<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:61630.wais]
OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: DISCUSSION OF THE EFFECTS OF INCLUDING
PUERTO RICO IN THE 2000 U.S. POPULATION TOTALS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 22, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-66
__________
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
61-630 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
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho (Independent)
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
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
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
------ ------
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Thomas B. Hofeller, Staff Director
Jennifer M. Safavian, Chief Counsel
Amy Althoff, Clerk
David McMillen, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 22, 1999............................... 1
Statement of:
Angueira, Teresa, Assistant Division Chief, Decennial
Management Division........................................ 63
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 26
Prewitt, Kenneth, Director, Bureau of the Census............. 40
Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos A., the Resident Commissioner in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.............. 19
Serrano, Hon. Jose E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.......................................... 17
Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, prepared statement of................... 16
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa, prepared statement of...................... 28
Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 9
Miller, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, prepared statement of.......................... 4
Prewitt, Kenneth, Director, Bureau of the Census, prepared
statement of............................................... 46
Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos A., the Resident Commissioner in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, prepared
statement of............................................... 22
OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: DISCUSSION OF THE EFFECTS OF INCLUDING
PUERTO RICO IN THE 2000 U.S. POPULATION TOTALS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Census,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Miller
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Davis of Illinois,
Maloney, and Ford.
Staff present: Thomas W. Brierton, deputy staff director;
Jennifer M. Safavian, chief counsel; Timothy J. Maney, chief
investigator; David Flaherty, senior data analyst; Chip Walker,
communications director; Jo Powers, assistant press secretary;
Amy Althoff, clerk; Michelle Ash, minority counsel; David
McMillen, minority professional staff member; and Ellen Rayner,
minority chief clerk.
Mr. Miller. Good morning. With a quorum present, we will
proceed with opening statements by myself and Mrs. Maloney, and
then we'll proceed to the first panel with three distinguished
Members of Congress.
Today, the subcommittee will be exploring a very
interesting and important topic: the collection, tabulation,
and reporting of the 2000 census data from Puerto Rico.
The United States has long enjoyed a prosperous
relationship with the island of Puerto Rico, first as a
hemispheric neighbor and, in the 20th century, as a U.S.
Commonwealth.
All Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, as provided by the
Jones Act, which was enacted into law in 1917. These citizens
have made a tremendous contribution to the United States.
Countless Puerto Ricans have served in our Nation's armed
forces, fighting in all of America's conflicts in the 20th
century in order to protect the freedoms we all hold dear.
Puerto Rico's economy, its capable and industrious work force,
and strategic location make it a vital center of American
commerce in the Caribbean and Latin America. And many Puerto
Ricans have chosen to immigrate to the mainland, helping to
expand our economy and enrich our cultural heritage.
American citizens, whether in Puerto Rico or in the 50
States and the District of Columbia, have much in common. They
share the same values of hard work and honesty and appreciate
the importance of family, faith, and freedom. As a result of
the 2000 census, that connection will grow even stronger. They
will be enumerated using the same forms in the decennial
census.
In the previous censuses, Puerto Rico, as well as other
U.S. Commonwealths and related territories, were counted using
a different census form than the 50 States and the District of
Columbia. Different enumeration techniques were also used. In
2000, it is our understanding that the forms and techniques to
be used in Puerto Rico will be far more similar, and in many
cases identical to, those techniques used in the 50 States and
the District of Columbia. I am sure Dr. Prewitt will be able to
elaborate on this subject in detail during his testimony.
Thus, in the past, the Census Bureau used different forms
and different enumeration techniques in Puerto Rico than they
did in the 50 States while still seeking similar data. When it
reported on the data it collected in Puerto Rico in the 1990
census, the Bureau placed it in a category separate from the
data collected from the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
Consequently, any national data products and statistics from
the 1990 census, such as the percentage of homes with two or
more cars or the percentage of children living below the
poverty line, did not include data from Puerto Rico in the
overall population totals on which they were based. Under
current policy, the total population of the United States does
not include Puerto Rico, or any other U.S. territory for that
matter. The population figures used by the Census Bureau for
the total U.S. population include only the 50 States and the
District of Columbia.
As I mentioned earlier, the Bureau has changed the way it
will enumerate Puerto Rico in the 2000 census. The same short
and a similar long form as used in the 50 States and the
District of Columbia will now be used in Puerto Rico. As a
result, the data gathered in Puerto Rico will for the first
time be compatible with and potentially could be included in
the overall U.S. totals for official Census Bureau data
products, as I am certain Dr. Prewitt will explain for us.
This new compatibility of data leads to the important
policy question we will examine today. Should the Census Bureau
include the data from Puerto Rico in the overall U.S. totals or
should it continue to keep Puerto Rico separate from the total
including the 50 States and the District of Columbia?
While this may seem to be just a simple change in
calculating the total population of the United States, the
policy considerations of this decision are not insignificant.
There are many questions that should be examined before a
determination is made on how to proceed with reporting the
data. To highlight just a few: One, how will the inclusion of
Puerto Rico affect the numerous data products produced by the
Census Bureau and other agencies?
What effects will the inclusion of data on Puerto Rico have
on Federal policy decisions that primarily impact the 50 States
and the District of Columbia?
Would the inclusion of Puerto Rico negatively affect data
comparisons from the 2000 census to earlier censuses,
essentially rendering them apples and oranges?
If we decide to include Puerto Rico, should we then include
the population totals of other American Commonwealths, related
territories and possessions as well?
Is this potential change significant enough to be better
decided by a separate vote on authorizing legislation on the
floor of the House and Senate, rather than nonbinding report
language in an authorization bill?
Is there sufficient time and technical resources for the
Bureau to make these changes in reporting data on Puerto Rico
for the 2000 census?
Our colleague from New York, the Honorable Jose Serrano,
believes strongly that Puerto Rico should be included in the
U.S. totals. He has proposed, through the use of report
language in the Commerce Justice State appropriations bill, to
instruct the Census Bureau to begin including Puerto Rico in
the final data products for the United States, including
population totals. I'm pleased he's here to explain his
proposal.
We are also fortunate to have with us the Honorable Carlos
Romero-Barcelo, Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico and the
official voice of the people of Puerto Rico in the U.S.
Congress. Prior to being elected Resident Commissioner in 1992,
Mr. Romero-Barcelo was elected Governor of Puerto Rico in 1976.
I look forward to hearing his unique insights and benefiting
from his experience on this issue.
We are also joined by the Delegate from American Samoa who
will provide a perspective on the people of American Samoa,
whose status in the official Census Bureau population reports
is currently similar to that of Puerto Rico.
And, finally, Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt is
here to give us the reaction of the Census Bureau to Mr.
Serrano's proposal. He will be commenting on the Bureau's
ability to collect and disseminate the data from Puerto Rico
and to advise us on any technical considerations regarding the
proposal.
On behalf of the ranking member, Mrs. Maloney, and the
other members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank all of
our witnesses for coming here today; and we look forward to an
enlightening and informative hearing.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.003
Mr. Miller. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
calling this hearing.
Unlike a number of the hearings we have had over the years
now that the Census Subcommittee has been in existence, I can
say sincerely that I'm very pleased that the chair has called
for today's hearing. How we plan to tabulate the census
information for the 2000 census is clearly an important issue
that benefits from a full and open discussion.
I would also like to share that in preparing for this
hearing I learned a great deal. I've had a new education in the
history of the census, how it's been conducted over the decades
and territories from the 19th century to the present, and I
look forward to learning even more from our witnesses today.
I would like to commend the Delegate from Puerto Rico for
the work he and the Governor have done on this issue. I
understand that their hard work and partnership with the census
has gotten us to the point where I believe we'll be having a
very successful 2000 census on Puerto Rico.
I had an opportunity to meet Governor--Delegate Romero-
Barcelo when he was Governor, literally, of Puerto Rico. I went
and visited him there, and it's been an honor to work with him
here in Congress.
I look forward also to my colleague, Carlos Eni
Faleomavaega from Samoa, who will be testifying. And we'll be
hearing from other Delegates, too, maybe not in the hearing but
in their prepared testimonies that they will submit.
I am especially pleased to welcome my fellow New Yorker,
Mr. Serrano, for having raised this issue in the first place.
Regrettably, I think we have been too distracted with other
issues and have been unable to focus on problems and policy
issues like those that Mr. Serrano has raised here today. I'm
glad that we have the opportunity to turn to them now. I'd like
to take this opportunity, really, to thank Representative
Serrano for his leadership and commitment, along with Mr.
Miller's, in securing the full funding for the census.
And I just want to note that in today's CQ Daily Monitor,
Mr. Young states that we'll be going to a CR and that there
won't be any extra emergency spending or policy provisions
added on. So, we will need to make adjustments for the census
to make sure the money is there for the ad campaign and all the
other important things that need to go forward. So, your work
continues, thanks to the work of the Census Bureau and
partnership with the people of Puerto Rico.
There is now the option of full inclusion of the people of
Puerto Rico in the census data provided to the Nation by the
Census Bureau. If, as Mr. Serrano suggests, the Census Bureau
is to tabulate the people of Puerto Rico fully into the
Nation's totals, that would mean that when the Census Bureau
releases data on, say, the Nation's Hispanic population, the
statistics would include the residents of Puerto Rico.
Similarly, were we to talk about how many people of Puerto
Rican descent there are in the United States fully integrated,
the census data today would finally give us a number that
actually includes the people on the island of Puerto Rico. By
raising this issue early enough for its consideration, we in
the Congress, the Census, and the people of Puerto Rico can
make an intelligent policy decision on this matter.
I look very much forward to the testimony by the Census
Bureau. If there are sound scientific reasons for not including
Puerto Rico, as requested by Representative Serrano, I look
forward to hearing them. If not, I hope the Director will tell
us what needs to be done so that all the people of Puerto Rico
will not only be counted in the 2000 census, but fully
tabulated, which I have learned is as important as being
counted. Based on what I've learned so far, I think examining
the issue of Puerto Rico counting strategy is the least we
should do.
Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing
and I look forward to the comments from my colleagues and other
Representatives.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.009
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.
I would make one comment about the issue of the CR that
very possibly will include Commerce Justice. We're very aware
of it. I know Mr. Serrano, the ranking member, will be very
supportive of the necessity for the census to have a higher
amount of money as of October 1 because of the advertising in
particular but also because of the dramatic buildup in the
census that will be provided for us. So we have been in
communication with the Census Subcommittee and with the
Commerce Justice Subcommittee and Appropriation Committee to
make sure that we have that taken care of. So, we need to be on
top of that issue.
Mr. Davis, did you have an opening statement?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I do have a brief
statement I would like to make.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for
convening this hearing.
Regarding the facts of including Puerto Rico in the 2000
U.S. population totals, as census day rapidly approaches, it is
important that we continue to do everything that we possibly
can to get the most accurate census. We cannot afford to have
the significant undercount that we had in 1990. Of course, in
my district alone, the undercount for African Americans was
triple that of the undercount for Cook County. The undercount
may have led to an underrepresentation in government and fewer
resources like the schools' Head Start programs and senior
citizens facilities. Thus, the question that confronts us today
regarding whether Puerto Rico's census numbers should be
included in the U.S. population totals for 2000 is a relevant
one.
The proponents for this argument, of course, that Puerto
Rico is a territory, should be treated as the District of
Columbia and have its numbers put in with the U.S. totals. This
is an interesting, as well as I think relevant, concept.
Of course, the opponents argue that allowing Puerto Rico's
numbers to be included in the U.S. totals would disrupt the
apportionment and the drawing of congressional districts. In
addition, they argue the numbers would skew formula
distributions of Federal moneys to States.
Obviously, all of us want to ensure that the States receive
fair resource allocation and representation based upon the
populations, and that is why I think it's so important that we
have this hearing today. I certainly look forward to hearing
the views of Dr. Prewitt as it relates to the question. I also
look forward to hearing any other information that he would
have to share with us.
I want to thank the witnesses, especially my distinguished
colleagues, for not only their interest in the issue but also
for bringing the issue to the forefront so that we can analyze
it, look at it, better understand it and hopefully end up with
a conclusion that provides the fairest, most accurate, most
representative census that this country has ever seen. So I
thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and certainly look forward
to the witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.010
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
If the first three witnesses, all Members of Congress,
would please join us up here: Mr. Serrano, Mr. Romero-Barcelo,
and Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Serrano, of course, is the ranking member of Commerce
Justice, which has a very direct impact on the census since it
funds the census. While I do not have a large Puerto Rican
population, I do say I have some very important members of the
Puerto Rican community because I have Mr. Romero-Barcelo's in-
laws in my district and so he does visit my district in
Sarasota to visit his in-laws. We all joined Congress together,
both Mr. Faleomavaega and Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
Mr. Serrano.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSE E. SERRANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Serrano. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me say that I remain totally committed, as the
ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, State and the Judiciary, to making sure the census
gets complete funding. That is an issue you know we fought on
that subcommittee, and we will continue to fight. As we go
forward, we will do everything that we have to do to make sure
that the census gets the proper funding on time so it can do
the work that it has to do.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you in a kind of
amazed way for calling this hearing and putting it together.
I'm amazed because I'm finding out as I get older in politics
that sometimes what appears to be the simplest of issues
becomes the most discussed of issues, and sometimes the more
complicated issues get very little discussion.
When I first proposed this in 1990 and then again in 1993
and most recently with the language we are examining here for
me, it was such a simple issue that I thought I would either
get a quick yes or a total ignoring--which happened for years
until you came along--ignoring of the issue but never the
attention that it's getting now. So I thank you, in some sort
of amazement, that this very simple issue has become such a
topic of discussion.
I see it as simple, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, because to me the relationship between Puerto
Rico and the United States has always been based on citizenship
and not necessarily on the status question. And so, until we
resolve the status question of Puerto Rico--and we will some
day, I am hopeful--I think we have to take seriously the
citizenship question.
And the question arises, how is it possible that 4 million
Puerto Ricans on the island, most of which are U.S. citizens--
Puerto Rico is no different than any other part of the United
States. Under the American flag there are X number of people
who are living there who are not citizens yet--close to 4
million people never get included in the census figures as part
of the national count.
Now, one could argue that this is a constitutional issue.
Well, I submit to you that the Constitution in many ways is a
work in progress that needs our interpretation of what the
framers and the founding parents wanted it to be. In their
time, there was no envisioning of American citizens living
outside our territory except if they were on travel or in the
diplomatic corps or on business. But certainly there was no
talk in those days about the possibility ever of granting
citizenship outside the United States, if you will, and how to
deal with that.
So, now we find ourselves in 1999, and since 1917 there are
American citizens who don't get included in our census count.
They are an addendum to our census numbers. And I don't think
any American should ever be an addendum to any other American.
The irony of the situation, and the thing that has made me
much more aware of the need to change this is the fact that an
undocumented alien who lives in my district gets counted in the
national figures but an American citizen who lives in Puerto
Rico does not get included in the national figures. Now, that
does not make sense at all.
And then the question to me is, when the census tells me
that there are X amount of people living in my Nation, what are
they talking about? Well, up to now, they've been saying X
amount of people living in the 50 States. I want to change that
to X amount of people living under the American flag because--
understand that these are folks who are subject to every
Federal law that's in place, every allocation and every rule or
regulation that is in place and yet, when that family is
counted, these folks become an addendum.
Now, let me be clear on one thing, Mr. Chairman. I don't
know what my brother Carlos' position is on this, but, for me,
the language I presented to the Appropriations Committee and
the issue I have brought up since 1990 never spoke to anything
having to do with the status issue. It never spoke, nor does it
speak now, to distribution of funds. It cannot speak to
apportioning of districts, because Puerto Rico does not have
Members of Congress as such. So, it cannot speak to that at
all. It doesn't speak to any allocation of funds. It speaks
only to the issue of how do you not include in your family
count 4 million members of the family?
I also did not include in my language other territories,
although I would like to have them included, because I know
that to make any one of these changes we really have to hear
from the representatives from those areas. This is something
that the government of Puerto Rico and its representatives are
in favor of in the Puerto Rican community and that people
throughout the 50 States are in favor of.
Now, we include at present the District of Columbia's
population in our total count. It does not get included as an
addendum and yet it is separated for purposes of
reapportionment because they do not elect Members of Congress.
So, we've done this already.
And so, at the expense of setting a record for the shortest
presentation ever on a very serious issue, I would just like to
be able from now on to say that the census reflects the count
of all residents, be they citizens or not, who live under the
American flag. The census should reflect the relationship under
that flag, which says that these are American citizens and/or
residents who are totally within our laws, totally within our
behavior, totally within our rules and regulations.
How interesting that we know and include in our total
figures many people from Puerto Rico at one time or another.
How many people are serving in our armed forces, or at one time
or another are seeing action in battle, but we don't know or
include as part of the family the total population of the
island. In the future, as Mrs. Maloney said, I would like when
we say there are X number of Hispanics in our country to
include those who live in Puerto Rico. While I as a Puerto
Rican New Yorker now say there are 4 million Puerto Ricans in
Puerto Rico and close to 3 million in the 50 States, I would no
longer have to make that statement. I could simply say there
are close to 7 million Puerto Ricans under the American flag.
And that is the way we behave from now on.
Now, as far as the data. As you know, this year the Census
Bureau will be in Puerto Rico as it never has been before. The
Puerto Rican Government and its representatives are doing a
marvelous job getting the people involved in the census, as
they have in the past. So, at the expense of sounding like I
know as much as the Census Bureau, there is nothing really that
has to be done differently than is being done now. All that is
needed is the will to say--when we submit the figures--there
will not be a line that includes other people under it, but all
Americans and all people who reside next to Americans in the
territories and States will be included.
For me, that is an important issue because, as we look to
the future relationship of these two places, one the place
where I was born and one the place where I grew up and that I
represent in Congress, we have to take care of some unfinished
business before we move forward. And, if in 1917 everybody in
Puerto Rico was made a citizen, then we should be counted as
part of the American family, and I would hope that the
subcommittee sees it that way.
Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, THE RESIDENT
COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mrs.
Maloney, Mr. Davis, it's a pleasure to be here today.
For the record, I want to state that my name is Carlos
Romero-Barcelo. I am the sole elected Representative in
Congress of the United States of the 3,800,000 disenfranchised
American citizens in Puerto Rico. This is part of what the
problem is--and I appreciate this opportunity.
This is kind of like the chicken and the egg, which came
first, because the fact that we're not included in the data
then gives rise to many other discriminations. And when we say,
well, why are we treated differently in Medicare even though we
pay exactly the same amount that everybody else does, they say,
well, we don't have the data. So, this is one of the reasons
why it's so important for us to be fully included in the
census, to be counted as part of the family, as Mr. Serrano
says.
And, until recently, Puerto Rico and the other territories
were excluded from the U.S. census totals and reports as part
of the U.S. population, and this resulted in the critical
undercount of Hispanics and other minorities in the Nation,
with corresponding impact on the allocation of Federal
resources, including even the Post Office, even in the Coast
Guard until very recently when several Members of the Congress
had gotten involved because of the drug trade that was shifted
from Florida to the Caribbean and particularly through Puerto
Rico.
The U.S. summary reports of the census of population and
housing, for instance, omit Puerto Rico and the territories.
Although the same information that is collected for the 50
States is collected for Puerto Rico, it is published in a
separate series of reports and is excluded from the U.S. total
counts. This segregation of information has caused many of the
Federal Government agencies and congressional committees that
exclusively rely on the U.S. summary reports for Federal funds
distribution to routinely omit Puerto Rico and the territories.
The omission in return results in the arbitrary allocation of
resources to Puerto Rico and is particularly felt in the most
significant safety net programs, including health.
I asked many times who is responsible for the national
policy that determines that the health and the lives of the
U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico are worth one-tenth of
the health and the lives of the other U.S. citizens. The
President, when I made that statement in a meeting that we had
of about 200 people, he said, Carlos, what do you mean we value
it at one-tenth? Because that's all we get. One-tenth in
Medicaid. That means our health and the lives of the U.S.
citizens of Puerto Rico, that's what they're worth. When you
try to do anything in HHS, they say, well, we don't have the
figures for Puerto Rico.
This is why it has become so important. If there's going to
be any shift in policy then at least the facts were there, the
numbers were there, the data was there. And in Medicare, for
instance, we pay into it, and even though we pay into it, the
benefits are not exactly the same in Medicare; and then, at the
same time, the payments to the providers are completely
different; and the excuses that we're being given, also the
facts are not there.
So since my election in Congress, it has been my objective
to ensure the American citizens in Puerto Rico receive equal
access to and treatment in all the Federal programs and
services, and this is one of the main barriers I ran across.
This is not a new problem. I want to point out that the
national census had been administering Puerto Rico since the
early 20th century, albeit with a slightly different
questionnaire. When I became aware that one of the problems was
the questionnaire, I met with the people in Puerto Rico, I met
with the Secretary of Commerce, then Ronald Brown, and I met
with people in the Bureau of the Census, and I talked to them.
We analyzed this problem.
The census people from Puerto Rico came over here, the
planning board people of Puerto Rico came over here to meet
with census officials, and now we're finally ready to include
Puerto Rico in all of the count, but then we will be separate
and we will not be included in the totals, as Mr. Serrano has
indicated. But I am pleased that after my continuous prodding
in the meetings with the Federal officials and the OMB in the
White House and this past January 6, 1999, at a meeting with
Ken Prewitt, the administrator for the census, the inclusion of
Puerto Rico in the national summary data products for the
census 2000 was achieved.
We're very happy about this and proud of this achievement
for Puerto Rico. It will mark a significant turning point in
the data collection and resource allocation efforts starting
with the critical census of 2000. This is a step in the right
direction to ensure that the census is fully representative of
the entire population, particularly the American citizens who
reside in Puerto Rico and the other territories.
There is one additional issue that we are now bringing to
your attention. I would like to request your support also in
the future of the data collection for the Nation in the
American Community Survey, or the ACS as it is commonly known,
and I urge you to ensure that Puerto Rico is included in this
important survey as it is implemented in the next decade.
Finally, I would like to say for us also it is important to
be considered as part of the family. I think if you're excluded
from the total count of the population of the United States and
the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico are not there, it's like we
are an appendage. We're something separate, something
different. I think that creates many, many problems from there.
And, as Mr. Serrano very ably pointed out, there's no
problem as far as the distribution count and the geographical
distribution and how many Representatives each State is going
to have and where they're going to be distributed, because that
has always been done with the District of Columbia. It has
always been separated. All they have to do is subtract the
number from the total and you deal with the rest of the number
for that purpose. But for other purposes, it is important for
us be considered as part of the Nation and not separate, at
least in the data. The policies and the issues, we can deal
with that separately some other time.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carlos Romero-Barcelo
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.014
Mr. Miller. Mr. Faleomavaega.
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We certainly
appreciate your kind invitation to allow us to come and testify
this morning, certainly with my distinguished colleagues,
Congressman Serrano from New York and my good friend Resident
Commissioner Romero-Barcelo from Puerto Rico.
At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure
there's no misunderstanding of the reason I am here. I do fully
support Congressman Serrano's proposal about the inclusion of
Puerto Rico in the counting process.
This is my sixth term, Mr. Chairman, here in Congress, and
I find it very interesting reading through many bills and even
reading through some of the laws that we have on the books, the
50 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia are always
included but, to the rest of these areas, it's a common sea.
Sometimes we're treated like foreign countries.
The irony of all this, Mr. Chairman, as Congressman Serrano
stated earlier, is it all right to count for 2 million plus
Puerto Rican U.S. citizens living in the 50 States, but not 1
U.S. citizen living in Puerto Rico is counted as part of that
process.
For the benefit and information of the committee, despite
the fact that American Samoa has had almost a 100-year
relationship with the United States, it was not until 1990 that
the first census count was ever made for American Samoa by the
Census Bureau. How all this came about I don't know, Mr.
Chairman, but I just wanted to bring that to the attention of
the members of the committee.
I recall the comments made earlier by one of our former
Members who represented Guam years back, a retired Brigadier
General in the Marine Corps, General Ben Blaz. He made this
statement, Mr. Chairman, that I always think seemed so
applicable sometimes to the situation of those of us who come
from the insular areas. General Blaz said, we are equal in war
but not in peace.
Mr. Chairman, it's always easier to print money in terms of
building equipment and hardware and bullets and all of that,
but I think for the sons and daughters of the insular areas who
put their life and blood on the line in defense of our Nation,
that should at least count for something. I sincerely hope you
will take it from that perspective.
Mr. Chairman, as Congressman Romero-Barcelo explained
earlier, under current procedures, the Census Bureau collects
census data from the 50 States, the District of Columbia and
the insular areas which include American Samoa, CNMI, Guam, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These
totals then are combined in many different ways, but the
primary results are tabulated, totaled and analyzed based on,
``U.S. totals,'' which include the 50 States and the District
of Columbia, but not the insular areas, including Puerto Rico.
It's my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that part of the
reason for this methodology is that the insular areas do not
use the same census forms that are used in the 50 States and
the District of Columbia. Over the years, the Census Bureau, in
consultation with the insular areas, has developed distinct
census forms which adjust for each location's unique situation.
Our local governments have worked for years to develop
forms which accurately tally meaningful data. In some cases,
and in this regard I will speak only for American Samoa, the
use of the standard census form in the insular areas will
result in distorted data because of the cultural differences
which are manifested in different familial relationships and
living patterns. For example, in the United States, freehold
and leasehold interests in real property are the norm, while in
American Samoa the great majority of land is communally held by
families and villages. The value of this communal land is not
easily determined and, as a result of this distinction, census
questions of the value or size of a person's land holdings or
family residence will yield entirely different results in
different areas.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not here to speak in opposition to
efforts to include the data from the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico in the State and D.C. totals. Puerto Rico is many, many
times larger than the rest of us combined, including many
States as well; and in many respects I understand the value to
Puerto Rico and to the Nation as a whole of including the data
on the 3.8 million U.S. citizens who live in Puerto Rico. This
is, after all, 1.5 percent of the Nation's total population and
to exclude them is a distortion of data, in my humble opinion,
in and of itself.
I would suggest, however, if Puerto Rico is included in the
State totals that, to the extent possible, the other insular
areas should also be included. I say to the extent possible,
Mr. Chairman, because--and again at this point I can speak only
for American Samoa--the most useful data in American Samoa is
obtained from the forms derived by the joint effort of the
Census Bureau and the local government. Under no circumstances
would I support forcing the insular areas to use the standard
census forms over local objections. I think this is where the
rub comes, the problems that I'm faced with as far as
representing an insular area.
Mr. Chairman, I know there are broader issues involving the
subject under consideration this morning, but hopefully my
discussion will convey the position of American Samoa and the
narrow points I have just addressed to the members of the
committee. Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that this can be done
in the upcoming census.
I don't think I would be the last person to submit that as
you know, it's required by the Federal Constitution. Every 10
years there's to be a census taken. Not only does it have far-
reaching economic and social implications--as you well know, in
the 1990 census, there was an undercount of well over 5 million
Americans. Unfortunately, it got to the height of political
partisanship; and I sincerely hope that that won't happen in
the census taken next year.
But, at any rate, I just want to thank you for letting us
come and testify.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Eni Faleomavaega follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.018
Mr. Miller. We will proceed now under the 5-minute rule.
This issue, which I became aware of when it came up during
the appropriation process, sounded a little simple, but once
you start delving into it there are real complications. You
mentioned how we count illegals in the United States, but we
don't include our total residents in Puerto Rico.
We had a meeting earlier this year concerning Americans
living abroad. I don't know if you realize this, but we have
several million Americans who live abroad--retired Americans,
maybe working with Xerox, IBM, or something abroad. They have
U.S. citizenship, they pay taxes, and they vote in this
country, but they cannot be counted in the census. So, it gets
very complicated and technical, the reasons why.
We'll hear from Dr. Prewitt in a few minutes about some of
the things.
Part of the question that gets raised, as Dr. Prewitt I
think will make in his statement, is a major policy change on
statistics. I understand why there is concern here. But on the
technical side, have you all had any discussions with
statisticians and such?
I don't have a position at this moment, but if we did it,
you are comparing apples to oranges, for example, comparing
unemployment data. What do you do with something like that?
Have you looked at it from position of our national statistics?
It's not just unemployment but all of our statistical data.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The same thing that was done whenever a
new State was admitted to the Union, exactly the same thing.
Every time a new State was admitted to the Union, they have to
compare the new census with the past census. You need to make a
comparison. All you need to do is make the proper adjustments.
With the computers today and their programs, there's no problem
to make the proper comparison, to make the proper inclusions. I
don't see any real problem with that.
Mr. Serrano. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but every 10
years our population grows. So what I'm suggesting is that this
time it grows by another 4 million in addition to whatever it
grew otherwise. So the same data that you collect, the same
information that you need, the same growth will take place.
Mr. Romero reminded me during the last presentation that
one of the interesting points about this is that Puerto Rico,
compared to the States, is larger in population than 26 or 27
States of the Union, yet those figures are not included, as I
keep saying, in the American family. So, I really don't see
what the problem would be.
If the census is doing the job that we know they are doing
and they're capable of doing, if the American population grew
by 20 million or 10 million in the last 10 years, under my plan
it would grow by 14 million and those 10 million that it grew
by, well, those employment or unemployment rates were not
included in the last census. Their ownership of TV sets, cars,
or homes, or lack thereof, was not included in the last census.
Their ages were not included. Their ethnicity was not included.
So, that would just be more numbers, instead of 10, 14 million.
Second, keep in mind that, in the case of Puerto Rico, and
certainly the other territories, but in the case of Puerto
Rico, all the questions that need to be asked are already on
our census form. There is a specific area for marking yourself
down as Hispanic. There's a specific area for marking yourself
down as Puerto Rican. And those who live in Puerto Rico who are
either African-American or, ``white Americans or Dominicans or
Colombians,'' they're all already part of the study. So,
nothing new has to be invented.
And Mr. Romero's last comment during his presentation I
can't emphasize enough. He made a beautiful, as he always does,
presentation not only about this issue but also for equality
for Puerto Rico. But he said those policy issues can be
discussed later. I think we have to be clear about what we're
discussing here, including the numbers. Nothing changes,
unfortunately. But nothing changes in terms of how Puerto Rico
gets treated by the United States. That would take other major
decisions to be made. The numbers are my concern. Living under
the American flag issue is my concern.
Now, one last point on the Americans living abroad. That is
an issue that we dealt with for many years, and we
unfortunately haven't gotten to a solution. I don't know what
the answer to that one fully is, but it's clear to me that the
Puerto Rico issue is much simpler because those folks are all
living under the American flag and following all American laws
and subject to all American rules and regulations.
Mr. Miller. Technically, I'm assuming the Bureau is capable
of including the numbers. Of course, a giant step forward is
they're going to be doing the same methodology this year and
collecting the same data as in the States.
My time is up. What's your sense of how the census is doing
as far as preparing for the census, awareness of the census and
the ability to get a successful census in Puerto Rico?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. It's going very well. I think the
census has always done a very good job in Puerto Rico. They're
prepared for it. We have a very, very organized system of
outreach to get to the people because our political parties are
very, very organized and we have a large proportion of the
mainland registered. They have the aerial photos of the
sections of all of Puerto Rico. They know where each house is.
They distribute that very carefully. They're doing it every 4
years. A lot of people do it. When they get recruited for the
census to do it, everybody is prepared. They know how to do it.
I think the census is doing a very good job.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Faleomavaega, do you have any sense of how
the census is prepared in American Samoa?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Certainly. From this 10-year experience
we've had since the 1990 census, we've gotten a lot smarter in
the procedure, and certainly the Census Bureau has been very
receptive and responsive to the concerns and how the data is
being collected, and so we're pretty happy with the way things
are proceeding right now.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In response to the comments on counting Americans abroad, I
introduced legislation that I believe the Census Bureau
supports that really would require us to make sure we count in
the next census Americans living abroad. It calls for a dry run
between now and the next census. They should be counted.
I would like to ask the Delegates their response. And,
Congressman Serrano, one option that's been discussed is for
the Census Bureau to include Puerto Rico and the other
territories in the U.S. totals in print and for electronic
publications but make it easy for people to subtract, to
include or exclude these areas from the census if need be. Does
that sound like a good solution or a compromise to each of you?
Mr. Serrano. At the expense of being dramatic, I don't like
the idea of subtracting any American citizens from anything at
any given time. I don't know why you would say we are counting
American citizens who live under the American flag, who serve
in the armed forces and die for this country, but if you want
to you can subtract them. That's similar to the time that the
Delegates got a vote on the House floor, something we Democrats
did, and then said, however, if it determines a bill, it
doesn't count--an amendment that was kind of bizarre.
Just to show you how bizarre the situation is, Mr. Romero
just pointed out to me--and he's been giving me a lot of great
side comments--if a Puerto Rican American citizen moves from
Puerto Rico to New York, New York gains in population. But when
a Texan moves to California the Nation doesn't gain in
population. This is so bizarre. It should gain--here we go
again--for purposes of reapportionment, right, but the American
population of the United States should not go up by one because
an American citizen moved from one place under the flag to the
other, but yet it does under the present system. So, this
exclusion thing I would not be in favor of, that we're either
in or we're still out, but we shouldn't be in and on a given
Tuesday morning we're out.
Mrs. Maloney. Any other comments?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. It depends. I don't want to differ from
my colleague, but, for instance in the distribution for
election purposes, there has to be a subtraction. Perhaps you
have an asterisk or something, make sure this includes
populations of Puerto Rico, whatever else, and then you just
have to make the subtractions. The figures will be there, and
you make the subtraction. At least for the distribution,
election distribution, you need to make the subtraction. I have
no problem with that.
Mr. Serrano. They should do that the same way they do the
District of Columbia now.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would like to associate myself with the
comments made earlier by Mr. Serrano. I think this has always
been the rub for those of us coming from the insular areas.
Today we're considered U.S. citizens and equal, and then
tomorrow we might look like we're aliens.
We're having a very similar problem right now in our
campaign financing laws. Some Members think permanent resident
aliens should not participate. I, for one, certainly support
the concept. In fact, currently under the laws that we have in
campaign financing, permanent resident aliens can contribute to
Federal contributions. The fact is this is someone who's
legally here, paying income taxes, working like anybody else,
and hopefully, in the 5-year period, applying for U.S.
citizenship.
Now, here's an even more interesting situation, where here
again some of the quirks of the law is that we're not U.S.
citizens but we're U.S. nationals. Under the current
immigration laws specifically, and I can memorize this thing
practically, a U.S. national is someone who owes permanent
allegiance to the United States but who is neither a citizen
nor an alien. Figure that out.
Mrs. Maloney. The census questionnaire for Puerto Rico is
the same as that used in the rest of the United States; is that
correct?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. For this year, for the first time, it
will be. That's because we got together with the census and
made the agreement. Apparently, there was a difference, as Mr.
Faleomavaega had indicated, for all the territories.
Mrs. Maloney. Then I understand, for the territories, the
questionnaire is somewhat different, and Mr. Faleomavaega
mentioned it, that communal property was one example of how it
was different.
I'd like you to elaborate in other ways how the census form
might be different, and I'd like to know whether you think your
government should conduct the census or the Census Bureau
should conduct the census and why do you believe that the form
that you use should be different from the census form used by
everyone else.
And I'd like the Delegates please to share with us the
experiences you've had with your government in working with the
Census Bureau to develop the 2000 census. Have they been
responsive? Have they worked with you? Describe some of the
interactions that you might have had.
And could you elaborate a little more on how the census
data is used in your territory?
And, again, I just thank you for coming.
Mr. Faleomavaega. If I could just say very briefly, if
we're making such an effort to find out how many illegal aliens
are in our country, the least we can do as a government is find
out how many U.S. nationals, how many U.S. citizens we have in
this government. It seems to me that that's the bottom line, in
my humble opinion.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. As far as I know, the government at
home is working very closely with the Census Bureau, and we
have had no problems. We've been in touch. We've talked several
times throughout the year, and they never complained to me
about any problems at all with the Census Bureau. Everything
seems to be working all right. We changed the form, and I think
there was no real valid reason for having different
questionnaires in Puerto Rico, and we feel if that was an
obstacle, that's been removed.
Mrs. Maloney. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, possibly we should
have a field hearing in Puerto Rico, especially in January. I
think it would be very important to go and see exactly how the
field offices are working.
Mr. Serrano, I would love it if you could arrange for at
least 2 or 3 million citizens to move to New York for purposes
of the count for New York City for distribution of aid and all
that.
Mr. Serrano. I understand Mr. Romero wants them to stay
there in anticipation of something else for himself.
Let me just say that I'm a big, big supporter of the Census
Bureau. I think they're doing a fabulous job. I've always said
they're professionals who know what they're doing, should be
given all the support--criticism when it's necessary--but all
the support, and left alone to do this job. And I think that
they will handle the count properly throughout this country.
And if given the extra responsibility, they're going to handle
the census count in Puerto Rico. All they have to do is add the
numbers. The computer can do that in half an hour.
Let me just close this comment by saying to you that,
again, I can't overemphasize how dramatic this issue is. I'm a
Member of Congress. There is no greater proof, I guess, of
citizenship. The Constitution is clear that you have to be a
citizen to be a Member of Congress. And yet, if I retire from
Congress and move to Puerto Rico, I no longer get counted in
the census any longer. Now, my citizenship just sort of dropped
off the side of a table by moving there. At least as I envision
my retirement, let me get counted wherever I go.
Mrs. Maloney. I'd just like to note that Congressman Ford
has joined us, another member of the committee.
Mr. Ford. I'll be there in Puerto Rico if you want to hold
a hearing.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, definitely, no way would I
ever want to compare the numbers with my good friends here from
Puerto Rico, but I do personally invite all of you to come to
American Samoa.
Now, I know with the last count there was supposed to be
120,000 members of my tribe living in California, but you talk
about being undercounted. The last Census Bureau count was only
30,000. Now, according to our numbers, we have currently about
20 Samoans that currently play in the NFL, and I think that
maybe this is probably our best export in the coming years. But
I do want to thank the chairman and the Members for allowing us
to come and testify.
Mrs. Maloney. I want to thank the Members for their
insights and passion and commitment and particularly for their
strong words supporting the professionals at the Census Bureau
to get the best count possible. That's important not only with
the dollars that Mr. Serrano and Mr. Miller worked on, but
really supporting their independence and moving forward to get
an accurate count. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As I listen to the discussion and as I try to understand
the issue, it seems to me when people think of census-taking
and when they think of individuals being missed, the first
thing you think of is apportionment. That is, you think of
political representation and the ability to be represented and
the possibility of being represented. And I'm hearing that what
we're talking about really would not affect in any way that
line of thought or that process.
Then people think of resource allocation. They think of a
direct relationship between the numbers of people, their
socioeconomic characteristics and the ability to receive
resources from their Federal Government.
And I was just thinking, when Moses started taking the
census, what resources were they going to distribute, or were
they going to divide the manna up from heaven in some other
way? Which really takes me to my question and the issues that
I've heard many people express in terms of any concerns that
they would have.
If we move to the point of counting the individuals in
Puerto Rico and in some of the other territories the very same
way, would this in any way skew the distribution of resources
differently than what currently exists, even to the extent of
having socioeconomic data that may cause planning to be done
with more information or with different information that may
put resources into categories or areas of concentration
differently?
And so it seems to me there is a purpose that sometimes
people don't look at, and that's the purpose of the need to
know. That is information generated based upon the concept of
the need to know. Because I don't think Moses was elected by
anybody. I don't think he was. If he was, I didn't hear about
it, and I'm not sure that they had Medicaid and Medicare.
Didn't seem to me that they had day care and Head Start. So
would this change in any way or skew in any way the allocation
of resources?
Mr. Serrano. This discussion has been going on in Puerto
Rico for years, way before I was in politics, but as a person
who first originated some language to include somewhere and
brought up the issue, I've always understood that the
relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States gets
settled in different forums within this House. It does not get
settled in a census count.
Let me be clear on that. Nothing that I have proposed
changes in any way because it can't under census rules. Census
rules can't change the distribution of funds to Puerto Rico.
What I'm after, first of all, and then I'll quickly answer
your question, is a matter of what is fair, what is right and
what is correct in what the count of people who live under the
American flag is; and I think I've made that clear.
But I don't think it would hurt if you also knew that
living under the American flag are people who lived under a
certain index of poverty. I don't think it would hurt us to
know if people living under the American flag have a certain
number of high school graduates or high school dropouts or
doctors or lawyers graduating locally. What's interesting about
it is no one should panic at the thought of setting off a chain
of events by including these numbers in the American family. In
past years, but starting this year in a very official way, data
will be collected anyway in Puerto Rico and that data will be
looked at by people in different parts of the country as they
look at the whole American picture.
My whole point continues to be, as simply as I can put it:
Don't exclude American citizens from being counted.
Then this conversation continues, Mr. Davis, on a daily
basis. How should we treat our territories? How should I stand
clear on this? I have always felt American citizens should be
treated equally, but this doesn't speak to that. That's another
discussion in another forum. This speaks about including these
numbers properly. I repeat for the last time, though, if that
information is available, there's nothing wrong with having
that information because we should know at all times how people
live under the American flag and under what conditions.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I would like to add something to what
Mr. Serrano said.
There are two parts to this. What Mr. Serrano is trying to
get through with this amendment is merely to have the figures
collected in Puerto Rico included in the totals of the Nation
so that we're counted as part of the Nation. And the figures
for Puerto Rico now will be collected separately and will be
made part of the census and all 50 States will be there, and
Puerto Rico will be at the end. All the figures will be
collected.
Those figures on that side, that decision has already been
made. They will not provide for any policy change, but they
will provide the facts and the data if there is to be a policy
change in regards to distribution of funds. Then, the facts
will be there.
Now, if we want to get a policy change on a distribution of
funds, one of the first things that the policymaker shows, we
don't have the figures in Puerto Rico. We don't have the facts.
So, they're building an obstacle that prevents them from making
any change in policy. That's why I said, like the story, which
came before, the chicken or the egg? Because when you try to
make a change, the big excuse is that the facts are not there.
I think we should remove that excuse from the table and then
just deal with the policy issue.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, if I may add something very
quickly to that?
Our language doesn't change. The census already decided
that they're going to take this count in Puerto Rico so the
policy change could come with those figures regardless of
whether you're involved in the American family or not.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I think, Mr. Davis, I appreciate your
question. In my limited reading of the good book, Moses was a
great prophet, but he was a poor administrator, so he had to
depend on his father-in-law, Jethro, to tell him how to
administer the kingdom. But I think, in line with what
Congressman Serrano and Mr. Barcelo stated, the fact of the
matter is these figures, these statistics, do not exist and how
is the Congress ever going to better address the issues?
You know, the thing that really bugs me is that walking
down Independence or even down Pennsylvania Avenue, we have our
fellow Americans sleeping on the streets, begging for food and
to think that this is the most powerful and the most prosperous
Nation in the world, and we have this existing right in our own
backyard. It's the same thing that I would feel as coming from
an insular area. I feel like we're in the backyards, feel like
we're not being counted, feel like we're not being included as
part of the process. I could not agree more with what my friend
Congressman Serrano and Resident Commissioner Barcelo have
stated.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Ford.
Mr. Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My colleague, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, really answered my
question with his last response. That's really the only
question I had. Always delighted to be with my colleague,
Congressman Serrano. I want to make sure I stay on his good
side. As I ponder a Senate race, I want to make sure I keep Mr.
Serrano on my side.
Mr. Serrano. You're doing a great job with that.
Mr. Ford. I yield to Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. My good friend Eni and Mr. Davis raised
Moses. If I remember, Moses traveled through the desert for 40
years because he didn't have a plan. So, what we really need to
do is see how this plan fits into the plan so that we do get an
accurate and good census.
I just have one last question, and it was sparked by the
comment of Mr. Serrano at the beginning. He said there's a
citizenship question and there is a status question and the
citizenship question should be separate from the status
question. Could you clarify for me where are we going with the
status question? I know there was a vote. Is there another vote
coming up? And if Mr. Faleomavaega would like to clarify the
status question, also. But that's my last question.
Mr. Serrano. Let me just respond briefly on that.
I believe that the status question is a serious question
which has to be settled and leads to all other issues. I have
been very clear that independence and Statehood are very
acceptable to me as dignified options but that the Commonwealth
status is a second-, third-, fourth-, fifth-class citizenship
that is unacceptable to me. I'll give you reasons.
If you and I now move to Puerto Rico, we'd have a wonderful
time, but I can no longer vote for a President. I can no longer
vote for a Member of Congress. I can no longer get any
representation properly. On the other hand, we're not an
independent nation that can set its course throughout the
world. So, how you feel about that, that's one issue.
There has never been--and this is the solution to me--there
has never been an option presented by the government that holds
the colony, the U.S. Government, our Congress, saying here it
is. You choose this or you choose that. And either say I will
give you what you choose or at least say by a certain date, as
the Young bill said and why I supported it, by a certain date I
will take up the option you pass so that you know where you
stand with us.
This is totally my personal view that we should include
options that end the colony. Either integration into the family
or separation from the family, but it should not include any
more colonial.
Let me close with this. On some other issues we've been
discussing recently, I've been saying for people like me, we
look at the United States, in my case, as my father and Puerto
Rico as my mother and for over 100 years, my father has held my
mother in a very unfair relationship. I think it's time for
him, for my father, to either legitimize the relationship or to
let my mother go, but this continued bondage in some way is
totally improper and should end.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. With respect to when we're going to
have a vote, I think there's a consensus in Puerto Rico that we
should try to get a bill through the House and the Senate
sponsoring the referendum in Puerto Rico because then we will
be able to say this is what Congress is willing to accept,
willing to grant the people of Puerto Rico. We've had too many
privately state on their own, where people are willing to say,
well, we asked for it; what's going to happen? And the
opposition always said, if Puerto Rico asks for Statehood, it's
not going to be granted because there's a lot of prejudice in
the Nation. That's how the opposition tries to beat down
Statehood, and people are afraid to ask for something that will
be denied because they're too proud. So unless and until
Congress makes the statement clear, I think we will not have a
real, valid referendum. But as soon as that happens, we'll have
one, that's for sure.
Mr. Faleomavaega. One of the unique features of being
classified as a U.S. territory, if I may--for example, in
American Samoa, American Samoa is an unincorporated and
unorganized territory of the United States. But I say that Mrs.
Maloney in a certain perspective, as my good friend Mr. Davis
had raised the issue of Moses the prophet. Well, when you think
back to one of the greatest empires that ever existed, the
Roman empire, one of the things most unique in the new
testament--as I recall, reading about Paul, the Apostle, was
that he was Jewish by ancestry, but he was a Roman citizen,
which afforded him all the privileges allotted to anybody who
lives under the Roman empire.
So, I kind of like to think, for those of us living in the
insular areas, even though we may call it a province--we don't
like the word colonialism because we were a colony of the
British empire--we are part of the American family. And if I
were a U.S. citizen, I don't care where I live, I should be
granted the same privileges and immunities whether you live in
Timbuktu, Africa, or wherever. We should be extended the same
privileges of a U.S. citizen, which, by the way, is probably
the most sought-after citizenship in any place in this planet.
Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Let me thank all three of our colleagues for being with us
today and bringing this important issue before us. Thank you
all for being here, and we'll proceed on with Dr. Prewitt, our
next panel. Thank you.
Dr. Prewitt, as is procedure within the Government Reform
Committee, would you raise your right hand?
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Miller. The record will reflect Dr. Prewitt said I do.
The presentation by the three Members of Congress, that
raises a very important issue, but it has some very significant
implications of a change, of historic proportion, and so we're
very interested in the Bureau's thoughts on that and also the
thoughts within the statistical community, even though you're
the only one here right now on that.
Dr. Prewitt.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH PREWITT, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Dr. Prewitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.
I would like to preface it by expressing my very strong
appreciation for the very strong words that you and Mrs.
Maloney and Congressman Serrano have put on the table with
respect to the importance of a continuing resolution that
allows us to maintain the momentum as we move into October 1.
That's very seriously appreciated work and effort on your
behalf. Thank you.
I'm going to have behind me Ms. Teresa Angueira, who is the
Assistant Division Chief for our Decennial Management Division
and is in charge of planning for census 2000 in Puerto Rico;
and, if there are particular technical questions, I may wish to
call upon her for answers as well.
As has already been clear, Puerto Rico has been included in
every decennial census since 1910. Title 13 of the U.S. Code,
which sets out the basic law under which we conduct the census,
specifies that, in addition to the 50 States and the District
of Columbia, the census should include the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of
Northern Mariana Islands and such other possessions and areas
over which the United States exercises jurisdiction, control or
sovereignty.
Our census plans in Puerto Rico, as you just heard, are
moving along on schedule. I was able to visit Puerto Rico in
early August at which time I had an informative luncheon with
Congressman Romero-Barcelo. I also met with him earlier on some
of these issues. I met with the Governor, Governor Rossello,
and participated in an important census 2000 town hall meeting
of mayors, government officials, and data users.
Of course, I have had exchanges with Representative Serrano
about the need for a complete and accurate census in Puerto
Rico and, of course, also in New York.
The essential thing to remember about census 2000
operations for Puerto Rico is that they will be comparable to
the States. We will conduct a full range of operations to
ensure a complete and accurate enumeration.
I'm going to address, first, the issue of tabulations
raised in your letter of invitation and in the report language
proposed by Representative Serrano. The report language states
that the committee expects the Census Bureau to include Puerto
Rico in any electronic access to census data as a State
equivalent in the same manner as the District of Columbia is
included. It also suggests that any extracts of census data,
like the 1990 Public-Use Microdata sample, should treat Puerto
Rico in the same manner as the District of Columbia.
Electronic access to 2000 data will be through a newly
developed system called the American FactFinder. This system is
available now on the Census Bureau's Internet home page. Not
only will Puerto Rico be treated as a State equivalent, we are
developing a special Spanish-language interface for Puerto
Rico. As for Public-Use Microdata samples, we did have
comparable samples from Puerto Rico in 1990 and would expect to
do so again in 2000.
Report language also says that the committee expects the
Census Bureau to include Puerto Rico in any national totals in
these national summary data products.
The issue of including Puerto Rico in the national counts
would differ from what we announced in Census 2000 Decision
Memorandum No. 64. This memo, issued in November 1998,
indicates that the Census Bureau will include data for Puerto
Rico in the national summary data products for census 2000.
That is, unlike 1990 when data for Puerto Rico were included
only in one national summary table showing total population,
the data from census 2000 will display Puerto Rico in every
national summary report.
The best way to understand the difference between the
decision memorandum and the report language is to compare 1990
with the plan for 2000 and then the plan for 2000 with
illustrative tabulations responsive to the report language.
Members of the committee, if I could draw your attention to
the appendices, the attachments at the end of my written
testimony, because I will now make reference to those.
I refer first to attachment 1, which has two pages. The
first page shows national summary totals for certain
characteristics data as presented in 1990. There is no line for
Puerto Rico on this page. Compare this with the second page of
attachment 1, which illustrates the current 2000 plan. On this
page you will see a separate line for Puerto Rico at the
bottom. We will display Puerto Rico counts on all national
summary tables that report population and housing
characteristics.
This is a full-table coverage effort and is a significant
improvement in presentation of data for Puerto Rico compared to
1990. I want to emphasize on any table in which you can find
data for the District of Columbia or for Florida or for New
York or for Illinois, you will also find data for Puerto Rico.
This table does not address but then does not preclude the
issue that the report language introduces, which is including
Puerto Rico counts in the national totals.
So, let me now turn to that issue and to attachment 2.
Attachment 2 helps us see what we believe would be required by
the report language that Puerto Rico counts be included in the
national totals. Page 1 of that attachment shows from 1990 the
only table produced where totals for Puerto Rico were included
on the same page as those for the United States, as
traditionally defined. You will see a line at the top that says
total. This is the total population count for all areas and
groups covered in the 1990 census including, of course, Puerto
Rico.
Below that is a line ``United States'' and then separate
totals for each outlying area and the three categories of the
U.S. population abroad. This is how we presented the data in
1990. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of this testimony, I interpret
the line ``United States'' and not the line ``Total'' to be
equivalent to the term national totals used in the report
language.
The remainder of my testimony will not be responsive to
your questions 1 and 6 in the letter of invitation if this
misinterprets the report language. So, I pause to make sure
I've interpreted the report language because the report
language uses the term national totals, but I do think that
what Mr. Serrano has in mind is equivalent to what we in this
table call ``United States.'' What we in this table call
``Total'' already includes Puerto Rico.
Mr. Miller. I believe that's right.
Dr. Prewitt. Thank you.
Then let me direct your attention to page 2. This page
reconfigures the 1990 table to follow our interpretation of the
proposed report language. As you can see, we no longer have a
separate line for Puerto Rico under outlying areas. And the
1990 U.S. total, instead of being 248.7 is now 252.2 because it
includes Puerto Rico's population. Had we presented the 1990
counts in this manner for the last 9 years, every ratio,
proportion or other statistic in the country that takes the
U.S. population as its denominator would have been different.
Under Decision Memorandum No. 64, it is the Census Bureau's
plan to include Puerto Rico in national summary data products,
as illustrated in attachment 1, but not in national totals.
Though it is not our present intent, it is feasible to
include Puerto Rico in the national totals. This decision,
however, would have to be made prior to April 30, 2000, in
order to incorporate it into our tabulation planning process.
After that date, it would be difficult to implement a change
from our present plans for the census 2000 tabulation.
I hope that my testimony to this point answers the
questions about tabulation posed for this hearing. However, I
would also like to take a few minutes to explain the logic
behind Decision Memorandum No. 64.
The Census Bureau and other Federal statistical agencies
historically have defined the ``U.S. total'' as the aggregate
of the States and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau
would not normally deviate from historic practice in such a
major way without prior and thorough consultation with relevant
stakeholders, including other members of the statistical
system.
To tabulate Puerto Rico in the U.S. total for the 2000
census would introduce a statistical redefinition of the United
States. There are many consequences to be considered.
First, let me refer you back to attachment 2 where the
first page, as I said, is a 1990 census table that displays not
just population but also land and water area. In the mock-up of
this table, page 2 of the attachment, we have included Puerto
Rico's area measurements as well as its population in the U.S.
total. The Census Bureau is unsure whether that is the
intention of the proposed report language. If not, the
population measures and the area measures would have
inconsistent denominators as the area measure would be for the
United States and District of Columbia, whereas the population
measure would be based upon populations of the States, District
of Columbia and Puerto Rico. So, we would have inconsistent
denominators.
If it is the intent of the report language, however, then
every measure of population density, which itself is a
denominator for other statistical uses, would change compared
to 1990.
This is but one of many examples as to how Census Bureau
products would be affected.
There are also far-reaching consequences of data
comparability with products from other Federal statistical
programs. Different statistical definitions of the United
States from one agency to another would affect comparability in
all of our statistics: demographic, economic, health,
education, agricultural, justice, and so forth. For example, a
recently released Bureau of Labor Statistics report on
Employment and Average Annual Pay for Large Counties, 1997,
includes data from San Juan, Puerto Rico. The tabular
presentation includes a line called ``United States,'' and the
Bureau of Labor Statistics is careful to note, ``calculations
for the United States do not include data from Puerto Rico,''
which is to say the Bureau of Labor Statistics has taken a
position consistent with Decision Memorandum 64, which is to
include data from Puerto Rico but not to make it part of the
national total.
For reasons of statistical consistency, the Census Bureau
would hesitate unilaterally to establish a new denominator. A
statistical system requires common definitions if it is to be a
system. There are few definitions more basic than what
constitutes the national total population. Any fundamental
change in this definition should be fully explored with
stakeholders within and outside the Federal Government.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is the recommendation of the
Census Bureau that the policies set forth in Decision
Memorandum No. 64, which will result in Puerto Rico being shown
in all census 2000 national summary tables of population and
housing characteristics but not included in the national
totals, be controlling pending broad consultation and more
intensive review of the implications of altering the basic
denominator for nearly every statistic generated over the next
decade.
Mr. Chairman, I've used up most of my time discussing the
tabulation issue because I judge it to be the priority question
for this hearing.
I will very briefly reference my written testimony on
questions two or three of your invitation letter which focus on
census procedure for Puerto Rico. I'm very pleased that the
previous panel spoke so favorably about the current plans. We
are indeed on schedule in Puerto Rico. As you have already
heard, we are providing for the Puerto Rico census a
questionnaire form which is nearly identical--not completely,
but nearly identical to the Stateside. This questionnaire for
Puerto Rico was not submitted to the Congress because that's
not our obligation, but it was approved by the U.S. Office of
Management and Budget.
The basic census procedure in Puerto Rico will be update
leave, that is, enumerators will deliver the questionnaire and
update the address file. In constructing the address file, the
address file for Puerto Rico, we've had active involvement in
our LUCA program. One major difference for Puerto Rico compared
to 1990 is that in 2000 they will be able to mail back the
questionnaire. We will have a nonresponse followup procedure
that is similar to what we use Stateside.
We have all of our coverage improvement strategies in place
to check the quality of our work and reach our goal of
accounting for 100 percent of the policy. We will conduct the
accuracy and coverage evaluation survey.
As has already been made clear, Puerto Rico is actively
involved in our outreach effort. We've mailed materials to 80
municipalities to encourage them to form complete count
committees.
As in the States, a program in which you've taken a keen
interest, we have a very active census in the schools program.
In partnership with the Department of Education, school kits
will be made available to every teacher in Puerto Rico.
We are partnering with community groups and professional
associations. We partnered with the Museum of Art of Puerto
Rico, which permitted reproduction of a poster which we have
displayed here in the hearing room. We're very proud of that
poster, and it's now being very widely used around Puerto Rico.
With respect to paid advertising, we have Y & R Puerto
Rico, which has very nearly completed production of what we
believe will be a very successful campaign.
We are committed to a strong, high-quality census in Puerto
Rico and believe we're on track to do so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Dr. Prewitt.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Prewitt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1630.029
Mr. Miller. We all know this is a complicated issue, and
you used the words historic change and issue of statistical
redefinition. And so, let's start off with the question of
statistical redefinition. Would you explain that a little bit
more? The question that Mr. Serrano used is the national
summary data products. If we included a redefinition, what does
that mean and what are the implications of that?
Dr. Prewitt. It is unfortunate we don't have precise
language for this information. National summary data products,
an example of which is in appendix 1 or attachment 1, in
national summary data products, Puerto Rico will be included
and all of those that the Census Bureau produces after 2000.
That has been made possible because we now have a questionnaire
strategy and a methodology in Puerto Rico that is practically
completely comparable, which means every table where any data
are presented by region or State, Puerto Rico will be
identified. That means anyone who wants to compare Puerto Rico
with Maine or with California can do it just like they can
compare California and Maine or any other kind of procedure.
That's our national summary tables. Then there's something
in the report language called the Nation's total or the
national total and, as I said, we have interpreted that to mean
the United States for our purposes. In our tabular
presentation, we have a line called ``the United States.''
That's where we would not be putting the Puerto Rico total. So,
the statistical inconsistency would be that, if we follow the
report language. We would now be redefining that line called
the United States, as Congressman Serrano correctly pointed
out, approximately 3.8 million people.
We would not, under the report language, be including the
overseas population, which we do count, the diplomatic and
military population, for example. We would still have two
different counts. We would have a total that had everything in
it, including the overseas population and the other insular
areas but not Puerto Rico. Well, everything because it includes
Puerto Rico but then a U.S. line that excluded the overseas
population, the other insular areas but not Puerto Rico. So
that would be redefining the key line that says the United
States. And my simple point is we have not had extensive
conversations with other members of the Federal statistical
agency, and my one example from Bureau of Labor Statistics
suggests that we would then have a different definition of the
United States than would the BLS, unless we could somehow
coordinate with them.
And we don't know--I just haven't had the time yet, Mr.
Congressman, to explore exactly--I know this would be different
from how the Department of Education collects statistics, how
the Department of Transportation collects and so forth. It's
not that it can't be done. It's that it ought to be done in
consultation with the other agencies that will be affected by
the decision we would be making.
Mr. Miller. When I raised the question with the previous
panel, they used the analogy that when we added States to the
Union back in the late 1950's, the last time that happened, the
numbers were incorporated because they were much smaller
population States at that time than Puerto Rico. Because one of
the problems is the apples and oranges problem.
Dr. Prewitt. Let me refer back to 1950. Prior to 1950, we
treated Alaska and Hawaii exactly as we're treating Puerto Rico
now. Indeed, we treated Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii roughly
in the same way. After Statehood for Alaska and Hawaii in 1950,
in the 1960 census, we obviously included Alaska and Hawaii as
States. However, we also presented tables that helped the user
understand what had happened so that we tried to help the user
make comparisons back to 1950. So, we really ran a dual set of
tables for some of the key tables so people could understand
what is happening because you do get a funny blip.
There's no doubt we could do this with Puerto Rico. That
is, we could create after 2000, if we put Puerto Rico into the
national total, we would try to create a number of duplicate
tables so that the data users could try to see what had
happened. It's a bit different because we included Alaska and
Hawaii in our definition of the United States because they had
become States. This would be the first time in which we
included an entity that was not a State in the U.S. total. So,
it would be a change from what we did in 1960. It's feasible.
It can be done. But it does have consequences.
Mr. Miller. The proposal that you're planning on using
right now basically allows anyone--because it's readily
available on the computer--to do any calculation they want with
or without Puerto Rico. It's just that the published numbers,
especially when you get to the definition of the United States,
will not be. Mr. Romero-Barcelo was saying we don't have the
data, but they will have the data this time around. It's not a
question of not having the data. It's what's going to be
presented.
Dr. Prewitt. That's right. Congressman Romero-Barcelo
basically in his commentary was referring to conditions prior
to 2000 when the data were not available and created the
obstacles and so forth. The kinds of arguments he was making--
and he, of course, said this in his commentary, will not hold
after 2000, because all the data will be available, as
attachment 1 indicates.
Mr. Miller. Let me ask one more quick question. How are we
going to treat the territories, American Samoa and the Virgin
Islands and such? Are we going to be doing the same census with
those areas? And why aren't we treating them the same way we're
treating Puerto Rico?
Dr. Prewitt. As Congressman Faleomavaega referenced, we do
the census completely differently. We contract it. It is done
by the local governments and their own statistical offices
under technical guidance from us. That is, we provide the
guidelines, and the actual census is conducted there according
to their own local needs as he so eloquently pointed out. They
are saying ``We don't want a census imposed upon us because we
have very different, different kinds, in this case, land tenure
patterns, different kinds of patterns.''
We simply go to them and say, what makes the most sense for
you? And they say, this is the kind of data we need for our
internal planning purposes and government purposes. We say,
good, we'll help you design that census.
We then actually pay them. That is part of the
appropriation bill. There is a sum of money for each of the
insular areas where we actually contract to them to do the work
under our technical guidance.
We then process the data and tabulate it, but because it's
not consistent at all, we have to have separate data products
that describe the insular territories, and they're different
from one another because they have different properties and
different needs.
As he said, this is a perfectly comfortable relationship.
There would be nothing to prevent us because we do a total
count--there would be nothing to prevent us from putting the
count of Samoa or the Virgin Islands or Guam into the
definition of United States. It would again even make more
complicated the denominator because, whereas some of the other
statistical agencies do work in Puerto Rico, they do not do
much work at all in the insular territories. So we would have a
denominator again in the official U.S. total produced by the
Census Bureau that would not be consistent with the denominator
of the United States being used by other statistical agencies.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Dr. Prewitt, for your testimony.
Looking earlier at the statistical abstract, there seems to
be different total populations of the United States for 1990,
and each one had a different total. Two are labeled total
resident population, but the 1990 population is different.
There is one labeled total civilian population. Then there is
the total civilian noninstitutional population used by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. These all differ from the total
U.S. population for apportionment. On the other hand, your
testimony seems to indicate that there is really only one total
U.S. population, and can you explain to me why we have all
these different total populations?
Dr. Prewitt. You're quite right, Mrs. Maloney. There are
different totals produced because they have different
functions, and the total that would be used by the BLS is the
noninstitutional labor force. The total we obviously use for
apportionment counts does exclude the District of Columbia
because it cannot be in the apportionment counts, so you simply
do produce different totals for different purposes. And, as
I've said, it's feasible if we want to redefine something----
There is a key U.S. total--and I take you back to
attachment 2. That line that says the United States is our
basic U.S. total minus all of the other categories that are
listed on that page which are the population abroad, the other
possessions outlined, jurisdictions and so forth. So, that is
the total for apportionment purposes.
Mrs. Maloney. Given that we already have all these
different definitions, why can't the problems you raise be
dealt with simply by the addition of another definition and
allowing agencies to choose the denominator that is best suited
for its purposes? That is, the BLS uses the population number
that's best suited for it. Could we not just add another
definition that included----
Dr. Prewitt. Certainly. Indeed, you can take this table and
you can run as many different totals as you want to. We have a
total count. We have a U.S. residency total. We could then have
a list including/not including Puerto Rico, including/not
including insular areas, so on and so forth. We can run as many
different presentations as you want.
These data are all electronic. Anyone can do that.
I haven't talked to all of my colleagues in the other
statistical agencies. I have talked to BLS, which is the major
other statistical agency which has to worry about this
question. But my guess is that primarily, they would use as the
U.S. total the 248,709,873 as adjusted throughout the decade.
And all I'm recommending is that before we redefine something
called the United States, that we should do it with some sort
of consultation, a thorough review as to its implications. I
don't think they've all--I'll give you one other example. I'm
sorry that Mr. Serrano is not here. The United Nations has a
special entry for Puerto Rico, for example. It lists the
population of Puerto Rico independently of the United States.
Now, why the United Nations does that, I don't know, but it
does. I presume if we put Puerto Rico in--and they then list
something called the U.S. total.
If we put Puerto Rico into our U.S. total, I think the
United Nations would have to drop Puerto Rico as one of its
entries because they would otherwise be double counting. So
those kinds of implications, I don't think somebody sat down
and worked out the whole array of them, and something of this
magnitude has unintended consequences. All I'm recommending to
you today is that that work be done before we move to a new
statistical definition of the United States.
Mrs. Maloney. But both President Carter and President Bush,
in transmitting the apportionment data to Congress, presented a
total U.S. population that included the District of Columbia
but not Puerto Rico and the other territories. What will you
recommend be included in President Clinton's submission? Will
the total population include Puerto Rico and the outlying
areas?
Dr. Prewitt. I'm surprised at what you just said. I thought
the apportionment numbers always exclude the District of
Columbia and only included the 50 States, including, I should
say, the 50 States and the overseas population which is
assigned to a particular State. Then, as you know, when we
reproduce the redistricting data, we take out the overseas
population because we can't put them down to the block level.
Therefore, I'm sorry, I'm just ill-equipped to answer this
question because it's inconsistent with what I thought we did.
Mrs. Maloney. We have a document that says that's what they
did.
Dr. Prewitt. I can't imagine what then happened with the
apportionment process if the District of Columbia count was in
it.
Mrs. Maloney. We'll get it to you.
Is there any technical difficulty in presenting the census
data as requested by Representative Serrano? Is there any
technical difficulty in doing it? Is there any scientific
difficulty in presenting the data as requested by
Representative Serrano?
Dr. Prewitt. No, as I suggested, at a certain point we do
write the software that drives all the tabular displays and, as
I've suggested, much later than April 30, 2000. By then, we're
trying to close down all of our software preparation for
tabular presentation. So, up until then, there really is no
technical impediment.
Mrs. Maloney. Here is the data.
Dr. Prewitt. I'm interested.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you again for your diligent testimony
and your commitment and hard work. Delegates Romero-Barcelo and
Faleomavaega mentioned how helpful the Census Bureau has been
in working with their two territories and getting an accurate
count, so I join my voice in thanking you. I have no further
questions.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Prewitt, let me just reiterate the question that I
asked the Members relative to the distribution of resources.
Would you see any shift in resource allocation and distribution
should we use the Serrano language?
Dr. Prewitt. Mr. Davis, that's a very complicated question
in which I can't give you much intelligence. We tried to do a
bit of work on that this week and simply could not complete the
work. As Mr. Serrano said, it's an issue of how Federal
agencies and the relevant congressional committees would write
their formulas; and I think it would create some uncertainties
as to how those formulas would be produced. They're not
unsolvable, but I don't think you can automatically presume
there would be a redistribution of resources. But certainly
every formula would have to take into account that they're now
working with a somewhat different denominator. Maybe in every
formula they either back it out or put it in depending.
Could I, while I have the floor, and something else because
I have the piece of paper Mrs. Maloney handed me. As I read it,
it says that the District of Columbia is excluded in
determination of apportionment, which is exactly what I thought
I testified to.
Mrs. Maloney. Is it included in the total?
Dr. Prewitt. This is included in the total, but that's
consistent with what I just said about this attachment, which
is we include the District of Columbia in the total,
statistical definition of the United States, but, obviously,
for apportionment purposes, we would exclude it in terms of
delivering the apportionment numbers because we don't apportion
including the District of Columbia.
Sorry, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. That's quite all right.
Let me just appreciate your answer in terms of the
complexity of the question, and also I probably need to just
make it clear that, should it result in some shift in changes
based upon the realities of the population, I certainly
wouldn't have a problem with it. So, it's not suggested that I
personally would have any problem with it. I'm just trying to
understand as best that I can the issue.
The final question that I have is, am I to now really
understand that the primary reason one would not necessarily
want to use the language that is proposed by Mr. Serrano is
because there has not been the time to work in comparability
with other users, other stakeholders, in that the Census Bureau
would then perhaps have data reported in a different manner
than some other entities that we coordinate data with?
Dr. Prewitt. Yes, sir. That is the Census Bureau's
hesitancy. I come before you as a head of a statistical agency,
not as a constitutional lawyer or as a policy advisor. There
could be other kinds of issues implicit in this that would not
be ours, but from the point of view of the Census Bureau, our
hesitancy has to do with complications, difficulties,
confusions, inconsistencies in the statistical system it may
create that we believe should be examined and make sure we're
not doing some sort of harm.
We may, after examination, come back and say, look, we can
fix all of this. We've now had the kinds of conversations and
so forth and so on. But I can just say we've not yet had that
opportunity. We would see this, of course, because it would be
interagency, as the responsibility of the Office of Statistical
Policy, not just the Census Bureau's responsibility.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I thank you very much, and I have no
further questions.
I'd also like to indicate my appreciation for the work that
you did and also the consistency relative to the way that you
have looked at technical issues and technical problems
throughout the process, and so I don't see any deviation from
that relative to the response that you've given today. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Miller. I just have one clarification question.
This is a little description of the methodology you used
for Puerto Rico. This is the first time we're doing the full-
fledged census. Is there any unique challenges, unique cost
because of it that you're experiencing down there? Just
describe it, very briefly, the process that's being used.
Dr. Prewitt. I think the biggest difference in Puerto Rico
is that we can't really use just a mailout-mailback system.
We've got to use all update leave.
It was quite difficult. We've done it, but it was quite
difficult to assemble an address file. But the postal system in
Puerto Rico is not such that we can simply mail a questionnaire
out. So we've got to do a full update leave. And we have no
idea because we haven't had this experience--see, all previous
censuses in Puerto Rico, we went out and did the enumeration
ourselves. This time, we'll be delivering the form and hoping
they'll mail it back. We don't know what to expect in the mail
response rate, for example. We think it creates all other kinds
of implications. What size labor pool are we going to need for
a nonresponse followup? If we had a high response rate, we
would need a much smaller pool, of course, but we have no
historical experience to make a guess as to what the response
rate is likely to be in Puerto Rico. So that's a technical
issue.
There are some very complicated questionnaire issues which
we have worked out with the Puerto Rico authorities. When they
actually unfold, they're going to say, ``Oh, I didn't know
that's what the implication of that would be.'' But we'll work
with those as we go. But I think, operationally, by far the
most complicated thing is it is a very highly scattered
population, but we're optimistic that our address file work
gives us the basis and that our update leave will work, but
until we're actually out in the field--Terry, you want to add
anything?
Does she need to be sworn?
Mr. Miller. It's policy that we do it. If you would just
stand and raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
STATEMENT OF TERESA ANGUEIRA, ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF,
DECENNIAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Ms. Angueira. I just wanted to add that it's the first time
we're using the update leave methodology. We will have to cover
the ground twice in Puerto Rico, once to create the address
list, which we have already done, and once to deliver the
questionnaires.
As far as cost, the cost comparison, Dr. Prewitt was
talking about nonresponse followup. What we did in 1990 was
conduct the census with a list enumerating methodology, which
is basically 100 percent nonresponse followup, if I can use
that term freely. In other words, we were using the nonresponse
followup methodology at every household, delivering the
questionnaire for the first time at that moment and collecting
the interview at that moment. We hope to reduce that cost by
using the update leave methodology and hope to receive a
substantial proportion, which is hard to predict, of the
questionnaires in the mail and reduce our nonresponse followup
workload.
Mr. Miller. Let me thank you.
I think we should all be pleased. As I think Mr. Serrano
also acknowledged, we're making a giant stride in the right
direction to get comparable data, so we'll have that, but it
does raise, as you say, historic redefinition problems in the
statistical community that we need to address and think through
thoroughly before you jump.
So, with that, the hearing is now concluded. Thank you.
Excuse me. I withdraw that. I need to ask unanimous
consent.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members' and witnesses'
written opening statements be included in the record. Without
objection, so ordered. And if the Delegate, Donna Christensen
of the U.S. Virgin Islands, who was not able to be with us
today, wishes to have something submitted for the record, I ask
unanimous consent that that be included in the record.
With that, the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]