as to why
this legislation should be adopted.
Finally, we will examine legislation pending by
Representative Ryan that would require that military personnel
be counted at the individual's home of record. In the 1990
census, military personnel overseas were counted for purposes
of apportionment at their homes of record. They were then
subtracted out of State population totals for all other
purposes.
This legislation would require the Census Bureau to count
military personnel for apportionment purposes from the State
they enlisted until they leave the military. Currently, the
Census Bureau counts U.S. based military personnel as regular
citizens via standard enumeration. I am concerned because this
legislation would require the Census Bureau to create a whole
new design for counting military personnel and could add delay
to the 2000 census, which may possibly jeopardize accuracy.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming today to testify.
I appreciate all of your efforts, Mr. Chairman, to make sure
that we get through this process and thank you very much for
the opportunity to present this statement.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
I think, Mr. Ryan, your opening statement is really
relating to your piece of legislation. So, we will call Mr.
Green and Mr. Gilman, and we will start with you first as a
statement regarding your specific legislation. So, Mark Green,
if you want to come up and sit at the table; and then, when Mr.
Gilman comes in, we will proceed. But, we will proceed with you
as a first statement concerning your piece of legislation.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to address
the two opening statements that my colleagues on the minority
just addressed.
I introduced, last night, legislation that I feel is
essential to achieving an accurate count in the census. This is
not an attempt to get an extra congressional seat in Wisconsin.
It has nothing to do with that. This is an attempt to get a
good enumeration count, to get the best census count we can
achieve.
The military personnel are a unique group because they
often pay taxes and vote in a State in which they are
stationed. Now, it is difficult to clearly define their actual
residence. I absolutely agree with that. Most would not be
residing in the place that they should be stationed were it not
for their military service. Many have families in other States.
My bill would provide clarity by ensuring that military
personnel are allocated in their home of record. This will
ensure that Federal funding and redistricting are based on an
accurate count of the population.
Currently, the Census Bureau plans on using home of record
data for counting military personnel who are stationed
overseas. I am bringing this, extending it to domestic use.
This bill requires that the Census Bureau work in partnership
with the Department of Defense to count military personnel who
have been stationed in the United States as well.
This bill is not a radical shift in the policy for census.
In the census of 1990, as well as the 1970 census, the
Department of Commerce utilized the home of record data. In
1992, the Supreme Court stated that the Secretary of the
Department of Commerce was acting within the law when he used
the home of record data from personnel files to count military
personnel in the 1990 census. There is precedent. This is not a
radical shift in policy. It was buttressed by the Supreme Court
in 1992.
I am not seeking to uproot years of tradition here today. I
am merely fighting to ensure that the census is done in a fair
and equitable manner. I think Congressman Green's legislation
does the exact same thing.
Accounting for all U.S. citizens in their proper homes is
what we should achieve to do. These men and women have claimed
a State to be their home. Why shouldn't we honor that claim?
There are many States that, merely based on location, have been
chosen to house military personnel. Counting military personnel
as residents of these States when they are actually voting and
paying taxes elsewhere simply just doesn't make sense. I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
And, I just want to reemphasize the earlier comments. This
is not an attempt try to rig the numbers. This is not an
attempt to try to help a State that may lose a congressional
seat. This is an attempt to have an accurate enumeration. This
is an attempt to apply the same standard used for overseas
military bases to domestic military bases. We have a lot of
people in Wisconsin, but I am sure there are a lot of people in
New York and Illinois and other States who are sent to other
States but who still pay taxes in those States and vote in
those States they will return to after their military service
is done within the same decade. I think it is very important
that this legislation be passed and this will help our actual
enumeration.
Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
We will proceed with Mr. Green next. And hopefully Mr.
Gilman is here, and then we will go to questions.
Mr. Green, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, members of the
subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, as we approach the 2000 census, we also need
to ensure a fair and accurate enumeration of the population. I
know the chairman and the members of the subcommittee have been
diligent in working toward this end, and I am grateful for this
opportunity to testify before the subcommittee on my proposal
regarding census protocol for prisoners who are convicted and
sentenced in one State and temporarily incarcerated in another.
To put it simply, I believe these prisoners should be
counted as residents of their originating State for a number of
common sense reasons.
First, as we are all aware, a significant portion of
Federal funds are distributed to States based upon population
counts. In fact, the Census Bureau cites access to Federal
dollars as a compelling reason to fill out census forms. If we
count prisoners temporarily housed in other States as residents
of those States, then the originating States will lose out on
Federal dollars, and the temporary host State will essentially
be paid twice.
Second, despite the temporary location of prisoners in
another State at the time of enumeration, the originating State
continues to bear both financial and legal responsibility for
the prisoner.
Third, if the purpose of the census is to provide an
accurate count that is accurate for any extended period,
counting prisoners in the temporary host State will be
inaccurate, as many of the prisoners only temporarily reside in
those States. Every single prisoner who leaves the originating
State starts off in that State and is required by contract to
return to that State before they can be released or paroled.
And during the period of parole, they will be in that
originating State.
And fourth, originating States like Wisconsin already
compile all the data that the Census Bureau needs to
effectively carry out an accurate enumeration of prisoners sent
out of State. I say respectfully, contrary to the concerns
raised by the Census Bureau Director, it is easy to count such
prisoners. Arguably, this method will save the Census Bureau
money.
By way of background, as of June 4 of this year, Wisconsin
housed over 3,700 prisoners in the States of Texas, Tennessee,
Oklahoma, Minnesota, and West Virginia. This number, as the
chairman alluded, is expected to grow by an additional 6,159
prisoners by the year 2001, bringing the total number of
incarcerated persons outside of Wisconsin close to 10,000, over
50 percent of our prisoner population.
I am here today because of the recently restated practice
of the Bureau of the Census to enumerate the prisoners in the
county in which they are incarcerated. While this policy may
make sense for traditional incarceration models, I do not
believe it makes sense with respect to the relatively new
practice of States leasing prison space in other States. In
other words, temporarily transferring such individuals to other
States for incarceration before returning them to the
originating States.
This situation, I emphasize, is different than the prisoner
counting scenarios that have traditionally been dealt with by
census policy and the courts.
Now, under the Census Bureau's current interpretation of
the usual residence rule which you will hear a lot about today,
there is currently no regard given to the fact that a
prisoner's incarceration is being paid for by the taxpayers of
another State, the originating State. And I think that is
wrong.
The Bureau bases its current practice of counting prisoners
on the definition of usual residence as stated in the U.S.
Court of Appeals. However, when the courts later reviewed the
issues arising in that case in the district court case of D.C.
v. United States Department of Commerce in 1992, the court
stated clearly,
The application of the usual residence rule could well be
called into question by States which bear some of the costs for
prisoners located in out-of-state penitentiaries. The level of
support a locality needs to provide in order to claim residents
for census purposes is clearly a decision for which there are
no judicially manageable standards available.
Despite the temporary location of prisoners elsewhere,
States like Wisconsin, and there are about 30 such States in
the Nation right now, clearly bear the majority of the costs
associated with the prisoners' incarceration. They bear those
costs during the out of State placement. Furthermore, because
all such prisoners must return to Wisconsin before release or
parole, Wisconsin bears substantial costs after the placement
as well.
Looking at it another way, if the 2000 census enumerates
prisoners as residents of States that only temporarily host
them, then those States which temporarily host those prisoners
are essentially being paid twice for the same individual, once
through the State-to-State agreement or contract and a second
time through increased Federal aid distributed on the basis of
those temporary prisoners.
The other side of that, of course, is that the originating
State is paying twice. Its taxpayers are paying much more than
their share.
Beyond the fiscal ramifications, the practice of counting
prisoners as other than the residents of their originating
State flies in the face of the basic purpose of the census.
Again, since we know that these temporarily hosted prisoners
under current practice, are only hosted for a short period of
time, in most cases a year or less, we know that they must
return to their originating State for processing, further
incarceration, or parole prior to release. We know that there
is a definite ending point to their temporary housing in the
other State. Presumably the census was not intended to treat
this short stay in another State as with a definite returning
point and a definite location as residence.
Does this all really matter? Well, I believe it does. The
purpose of this legislation is not to deal with the issue of
whether Wisconsin will lose a congressional seat. I tend to
concur with the statement of Mrs. Maloney. I don't believe this
will affect whether or not we have a congressional seat. At
least, I hope you are correct.
Instead, as we know, according to the Bureau of the Census,
numbers are used to help determine the distribution of over
$100 billion in Federal funds and even more in State funds. The
GAO issued a report earlier this year which suggested the
grants that may be apportioned will total $185 billion. While
the numbers vary, the message is clear: The numbers matter.
It is important to note that extensive information is
compiled on prisoners in Wisconsin before they are transferred
for temporary housing in another State. Wisconsin Department of
Corrections collects data regarding the inmate's personal
information, the county of conviction, and incarceration. This
information is kept on the prisoner wherever they go, and in
the case of a prisoner incarcerated in another State, that
information is shared jointly between the two States.
In fact, in Wisconsin, and I am guessing it is the same in
most other States, all outgoing inmates are added to a data
base where the aforementioned information is made available.
Every Friday, the State updates the number of prisoners who are
incarcerated elsewhere. The department of corrections in the
States that house our prisoners can know in a matter of seconds
where a prisoner is located and in what county the individual
was convicted and incarcerated in.
If the Bureau of the Census would partner with the State
department of corrections, they could effectively gather this
information to enumerate the prisoners in their home States;
and instead of costing more money, you could argue it would
actually cost less.
It is the current practice of the Census Bureau to allow an
institution to self-enumerate, which means that the institution
staff would conduct the enumeration after being trained and
sworn in by a census crew leader. The census crew leader then
returns to pick up the forms. This was most often done for
hospitals, prisons, and nursing homes. In the same manner, a
Bureau crew leader could deputize an individual at the
department of corrections who would be able to assign prisoners
local originating addresses for census purposes.
The Bureau of the Census has said that priority one for
census 2000 is to build partnerships at every stage of the
process. I would encourage the Bureau to partner with the State
department of corrections for the benefit of a more accurate
census. There is still plenty of time to count prisoners in
their home States in the 2000 census. This information is
already compiled. However, it is imperative that the Census
Bureau and the State administrative agencies effectively
partner to gather this information. It can be done.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify.
Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark Green follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.015
Mr. Miller. And we are pleased now to have the chairman of
the International Relations Committee and a member of our full
committee, Mr. Gilman.
STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
colleagues for conducting this important hearing. I am here to
stress the importance of including Americans abroad in the 2000
census. This morning, I come before you as a member who served
many years on the International Relations Committee, but I also
served on the former Post Office and Civil Service Committee,
where we dealt with the issue of providing an accurate census
count for many years. And I feel that that is so important, and
I am pleased you are addressing this problem.
In those roles I have had numerous dealings with our
American citizens living and working overseas and can attest to
the increasingly important role that that segment of our
population plays in our Nation's economy and in our relations
with other countries and their citizens throughout the world.
As a matter of fact, in the last election, some 750,000
citizens living abroad did vote, and they estimate there are
close to 3 million living abroad who are working in government
and in business overseas and want to be included in any census
and want to be included in any political activity.
In this era of growing globalization, we are well aware of
the importance placed upon our Nation's exports and goods and
services overseas in an effort to provide a strong and
versatile economy. Not only are we reliant on Americans abroad
to carry out exports for the creation of U.S.-based jobs, but
we rely on these citizens to best promote and advance our
interests throughout the world.
Nevertheless, the Census Bureau does not count private-
sector Americans residing abroad despite the fact that
government employees working overseas are currently included in
the U.S. census. So, we have a discriminatory factor.
This is an inconsistent and inappropriate policy,
especially if the Census Bureau is true to its word that it
wants census 2000 to be the most accurate census available.
Accordingly, I am introducing a resolution expressing
support for the inclusion in census 2000 of all Americans
residing abroad, and I will be joined in that effort by Senator
Spencer Abraham, who is introducing a companion measure in the
Senate. Our resolution will direct the U.S. Census Bureau to
include all American citizens residing overseas in its census
2000, not just federally affiliated Americans, and expresses
the intention of Congress to approve legislation authorizing
and appropriating the funds needed to carry out that directive.
And in closing, I would like to reiterate the need for our
Census Bureau to count all Americans, including private
citizens living and working abroad. Not only will such a policy
provide an accurate census 2000, but it will allow Congress and
private-sector leaders to realize how best to support our U.S.
companies and our citizenry abroad. U.S. citizens abroad vote,
they pay taxes in our country, yet they are discriminated
against by our government solely because they are private
citizens. Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will join with us in
allowing us to change this policy to include private-sector
Americans residing overseas in the census.
American citizens abroad have devised an official overseas
citizen census card that will obviate the necessity for having
much bureaucracy involved. A very simple statement can help
take care of that problem. And they can register with their
passport numbers so there will be proper identification.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleagues for your
patience.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, and I thank all three of you for
your statements.
As you know, we do have a vote going on. But, Mr. Gilman,
as you may know, we have Director Prewitt coming up next on the
panel who can respond to a lot of the concerns and questions
raised by all three of your statements, and after that, we have
five members representing the different groups advocating the
need to count overseas Americans that I look forward to hearing
from. So, I am going to reserve my comments and questions
concerning overseas to the next couple of panels.
You are going to be able to return, Mr. Ryan. Are you going
to be able to return, Mr. Gilman? You have other hearings, so
you may not. I understand that. Do any of the members have
questions of Mr. Gilman? Otherwise, we will take a break and
come right back and continue with our questions for Mr. Green
and Mr. Ryan.
Mrs. Maloney. I would just like to compliment the gentleman
from the great State of New York for his testimony today and
his leadership on so many issues that are important to our
Nation.
Mr. Gilman. Thank you.
Mrs. Maloney. And also to my colleagues, Mr. Ryan and Mr.
Green. And I think you raised an important point. I know I am
not supposed to question you now, but I just have to raise one
area. When I read it, immediately I started thinking about New
York State. And as Ben knows, we not only export prisoners but
we move them around the State to the less populous areas of the
State, the wilderness, and build prisons. So, if you take this
to the next step the question is, would you then count them
where they are in residence in a different area of the State?
Also, in New York, as Ben knows, many social service
agencies export foster care, adoption-ready children. There are
a number of areas--we would have to research it--where we
literally pay for the service. For example, in foster care we
have some sites in Pennsylvania where many New York children go
to sort of a country environment to be helped.
So, you raise a lot of questions that not only apply to
prisoners but all the other sort of government programs that
move people around, whether out of State or within a State. And
I think it is an issue that needs to be really studied on its
ramifications, because if you are going to do it for prisoners,
then the argument is you should do it for every other incident
or example where someone may be moved around the State or out
of the State yet still provided for mainly by the State.
I just raise that as a question to be looked at, and again
I thank anyone who has a thoughtful statement and interest in
getting a more accurate count.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Davis, do you have a specific question for
Mr. Gilman?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, very much. Mr. Green, if you will
come back, we will recess for 10 minutes or so. As soon as we
get our vote over, we will come right back.
[Recess.]
Mr. Miller. The hearing will continue, and we will
reconvene the hearing. We will start with some questions.
Mr. Gilman will not be coming back. Mrs. Maloney will be a
little while before she is back and Mr. Green will be back. But
let me start, if I may, with Mr. Ryan to clarify a little bit.
This whole issue of military residents and the issue of
prisoners brings up the complexity of the job that the Census
Bureau really has. If someone signs up in the military and then
moves to Pensacola and is stationed there, and family is there
in school and they vote there, would they be counted there or
how does your bill address it?
Mr. Ryan. It is the home-of-record data. The Census Bureau
went through this same quandary back in 1990. They chose to go
with the home-of-record data over legal residence and other
definitions because they thought this was the best way to do
it. You don't have an income tax in Florida.
Mr. Miller. Correct.
Mr. Ryan. In States like Florida, legal residents and other
definitions don't apply because they rely on income tax data,
which you don't have. So, they chose in 1990 to go with the
home-of-record data, which the court upheld 2 years later. What
it means is for people, say from Wisconsin, who go to Pensacola
and who continue to choose Wisconsin as their residence, pay
taxes there, vote there, but are based in Pensacola, their
home-of-record data is Wisconsin. They will be counted in
Wisconsin. If they move to Pensacola and choose to claim
Pensacola as their home of record, they will be counted in
Florida. I think a lot of military residents do change their
home of record to Florida because of income tax purposes. Those
military personnel would be counted there.
What we are saying is extend the same principle and policy
that you use for overseas military personnel as you do for
domestic military personnel.
Mr. Miller. Let's take an overseas person. If they
officially claimed Florida residence because of no income tax,
but they are really from Wisconsin, where do they get counted?
Mr. Ryan. Let me go to the definition of home of record,
because I think that is the best way of clearing this up.
In the fall back positions as defined in the Census Bureau
in 1990, and my bill too, if there is no home-of-record data,
you go to legal residence and then usual residence, the address
a military member had upon entry into the service. This is the
definition of home of record.
Home of record is not the same as legal residence. If a
military member changes legal residence after entering on
active duty, he or she may not revert to claiming the home of
record as legal residence without reestablishing physical
presence and intent to remain in the State.
Legal State of residence, that definition is: One must have
or have had physical presence in the State and simultaneously
the intent to remain or make the State his or her home or
domicile. A person can only have one legal residence and
specific actions must occur, such as what is listed for
withholding income tax or where one is registered to vote.
Because of States like Florida and Texas that don't have the
income tax data, the Census Bureau, in 1990, decided to go with
the home of record.
So, it really comes down to that first definition, home of
record. If that data isn't available, then it reverts to legal
State of residence, but the home-of-record data is included in
my bill to protect States like Florida and Texas, that don't
have income taxes, that don't have that kind of data.
Mr. Miller. We are operating under the 5 minute rule, but
we don't have lights. But they are going to get cards flashed
or something.
Mr. Green, is there anything comparable to the prison
situation--an analogy? People in nursing homes in another State
or college students? Is there anything comparable to how they
treat that?
Mr. Green. In a way there is, by implication. The situation
I am referring to is unique, or different than the other
scenarios that have been raised, in that the individuals
involved will begin their sentence in the originating State.
They will return to the originating State. They will complete
their sentence in the originating State. They will be paroled
in the original State, so on and so forth.
Part of my logic is that the temporary host State is
already compensated for any services it provides, and the only
services it provides, are those that are defined in my
contract. In the case of students, for example, one reason that
students are counted in their actual location, the temporary
resident State, is that they consume services in that other
State for which they are presumably compensated through the
Federal Aid System.
That same logic, if we decide State of residence for Census
Bureau purposes based upon where they consume services, again I
would argue that that logic would mean the originating State
should be the State since that is the State which is paying for
services and providing services. So, by implication, I guess
that would be the parallel I draw. In terms of a precise
scenario, I am not aware of one.
Mr. Miller. I will be looking forward to Director Prewitt's
testimony following this. How large of an issue is this? You
said 3,500 in Wisconsin?
Mr. Green. Temporarily projected to grow to 10,000 by the
year 2001.
Mr. Miller. How many States export prisoners? This is a new
issue to me.
Mr. Green. It is a new issue. This particular scenario is
fairly new. That is why we bring it up now. This was not a
common practice until rather recently. It is my understanding
this didn't begin until the mid-1980's. It didn't begin in
Wisconsin until the mid-1990's; 1995 or 1996 is when it came
in, so it is a fairly new issue.
Our best information is that about 30 States export
prisoners. Those numbers are harder to come by than you might
think. We have been talking with the council for State
governments, NCSL. That is our best information.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. With all due
respect to you and the State of Florida, I don't think I want
to use that example when I ask my question. It seemed to be too
many incentives. But, at any rate, Representative Ryan, do you
know if there is any data on the number of individuals who
might change or who have actually changed their residence in
terms of point of origin or individuals who did go into the
military and after having been stationed, maybe----
Mr. Ryan. Change the home of record.
Mr. Davis. Yeah, and another State actually changed their
home of record?
Mr. Ryan. I can't answer that question. We don't have that
data, but we just asked DOD for home-of-record data. I just got
this spreadsheet handed to me so we know that, as of July 1998,
a total of 1,229,360 military personnel stationed in the 50
States have home-of-record data. Illinois, this would affect
29--a little over 29,000 military personnel. 54,000 military
personnel are exported from New York to domestic bases. In our
home State of Wisconsin 19,000 military personnel--this is a
question that was just asked me before.
I didn't have this spreadsheet until now. I don't have the
actual difference between people who change their home of
record who leave the State, but this answers part of that
question.
Mr. Davis. I know we are trying to get at the whole
question of fairness and the issue of fairness and when we talk
about fairness, I am often reminded of the discussion between
the worm and the bird and somebody asks, is it fair for worms
to eat birds or is it fair for birds to eat worms. And if you
are a worm, you have got one answer. If you are a bird, you
have got another answer. And, I guess, in terms of the numbers
that States are looking for or just in terms of the accuracy,
there is some unfairness that would probably result either way
if they are individuals who would be stationed in one location
home of record, but for all practical purposes, they have
become residents of where they are. But let me go to
Representative Green and ask a question----
Mr. Ryan. If I could just mention one point on that. None
of these definitions are perfect. One of the bases of the home
of record definition that the Supreme Court used is that the
Defense Department will pay moving expenses for a military
person who, say, has an honorable discharge, leaves the Army,
leaves the Navy and then goes back home. DOD will pay all his
moving expenses.
Home-of-record data applies to where they would send those
people back, how they would cover those as moving expenses
provided the person goes back to their home of record. If a
person is in Illinois, goes to Fort Bragg in North Carolina;
when their term expires in the military, where would they go?
If it is back to Illinois, that would be their home-of-record
data.
So, that is the best attempt to try and get at the true
home of the person in the military. If the person chooses to
stay in North Carolina, reside in North Carolina, pay taxes in
North Carolina, and after their term expires, live in North
Carolina, then that is also included partially in this
definition.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. Representative Green, do you know how
many other categories of individuals would need to be looked at
if we took your position relative to the counting of prisoners?
Mr. Green. I am not aware of any that would necessarily be.
The reason I say that is because this scenario is different
than nearly every other one that has been raised so far. The
relationship and the location of the prisoner is defined by
contract entered into between two sovereign States and is
unlike the open-ended scenarios where a student goes to another
State for a university and may not return and may not receive
benefits from the originating State. In this case, we are
talking about individuals that must begin their sentence in the
originating State and must end their sentence in the
originating State.
They come back. It is definite. Unless they pass away, they
have to come back and be processed. So, I think that makes it
different than all the other scenarios that have been spoken
of.
And second, in this scenario, the temporary hosting State
is compensated. It is compensated financially from the
originating State. So, they are being offset for all costs
incurred by reason of the prisoner being there and that is
defined by contract.
Mr. Davis. Would that not be the same for individuals who
are sent out for treatment purposes? If the State of Illinois
contracts with the State of Colorado to handle 50 young people
with special mental health needs, would that not be the same?
Mr. Green. Those individuals, again, would all depend on
what type of order they are under. Those individuals wouldn't
necessarily return to the home State.
In my scenario, they have to. By law, they have to return,
and I guess I am not as familiar with what the financial
responsibility is. I am going for the State of origin.
Mr. Davis. These are business arrangements. They are
contractual business arrangements.
Mr. Green. I guess what I mean is, in the originating
State, in the Wisconsin scenario, the one I am most familiar
with, Wisconsin during that entire time is paying over half the
cost for those prisoners. I don't know what the scenario would
be that you are referring to.
Mr. Davis. Full cost.
Mr. Green. That wouldn't be the case. Would those
individuals have to come back and complete some kind of ordered
time in their home State?
Mr. Davis. They are citizens of the State of Illinois. I
mean, they aren't Illinois residents and Illinois has the
responsibility for caring for them. They just don't have the
facility nor the service, or they find that it is more cost
efficient to do it another way, as I would imagine that the
State of Wisconsin is finding with its prison population.
Mr. Green. I guess what I mean is, are those individuals
being committed to the home State under a judicially imposed
order with a beginning and starting point? That is the
distinction I am trying to draw.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. I would like to ask Mr. Green a couple of
questions. Just to clarify. What happens to a prisoner if the
term expires while they are incarcerated in another State?
Mr. Green. The term of sentence?
Mr. Ryan. Yes.
Mr. Green. They have to return to the home State for
processing. They are still currently paroled in Wisconsin; they
have to go back.
Mr. Ryan. That is an important point, I think, as well.
What do you think about the Bureau's response to your
legislation that there is not enough time to implement the
program for testing and evaluation?
Mr. Green. With the case of Wisconsin, that simply isn't
true. All the information that would be necessary for the
Census Bureau to complete its work is already compiled and is
updated weekly by the department of corrections.
Again, since the State bares legal and financial
responsibility, that information is absolutely accurate and is
readily available.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Did you have a concluding comment?
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to a question
raised by Mrs. Maloney before we broke just to clarify. She
appropriately raised a question that I believe will be raised
by the Census Bureau as to what the county of residence would
be, and that is actually already determined under State law. It
is the county of incarceration, or if there isn't a
determinable county of incarceration, it is the county where
those prisoners are processed.
In Wisconsin, that is Dodge County. If the committee would
be more comfortable by spelling it out explicitly in this
legislation, we could do so; and I don't believe that would
substantively change current law.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. I have seen in articles, I think it
was the Pine Bluff Arkansas, the annex for prisons into the
county or city in order to increase their population.
Some cities don't want the prisoners. It becomes a local
issue too. Well, thank you very much for your presentation here
today, Mr. Green and Mr. Ryan, as part of the panel. Thank you
very much. We will proceed to the next panel. Director Prewitt
will be coming up and we will proceed.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Miller. Let the record show that Dr. Prewitt answered
in the affirmative.
We have three issues brought up by the Members and I would
like to let you proceed and enlighten us.
Mr. Prewitt. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to Mr.
Davis, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Miller. Put the microphone a little bit closer to you.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH PREWITT, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Mr. Prewitt. I started with the obligatory thank you. I
would like to rerecord my thank you to the chairman, to Mr.
Davis, Mr. Ryan, and Mrs. Maloney for this opportunity to
testify this morning.
I want to emphasize at the outset that the issues that have
been put on the table are difficult and complex, as has already
been alluded to. But they are also ones with which it is very
easy to sympathize and appreciate the motivations behind the
bringing these three pieces of legislation to the table.
They are difficult and they do, we think, deserve a
thorough study before we would change major policy, especially
policy with respect to usual resident concepts, either with
regard to prisoners or U.S. military personnel outside their
home State. It is extremely important that any policy changes
are consistent with the original intent of the census to
determine the whole number of persons in each State for
purposes of apportionment.
And if the Congress believes that all America's private
overseas citizens should be included in the decennial, then we
would urge that, at first commission, some indepth studies that
would shed light on these complexities, and I will get to these
complexities momentarily.
Let me address first the issue of Americans overseas, as it
has been recommended by Mr. Gilman. The Census Bureau staff did
meet with representatives of the Census 2000 Coalition on this
issue in early May to discuss their reactions to our concerns
and their proposals for overcoming these concerns.
And after carefully reviewing the coalition's proposals and
studying the viability of the technical aspects involved, the
Bureau has concluded that it cannot credibly enumerate the
population of American citizens living abroad for census 2000.
There are conceptual issues, such as whether to count retirees
and other persons unlikely to return to the United States. We
have serious concerns about our inability to validate responses
and, of course, about the complex operation of such a worldwide
enumeration.
I would like to, at this moment, simply draw your attention
to the form which has been presented here for our attention.
And I would like to say for the record, sir, that I would urge
that before these forms are circulated any wider, that they say
in bold print that this is not an official government document.
It does not say so now. It gives every resemblance to
something that is an official U.S. document. It uses the
official U.S. Bureau Website. If you turn over to the address
page, anyone picking this up would presume they should mail
this back to the U.S. Bureau of Census. I only use this to
suggest how complex this issue is and how very well-intentioned
efforts to cooperate can run up against some difficulties, even
the presentation of forms which would suggest that the U.S.
Census Bureau has decided to count the population and already
has designed a form and distributed it.
So, I would urge our friends and colleagues who are
concerned about this issue to please not circulate this
document without identifying it as not an official government
document. Thank you.
Let me then turn to the question of accuracy and why we
have such concerns about the accuracy of the information we
could obtain from any attempt to enumerate private American
citizens overseas. The difficulty is we cannot accurately
estimate the size of the universe of this population, so we do
not have the means of controlling and checking its progress as
we do here at home, where we use the master address file to
control the enumeration.
Embassy and consulate lists of American citizens living in
their jurisdictions generally are outdated or incomplete, since
there is no requirement for citizens to register with them upon
entering or leaving the country.
What we do, as you appreciate in the census, of course, is
we do ask people to mail in the questionnaire. For those who
don't, we have very precise processes of doing a non-response
followup. Up to six return calls, three personal calls, three
telephone calls, making all kinds of efforts and then close-out
procedures because we start with some sense of the universe
that we are trying to reach. And we use the address file as the
marker or the denominator for what we think the universe is.
With respect to the Americans overseas, we simply have no
way of knowing what that universe is and, therefore, no method
of trying to find the non-respondents. So, in effect, it
converts the overseas census into a voluntary census, which is
fundamentally different from the stateside census which is not
a voluntary, but a mandatory census. And the Census Bureau does
everything it can to reach everyone.
We are not sure what the procedures are by which we would
try to reach everyone. As Mr. Gilman said, his resolution calls
for us to count all Americans overseas. It is not clear how we
will do that, and that is why I want to stress that there is
something fundamentally different between the proposal that's
on the table and the stateside census which starts with a
control factor, the master address file, and then uses non-
response followup to try to reach as complete a count as it
possibly can.
Now, what are the implications of that? Congressman Miller,
in your covering memo, you used the estimate of 3 million
Americans and then suggested that perhaps we would count as
many as 1 million of them. That is, you would recognize that
there could be an undercount of 66 percent, fairly high
undercount as a census goes.
Ms. Schooneveld says that perhaps the number of American
citizens abroad is 5 to 6 million. Let us say 5. If we counted
a million of the 5, we would have an undercount of 80 percent.
There are other documents, their own newsletter that says the
overseas count may be up to 10 million, which means we would
have an undercount of 90 percent.
So whether it is a 66 percent undercount or an 80 percent
undercount or a 90 percent undercount or only a 50 percent
undercount, we have every reason to presume it is a fairly high
undercount. Without the capacity to go out and check on it, we
don't have a control factor like we have with the master
address file stateside.
Now, why is that consequential? There is no a priori reason
to presume that this high undercount would be distributed
across home of record proportionate to the true distribution of
home of record for the overseas Americans. Let me give you a
simple example, hypothetical.
Let us say that we did a particularly good job in Mexico
where many, many Americans live in retirement communities and
so forth. We did a very poor job in Canada, where there are
also a very large number of overseas Americans. The reason we
did a poorer job in Canada, of course, is Canadian-Americans.
Americans living in Canada are not required to have passports.
Whereas in Mexico, let us say we did a better job.
Now, if that were to happen, we do better in some parts of
the world than other parts of the world, the question we would
have to ask ourselves: Are the people, the Americans who live
in those different parts of the world, randomly distributed or
proportionately distributed according to home of record? My
guess is that the Americans living in Canada are much, much
more likely to come from the northern tier of the States, and
the Americans living in Mexico are much more likely to come
from the southwestern tier of the States.
So, if we did a very good job counting in Mexico and a very
poor job counting in Canada, then we would have produced a
distortion to the apportionment accounts. It is a distortion to
the magnitude that we could not estimate, nor could we correct
for it. I think the implications of not being able to reach 1
out of 3, or 1 out of 5, or 1 out of 10, or 1 out of 2, the
magnitude of the undercount would be such that we would
necessarily introduce some distortions into the apportionment
account.
That would, of course, invite litigation and all the other
kinds of concerns that have already been expressed by this
Congress with respect to the implications of the undercount.
When the undercount is 1.5 percent and we have mechanisms to
try to reduce it, then it is a very different phenomena than if
it is a 50, 60, or 70 percent undercount because the level of
distortion and apportionment numbers is accordingly large.
We take very seriously this question of accuracy and
completeness, as you appreciate. And we have a particular
problem with the overseas Americans. We simply do not have a
current solution to that problem. If we had one, we'd put it on
the table, and we would be happy to talk to the U.S. Congress
about how to respond to this legitimate concern; but, we do not
have a solution to this issue.
Second, we do not have a ready solution to the problem of
validation and verification. We very much appreciate the work
by the counting citizens abroad group, in terms of trying to
use passports as a validation and verification process.
We feel there is real hope in that strategy. We'd like to
investigate it further. There is a big difference between how
we count U.S. military overseas and how we would have to count
the private citizens overseas. The U.S. military overseas count
is based upon administrative records and the Federal employees
overseas is based upon administrative records.
We have every reason to presume that we get a complete
count or a reasonably complete count, and certainly a highly
valid count, from working with the Department of Defense and
the Department of State, with respect to their own employees.
The military and Federal employees differ from the private
citizens. One is mandatory because you are using administrative
records. It is not that someone could self-select themselves
out of the count if you are in the U.S. military on a military
base, but if you are a private citizen, because it is
voluntary, you could decide not to be counted and we would have
no way of knowing the magnitude of that.
Second, for the military Federal employees, we use
administrative records. For private citizens, they are
recommending we use a postcard, the sort I already identified.
For military and Federal employees, we have well-established
procedures to make sure there is no possibility of fraudulent
responses. With respect to the private citizens overseas, it
would be extremely difficult to validate and make sure every
record did match the people that had responded in the way they
responded.
For military and Federal employees overseas, we have a low
to zero undercount problem. I have already suggested for the
private citizens, we'd have a very high undercount problem. And
I have suggested for the military and Federal employees
overseas, we had reasonably good precise ways of allocating
them back to their home of record because the administrative
records make this very clear.
With respect to the private citizens, we have the potential
for high levels of misallocation, therefore the possibility of
distorting the apportionment accounts. So, the problem of
accuracy and validation really does beset this very complicated
problem when we simply don't know whether it is 2 to 3 million
or 8 to 9 million residents.
Let me then just quickly turn to the operation of
complexity. Even if we could solve the problems of accuracy,
validation and verification, we would run into, as we
appreciate, very complicated operational problems. Processing
results from this enumeration would require the matching of
files, development of procedures for resolving matching
problems, and deciding how to handle unmatched cases.
Where would these matching problems come from? Well, with
respect to the military and the Federal employees living
overseas, we use the administrative record to count them and
their dependents. They don't know they've been counted. We work
that out with the Department of Defense.
And so then, we would suddenly have a form like this
floating around. There is absolutely no reason to imagine that
a dependent for the State Department or military dependent
wouldn't see this and say, oh, my goodness, we want to be
counted in the census, therefore we better send this in. We've
already counted them in the administrative records from the
Department of Defense.
We have a serious matching problem, and we don't have a
mechanism by which we could unduplicate those forms, so we
would be introducing double counts, as well as undercounts, in
the overseas population.
Indeed, to make an earnest and effective attempt to reach
this population, the Census Bureau would need to obtain the
commitment of considerable staff support from the State
Department. The State Department would have to provide address
lists of embassies and consulates by countries worldwide, along
with the current estimates of the number of American citizens
living in each embassy and consular jurisdiction. We all know
those records are defective and incomplete.
The State Department would be the primary agent for most of
the logistics associated with the overseas publicity of the
enumeration along with the distribution of the bulk of the
census forms. And, indeed, if the overseas form asked for
passport numbers, as has been recommended, the State Department
would have to match a file of passports on the overseas forms
with their official passport files.
And, indeed, we have been in contact with the State
Department. They do suggest to us that there are very
complicated things involved in this and it would be costly. The
Census Bureau, of course, would have to compensate the State
Department for its efforts in this regard.
Indeed, I can conclude my comments on this with simply
mentioning the cost. We would need 1999 funds because we would
have to start doing preparatory work immediately, which means
another supplemental. As we appreciate, it would not be
difficult to get it through the Congress at present. Of course,
we would have to increase our 2000 budget. I can't offer if it
is a large number or small number, but certainly we'd have to
redesign our budget and redesign our master activity schedule.
There would be a very large number of procedures at this stage
which we would have to introduce if we wanted to do this right.
Now, could we do a poor job, a sloppy job, an inaccurate
job, a job which might risk distorting the apportionment
numbers? Certainly. Would the Census Bureau want to do that
kind of job? Of course not.
So, we would urge Congress that if we want to change policy
with respect to this very, very serious issue, that it is done
so only on the basis of some systematic work that has yet to be
done. I can only apologize that it has not been done, but it
will itself be costly and require some serious investigation of
how to do it.
Let me turn quickly to H.R. 1632, which relates to how we
would count prisoners abroad. Now, many of the Census Bureau's
concerns have already been voiced by questions from Mr. Davis,
from yourself, and from Mrs. Maloney, when she was here. The
way that we count prisoners and other institution populations
of the State in which the institution or facility is located
is, of course, consistent with the usual residence concept the
Census Bureau has used to decide where to count people in the
census. This is a principal first used by the Congress for the
census of 1790. It is defined as the place where the person
lives and sleeps most of the time.
Usual residence is not necessarily the same as the person's
legal residence. The usual residence concept was approved by a
U.S. Court of Appeals in 1971 and reconfirmed in a 1992
decision by the District Court for the District of Columbia,
where some of these questions of counting prisoners were
addressed in the court system. The judgment has been that the
way we do usual residence is neither capricious nor arbitrary.
This legislation, if passed, would mandate an exception to
the judicially approved usual residence concept and doing so,
as the questions have already indicated, could open up a
Pandora's box or pressures for other exceptions to our
residency rules.
It has already been noted by Mr. Davis and Mrs. Maloney
that there are other out-of-State programs. I very much
appreciate the distinction that Mr. Green made with respect to
whether they are contractually obligated to come back to the
State. That may be a workable distinction. Mr. Green himself,
in his testimony, spoke compellingly of Wisconsin's level of
information on this, though Mr. Green did say that their home
of record in Wisconsin only took them back to the county.
Now, as you appreciate, a major oversight committee for the
census, that coding someone back to the county of residence is
inadequate, of course, for redistricting purposes and Federal
funding purposes. We have to simply code them back to a lower
geographic detail than the county.
We appreciate the fact that Wisconsin may have very good
records, but we could not use them. We would have to get a home
address that we could geocode down to the block level, of
course, to be consistent with the rest of our census.
As Mr. Green himself acknowledged, he cannot even get a
good count of how many other States export prisoners, let alone
how many other States have data of the quality that Wisconsin
has, which is already defective for our purposes.
So even though we can acknowledge that there could well be
this data available, we would now have to visit all 50 States
to find out the quality of their recordkeeping for their
exported prisoners, even before we get to the issues that Mr.
Davis raises, which are non-prisoner exported personnel.
It raises all of the issues that have already been put on
the table, and I don't have to try to repeat them yet again. We
would have to also develop new procedures for working with
prison administrators on a case-by-case basis. Without testing
and evaluation, we could not know whether prison officials
would have good records that would show the 50 percent marker,
that is, is this particular prisoner's incarceration paid for
at a 50 percent level.
A contract between States may indicate that one State has
to pay another a certain lump sum per prisoner, but not
indicate the total cost of custodial care. Therefore, it would
be up to us to decide whether 50 percent was met. It may well
be that Wisconsin contracts make that very specific, but it may
well be that some other States are vaguer on that. It just
simply may be a payment per prisoner. We would then have to
determine whether it met the 50 percent rule.
The bill is also silent on whether this is only for State-
supported prisoners and State-run correctional facilities or
whether prisoners and facilities at the local level, as well as
privately run prisoners, would be included. And, of course, the
bill makes no reference to Federal prisoners who are, in
general, more likely to be incarcerated outside their home
State. These are some of the issues that would have to be
resolved before we could begin to implement Mr. Green's
legislative initiative.
Finally, if I can turn to Mr. Ryan's legislation quickly,
we have had that legislation for a very short time. I
appreciate how sometimes things take a while to turn themselves
out. That's even true at the Census Bureau. And therefore, we
haven't given it the kind of time and attention that we would
like to.
As has been established, we do count U.S. military and
their dependents assigned overseas back to their home of record
using again, I stress, agency administrative records. And I
think what Mr. Ryan would like us to do is try to extend the
policy that we now use for overseas military to stateside
military, but I do want to stress that in the overseas military
populations we do not enumerate. We do not count individuals.
We only use the administrative record and use the home of
record back to the level of the State, not down to the level of
a district or a block or something.
So, we only put them into the apportionment count and not
into, of course, the districting or Federal funding formulas.
We have some concerns with Mr. Ryan's legislation because,
again, it mandates an exception to the usual residence concept
for the U.S. base military living stateside, and it could lead
to other challenges to the idea of usual residence. We are just
reluctant to open that door until we have done the kind of
investigation that would find out what kinds of exceptions
might be put on the table, what would the implications be, and
what would this do to a 200-year practice of usual residence.
Mr. Ryan makes reference, understandably, to paying taxes
back in the home State, to having a legal residence in the home
State, and so forth; and that does begin to change where you
are living and sleeping, which is our usual residence criteria.
Mr. Ryan made reference, for example, to the fact that the
military does keep records, so they know where they have to
ship them back after they've either been honorably discharged
or in other words left the military.
I can't resist one anecdote. I lived abroad. I have lived
abroad for a large number of years at different times in my
professional career. Back to the Americans overseas issue, I am
aware that sometimes when I lived abroad, no one knew for sure
where I was and did not check in with local embassies or local
consulates; but one thing I do remember, Mr. Ryan, was that I
was also under a program that allowed me to identify my home of
record for purposes of bringing me back.
Well, at that time, I was living in Chicago with my family,
but we also spent some summer time in California. Needless to
say, my home of record, because I was in east Africa, became
California. It became the point furthest from where I was,
which then allowed us maximum opportunity to return to almost
any place we chose to at the end of our tenure.
So, even home of record, for the purpose of moving people
back, is a manipulable, if you will, or changeable or self-
designated criteria and is not necessarily consistent with
one's legal residence or where they vote. I don't know how good
the military is at policing that particular thing, but I
wouldn't, myself, want to count on it as the marker of what
recreates a usual residence.
With respect to U.S. military living stateside now, we do
conduct a standard enumeration. They are asked all of the same
questions asked of the civilian population that are included in
all the detailed accounts and characteristics we tabulate in
the census.
That is, we would be very hesitant to move the stateside
military to an administrative count, only because, after all,
they are living in the United States. We would like all the
kinds of standard demographics and characteristics we can for
them. So, to enumerate their home of record at this stage would
either require--as Mr. Ryan pointed out--matching our forms
with the Department of Defense to make sure we had an accurate
home of record recording, or we would have to redesign our form
to allow us to get them to record what they judge to be their
home of record, raising all the questions that Mr. Davis has
already brought to the table.
When do they make decisions about whether they want to be
in Pensacola, back in Wisconsin and so forth? And I would just
suggest, without making a speech yet again, it is very late in
the census cycle to try to change those kinds of procedures and
not run the risk of introducing errors into the census. Just as
we sit here today, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Davis, Mr. Ryan, there are
80 semitrailer trucks on the roads today delivering 136 million
census forms, which is only a portion of the census forms, to
our redistribution center in Jeffersonville.
As we think of the census starting on April 1, the census
has started. We are now doing the things that make this census
work, and we are very hesitant to change fundamental rules of
residence procedures or change procedures of how we count the
Americans overseas at this stage in the decennial cycle.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Prewitt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.022
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Dr. Prewitt. Let me ask you a couple
of questions about U.S. citizens overseas. Again, we're under
the 5-minute rule ourselves here. It is a problem that
obviously has been around for a while, and I know you and the
other people at the Bureau have met with the representatives of
the different organizations. I know I have and I know my staff
has. I think we philosophically agree they need to be counted
because, as they point out, we count illegal aliens in the
United States; we count convicted felons serving time in
prison; but Americans overseas don't get counted.
I have a very legitimate argument. My impression is their
motivation is being good citizens. They feel it is a right just
like voting is a right. So, the question is, what do we do
about it?
Could you enlighten me a little bit on the history of this
issue at the Bureau? Obviously before your time, but have we
tried to do it in the past?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes, sir, we tried in 1960 and 1970,
particularly in 1970. We were so disappointed with the count
that we chose not to introduce it into the apportionment
counts. We were afraid it would introduce more distortion than
not. We made a count. We reported the count. We can find
tabulations of American overseas living abroad in 1970, and we
were unable to certify it to the level with which we felt
comfortable bringing it to the apportionment counts.
We made a serious effort. We contacted the same kinds of
groups represented here: chambers of commerces, embassies,
churches which have missionary programs abroad, corporations,
and so forth. And at the end of the day, we felt like we had
not done an adequate job.
Could we do a better job in 2000? I would hope so. Could we
do an even better job in 2010? If we started with some better
sense of what the base population looks like and how they are
distributed and what the quality of the administrative records
are at universities who send many, many scientists abroad,
churches who send many, many missionaries abroad and
corporations who send many, many employees abroad and the
retiree population who simply lives abroad and does not intend
to come back. We simply need a map of that phenomena before we
would be comfortable doing the level of job which we could come
back and recommend to the Congress that it become a part of the
apportionment counts. Yes, we had a bit of experience; but it
was not a very happy experience.
Mr. Miller. For the past several years gearing up for the
2000 census, I am sure you have had people studying the issue
and trying to figure out how to do it. Any ideas or
possibilities how it could be done? I am impressed with what
this group has proposed. I agree with you. We want to make sure
that is not circulated as an official form, but the fact they
drafted their own form indicates a real commitment and
interest.
Mr. Prewitt. I appreciate it. With you, sir, I don't
dispute the motivation or the legitimacy of the concern. I do
remind you that the U.S. Constitution requires us to count all
residents of the United States. That is why we count illegal
aliens and felons. We are being consistent with the U.S.
Constitution. The U.S. Constitution, of course, is silent on
counting non-resident citizens. So even though this is a good
faith effort, it is complicated, because we have made the
decision to count U.S. military and Federal employees overseas.
The policy that guides that decision is that we have every
reason to presume that this is a temporary assignment overseas,
and that they are coming back. The groups concerned about
overseas Americans have brought to our attention that they do
have large numbers of Americans who do not intend to come back
but still have a right to be counted.
I think that is an understandable statement on their part,
but it is a fundamental change in policy. I would urge the
Congress not to make that change in policy without having a
better sense of the dimensions of that issue.
Mr. Miller. The State Department estimates 3 million
abroad. We don't know what the number is whether it is 5
million or 10 million. Your point of view is a voluntary
overseas census that may only get a 30 percent response is
worse than zero?
Mr. Prewitt. Well, it is for apportionment purposes. Unless
you make the assumption that the volunteers and the non-
volunteers are distributed across the States proportionate to
the true count--Mr. Miller, you have taught this. You know that
self-selected samples--we are talking about a sample, right, a
self-select sample, a volunteer sample is a biased sample.
It goes back to my illustration. If we ended up
undercounting, disproportionately, Canadians and overcounting,
disproportionately, Americans living in Mexico, then unless the
people living in Canada and Mexico came equally from the same
States, we would have penalized and rewarded States
differently.
So my concern is, yes, that a 1 out of 3 introduces air
into the apportionment count, unless we make a statistical
assumption that the people who are not counted are distributed
across the State of record exactly the way the people who are
counted. Otherwise, you are allowing volunteers to determine an
apportionment count which is inconsistent with the fundamental
policies that govern the Census Bureau.
Mr. Miller. We will hopefully have a second round. Mr.
Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Prewitt,
you have talked about the discrepancy between projections. Some
people say there may be 3 million. Somebody else may say 10
million Americans living abroad. How do they make these
projections? And if there is that much discrepancy, could there
be any reliability at all?
Mr. Prewitt. Well, Mr. Davis, I will let you ask the next
panel. I am quoting from their own newsletter and one of the
witnesses is the one who's introduced the number of 5 to 6
million. Their newsletter introduced the number of 10 million.
I don't know where those numbers come from. The number of 3
million is, as I understand it, a State Department estimate
based mainly on embassy and consulate records.
I simply know too many Americans living abroad who have no
relationship with the local embassy. They have no reason to.
They've been retired in southern France. They've been working
in Canada for so many years that they simply don't even manage
to maintain their passports. They think of themselves as
permanently living abroad.
They may still even want to vote for whatever reason, but
they don't necessarily maintain a close connection with their
embassy. The State Department estimate is the only one I know
that exists, and I have no reason to presume that it is very
accurate. So, a very wide variation.
Mr. Davis. So when we got beyond the State Department, I
mean, they've got something to go on seemingly.
Mr. Prewitt. Right.
Mr. Davis. Then we just don't have any idea of where the
others really come from; and if we did, we probably wouldn't
have much possibility of finding those people anyway, would we?
Mr. Prewitt. Mr. Davis, I dislike talking about the census
by anecdote because I get too many anecdotes, and the census is
about systematic information. But I could give you anecdote
after anecdote after anecdote of Americans I know living abroad
who I know the Census Bureau could not find.
What proportion that is, I don't know, but I do know right
now, unless we did some pretty systematic work, there are large
numbers of Americans--I asked my friends in statistics about
Canada the other day. I said could you help us count the
Americans living up there. They said, yes, if they are
employed, because we could use our work permit system; but if
they are unemployed--they are just retired--we don't have any
idea whatsoever.
That is an interesting revelation because it is much easier
to get import data than export data. That is true for trade
data, as well as people data, because States have a reason to
sort of want to know who's coming into their country. They have
less of a need to know who's leaving their country. So even
Canada, which has very good import data, could not tell me how
many Americans were living up there unless they were employed
and, therefore, had work permits.
Mr. Davis. When you get through with the census, do you
expect to have any money left?
Mr. Prewitt. That's a serious question, Mr. Davis. Let me
answer it seriously. If the budget that we have now presented
to Congress is passed--which we have our fingers crossed--and
if the response rate is higher than our estimated 61 percent;
and we are getting increasingly enthusiastic about the power of
our partnership program, our promotional program, our
advertising program, all of which are on track, we may get that
response rate above 61 percent. If it gets very far above 61
percent, the census in 2000 will cost less money than we are
now projecting, yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. So, I guess my point is, if we went to some of
the extraneous logistical difficulty of trying to count the
individuals now that we are talking about, trying to find them
and also dealing with the individuals in the military, we
probably would have to appropriate or even authorize some more
money in order to----
Mr. Prewitt. We could not afford to spend 2000 money on an
additional procedure. All of the 2000 money is very, very
tightly connected to the current procedures that we have
recommended to the Congress that we use. If we were to do a big
study of this problem in say, 2002, 2003, an investigation of
how well we could do it, I can't sit here today and say there
would not be resources left over from 2000 to do that study.
If not, we would obviously have to come back to the
Congress and ask for an appropriation to do it. But certainly
to do it in 2000, this simply is not budgeted. It is not even
budgeted in 1999. So we clearly would have to be coming back
immediately in 1999 for a supplemental.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. I want to thank you for coming today, Mr.
Prewitt. It is nice to hear from you. I would like to ask you
some historical questions with respect to the military on their
counting. Prior to the 1990 census, how were overseas military
personnel counted?
Mr. Prewitt. Help.
Do you have reason to know that we did not count them
prior--we counted many----
Mr. Ryan. Your methodology is what I was concerned with.
Mr. Prewitt. It was administrative record methodology,
supplemented with a survey on home of record. Is that what you
are getting at?
Mr. Ryan. Right, but home of record was introduced 6 months
prior to the 1990 census; is that correct?
Mr. Prewitt. The survey to do home of record, yes.
Mr. Ryan. So in 1990, 6 months prior to the census, they
introduced the home-of-record methodology and the Census Bureau
with the Defense Department put together a partnership to share
those administrative records to then do so on the home of
record.
Mr. Prewitt. Correct.
Mr. Ryan. So, the usual residence concept for military
personnel was changed by 1996 much prior to the----
Mr. Prewitt. The usual residence, I don't think, was
changed. What we did was get better data.
Mr. Ryan. You used home-of-record data. You were planning
on doing the same kind of partnership with the Department of
Defense with respect to these overseas personnel, correct?
Mr. Prewitt. With one new change. They are now making us
pay for it, but yes, sir.
Mr. Ryan. You have been appropriated that, right?
Mr. Prewitt. Right.
Mr. Ryan. In your testimony, you said with respect to
activity of military personnel overseas, that you have
reasonably good and accurate ways of allocating them back to
their home of record dated 10 years ago, doing it again with
more precise methodology. Doesn't that same concept hold for
those who are stationed here at home?
Mr. Prewitt. I think you are absolutely right, Congressman.
With just two qualifications, if I could. One, I cannot tell
from your bill whether you would expect home of record to be
geocoded down to the block level for redistricting purposes
or----
Mr. Ryan. Let's use it for the argument, for the sake of
apportionment.
Mr. Prewitt. That would be the first qualification. That
helps a lot. That makes the task much, much more easy than
coding back to some local address.
Mr. Ryan. Let me limit it, for purposes of apportionment.
You are already doing that. You have already got the
partnership with the Defense Department. You are doing it with
overseas personnel. You didn't decide, but in 1990, they
decided 6 months prior to the census. And I realize you have a
timeline; trucks are already leaving. But we are able to
accomplish this kind of change with overseas personnel 6 months
prior to the 1990 census. It seems fitting that we could
accomplish this at this point in time, with respect to
extending it to domestic stateside military personnel.
Mr. Prewitt. I understand your question, Mr. Ryan.
I think the big, big, big difference, however, in 1990 with
respect to that population group and in 2000, with respect to
the population group you are concerned about, is the population
group in 1990 starts out as an administrative record count,
which we then supplement so we are dealing with the people who
manage the administrative records.
The population that you are concerned about, that is, the
domestically residing military, we start out as an enumeration
census, not an administrative census. Therefore, it would
require a fundamental and big time change in our procedures
quite different from what 1990 did; 1990 was a supplemental of
an administrative record. This is taking an enumeration census
and somehow coordinating it to an administrative record census.
Could we work on getting those procedures in place? We would
certainly work on it if this legislation passed. It is a
different phenomena than 1990.
Mr. Ryan. It certainly seems like you could, because you
already have the partnership with the Defense Department. You
already have the administrative records available.
Mr. Prewitt. But we don't for that population group. It's a
different partnership.
Mr. Ryan. In 1991, the Census Bureau determined that the
home-of-record data was more accurate for military personnel
than the legal residence definition or last duty station
because legal residence was done largely for tax purposes. Last
duty station is even more imprecise because it could have been
a very, very short duration. Why are you using home-of-record
data? Isn't it because of those reasons that home of record
seems to be a preferable definition for overseas personnel with
respect to legal residence or last duty station?
Mr. Prewitt. Correct.
Mr. Ryan. Why is that inconsistent to then extend that
definition to stateside personnel?
Mr. Prewitt. Because with stateside personnel, we have a
real residence. We have where they are living and sleeping and
therefore----
Mr. Ryan. They are living and sleeping in Germany and other
places.
Mr. Prewitt. No, no, no. That is very, very different. We
don't have apportionment rules or districting rules governing
living and sleeping in Germany. We do have apportionment rules
governing living and sleeping in Pensacola or Fort Bragg. We
have a usual residence rule that for the domestically sided
military does place them into the official counts that this
country uses for apportionment purposes, and it is where they
are living and sleeping. It is fundamentally different to sort
of translate the overseas military into the domestic situation.
Mr. Ryan. So, for the purposes of apportionment, it seems
relatively easy, but so you are saying for the purposes of----
Mr. Prewitt. It is easier.
Mr. Ryan. More difficult and challenging for redistricting
and funding reasons, but the question probably then comes down
to is it easy? Probably not. Is it doable?
Well, I would contend that it is doable, simply because you
have the partnership with the Defense Department; records are
available. Yes, it may take some more work, but at the end,
isn't the most accurate enumeration our true goal here?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes, sir. We have defined most accurate
enumeration, as when possible, using our usual residence rules,
which we do use for every other purpose other than the overseas
military----
Mr. Ryan. Which were modified with respect to military
personnel in 1990.
Mr. Prewitt. No, we used usual residence. Home of record
was our definition of usual residence. We didn't modify. We
simply got a better record of that than we could get from the
administrative records. We didn't modify the rule. I think I am
correct on that.
Mr. Ryan. You adopted home of record as the basis for usual
residence.
Mr. Prewitt. Yes.
Mr. Ryan. I see that my time has run out.
Mr. Miller. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. Dr. Prewitt, I have a draft bill.
I don't know if you have had a chance to look at it but
basically it calls upon the Bureau to do a special survey of
American citizens overseas and have this survey done by, say,
2003, not connected with the 2000 decennial census. And I would
like you to read it and get back to us. But could you give us
some comments on whether you think this special survey could be
used to help make decisions about the 2010 census? What are
your thoughts basically, not only on the survey, but in
general, on counting Americans overseas, and how we should do
that?
Mr. Prewitt. Mrs. Maloney, I do appreciate that legislative
initiative. I have had a chance to quickly review it, and I
appreciate the intelligence with which it is constructed. What
it first asked us to do is to consult with the witness panel
and the representatives here about the complexities of this,
beyond what we have done.
And second, present to the Congress a feasibility, if you
will, a statement report within a year of initiation of this
consultation process. And on the basis of that feasibility
statement, then say how we would actually go out and conduct
the count itself so Congress would have an opportunity to
itself decide whether it was as feasible and cost effective as
it could be. The Census Bureau would be delighted to cooperate
with the Congress in that initiative.
I think as Congressman Miller said at the outset, and as I
am sure we will hear from our distinguished panel in a moment,
it is a new world. The next century is going to have many, many
more Americans living abroad in many, many complicated ways.
And what that means for our traditional concept of what the
census is supposed to do has to be addressed as a major policy
question. And we are very responsive to working with the
Congress to address that policy question.
I do not think that policy question has been adequately
addressed. I think that you, the U.S. Congress, would have to
decide whether it made sense to count for apportionment
purposes people who never intended to come back to the United
States. It is a policy question and many others are similar.
Mrs. Maloney. One of the recommendations by the groups
representing Americans overseas is to create a self-reporting
form which American citizens could pick up at embassies. If
there is self-reporting, I have a concern that some States may
start a lobbying effort in an attempt to get the overseas
population to self-identify with their particular States, and
can you comment on that concern?
Mr. Prewitt. Well, I can say the following: With or without
a lobbying effort, there is every reason to presume that the
responses from a voluntary self-enumeration census, where we
would have no opportunity to go back and try to find the people
who do not volunteer, that that response pattern would be some
sort of biased pattern with respect to the true distribution by
State of record of the overseas Americans.
There is simply no reason to presume that the volunteer
part of the population will resemble, in terms of State of
record, exactly what the total population looks like. So, by
definition, we would be introducing distortions into the
apportionment count.
If somebody can convince me to the contrary that we will
count that volunteer part of the population exactly
proportionate to what the total population's characteristics
are, with respect to State of record, we could be convinced.
But since people don't even know what the universe size is, it
is very hard for me to imagine they could make a compelling
case.
Mrs. Maloney. Very last, because I know our time is running
out. I know we have a number of important resolutions and bills
before us today, but I would like to ask you, how are the
preparations coming for the decennial census?
Mr. Prewitt. Well, I'd love that opportunity. If I could
just slightly edit your question, it is not only preparations,
it is real implementation of procedures. I am delighted to
report to the oversight committee that we have completed our
block canvassing on schedule and we are now back out in the
community making some corrections to our address file and that
procedure is going very, very well.
We have opened up all but three of our local offices or
signed leases for all but three. That is 517 out of 520. We are
very pleased with that. As I mentioned when you were out of the
room, Mrs. Maloney, there are today 80 semitrailer trucks on
the roads on their way to Jeffersonville with a very large
percentage, but not all, of our short form questionnaires. Many
of our printing contracts have been released. We have over
6,000 complete count committees now up and running. We have
over 400 partnership experts recruited. We have signed
agreements with 450 tribal governments, and so our creative
work with our advertising campaign is on schedule.
We have tested over 1,000, we are already casting and
wardrobing for 100, creative presentations for medium print and
so forth. Right now, I must say, despite all the complexities
and difficulties getting to this point, for early June, we
think our operations and procedures are on schedule to have a
successful census in 2001. We are very reluctant to create any
kind of major disturbances to that procedure at this stage, for
the reasons that we have talked about so often in this
committee.
Mr. Miller. We have a vote, but we have a few minutes, so
if anybody wants to go back for a single question or such. I
know I have a question or statement. And we will break for our
vote, and we will come back for the next panel.
I think we have to come up with a way to count overseas
U.S. citizens. A lot of the decisions that have been made for
the 2000 census were made obviously before your tenure at the
Census Bureau; and maybe, with the recommendation of Mrs.
Maloney, we'll lay the groundwork for what we want to do for
2010.
We just need to start off with the assumption we are going
to count U.S. citizens overseas. We may have to have different
standards that we apply to counting overseas. It is going to be
hard to get that finite population. You are the experts on how
we do that. Maybe we have to lower our standards.
I see your concern about a voluntary type response. But
these are U.S. citizens. They vote and they pay taxes, a lot of
them. So, they have every right to be counted. It doesn't
affect redistricting, as we know. It would only affect the
issue of apportionment.
Since we count military and other Federal employees because
of administrative records, we need to find a way we can do it
certainly for 2010; and we need to have a plan of some sort. We
need to get through next April 1, I recognize, and determine
whether there is anything we can do between now and April 1 to
help. Explain to me, again, a voluntary response. I know you
have to verify but if you have passports, you know, they scan
your passports and all that. It seems like a computer system
with the State Department would be capable.
Why is getting 30 percent of the people counted through
embassies worse than zero percent?
Mr. Prewitt. Mr. Miller, if the 30 percent are distributed
somehow across the 50 States, which they would be, of course,
since we are recording them back. The whole motivation of this,
as I understand it, is to use this count to get back to the
apportionment numbers. If the 30 percent are distributed across
the States proportionate to whatever, the number of overseas
residents that happen to come from California, Florida, New
York, or what have you, if the remaining 70 percent had a
different proportion across those 50 States, then you are
simply introducing bias; and there is no way to measure the
magnitude of that bias.
So, we would have to presume that volunteers come from
State of record in exactly the same ratios as non-volunteers
come from the State of record. Otherwise, we introduce a
distortion. But I am really sympathetic with the thrust of your
question. I am more than happy to have conversations with this
Congress about whether we should create a different position
with respect to the overseas Americans and have that policy
discussion.
It would be very difficult to introduce a whole new policy
into the 2000 census. Perhaps, Congressman Miller, we would be
sitting here in a year or two, talking about using sampling for
non-response followup with the overseas Americans. That may be
the procedure we would have to come back in and recommend.
Mr. Miller. Thank you for bringing that issue up. We will
have to get the Supreme Court to rule on that one.
Mrs. Maloney, do you have a quick question?
Mrs. Maloney. What about exiled Americans? A lot of
Americans are patriotic citizens who are overseas for their
jobs or education or whatever. But there are some people who
prefer to be exiles, who don't participate; how would we treat
them? Would we treat them differently?
Mr. Prewitt. We would have to, and we also have the issue
of dependents who are not American citizens but are married to
or children of American citizens. Do we count them as part of
this count? We have dependents who might want to become
American citizens but are not yet American citizens.
So, there are all of those issues. The problem with the
U.S. Constitution, it says count residents. As soon as we leave
the borders, we get into a situation where we are now only
trying to count citizens. So we changed the rules, as I
understand it, but it gets very murky. Exactly, what is a
citizen? Somebody who has let their passport lapse? Americans
overseas have let their passports lapse. Do we try to find them
or not find them?
So, the conception of this population is work that has to
be done. This is the kind of work we will be allotted to do if
your legislation is passed.
Mrs. Maloney. But, you would support the legislation?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Does anyone have a quick question?
Mr. Davis. I just have one question. I just want to make
sure, if I could, Dr. Prewitt, that I am interpreting your
testimony correctly. And that is, it seems to me that you are
saying that these are serious issues. They are issues that need
to be looked at, but that we are too far along in the process
to really talk about changing anything without causing a
tremendous amount of disruption.
Mr. Prewitt. Yes, sir, that is correct.
In neither of these instances does the Bureau itself have a
principled opposition, but it is a concern that it is not a
good moment to try to change major procedures. It might come up
with a principled opposition after further reflection and
discussion with Congress; but as of now, we would want the time
to think through all the implications.
For example, Mr. Ryan's legislation we have only had for a
couple of days. We have to think through the implications of
that. So I don't want to foreclose the possibility of a
principle--a concern, but as of now, that is not the
motivation. The motivation is what can be done realistically
and intelligently in the timeframe that is available.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Dr. Prewitt. Some of us
may want to submit some written questions, and we would
appreciate your response on that. I think we need to start off
with a strong commitment, and in 2010 we will figure out a way
to accomplish the job. I am disappointed the Bureau, back in
the early 1990's, didn't really come up with a more concrete
solution to the problem, and I recognize the problem of timing
right now. I look forward to our next panel, talking about it
very specifically.
Thank you very much for being with us today.
[Recess.]
Mr. Miller. If we could have the next panel come forward,
please, and remain standing.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Miller. Let the record show all answered in the
affirmative.
Welcome. Thank you for sitting through the first part of
the hearing. I hope you found it of interest to hear the
comments from Director Prewitt. I am interested to hear him
come after you, too, but it is the procedure we are following.
Let me welcome all of you here. We will proceed, and the
other Members will be returning. There will be no more votes
for the next little while, so we won't be interrupted again,
and I apologize for the delay.
We will try to hold to the 5-minute rule. Let me at this
stage proceed with Mr. David Hamod.
STATEMENTS OF DAVID HAMOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENSUS 2000
COALITION; DON JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICANS RESIDENT OVERSEAS; L. LEIGH GRIBBLE, SECRETARY,
AMERICAN BUSINESS COUNCIL OF GULF COUNTRIES, AND EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE MEMBER, REPUBLICANS ABROAD; DOROTHY VAN SCHOONEVELD,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CITIZENS ABROAD; AND JOSEPH
SMALLHOOVER, CHAIR, DEMOCRATS ABROAD
Mr. Hamod. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to Mrs. Maloney,
in absentia, for the opportunity to testify today and for
holding this useful hearing.
My name is David Hamod. I am the executive director of the
Census 2000 Coalition, an ad hoc bipartisan group dedicated to
including all Americans overseas in census 2000. Our C2K
coalition is composed of all the major organizations
representing U.S. citizens and U.S. companies overseas.
Mr. Chairman, before I go to my prepared remarks, let me
just share with you some personal perspectives. I do these now
as an individual, not on behalf of the coalition.
It saddens me deeply to have the Census Bureau turn its
back on millions of Americans overseas who, in our opinion,
deserve to be counted. I hear the Census Bureau saying they
don't fit our statistical models so they should be ignored. I
hear the Census Bureau saying this is the way we have always
done it. We are not going to change.
I want to reaffirm that this is not a nameless and faceless
case study. We are talking about people's lives here, and I
guess I am a little bit ashamed that the Census Bureau has so
cavalierly dismissed millions of Americans overseas,
particularly when they work so hard to track down every
American here in the States.
It suggests to me that the Bureau is completely out of
touch with this very important segment of the U.S. population,
and I guess I have to say, it seems to me also that the Census
Bureau may be neglecting the very people that they were created
to serve, that is, the American people. Those are some personal
comments and now I will go on with my prepared statement, Mr.
Chairman.
It may come as a shock to the subcommittee that no one
knows how many Americans live and work overseas. The population
of private Americans abroad may be as small as the greater
metropolitan area of Sarasota, Bradenton, Tampa, St.
Petersburg, and Clearwater, about 3 million; or it may be as
large as, say, New York City.
The truth is, without the census, we just don't know. But
one thing is very clear. If the Census Bureau excluded the
residents of western Florida and those of New York City from
census 2000, I am confident that there would be a hue and cry
from your constituents. They would be outraged that the Census
Bureau was treating them as invisible U.S. citizens, ignoring
some 3 to 9 million hardworking taxpaying Americans. Does this
sound familiar?
Americans living and working overseas are an increasingly
important segment of the U.S. population. This is a reflection
of America's growing globalization and the essential role that
U.S. exports of goods, services, and expertise now play in
strengthening our economy. As highly visible Ambassadors of the
United States, economically, politically, and culturally, U.S.
citizens overseas play a key role in advancing America's
interest around the world and have a far greater impact on the
United States than at any other time in U.S. history.
With this in mind, it is all the more perplexing to us that
the Census Bureau is proposing to exclude private Americans
overseas from census 2000. We think they should be included for
at least four reasons.
First, competitiveness. In order for America's public and
private sector leaders to give appropriate support to U.S.
citizens and U.S. companies overseas, it is important to get a
better handle on how many Americans live abroad and where they
live.
Second, representation. There is no reasonable basis for
excluding millions of Americans from census 2000 just because
they are living overseas. Like Americans who reside within the
50 United States and the District of Columbia, U.S. citizens
abroad vote in the United States, pay U.S. taxes, and generally
stay in touch with their home communities in the United States.
Third, fairness. The U.S. Government employees and
officially affiliated workers overseas are included in the
census. It is wrong for the U.S. Government to take care of its
own and to discriminate against those Americans who do not work
for the government. We believe that all Americans deserve the
right to be counted, and I should point out that the Federal
people overseas are no more resident in the United States than
the private people overseas.
And fourth, accuracy. The Census Bureau says it wants
Census Bureau 2000 to be the most accurate census ever but the
Bureau cannot willingly and knowingly exclude millions of
Americans living overseas and still claim with any credibility
that its work is accurate.
And I was a bit surprised, I have to admit, that the
Director of the Census Bureau this morning said that a 100
percent undercount, which is what we have right now, is better
than, say, a 50 percent undercount. Right now, we are not
counting any of these private-sector Americans overseas, and I
would suggest the real distortion lies in not counting these
Americans abroad.
The Census Bureau has expressed concern that it does not
have the resources to include all Americans abroad in census
2000. With this in mind, members of the Census 2000 Coalition
have volunteered to do the lion's share of the work in getting
the word out to private U.S. citizens residing overseas. This
is entirely consistent with the Bureau's Census 2000
Partnership Program, and we are hopeful that the Census Bureau
will take advantage of our offer to assist.
Again, it was with some disbelief this morning, that I
heard the Director say that the master activity schedule cannot
be changed in any way and that any modifications from here on
out could endanger the very census itself. We find that that
strains credibility, and it is our impression that the master
activity schedule is quietly and continuously tweaked.
We also see our request not as interfering with the
existing census; rather it is an add-on, and our perspective is
this should not interfere one iota with the existing census
2000 effort here in the United States.
The C2K coalition is proposing an efficient and relatively
inexpensive method of counting private Americans abroad. Our
proposal is modeled after the Federal Postcard Application
process through which Americans overseas have voted
successfully by absentee ballot for more than 2 decades. We see
this as a simple five-step process.
Step one, preparation of the overseas citizen census card.
The Census Bureau would review the card, modify it, and print
the card. Let me say, for the record, we are deeply apologetic
to the committee and to the Bureau. We didn't mean to suggest
in any way that this was an official document and we will take
steps immediately to reinforce the fact that this is only a
draft.
Step two, dissemination of the OCCCs. The OCCC would be
distributed to Americans abroad through three basic channels:
on the Web, directly to overseas American organizations and
indirectly through U.S. embassies and consulates. With this in
mind, we applaud the Census Bureau's recent decision to post
forms on its Website, where they can be downloaded easily from
anywhere in the world. For anybody who would suggest that the
Census Bureau can't change its ways, this is proof positive
that it can.
Step three, submission of the OCCCs. It is envisioned that
the OCCCs would be returned to the Census Bureau one of two
ways, either directly through the mail or indirectly through
the embassies and consulates.
Step four, tallying the OCCCs. Once delivered to the Census
Bureau, it is expected that the Bureau would enter the OCCC
data in the most efficient manner possible.
And step five, clarification and verification. The OCCC
requires Americans abroad to provide their passport numbers,
which could be checked against State Department records, if
need be.
And I want to emphasize here, that there is a sense, it
seems to me, within the Census Bureau that Americans abroad are
guilty until proven innocent. We would suggest otherwise. They
are innocent until proven guilty, and Americans overseas, in
our experience, have been some of the most patriotic, law-
abiding Americans you have ever met.
If the Census Bureau has additional questions concerning
the OCCC, the C2K coalition suggests following up with staff at
the embassies and consulates or contacting overseas Americans
directly by e-mail, fax, or telephone. The Census Bureau has
expressed some concerns about its ability to enumerate private
Americans living and working overseas.
The C2K coalition recognizes that counting overseas
Americans may be a challenge for the Census Bureau, but in our
assessment, none of the obstacles that the Bureau has raised
are insurmountable. And after hearing and reading Dr. Prewitt's
testimony this morning, I feel and I think my colleagues feel
more strongly about this than ever. We regret that it has taken
years, I repeat, years, for the Census Bureau to study
seriously the low-cost, commonsense proposals that have been
put forward by Americans abroad. As a result of this delay,
which regrettably had been on the Census Bureau's side,
valuable time and valuable opportunities have been squandered.
The Census Bureau's concerns, as they've been expressed to
us, can be divided into six major categories.
Cost. The Census Bureau says that an overseas count will
cost too much. The C2K coalition has seen no Bureau estimates
of what the cost would be. We are confident that the bill for
counting Americans abroad will amount to a fraction of what it
costs per capita to count domestic Americans. The U.S.
Department of Defense, never known for its frugality,
administers the highly successful Federal Voting Assistance
Program for under $3 million per year. Can the Census Bureau
get by with less than the Department of Defense? We hope so.
Second, the extent of participation. The Bureau mounts
strong efforts to count as many U.S. and non-U.S. citizens as
it can, and they should apply this same level of commitment to
the count of overseas private citizens. The expected
participation of private Americans overseas in census 2000
should be at least as great as their absentee voting in
Federal, State, and local elections.
Third, data quality. For nearly a quarter century,
Americans abroad have used the Federal Postcard Application to
vote by absentee ballot. This form has been accepted by U.S.
voting officers in all 50 States and the District of Columbia.
According to the Defense Department, there has never been a
pattern of abuse or fraud by Americans abroad during this
period. The OCCC goes one step further than the FPCA, requiring
that Americans abroad list their U.S. passport numbers.
Next, allocation of overseas population by State. Census
2000 should include all Americans residing overseas in the
State-by-State population figures used to apportion seats in
the House of Representatives.
As we said earlier, the distortion is what's taking place
now, not what we are proposing to do. Respondents would list
their last U.S. State residence on the OCCC, just as they
currently do in submitting their FPCAs. Let's not forget that
the Bureau has already departed from the usual domestic
residence standard in counting federally affiliated Americans
abroad for purposes of apportionment.
Operational issues. Including Americans abroad in census
2000 should be relatively straightforward in our assessment.
The distribution of the OCCC to overseas private citizens
should follow essentially the same channels as the FPCA
involving U.S. embassies and consulates, as well as American
groups worldwide.
And finally, timing. If there is one thing we agree with
the Census Bureau on, it is that time is of the essence, but
the good news is that no rocket science is involved in this
effort and there is no need to recreate the wheel. Using our
system and with the wealth of talent that the Census Bureau has
at its disposal, we are confident that everything can be up and
running by next April.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Maloney, it is high
time to overhaul an obsolete policy that treats U.S. citizens
overseas as nobodies rather than the valuable national asset
that they are. Including Americans abroad in the census is long
overdue, and this would represent an important step forward for
U.S. citizens and U.S. interests worldwide in the global
economy of the 21st century.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Maloney.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Hamod. I want to thank all of
you all for submitting your written testimony in advance
because I did have the pleasure of reading it yesterday and
preparing some of the thoughts for today's hearing. So thank
you very much for that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamod follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.029
Mr. Miller. We will now proceed with Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Miller, Mrs. Maloney. I am
honored to be here today regarding the inclusion of private
overseas Americans in the census 2000.
My name is Don Johnson. I am vice president and chairman of
the census committee of the Association of Americans Resident
Overseas [AARO], a nonprofit organization founded in 1973 to
represent U.S. citizens living abroad. I have come here from
Paris, France, so that I can give you firsthand the case for
ensuring overseas private citizens the opportunity to be
counted in census 2000.
My organization, AARO, played a key role in helping
persuade Congress to enact the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights
Act of 1975. And as a result of this law, overseas private
Americans are registering and voting absentee in Federal
elections in record numbers.
Now we think the time has come to include us in the
decennial census. Congress decided, a quarter century ago, that
we count enough to vote for the President, Senators, and
Representatives. Why would Congress now allow the Census Bureau
to exclude us from being counted in the census?
Having worked for at least 8 years in international
assignments, I know personally what it is like for Americans to
live overseas. I am a retired American businessman and
electronics engineer who has spent most of his career working
for Texas Instruments. For the last 2\1/2\ years, I have been
working on special projects at AARO with emphasis on the census
that started with a first letter with Martha Feinsworth
reaching back to April 1977.
We at AARO know that the Census Bureau can mount a
successful effort to count overseas private Americans. Even
though the Census Bureau's effort to include private Americans
in the 1970 census did produce meager results, the Bureau at
least overcame the hurdle in that census of developing enough
confidence to verify the data.
In response to congressional pressure, the Census Bureau
found a way to include military and other government employees
and their dependents in the 1990 census from administrative
records. In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of
their doing so.
We agree that the inclusion of overseas private citizens
would be a bigger challenge than the count of federally
affiliated Americans abroad. We are confident, however, that
the Census Bureau can do this job if Congress tells the Bureau
to do it and provides the Bureau with the necessary funds. I
can assure you that AARO and other citizens overseas
organizations will make every effort to help the Census Bureau
get the job done just as we have worked side by side with the
Department of Defense in building up the rolls of overseas
voters under the Federal Voting Assistance Program.
We believe that the OCCC card, like the one you see here
today, would serve as an effective vehicle for counting
overseas private Americans in census 2000. The use of OCCC
would be consistent with the Census Bureau's use of its own
``be counted'' card to identify U.S. residents who would not
otherwise be enumerated.
The Census Bureau has long recognized that its domestic
count underestimates certain categories of U.S. and non-U.S.
citizens in the United States who are difficult to track down
such as inner-city poor, inhabitants of rural areas and the
homeless. The Census Bureau mounts strong efforts to count as
many of these residents as it can, and the Bureau should apply
the same level of commitment to the counting of overseas
private citizens.
The expected participation by private Americans overseas in
census 2000 should be at least as great as their absentee
registration and voting in Federal elections. Based on U.S.
Defense Department and State Department data, at least 750,000
private U.S. citizens overseas sought to register and vote
absentee in Federal elections in 1996, a significant increase
since the enactment of the Overseas Citizen Voting Rights Act
of 1975. The Census Bureau's reluctance to consider acceptance
of the OCCC seems to represent a presumption that overseas
private Americans will file false statements.
We think this attitude of presumptive distrust of the
overseas private American community is simply uncalled for. Why
should overseas private Americans be presumed to file false
OCCCs when the Federal Voting Assistance Program has assured us
that there has never been a pattern of abuse or fraud in
absentee voting by Americans abroad?
The census has already established partnerships with over
100 organizations to assist in helping make sure census 2000 is
the best ever. These organizations include nearly a dozen
groups representing American residents from almost every region
of the world. If the Census Bureau can make such a strong
effort to count Americans who have come to the United States
from these overseas jurisdictions, how can the Census Bureau
now turn its back on counting American citizens who have moved
to Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and Europe
from the United States? The C2K coalition has prepared a
preliminary to-do list which I have attached here to my
statement.
I think, at this point, I will thank you again for the
ability to give you some testimony today, and I look forward to
meeting with you again.
Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thank you for staying
close to the 5-minutes. I appreciate that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.036
Mr. Miller. Mr. Gribble.
Mr. Gribble. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Maloney.
Thank you for hearing us today. We greatly appreciate the
opportunity to put forth our testimony.
My name is Leigh Gribble. I am secretary of the American
Business Council of the Gulf Countries and a member of the
executive committee of Republicans Abroad. I am testifying
today on behalf of the American Chambers of Commerce Abroad and
the international arm of the Republican party.
I am a retired naval officer and the owner of a consulting
firm that is incorporated and registered in the State of
Florida. My family and I have lived in Kuwait in connection
with my military service and now my private business for the
past 7 years. However, we pay taxes and vote in Florida's
Fourth Congressional District, which is where we hope to return
to live full-time within the next few years.
I am honored today to give voice to the concerns of tens of
thousands of American business people and Republicans around
the world. We want to be counted in the census 2000. We want to
be included alongside our fellow American citizens in this
critical national event. We are worried, no I dare say we are
certain, that unless you and your colleagues take action
promptly, the Census Bureau will exclude us from the census
2000. In doing so, they will demean our citizenship and our
contribution to America. We continue to contribute to the
Federal coffers, even as we live and work overseas, through
payment of personal and corporate income taxes. We ask as
citizens and taxpayers you do not allow us to be excluded from
the rolls of the census.
As a naval officer who served in the Gulf war, let me tell
you something that really appalls me. I would be counted by a
Census Bureau in census 2000 if I had remained on active duty
in the Navy, but the Census Bureau counted me out of the census
the day I retired. How can you permit the Census Bureau to
strip away this important aspect of American citizenship simply
because I hung up my uniform to defend my country's democratic
principals as a private citizen?
Some at the Census Bureau say Americans overseas do not
want to be counted. This is simply not true. American citizens
in the more than 160 country and regional chapters of the
American Chambers of Commerce and Republicans Abroad have
stated clearly, in words and deeds, that they want to be
counted. Their support for my appearance here today attests to
that tremendous desire to be counted.
Further, these Americans have offered to join in
partnership with the Census Bureau to facilitate the
enumeration of those citizens, who were overseas at the time of
the census. We will assist in locating members of the American
community of our respective countries. We will assist in
disseminating census information and forms. We will assist in
gathering completed census forms and forwarding them to the
United States. We want to be counted and we are willing to
assist the Census Bureau in any way we can to accomplish this.
Overseas, an American Chamber of Commerce is the private
hub of the American community. We have very strong ties with
our host countries to all the various American social and civic
organizations, schools and, of course, U.S. companies.
We can and will use those ties to get census information
out and to help gather completed forms back from great numbers
of American citizens. By the way, we found out this morning the
board of directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is
the parent organization of most of our American Chambers
overseas, adopted a resolution supporting the inclusion of
American overseas in census 2000. They did that at 11:30 this
morning.
Republicans Abroad has been a source of voter registration
and absentee balloting information and assistance to overseas
Americans for over 20 years. We can and will bring the
organizational expertise that we have developed in decades of
getting the absentee ballot out overseas to bear in assisting
the Census Bureau with the counting of U.S. citizens abroad.
The overseas citizens census card and the Census 2000 Coalition
has drawn heavily upon the experience of using the Federal
Postcard Application for voter registration and ballot
requests.
Republicans Abroad stand ready, as I am sure our
counterparts and Democrats abroad do as well, to partner with
the Census Bureau to do whatever it takes to count American
citizens overseas.
In summary, American business people and other private
Americans overseas contribute mightily to the fabric of
American society even though we may be far from U.S. shores. We
generate U.S. exports in American jobs. We pay U.S. taxes. We
are Ambassadors of American values and democracy, and we
actively participate in the U.S. electoral process.
We private American citizens--residents abroad--should not
be penalized for our overseas contribution to the United
States. Our citizenship should be valued and we should be
counted in the census just as overseas government employees and
their families are. We will do our part to ensure that
Americans overseas are counted in the census 2000. We
respectfully ask that you do the same.
I just have one last little bit to throw in here before I
conclude.
The census 2010 is too late for me. My family and I will be
back in Ormond Beach, FL within the next 2 or 3 years. I hope
when we get back that the infrastructure that will be generated
by the Federal revenues that I am contributing to now, and have
been for the past 5 years in Kuwait, will be there to meet me.
I fear that if we wait until the year 2000, the sewers, the
highways and the schools won't be as good as they could be.
Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gribble follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.038
Mr. Miller. Ms. van Schooneveld.
Ms. van Schooneveld. Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased and privileged to address you today
on an issue of great concern to Americans abroad.
Before I start with my prepared statements, I would like to
say that my organization, American Citizens Abroad, first
started trying to converse with the Census Bureau on this
subject in 1993. We launched a major campaign in 1996. I, too,
am sad that it is summer of 1999 before we are before you, but
we nevertheless feel extremely strongly that we want overseas
Americans to be included at the beginning of the new
millennium, even if it is only a percentage of them.
My name is Dorothy van Schooneveld, and I am executive
director of American Citizens Abroad, ACA, a non-profit
organization founded in 1978 to represent the concerns of the
uncounted millions of private American citizens residing
outside the United States. I have flown here from Geneva,
Switzerland, so that I can thank you for lending your eyes and
ears to this presently invisible segment of the American
population.
I would ask you to keep in mind that Congress granted
overseas private citizens the right to register and vote
absentee in Federal elections almost a quarter century ago with
the passage of the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1957.
They vote in your States, in your districts. Some of them
helped elect you. If you care about representing all your
constituents, and I know from experience that Members of
Congress care deeply about their constituents, let them all be
included in census 2000 so that you and others know they exist.
Ironically, ever since overseas private Americans gained
the right to register and vote absentee in Federal elections,
these overseas citizens have never been included in a U.S.
census count. We Americans abroad are thus in the paradoxical
position of being told by our government, your vote counts, but
you don't. Who are we, these uncounted Americans?
I am an American lawyer, member of the Indiana and Illinois
bars, presently employed by the World Health Organization. I
have lived abroad for a dozen years now.
For the last 7 years, I have been volunteering my services
to American Citizens Abroad. I have personally corresponded
with literally thousands of Americans from Nepal to New Guinea
to Brazil to Iceland and countless places in between.
Americans residing abroad share many of the characteristics
of their fellow citizens at home. They are your parents,
relatives, neighbors, and friends who, for shorter or longer
periods, are representing our Nation abroad and its industries,
schools, churches, labor unions, charitable organizations,
banks, and factories. They represent, just as do their families
and friends at home, a talented and varied mix of our national
heritage.
American students working their way through school, mothers
working part-time; American men and women of commerce and
finance traveling internationally, to trade, build, and invest
for the benefit of American industries, towns, cities, and
States. Retired military personnel and their families, senior
citizens living in sunny areas, American actors, painters, and
musicians spreading our culture to every corner of the globe
and scientists and teachers working to improve the quality of
life for all of us.
These overseas Americans are loyal, patriotic U.S. citizens
who can vote in your districts and are subject to Federal
taxation. They constitute an asset to their country by
spreading American Democratic ideals and cultural values in
their foreign communities, exemplifying the American way of
life and, incidentally, buying and selling a substantial amount
of American products.
They are in a very real sense our best Ambassadors abroad.
And yet, present policy permits the Census Bureau, which makes
every effort to count every American resident as well as
overseas government personnel and their families, to ignore all
of your overseas private constituents. Their number is unknown.
The State Department estimates that there are 3.2 million of
them. Other organizations believe that there may be 5 to 6
million. The truth is that nobody knows.
We are confident that a mechanism built on the model of the
Federal Postcard Application, FPCA, would be effective in
achieving success and would guard against fraud. For nearly a
quarter century, Americans abroad have used the FPCA to vote by
absentee ballot. This form has been accepted by U.S. voting
officers in all 50 States and the District of Columbia.
The Federal Voting Assistance Program has assured us that
there has never been a pattern of abuse or fraud by Americans
abroad during this period. Indeed, the overseas citizen census
card [OCCC] for census 2000 would go one step further,
specifying that Americans abroad must list their U.S. passport
numbers, which are not required for the FPCA. This will serve
as a built-in mechanism to monitor the U.S. citizenship of
those persons submitting OCCCs. Of course, information
submitted on the OCCC, like that submitted on the FPCA, will be
subject to the Federal False Statements Act. This requirement
should further inhibit the possibility of incorrect data.
The members of the C2K coalition believe that census 2000
should include overseas private Americans in the State-by-State
population figures used to apportion seats in the U.S. House of
Representatives. Respondents would list their last U.S. State
residence on the OCCC just as they currently do in submitting
their FPCAs.
The Census Bureau already includes federally affiliated
U.S. citizens overseas for apportionment purposes but does not
include private Americans abroad. The U.S. Supreme Court, in
1992, expressly upheld inclusion of federally affiliated
overseas Americans for purposes of apportionment in the 1990
census, noting that the term usual residence can mean more than
mere physical presence and has been used broadly enough to
include some element of allegiance or enduring tie to a place.
For overseas private Americans, the congressionally
mandated right to register and vote absentee is that enduring
tie. The 1992 Supreme Court case Franklin v. Massachusetts is
included in our joint appendix. I would like to address
specifically how my organization, American Citizens Abroad, and
other organizations of private Americans abroad, could play a
partnership role in helping to attain a meaningful count of
private overseas Americans in census 2000. ACA regularly
corroborates with U.S. embassies and consulates and with the
Defense Department's Federal Voting Assistance Program in
circulating FPCAs and other U.S. Government information to
citizens around the world. We are prepared to join with the
Census Bureau in applying to census 2000 many of the same
highly successful techniques that we have honed all over the
world for several decades. This is our overseas expertise.
ACA, itself, has a mailing list of close to 9,000 Americans
and American schools, groups, organizations, members of the
press, and consular posts worldwide. Many of these recipients,
in turn, disseminate information in our hard copy publications
to their memberships and readerships.
In addition to its hard cover publications, ACA would
devote space on its Website, www.aca.ch, to promote census 2000
and would send bulletins to the broad cyberspace network, which
receives ACA's biweekly on-line newsletter.
And finally, ACA's entire worldwide system of country
representatives, presently more than 60 contact persons in over
40 countries on 6 continents, would be actively involved and
encourage participation in census 2000 in their regions. Other
American voluntary associations represented here today would
surely be as active as ACA.
In closing, I would like to say the following: I cannot
underscore strongly enough the positive emotional message
America would send its overseas citizens by including them in
census 2000. We know you are there and we care.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter
into the record a collection of short statements on census 2000
that ACA has received in recent weeks from overseas private
citizens around the world.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.046
Ms. van Schooneveld. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the other
distinguished members of the subcommittee for this opportunity
to appear today.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. van Schooneveld follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.050
Mr. Miller. And we will now have Mr. Smallhoover. It is in
nice bipartisan fashion that we are in agreement as far as a
goal and objective. Mr. Smallhoover.
Mr. Smallhoover. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Maloney, I thank you
very much for giving us the opportunity to testify today. My
name is Joseph Smallhoover. I am an American lawyer practicing
my profession in Paris, France. I am also the elected chair of
Democrats Abroad, the official arm of the Democratic party
overseas.
This is one of the very rare times that all of the main
organizations representing Americans abroad are able to address
a congressional committee on any issue of major concern to us,
and this is certainly the first time we have been asked to
testify at all about such an important question as the census.
The Democrats Abroad global convention held in Toronto,
Canada, on April 28, 1996, unanimously adopted a resolution
urging that ``all appropriate government action be undertaken
to include American citizens residing abroad, either
permanently or temporarily, in the census.'' Moreover,
Democrats Abroad recently adopted a unanimous resolution,
calling on Congress ``to provide an adequate budget to include
all Americans in the 2000 census, including Americans abroad
and to direct the Commerce Department to take all steps
feasible to these ends.''
Indeed, we Democrats residing abroad, like the thousands of
members of the organizations represented today in the Census
2000 Coalition, believe that it is important, for a host of
reasons, that we be counted in the census 2000.
Mr. Chairman, one could legitimately ask why Americans
abroad want to be included in the census count. It is, first of
all, a feeling of belonging to the American nation, of being
part of the American people, of wanting not to be ignored by
our own government.
We are patriotic American citizens. We file our income tax
returns and pay taxes in the United States. We vote in Federal
elections. But when it comes to counting the entire American
population, the Census Bureau does not think that we should be
taken into account. I believe, Democrats Abroad believes, that
every American, whether Democrat or Republican or independent
politically, wholeheartedly agrees with the recent statement of
Vice President Gore that, ``It is vitally important that we
count every American for one simple reason: Every single
American counts.''
While the patriotic impact of including Americans abroad in
census 2000 cannot be overestimated, there are also a number of
practical considerations which compel us to ask for our
inclusion in the census count. Americans abroad promote
democratic ideals and policies, individual liberty, free
enterprise, the American way of life, and last, but not least,
American exports. We constitute a valuable national asset, one
that many other nations understand and promote but one which
the greatest democracy on Earth seems to denigrate.
Of course, it is easy to understand how our contribution
and our importance are underestimated since no one knows for
sure exactly how many of us there are or where we reside. How
can the U.S. Government effectively deal with issues, such as
the impact we have on trade, if it does not know how many of us
there are or what we do? How can the consulates and embassies
deal effectively with the services they must provide to us if
they do not know the number of Americans living in the country
or how many the consulate or embassy serves? How can the
Federal or State governments get a firm idea of the voter
participation in elections if they do not know the full extent
of the potential voter pool?
How many American citizens actually live abroad? Since we
don't get counted by the Census Bureau, your guess is as good
as ours. Nevertheless, here are a few figures. In 1989, the
State Department estimated the population of U.S. citizens
abroad, excluding the military, to be 2.2 million but
incredibly put the same figure at an estimated 6.3 million just
3 years later in 1992.
Even more surprising, in 1993 the State Department estimate
of private American citizens residing abroad, that is, not
including U.S. Government and military and civilian employees
and their dependents, was reduced to 2.6 million. In 1997, the
estimate was 3.2. Absent huge and otherwise undetected
population shifts, there is something wrong with these numbers.
Based on our cumulative experience and activity within our
communities, we have reason to believe that the recent figures
are serious underestimates. Estimates of American organizations
abroad vary between 3 and 6 million. The truth, Mr. Chairman,
is that nobody knows. Has the time not come for the greatest
Nation on Earth, with millions of its citizens abroad, to
undertake a reasonably accurate count of this population?
The current exclusion of private American citizens residing
abroad from the national census raises an interesting legal
issue. Since the census is constitutionally mandated for the
purpose of achieving an equitable representation in Congress of
the populations of the several States, the question naturally
arises whether it can ignore the existence of certain citizens
entitled to vote for Congress and represented in the House of
Representatives in the same manner as other citizens.
Congress decided nearly 25 years ago that Americans abroad
are entitled to vote in Federal elections in the States and in
the congressional districts in which they last resided. We are
thus treated for the purpose of congressional elections as if
we are residents of those States and districts.
It appears to us, therefore, we should be included in the
census in order to achieve the equitable apportionment of
representatives among the several States. Congress and the
Census Bureau must have recognized the validity of this
reasoning. As stated by the Census Bureau, ``For the 1990
census, as a result of strong bipartisan support in the U.S.
Congress, selected components of the overseas population were
included in the State population counts for purposes of
calculating congressional apportionment. The selected
components of the overseas population referred to by the Census
Bureau were members of the Armed Forces, Federal civilian
employees and their dependents who, we are informed by the
Census Bureau, will be counted again in census 2000.
There is hardly a decision of the Bureau which rankles
private American citizens abroad more than this one. It seems
to demonstrate to us that for the Census Bureau, private
American citizens are not as valuable as those employed by the
Federal Government. By what right, law, or constitutional
provision are federally employed Americans residing abroad so
privileged to be taken into account and calculated in the
congressional apportionment, while private American citizens
with the same rights and obligations as citizens of the United
States are ignored.
Surely, there is something wrong here. The Census Bureau's
reply has been that while it is easy to count federally
affiliated citizens on the basis of the official administrative
records, enumerating private U.S. citizens abroad amounts to a
technical impossibility. It cites, as proof, the experience of
the 1960 and 1970 censuses in which the Census Bureau attempted
to count private American citizens.
For several reasons, private U.S. citizens were vastly
undercounted in those censuses. Many Americans abroad were not
even aware that the census was under way. Others were unable to
get to a U.S. embassy or consulate to attain necessary forms.
These offices had no way of distributing the census forms,
except where Americans came to them voluntarily to obtain them.
Moreover, involvement at the embassies and consulates was
voluntary, with no funding support from either the State
Department or the Census Bureau and thus, more than likely, the
undercounts differed substantially from one geographic area to
the other.
Inclusion of private Americans abroad in census 2000 would
be an entirely different matter. Americans abroad have now been
and will continue to be sensitized to the importance of this
issue as evidenced by the stance taken by the main
organizations represented in the Census 2000 Coalition, some of
which did not even exist in 1970. In the year 2000 our
organizations do the lion's share of the work by publicizing
the census, distributing specially prepared overseas citizen
census cards and helping to collect them and return them to the
Census Bureau, directly or through U.S. embassies or
consulates.
In other words, the process would be essentially the same
as that which has been used successfully for more than two
decades for the distribution and collection of Federal Postcard
Application forms, which allow Americans abroad to register to
vote by absentee ballot.
Mr. Chairman, the testimony of the other witnesses
representing the Census 2000 Coalition should effectively rebut
the various objections expressed by the Census Bureau. My
testimony shows, I hope, the inclusion of overseas private
citizens in census 2000 is indeed feasible on the basis of
objective and verifiable information.
Admittedly, counting private Americans abroad is more
difficult than counting federally affiliated Americans; but as
the coalition has shown, it can be done. Such a count would not
be 100 percent complete, but the fact that the 1990 census
missed 8.4 million persons and miscounted another 4.4 million
did not invalidate the census or result in its being discarded.
The overseas American community stands ready to ensure the
maximum amount of participation in the census of overseas
Americans. The American organizations abroad are committed to
every possible effort to get all Americans abroad counted in
the census 2000.
If the census group would join in this commitment, it would
be possible to obtain a reasonably comprehensive, objective and
verifi
able account of these citizens. Mr. Chairman, the level of
commitment on the part of the Census Bureau can be expected
only if the committee and the whole House of Representatives
direct the Bureau of the Census in no uncertain terms to
include all Americans residing abroad in census 2000. On behalf
of Democrats Abroad, I strongly urge you to take this step.
Give us the chance, and we will see that the job gets done and
that it gets done correctly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Maloney.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smallhoover follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.054
Mr. Miller. I thank all five of you for your verifying
testimony today. We appreciate that many of you came long
distances to be here today. We appreciate that very much.
Let me say, first of all, that I regret also that the
Bureau has not come up with a plan to count U.S. citizens
living overseas. It is unfortunate at this late date we don't
have a plan. It is unexcuseable to me. This goes back many
years. It is not necessarily Dr. Prewitt, who just joined the
Bureau September or October of last year.
As we become more of a global economy, and all of you are
involved in that in one way or another, it is going to become
an even bigger issue as we go through. We need to address the
issue.
Mr. Smallhoover, you addressed the question. Maybe someone
else can respond to that. I am impressed that you all are
willing to come this far and go through this much effort on
this issue. So many people are involved in the census. We heard
Mr. Ryan concerned about Wisconsin. Mrs. Maloney's State of New
York, may lose two seats in Congress. Mr. Davis is concerned
about the city of Chicago and the amount of Federal dollars
that may flow there. Everybody has a reason to have an
interest. I haven't figured out the reason that motivates you,
except just being good citizens and proud of your citizenship.
Is there something more there?
Mr. Smallhoover. May I answer that, Mr. Miller. It is right
behind you. Right there. That flag.
Mr. Miller. Anyone else?
Mr. Gribble. In the business council, the chamber of
commerce, to sit down and try and make a trade bottom-line
relation between being in the census and not being in the
census, you can't do it, but everybody has said they want to be
counted. They want to be full-up regular Americans. Again, it
is our citizenship. It is our patriotism. That is the bottom
line.
Mr. Johnson. Also, we feel if we vote that we should have
some representation in the House of Representatives, and we are
invisible to that count at the present time.
Mr. Hamod. Mr. Chairman, I also might be able to provide
some historical perspective. We see this as a continuum. For
years Americans overseas have fought to enjoy the same rights
as Americans here at home, and I will give you just a few
instances if the subcommittee will permit.
For example, for many years, for American children born
overseas, in order to get the U.S. citizenship, the appropriate
naturalization, their parents had to quit their jobs and move
back to the United States in order to become Americans. Well,
with the help of Congress, we changed that. Let me give you
another example. For example, for many years the U.S. laws said
that the only people who could work in American embassies
overseas and consulates overseas were foreign service officers
and spouses, that other Americans could not. Ironically,
anybody else in the world could take those jobs but not
Americans and thankfully Congress stepped in and the law has
been changed. I will give you just one more example. I could
give you many of them, but for example, when the DOD schools,
the Department of Defense schools, were shutting down in
Eastern Europe earlier in the 1990's, they had many books and
the laws on the books said you either have to burn these books
or send them back to the United States.
And this was at a time when the State Department schools
and the American and international schools overseas were
desperate for books; and thankfully, once again, Congress
stepped in and said this doesn't make any sense. It is time to
change the law. And we see this as just one more step in an
ongoing process to say this is a no-brainer.
It doesn't make sense what we are doing now. Let's change
the laws, and we welcome the opportunity to work with the
subcommittee and the whole Congress to do that.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Hamod, you are the Census 2000 Coalition.
Explain to me what that organization is.
Mr. Hamod. This is an ad hoc organization that has come
together in recent months. It includes the two main political
groups overseas, Republicans Abroad and Democrats Abroad. It
includes all of the major American chamber of commerce
organizations overseas.
There are four of them. One in Asia Pacific, one in Latin
America, one in Europe, and one in the Persian Gulf. It also
includes the major American citizens groups overseas. Again, it
is an ad hoc effort. Three months ago, we didn't exist. We have
come together, all of us volunteering our time, because this is
an issue that is important to us. And we are very grateful to
the subcommittee for the opportunity to make our case today.
Mr. Miller. I think a couple of concerns I have is the
largest population of people overseas would probably be Canada
and Mexico, I am assuming. Probably overwhelming, I am sure,
the majority of the total. I am guessing. And that is going to
be even more difficult because passports aren't necessarily
required, I guess.
I know you can visit those countries or the Bahamas without
a passport. You need a birth certificate. You get into problems
with large numbers along the Canadian border and Mexican
border. It is not an easy job.
I am going to have some more questions, but I think we will
do a second round. Let me ask Mrs. Maloney to proceed.
Mrs. Maloney. First of all, I would like to thank all of
you for coming to our hearing. You probably came from a farther
point than most people than we have, and I want to thank you
for your tremendously well thought out presentations with ideas
of how to tackle getting a count of Americans abroad.
This is one issue that we agree on. Regrettably, the Census
Committee has been among the most partisan in Congress; but
this is one that Mr. Miller and I have had several
conversations on and agreed that it should be done.
And actually, there has been some criticism that the Census
Bureau didn't come forward with this particular plan on how to
take care of this, but on the other hand, you could say that
this committee actually should have had hearings and taken
steps for Americans abroad earlier than we have. As you know,
we are coming right up to the census, to census day very
quickly and time is planned, as Dr. Prewitt has said on
numerous occasions before this committee.
Every day and every second is planned, and I believe we all
agree, including Dr. Prewitt, that we should support and work
toward counting all Americans abroad. He has stated that he
cannot get it done for the 2000 census. I have prepared
legislation, and I hope all of you will look at it. I would
like to hear your thoughts on it, on calling for a special
survey of American citizens overseas by 2002, not connected
with the decennial census, and that that special survey could
be used to help make decisions about the 2010 census.
In fact, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I would
ask all of you to comment on it and look at it. I would like to
just go down and hear your comments on it. I have a series of
questions. In fact, if I don't get a chance to ask all of them,
I would like to get them to you in writing.
Should overseas Americans be included for all other
purposes as well, not just for apportionment, but say, the
redistricting or Federal funds distribution? What are your
feelings on that? Do you think Americans abroad should be used
in the Federal fund distribution formulas and for redistricting
and apportionment?
Mr. Gribble. I certainly wouldn't want to dictate to all
the various legislatures around the country as to how they want
to handle redistributing, but I certainly feel, as far as
allocation of Federal funds, yes. If there is a bottom line, if
there is a business related thing in this entire issue, again,
my tax dollars have been going to the Federal Government and
not counting in the State of Florida, in the county of Flagler,
in the city of Ormond Beach, for 5 years now since I have been
out of the military.
That is not right. Why shouldn't I have the same rights to
Federal infrastructure, federally supported infrastructure, as
everybody else that is living there now.
Mrs. Maloney. Do you think each overseas American should be
designated to a specific address or just to a State or maybe a
city and State? How do you think they should be counted?
Mr. Hamod. Mrs. Maloney, I would like to, if I may, and Mr.
Chairman, your eyes did not deceive you, there are six of us
here. With the subcommittee's permission, we'd like to
introduce another of our colleagues, Gene Marans, with the law
firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, who is doing pro bono work. If the
committee permits, we'd like to open up to questions for him as
well, with your permission.
Mr. Miller. Identify yourself, if you would.
Mr. Marans. I'm Eugene Marans. I am in the Washington
office law firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, and we
were involved 25 years ago also in helping obtain the
legislation that assures overseas Americans the right to
register and vote absentee in Federal elections in their last
State of residence in the United States.
In response to Congresswoman Maloney's question, if one
looks at the form that is displayed now, which says unofficial
draft clearly on top, I apologize again for that, the third
column says State or other U.S. jurisdiction of last residence
in the United States. So, the proposal is just to show the last
State and not the hometown or home county address.
Mrs. Maloney. So, you all agree it should just be the
State, not the specific address?
Mr. Hamod. The position of the coalition, at this point, is
we believe that it would be very helpful to go down to the
district level. We also recognize that it would be a challenge
operationally. Having said that, we welcome the opportunity to
work with the Census Bureau and the subcommittee to explore
these opportunities.
Mrs. Maloney. My time is up, but I have one last question.
I have actually a series of questions, but I want to ask you,
do you think there should be a time limit? What if a person
hasn't lived in the United States for 20 years or 5 years or 15
years? Should it make any difference if people declare that
they never intend to return to the United States?
These are the people representing the Americans abroad. I
would like to hear from them before I hear from an American
living here. I mean, this is the purpose of the panel.
Mr. Johnson. Could we say we never intend to pay taxes or
to vote?
Mrs. Maloney. Most Americans abroad are very patriotic
citizens and great Ambassadors for our country, but some
Americans have become exiles. They leave because they don't
like the country and they are not supportive of the country.
I just want to say one thing. I think one thing that you
raised, Mr. Hamod, in your remarks, really all of you did, is
how we are really moving to a world committee and there will
be, as trade increases, more and more Americans abroad. And
this is a very, very important point, and I truly do believe
that you are the best Ambassadors we can have as you are in the
different countries on our values and our system of government.
But this whole thing about time, exiles, and how you treat
these people? Can you answer.
Ms. van Schooneveld. I would like to speak on that, if I
may. I hate the term exiles, if I may. I know a number of
Americans who have lived 30, 40, 50 years abroad and still are
extremely proud of the flag and of their nationality. I don't
think you can draw any arbitrary line where patriotism starts
or stops.
I think you'll find many Americans within the United States
who do not participate in the governmental process and are not
interested in voting and certainly are not interested in paying
their taxes. We are not claiming to be better than any
Americans in the United States. What we are fighting against is
the reputation of being worse than Americans in the United
States. We just want to be on an equal basis with Americans in
the United States, including being counted in the census.
Mrs. Maloney. Other comments? Do you think they should have
to pay taxes?
Mr. Hamod. Absolutely. It is the law.
Mrs. Maloney. What about an exile, one who denounces their
government, would they be counted?
Mr. Gribble. If they've given up their citizenship, they
are not American citizens. If they carry a passport, they are
American citizens. In Kuwait, there are different classes of
citizens. There are people who are allowed to vote and people
who are not allowed to vote. There are people who get certain
benefits and people who don't get those benefits.
We don't have that in America. I don't think we should have
anything that allows us to have even a semblance of that
happening in America. If you carry a U.S. passport, if you are
a U.S. citizen, you fulfill your obligations to the country and
pay your taxes, you make a choice whether to vote or not to
vote; but we don't assign levels of citizenship, and yet the
Census Bureau does in a de facto manner.
Mrs. Maloney. May I ask another one?
Mr. Miller. Let me go, and then we can go back. Who of the
panel has worked with the Census Bureau over the past years?
Any of you had meetings with the Census Bureau? I know they've
had meetings with representatives of citizens living abroad.
Mr. Johnson. I have had correspondence with them, several
pieces of paper.
Mr. Miller. I know there have been groups that met with me
in the past year or so, but I don't know if anyone here
specifically had.
One of the arguments the Bureau used a little while ago was
that a voluntary one is not statistically valid. That is the
argument: how do you get a statistically valid count and is it
proportionately distributed properly within the States? That is
a problem.
The cost question came up and just to let you know, we are
going to spend over $6 billion on the census this time around.
This Congress and the previous Congresses have given all the
money that the Census Bureau needs. We're spending $1 billion
this current year just getting ready for the census.
While it would cost money, I think we all said as a
constitutional requirement that we count everybody. And we
should put all the efforts and resources into the actual count
as necessary. And so I don't think cost is an excuse, and I
don't think the Bureau would. It is a legitimate question to
raise, but it is not an excuse.
I saw a number. It was 750,000 overseas people voted; is
that right? Are you familiar with that number? Is it 750,000
non-military, non-government? How does that system work, this
voting by card? You have to register to vote in a specific
county or parish; is that right?
Mr. Gribble. It depends on the individual State laws for
voting in the local elections. They all have different
requirements. They have different requirements obviously on
establishing legal residence there for the right to vote. You
fill out the form. You attest to it based on what the
requirements are in that State. Sometimes it has to be attested
to in front of a notary. Consular officers in some States is
not required.
The Federal Postcard Application basically allows you to do
the registration and also request a ballot. You get a normal
absentee ballot from the State. In fact, in the State of
Florida, when I go in for my absentee ballot, they hand it to
you. If you are there to physically pick it up ahead of the
election, they just make you vote ahead of time, and they hold
it till the day of election. It varies from State to State.
Mr. Miller. Can you register just for a State election, or
do you need to register like in Ormond Beach to vote for city
council, on the school board and everything?
Mr. Gribble. It depends on the State.
Mr. Miller. Some States allow--a generic State--it would be
difficult living overseas to decide school board races and
such.
Mr. Smallhoover. It depends a great deal on the State. Some
States will allow you to register only for Federal elections.
Other States will allow you to register for both.
Some States can tax us when we vote in Federal elections
overseas citizens but they can tax overseas citizens if they
vote in State elections and some States don't tax. It is sort
of you've got 50 choices, and you pick and choose.
Mr. Marans. With your permission, Mrs. Maloney, to clarify
this point, the Federal law that was passed in 1975 requires
every State to allow every overseas citizen to vote in Federal
elections in their State of last residence in the United
States.
It does not require the States to allow overseas residents
to vote in State and local elections, unless that's permitted
under State law. There is something else that the legislation
provides. It says that overseas American citizens should not
have their voting in Federal elections be taken into account
for State and local tax purposes.
Overseas citizens are subject to Federal taxation, but the
fact that they would vote for Mrs. Maloney or for Mr. Miller in
the congressional election in a particular State doesn't mean
they would necessarily have to pay county taxes in Ormond. But
if they wanted to vote for State elections in Florida, Florida
may decide they should be subject to State taxes.
There is both a Federal ballot and a non-Federal ballot, a
complete ballot, but anyone can get a Federal ballot who's an
overseas citizen and can show that he or she has a last State
of residence in the particular State.
Mr. Miller. Does anyone know the number of registered
voters overseas?
Mr. Smallhoover. Nobody knows that number.
Mr. Marans. Actually, the concept of registered voter is a
little different for overseas citizens because many States
regard this process as a re-registration every time the card
comes in, rather than keeping overseas voters on particular
rolls on a continuing basis. So the card is a combination
registration and request for ballot.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Can you tell us if you reviewed how the
Bureau attempted to enumerate U.S. citizens living abroad
during the 1970 census? Did any of you work with the Bureau on
this effort? And do you consider that effort a success? I
understand that in the 1970 census, the Bureau published a
figure of 1,700,000 for the population abroad, and do you
believe that that is an accurate number? If not, how inaccurate
do you think it is? Comments from the abroad citizens.
Ms. van Schooneveld. I think Mr. Smallhoover addressed that
quite a bit in his presentation. Why don't you go ahead?
Mr. Smallhoover. Thank you. I was not overseas in 1970, so
I can't say whether they did a good job. The one thing that is
clear from the State Department's numbers is that every time
anyone tries to put together a number--because things haven't
been done on a proper basis--that number is simply wrong.
Now, there is a report that was done in 1992, by Ms. Mills
from the Census Bureau about those census efforts, which talked
about how they were conducted and the various flaws that she
saw in them.
One of the major things was, in fact, was that there wasn't
funding. The American overseas community was a different entity
at the time. In 1960 and 1970, Americans abroad did not have
the right to vote in Federal elections guaranteed by Federal
law. It wasn't until 1975 that that right was granted to us.
Through the last 25 years we have, as groups at various
organizations, been very good at increasing the number of
Americans abroad who participate in the American political
system.
So, maybe in 1970 the number they put together was probably
1.7. My guess is that even then that was an incorrect number.
Today, we have a vague idea how much it is.
We don't really know until we get counted, but what we do
know, is that our experience with each election in getting
people to come out to vote and getting the community overseas
to understand the simple fact that because they are overseas
does not mean that they are not Americans. The fact that they
are overseas doesn't mean they can't participate in the
process. It is a very real thing; and it is quite likely that
with an effort by organizations, we can be very helpful in
expediting the process.
Mrs. Maloney. One of your recommendations that came from
your organization is to create a self-reporting form which
American citizens could pick up from embassies or the Internet
or wherever.
If there is self-reporting, I have a concern that many
States may start lobbying efforts in an attempt to get the
overseas population to self-identify with their particular
States. The determination of the last seat in the House often
turns on very, very small numbers. A lot of our elections are
very close too, by the way, so this could make a difference
conceivably, and can you comment on this concern?
Mr. Hamod. Did it happen in 1970? To the best of my
knowledge, no. And it is possible that States would undertake a
lobbying effort to get their people overseas to do that, but we
believe it is highly unlikely.
Mrs. Maloney. Let the members talk before the lawyer talks.
They have come a long ways to be here.
Mr. Smallhoover. Let me in a slightly more discordant voice
than the coalition, repeat what David just said. We saw this
morning in one of the bills that Wisconsin is very concerned
about counting possibly 10,000 people who may have moved one
way or the other.
Now, I don't know that they are going to bother to start
sending out fliers to all of the University of Wisconsin alumni
to find out where they are, but the answer is, we don't have
any way to tell you whether a State will start lobbying to find
us. In fact, in a way, it would be great if they tried to find
us, but we have no way of knowing. Maybe Mrs. Maloney in New
York should consider it. You are likely to lose a couple of
seats, I think.
Mrs. Maloney. In addition, if the enumeration is completely
voluntary and there is no documentation needed to prove State
ties, could imaginary people be created? We hear a lot of
concerns about manipulation of the data. Should we worry about
manipulation of the overseas American count?
Ms. van Schooneveld. I am eternally distressed to hear of
the constant distress. I understand that verification is a very
important concept, particularly when amassing statistical data.
However, I must also confess to you and, probably the
others feel the same, that as Americans abroad, we are
constantly put a bit on the defensive because there is always
this feeling: because you are on foreign soil, how can we be
sure you are honest?
The form, as we have designed it, does give space for the
passport numbers. Since those could be verified via the State
Department, I don't see there should be additional problems.
Mrs. Maloney. Anyone else like to comment?
Mr. Hamod. Are you opening it up to all of us?
Mrs. Maloney. Of course.
Mr. Johnson. As far as the voters are concerned and the
idea of trying to get this whole thing going again, it is
conceivable to me. I started corresponding with these people,
the Census Bureau, in April 1997. And I have had three letters
since then. They all say the same thing. Why that should be, I
really cannot figure that out.
No one has really made an honest attempt to suggest what
you are suggesting, Mrs. Maloney, about the idea of a test
pattern of some kind. If that had been done even 3 years ago,
we'd be well on the way.
Mr. Hamod. I guess I would raise the issue of the imaginary
passport number. We are doing the best we can to come up with
ways to meet the Census Bureau's requirements. I hope you'll
give us the benefit of the doubt for that.
If someone in Canada or Mexico does not have a U.S.
passport, and there are those who don't, we are proposing some
other ways of doing it: voter registration card, birth
certificate, certificate of naturalization, consular report on
births abroad.
We are trying to be as flexible and helpful as we can be to
find a way to make this work out. The problem we are facing is
a healthy dose of skepticism, which I hope we are dispelling
today; and, in the case of the Census Bureau, some real
obstinacy. We are hopeful that just by showing we can make this
happen if Congress works with us, and if the Census Bureau
works with us, we can do it.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, I have legislation that would do it.
Mr. Hamod. We haven't had an opportunity to review it. We
are very grateful to you for submitting it, and I have to say
from personal experience, your staff and the chairman's staff
are extraordinary.
We have had a fantastic exchange of ideas. We are extremely
grateful for that. We wish that your legislation, that Mr.
Gilman's legislation, had come out 5 years ago. We wouldn't be
in the position today that we are in if it had. We have not had
an opportunity to review the legislation. We will give it our
serious consideration and we appreciate the two Members and
their respective staffs' efforts to help us work this out.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. We thank all of you for being here today. It
has been a very informative hearing. I want to thank you for
your commitment and motivation for being here, but also the
preparation that was put into the ideas of how to get the job
done.
I don't think you should feel there is a question of
distrust at all but whether we count homeless people and
illegal immigrants. They all have to be counted as part of our
system. But there has to be a verification to make sure it is
accurate. There is a real concern that we have the most honest
and accurate census as possible.
So, let me thank you on behalf of the committee and Mrs.
Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you all. I have a series of questions.
I didn't get a chance to ask all of them on how to make this
happen. And I am going to ask if I could get them all to you
and your attorney and see if we can get some answers, if that
is all right.
Mr. Miller. I ask unanimous consent that all Members and
witnesses' written opening statements be included in the
record. Without objection, so ordered. In case Members have
additional questions for our witnesses, I ask for the record to
remain open for 2 weeks for Members to submit questions for the
record and witnesses to submit written answers as soon as
possible. Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the collection of short
statements on census 2000 mentioned by Ms. van Schooneveld be
included in the record and without objection, that will also be
included. Thank you once again and the hearing will stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The joint appendix to supplement testimony of Mr. Gribble,
Mr. Hamod, Mr. Johnson, and Ms. van Schooneveld, and additional
information submitted for the hearing record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60341.120