[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE 2004 OVERSEAS CENSUS TEST
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION
POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND
THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-266
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
98-351 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Maryland
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas Columbia
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida ------
------ ------ BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and the Census
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida, Chairman
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
DOUG OSE, California STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Bob Dix, Staff Director
Ursula Wojciechowski, Professional Staff Member
Juliana French, Clerk
David McMillen, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 14, 2004............................... 1
Statement of:
Gribble, Leigh, vice chair, American Business Council of the
Gulf Countries, on behalf of Census 2010 Coalition; Lucy
Stensland Laederich, U.S. liaison, Federation of American
Women's Club Overseas, Inc.; and Clark H. Bensen,
consultant and publisher, Polidata Co...................... 41
Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; and
Patricia Dalton, U.S. Government Accountability Office..... 7
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bensen, Clark H., consultant and publisher, Polidata Co.,
prepared statement of...................................... 59
Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 35
Dalton, Patricia, U.S. Government Accountability Office,
prepared statement of...................................... 16
Gribble, Leigh, vice chair, American Business Council of the
Gulf Countries, on behalf of Census 2010 Coalition,
prepared statement of...................................... 46
Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, U.S. Census Bureau,
prepared statement of...................................... 10
Laederich, Lucy Stensland, U.S. liaison, Federation of
American Women's Club Overseas, Inc., prepared statement of 53
Putnam, Hon. Adam H., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, prepared statement of.................... 4
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE 2004 OVERSEAS CENSUS TEST
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Putnam
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Putnam and Clay.
Also present: Representative Maloney.
Staff present: Bob Dix, staff director; John Hambel, senior
counsel; Ursula Wojciechowski, professional staff member;
Colleen Smith, fellow; Juliana French, clerk; David McMillen,
minority professional staff member; and Jean Gosa, minority
assistant clerk.
Mr. Putnam. Quorum being present, this hearing of the
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census will come to order.
Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the subcommittee's
hearing entitled, ``Lessons Learned from the 2004 Overseas
Census Test.'' We are here today to examine the results of that
test and to review the GAO's report entitled, ``2010 Census:
Counting Americans Overseas as Part of the Decennial Census
Would Not Be Cost-Effective.''
Having oversight of all census matters, this subcommittee
recognizes the importance of the lessons learned in the
preliminary findings from the ongoing evaluation by the Census
Bureau regarding this test. We also recognize the importance of
hearing the concerns from stakeholders with relevant
perspectives on the test and its challenges.
The U.S. Constitution requires a count of its population
every 10 years. The count determines the number of apportioned
seats that a State gets in the House of Representatives and is
used to update and revise voting districts, and the data is
used to determine eligibility distribution of Federal grant
dollars to State and local governments.
Since the first decennial census in 1790, the concept of
usual residence has been used. Usual residence generally means
that people are counted where they live most of the time and
not necessarily the same as voting residence or legal
residence.
Historically, the Census Bureau has focused its efforts on
counting everyone in every household living in the United
States regardless of age or citizenship status. They have
developed processes, such as the Nonresponse Followup, and
tools, including the MAF/TIGER, over time that have continued
to improve the accuracy of the decennial census. The Bureau has
counted those Americans who are deployed or assigned overseas
in serving this Nation in recent censuses for purposes of
apportionment. They have included members of the military,
Federal civilian employees and their dependents by using
administrative records, but they have never included all
American citizens residing abroad in a decennial census for
purposes of apportionment or redistricting. The magnitude of
known obstacles has been a determinant factor of the
feasibility of such an effort.
Many private American citizens living abroad have long
recognized the importance of participating in the census as
part of their civic duty. Some pay taxes, vote, may have
families back home, while others may be overseas for only a
short period of time or, I might add, are overseas for a reason
and don't want to be found. Although it is estimated that up to
4 million American citizens may reside abroad, the precise
number is unknown. There are currently no administrative
records, processes or any acceptable tested methodology for
providing an independent measure for the coverage of this
population. Estimations from the U.S. State Department's 1999
records and the U.S. Department of Defense's 2000 records
suggest there are approximately 4.1 million, but there is no
calculation as to how many households the Census Bureau would
have to count.
Congress and the Census Bureau have been responsive to the
stakeholder groups of American citizens living abroad overall.
Congress has held hearings in the past to hear from
stakeholders on this issue. Through its role on oversight and
appropriations, Congress has worked with the Census Bureau to
help facilitate and fund the 2004 overseas census test. This
subcommittee enlisted the help of the Government Accountability
Office in monitoring the work of the Census Bureau as it
undertook this unprecedented effort to determine if it was
feasible to include overseas Americans in the decennial census.
Census Bureau estimates it will have spent $7.8 million
over 3 years for this test. It involved enumerating the unknown
universe of American citizens living in France, Mexico and
Kuwait from February to July 2004. The test was carried out on
schedule and consistent with its research design. However, the
response rate in this test was very poor. Just over 5,000
questionnaires were returned, most via the Internet. Because of
this low response level, the cost for obtaining these
questionnaires was extremely high. GAO estimates it cost
approximately $1,500 per response.
In this hearing we will receive testimony as to the results
of the tests and the challenges that exist in enumerating the
overseas population. We have two distinguished panels of
witnesses today. The first panel, we welcome the Director of
the Census Bureau and the Director of Strategic Issues at the
Government Accountability Office. I am eager to hear their
expert insight into the 2004 overseas census test.
Our second panel is comprised of three census stakeholders.
I would like to thank the first two for traveling so far to be
with us today from Kuwait and France respectively. They
represent American citizens living abroad who have worked to
make the test happen. I look forward to hearing their
viewpoint. Our final witness represents the data user
community. As a redistricting analyst, he brings a valuable
perspective into the discussion of the feasibility of the
issue.
I eagerly look forward to the expert testimony these
distinguished panel of leaders will provide today. At this time
we would like to remind everyone that today's hearing can be
viewed for those living abroad--can be viewed live via WebCast
by going to reform.house.gov and clicking on the link under
live committee broadcasts.
We will await the arrival of other committee members for
their opening statements and move right into witnesses'
testimony. Our first panel are experienced witnesses. You
understand the light system. You will be recognized to
summarize your written remarks in 5 minutes, and we will then
proceed to questions and answers.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Adam H. Putnam follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.003
Mr. Putnam. At this time, I would ask you to rise, please,
for the administration of the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Putnam. All the witnesses have responded in the
affirmative, and we will begin with our Census Bureau Director.
We are honored to have with us today the Director of the Census
Bureau, Mr. Charles Louis Kincannon. Mr. Kincannon began his
career as a statistician at the U.S. Census Bureau in 1963. He
held positions of increasing responsibility in the economic,
demographic and administrative areas of the Bureau. He left
during the Ford administration to join the staff of the Office
of Management and Budget where he worked on statistical and
regulatory policy.
Throughout his time with the Federal Government, Mr.
Kincannon received a number of awards recognizing his work,
including the Presidential-Rank Award of Meritorious Service
and the Department of Commerce Gold Medal.
In 1992, Mr. Kincannon was appointed as the first chief
statistician in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development. He returned to the United States in 2000, was
nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate
unanimously in March 2002 to direct the Census Bureau. That may
have been the last unanimous vote the Senate cast.
We welcome you to the subcommittee and recognize you for
your testimony.
STATEMENTS OF CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON, DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS
BUREAU; AND PATRICIA DALTON, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
Mr. Kincannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. And
on behalf of the Census Bureau, I want to thank you and the
subcommittee for giving us the opportunity to share our
experience and perspectives from the 2004 overseas enumeration
test. The Census Bureau's objectives for the 2004 overseas test
were to learn whether we could locate Americans living in the
three test countries, France, Kuwait and Mexico, and whether
Americans would participate and return the forms via Internet
or direct mail. These objectives may seem simple, but they are
important. The success of the decennial census stateside
depends on the Census Bureau's ability to obtain these
objectives with high standards of measurable quality.
In conducting the decennial census, the Census Bureau faces
the task of finding every person living in America every 10
years. This task is daunting, but inspires at the same time our
best hopes, our best ideas and our best efforts. The civic
ritual of the census is almost as old as our Nation itself, and
its fundamental purpose is one of the few specific government
responsibilities mentioned in the Constitution. This mandate
gives life to the promise of fair representation, and it is an
affirmation of the great promise made on behalf of this Nation
to all generations speaking of ``We the people.''
It's easy to lose sight of the real goals of the census as
difficulties and controversies arise. The stakes are quite
high. And with each generation and each succeeding census, we
find ourselves again asking the critical question, who counts
in the census?
The 2004 overseas test was designed to determine the
feasibility of conducting a census overseas. The Census Bureau
conducted this test at a cost of approximately $7.8 million
over 3 years. We chose to conduct this test in France, Kuwait
and Mexico because these countries are in different parts of
the world, and each has a significant population of U.S.
citizens and residents.
The Census Bureau finished data collection on July 2, 2004.
Since that point, we have been engaged in data processing and
tabulation, including quality assurance tests preparatory to
evaluation efforts. While we will not have formal results and
evaluations until next spring, I'm here to share some of the
early indications of the 2004 overseas test.
One of the most important criteria of the decennial census
is the response rate. We cannot accurately calculate a response
rate for this test because we do not have accurate estimates of
the number of Americans living in the three test countries.
However, we believe the response is low by any standard one
might choose. From France we received approximately 3,100
questionnaires. From Kuwait we received approximately 300. And
from Mexico we received approximately 2,000, 35 of which were
in Spanish. The initial reaction to the anecdotal evidence
supplied by stakeholder groups indicates that many Americans
living abroad in those countries either did not know about the
test or understand its purpose.
We had printed over 600,000 questionnaires to make sure we
had enough for those tests, and this number was partly based on
estimates from a number of sources. In France, for instance, we
have estimates ranging from about 29,000 to over 112,000
Americans in residence. These results suggest that the Census
Bureau cannot conduct a decennial census abroad as done
stateside with any degree of measurable certainty.
There are several key distinctions between the decennial
census as collected in America and counting Americans overseas.
The first distinction is that the decennial census collected in
the United States is mandatory, and the purpose can be clearly
communicated. It is much easier to achieve participation
stateside and persuade households to answer because we can
communicate the benefits of the census data for every
neighborhood and community.
The second distinction is the existence of the Master
Address and mapping system. We talk about it at the Census
Bureau as MAF/TIGER. It is literally the road map of the United
States and every community in it. We have no such resource,
maps or address lists, that explain how to reach every American
living abroad. In short, we don't know where to look for every
American living abroad by the method we use in the States.
Another related distinction is the lack of a field
infrastructure to do nonresponse followup. In the United States
we hired over 800,000 field workers to do the field work in the
2000 census. To complement this infrastructure, we had a
massive campaign of public relations, and we would have
difficulty in repeating these characteristics and strengths
overseas.
We have reliable estimates of the U.S. population and its
demographic composition. These enable us to evaluate the
quality and coverage accuracy of the decennial census. We don't
have these data for other countries. These distinctions are
very important to the success of the decennial census.
In closing, the Census Bureau has determined that taking a
census overseas would present unique difficulties, difficulties
that cannot be resolved by the methods and tools that the
Census Bureau uses to conduct the census stateside. This
indicates that without the capabilities to meet high standards
of measurable quality, we would be unable to provide data
likely to fulfill the purpose for which the decennial census is
collected; that is, apportionment, redistricting and
distribution of Federal funds. The preliminary results of the
test indicate that we cannot meet the same standards of
measurable quality as the data that we collect in the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity and hope
this information is informative. I have a full written
statement that I request be included in the record if it so
please you.
Mr. Putnam. It will be, and we appreciate it. And thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kincannon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.007
Mr. Putnam. For our next witness, we are going to hear Ms.
Dalton's testimony, and then we will go to Mr. Clay's opening
statement. Our next witness is Ms. Patricia Dalton, who is
Director For Strategic Issues at the Government Accountability
Office. In this position she directs GAO's work related to the
decennial census and the Census Bureau. She is responsible for
GAO's work related to government management issues,
particularly performance management and the Government
Performance and Results Act, organizational structure and
design, intergovernmental relations and tools of government.
Before joining the GAO in 2001, she was the Deputy
Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Labor for 7 years.
She received her appointment to the Senior Executive Service in
1993 from the U.S. Department of the Army, where she served as
Director of Audit Policy, Planning and Resources of the Army
Audit Agency. Ms. Dalton is a certified public accountant and
holds an M.B.A. from U.Mass and a BA from the College of the
Holy Cross. Welcome to the subcommittee.
Ms. Dalton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. At the subcommittee's request we have evaluated
the overseas enumeration test, its design and execution and
have published two reports on the subject, the latest of which
is being released this afternoon by the subcommittee. Although
the complete results of the test will not be available until
next year when the Census Bureau expects to finalize its
evaluations, two important findings have already emerged in
GAO's work.
First, the 2004 overseas test was an extremely valuable
exercise in that it revealed the numerous obstacles both in
logistics and design to counting Americans abroad through the
decennial census. The tools and resources the Bureau has
available to enumerate this group, largely for reasons of
practicality, cannot cost-effectively surmount these obstacles.
Second, to the extent that better data on overseas
Americans might be useful for various policymaking and other
nonapportionment purposes that do not need as much precision,
such information does not need to be collected as part of the
decennial census. It will be important for Congress, the Bureau
and stakeholders to work together to explore the feasibility of
counting overseas Americans using alternatives to the decennial
census. The initial results of the overseas census test suggest
that counting Americans abroad on a global basis would require
enormous resources and still not yield data that are comparable
in quality to the stateside count.
The response to the overseas census test was disappointing,
and you can see that on the posterboard to your left. The 5,390
responses that the Bureau received in the three test countries
was far below what the Bureau planned for when it printed out
the questionnaires. While the Bureau ordered 520,000 paper
forms for the three test sites, less than 2,000 forms were
returned. Approximately 3,000 responses were received by the
Internet.
Not surprisingly, as with any operation as complex as the
overseas enumeration test, various unforeseen problems arose.
While the Bureau was able to address them, it is doubtful that
the Bureau would have the ability to do so in 2010 should there
be a full overseas enumeration. The difficulties included
grappling with country-specific issues and overseeing the
contractor responsible for raising public awareness of the
census at the three test sites.
The Bureau's long-standing experience in counting the
Nation's stateside population has shown that specific
operations and procedures together form the building blocks of
a successful census, and, again, this is illustrated in one of
the posterboards to your left. The design of the overseas test,
a voluntary survey that relies heavily on marketing to secure
complete counts, lacks these basic building blocks largely
because they are impractical to perform in other countries. The
disappointing test results are not surprising. Refining this
basic design or adding more resources would probably not
produce substantial better outcomes. Key elements for success
are absent.
In addition to the logistical hurdles, there are a series
of policy and conceptual questions that need to be addressed as
well. They include who should be counted, what determines
residency in another country, how should overseas Americans be
assigned to individual States, how should the population data
be used.
Congress will need to decide whether or not to count
overseas Americans and how the results should be used. These
decisions in turn will drive the methodology for counting the
population group. Possibilities include counting Americans via
a separate survey; administrative records such as passports or
voter registration forms; records maintained by other
countries, such as published census records and work permits.
However, far more extensive research would be needed to
determine the feasibility of these or other potential
approaches.
The report we released today suggests that Congress should
continue to fund the evaluations of the 2004 test, but
eliminate funding for any additional tests related to counting
Americans abroad as part of the decennial census. However, this
is not to say that overseas citizens should not be counted.
Such information does not necessarily need to be collected as
part of the decennial census and could be acquired through a
separate survey or other means. Our report recommends that the
Bureau, in consultation with the Congress, would research such
options.
Successfully counting the Nation's population is a daunting
task. As the countdown to the next census approaches the 5-year
mark, the question of enumerating Americans overseas is just
one of a number of issues that the Bureau needs to resolve. As
you know, last year we identified the 2010 census as a major
management challenge. On behalf of the subcommittee, we will
continue to assess the Bureau's progress in planning and
implementing the 2010 census and identifying opportunities to
increase its cost-effectiveness.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.025
Mr. Putnam. At this time I would like to recognize the
distinguished gentleman from Missouri Mr. Clay for his opening
statement.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and especially for
calling this hearing.
A great deal of energy has been expended on the issue of
counting Americans overseas both by Congress and the Census
Bureau, and I hope this hearing will move us toward a
conclusion on this issue. It is clear from the reports that the
GAO has prepared that they believe that Congress needs to
provide direction on this issue. At the same time, GAO
indicates that the Census Bureau has not given Congress much
useful information for developing that guidance.
Before we get too far in this discussion of counting
Americans overseas, I want to raise an issue that has come
before me. Two groups, one representing Puerto Ricans and one
representing American Indians, have raised concerns about the
way in which a member of the Census Information Center Steering
Committee was forced to resign from the committee after
publicly disagreeing with a senior Census Bureau official. The
gentleman dismissed from the committee is a well-respected
researcher at the Joint Center For Political and Economic
Studies. For those of you who are not familiar with the Joint
Center, it is one of Washington's premier think tanks and was
formed in the 1970's to provide policy analysis for African
American Congressmen. Both groups have represented this action
as demonstrating a lack of sensitivity on the part of Census
Bureau officials toward people of color.
This has not been a good summer for the Census Bureau. Last
month it was criticized of trying to bury the bad news about
the increase in poverty by releasing the numbers in the dead of
August when everyone was out of town. And it came out only
because the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a
Freedom of Information request that the Census Bureau had
produced tabulations that showed where Arab Americans live.
Those tabulations were made from the 2000 census data on
ancestry. Now we find out that a senior African American
scholar has been summarily dismissed from a steering committee
because he openly disagreed with the Census Bureau on the
measurement of race. I'm not surprised that these groups
believe that the Census Bureau is insensitive to their
concerns.
Today we will hear testimony from GAO and the Census Bureau
that suggest that we should end the count of Americans
overseas. We will also hear from the advocates who are
Americans overseas that the 2004 test was not a very good test,
and that much more can be done. I hope both the GAO and the
Census Bureau will address the issues raised by the second
panel.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. If I could go to
the questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.027
Mr. Putnam. You are on a roll and recognized for 5 minutes
for your questions. Before you begin, I would like to recognize
and note for the record our distinguished gentlelady from New
York who is joining our subcommittee, Mrs. Maloney.
Mr. Clay, you are recognized.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, and I thank the gentlelady from New
York for being here.
Mr. Kincannon, maybe you want to address what I said. I
know it is a personnel issue, but it certainly raises red flags
for me, and we'll start there.
Mr. Kincannon. Mr. Clay, I appreciate your consistent and
long-running support for the activities of the Census Bureau,
and I'll certainly answer in that context.
I'm not aware that someone was removed from the panel or
fired from his job because he disagreed with someone at the
Census Bureau. I don't think there's any evidence that the
Census Bureau had any role in that. We have never in my memory
objected to a body choosing someone to serve on an advisory
committee where there are bodies represented. And as for people
disagreeing, if we try to remove all the people on our advisory
committees that disagreed with us in public, we would have a
very empty room. Disagreement and dialog about disagreement is
the nature of those advisory committees.
I wasn't at that particular meeting, but I'm quite
confident, as much as I can be of facts in this world, that we
made no effort to have someone removed on that basis. The only
thing that makes me try to remove a member of an advisory
committee is that they don't come to the meetings. If they
don't come to the meetings, they are not adding anything to our
knowledge.
Mr. Clay. I appreciate your response, and perhaps we can
get the two parties together and figure out what actually
happened, and I thank you for that response.
Mr. Kincannon, I can understand the drive to include
military personnel serving overseas in the census particularly
at times like this when men and women are dying every day in
service to their country. And it is more difficult to
understand the drive to include civilian personnel serving
overseas. The military overseas are not there by choice,
particularly in war zones. Many of the civilian jobs overseas,
however, are actually plums. Your job in Paris is one example
where I doubt they have ever had to force someone to take that
job. Has the Census Bureau ever considered counting only the
military personnel overseas and State Department employees
serving at our embassies overseas?
Mr. Kincannon. I'm sure the Census Bureau would follow the
direction of Congress on that particular matter.
Let me say even though I enjoyed very much being in Paris,
and I never regarded it as a plum assignment, and my wife
enjoyed it very much indeed because she was able to enjoy Paris
and life there, but I'll tell you the fact of the matter is I
would not have been included or was not included in the census
because I wasn't an employee of the U.S. Government. I was
counted in the French census.
My experience was that it was very difficult to recruit
Americans to posts even though you enjoyed many privileges,
with high-ranking staff being accorded diplomatic status, the
pay being considerably higher than Civil Service pay, even at
the highest levels, even for political appointees. So yes, I
would think it was very attractive.
It was difficult for Americans to come out of concern for
language and out of concern for integration of their family,
particularly for professional-level people who would fill jobs
in an organization like the OECD. Often both members of the
family, the husband as well as the wife, are employed outside
the home in well-paying professional jobs, and when they move
from the United States to France, they were not eligible
automatically for employment. Unless you were a citizen of an
EU member country, you're not automatically eligible to work
there. Yet it is possible to find jobs, but it is a barrier.
But if you teach school, that may be a particular problem. If
you have children that are already partly along in school and
not at the beginning of their school life, then they are going
to face enormous barriers and have extensive dislocation in
their life. I was not successful in recruiting a single
professional-level staff member to join my staff from the
United States in the 8 years that I tried to do so.
Mr. Clay. I can probably recommend you a few staffers that
I know around here that would love to take the position.
But what about counting the overseas employees, Federal
employees, that work in the embassy and the military? Have you
considered that?
Mr. Kincannon. It would be feasible to do, and if that is
the opinion that the Congress had, I'm sure that we could make
that distinction, because that count is based on administrative
records.
Mr. Clay. All those employees at the military and embassy,
I mean, there are pretty low numbers.
Mr. Kincannon. Pretty low numbers, and I'm not sure all of
the military responded in the census. That will be part of our
evaluation.
Mr. Clay. Thank you.
Mr. Putnam. We have a vote pending, and we are going to
continue on with questions. The round of votes we have, it will
take approximately an hour. I apologize to you in advance for
that.
Both of you mentioned in your testimony that in the past
there have been past efforts by the Census Bureau to count
Americans abroad. What lessons were learned from those attempts
that were applied to this test? Ms. Dalton or Mr. Kincannon.
Mr. Kincannon. Mr. Chairman, I think the basic lesson from
past experience in counting American servicemembers and
civilian government employees stationed overseas is that if you
have complete administrative records, it's not a difficult task
to count people. We counted them. I'm sure those numbers are
pretty close to accurate, and they do not have the
characteristics data that would be associated with a
conventional census, but I'm sure in total number they are
fairly complete.
Mr. Putnam. You have heard GAO's recommendation which was
it was the test was not successful. What then is the conclusion
or the action on the part of the Census Bureau? Will all
efforts to beyond evaluating these results end? Have we closed
the book on enumerating Americans abroad?
Mr. Kincannon. It would be difficult for me to argue
strongly that this test was a success, but, in fact, we
succeeded in learning quite a bit about difficulties, including
the different cultural and legal situations in other countries.
That also would make it difficult to do a worldwide effort. On
the other hand, the fact that so few people responded was much
below our expectation. If you look at the example of France,
the lowest estimate that we have for the number of American
citizens living in France is over 29,000, and that is an
underestimate because that excludes any American who has dual
citizenship, and there are quite a number that have dual
citizenship. If you look at the 2,000responses in France,
assume that the household size is the same as stateside and
multiply by 2.4, you come up with under 5,000 or less than 1 in
6 of the smallest and known to be understated estimates of
Americans in France. That is not anywhere close, and so it is
not encouraging to proceed.
As to further activities, we at present do not have the
prospect of appropriated funds to continue this work, so we
don't have anything else planned.
Ms. Dalton. I would add that in 1960 and 1970, the Census
Bureau did attempt to enumerate private citizens, that were
overseas, and similarly they had serious difficulties in
response to the response rate. So this is a continuing pattern.
Mr. Putnam. What other data bases exist, Ms. Dalton, that
suggest to us that a more accurate number of citizens abroad in
terms of the number of private IRS filings from overseas or
absentee voters from overseas--what other information or data
bases are out there that would give us some clue?
Ms. Dalton. There are a lot of data bases. However, the
reliability of the information is really unknown. There is
information that the State Department has in terms of
passports, registration at embassies. We have voter records,
though that is of questionable reliability; tax records to some
extent, as you mentioned; Social Security files are also a
possibility. But, none of these have really been seriously
evaluated for their use or how they could be improved to use as
part of the census or a count of some form.
Mr. Putnam. When you did your interviews at the test sites,
did you get any hint of why the response rate was so low?
Ms. Dalton. Not specifically, other than that some people
just did not want to be counted. When you look at what happened
stateside in the 2000 census, the response rate was--I think
after all of the followup that was done by the Census Bureau,
it was only 72 percent. So I think we're seeing similar
patterns overseas. Plus you have the issue of were people aware
that the test was being conducted.
Mr. Putnam. And how many countries, because of State
Department warnings and security issues, would it be virtually
impossible for us to have people on the ground conducting these
enumerations if we were to proceed with it?
Ms. Dalton. I don't know the number. I know at any given
time the State Department has numerous countries under warnings
of various types, but I don't have an accurate count of that.
Mr. Putnam. In France you had an unusually low response.
There were privacy laws that were part of the challenge you
faced in this test. I assume that there would be a number of
other countries where we could expect those same problems. Is
that what you found, Ms. Dalton?
Ms. Dalton. Yes, it is. In the three test sites, the Census
Bureau encountered problems of various natures. You point out
the issue of France and the privacy laws. In Mexico there were
issues with the mail system. In Kuwait there were issues of
trying to deliver the census forms to the appropriate parties,
and the embassy had to take custody of the forms and then move
them.
What I think you pointed out is that each country would in
all likelihood be unique, so we wouldn't be running one census,
but we would be running 100 censuses in dealing with those
countries' specific issues.
Mr. Putnam. And just to refresh--let me go back to the
basic language in the Constitution. Do we have any guidance
from a constitutional scholar on what the language, actual
enumeration of the population, what that means as it relates to
overseas counting?
Mr. Kincannon. I'm not aware that there is any
determination that says there is a prohibition against counting
Americans overseas, and the counting of servicemen and Federal
civilian employees overseas has been reviewed and upheld by the
Supreme Court. But I'm not going to give a legal opinion.
That's not my preparation. That's my understanding.
Mr. Putnam. Knowing the Court's direction and the legal
interpretation of what efforts you must make to make an actual
enumeration stateside, would that same equal protection
requirement exist overseas where, if we are going to make this
effort to count overseas, if we were to pursue it, it would not
be enough just to count the ones that are easy to count? We
would have presumably to put the same types of efforts and
resources on the ground overseas as stateside to be in
compliance with the interpretation? I'm asking you. I don't
know that.
Mr. Kincannon. Mr. Chairman, I think it depends on the
purpose for which were the data collected and the way they were
used. If they were used for descriptive information, then you
don't create rights for certain people that way, it seems to
me. If it could be used for apportionment or redistricting or
fund allocation, then you are beginning to create rights, and
that might be a concern.
Mr. Putnam. My time has expired. We have 6 minutes
remaining before the vote, so the committee will stand in
recess, and we will be back. But please drink all the orange
juice you can, and we will be back in approximately 1 hour.
The subcommittee will reconvene. I apologize for the delay
with votes. I am informed we have another round of votes
shortly. So I would ask the ranking member if he has any
additional questions for the first panel. He has indicated he
does not. We will defer to the written record.
We want to be sure and get to the second panel. So we will
dismiss panel one and seat panel two. We will stand in recess
momentarily until we can get panel two seated.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Putnam. The subcommittee will reconvene. I would like
to ask panel two to rise and raise your right hands for the
administering of the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Putnam. Note for the record that all witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
We will move directly to testimony, beginning with Mr.
Leigh Gribble. Mr. Gribble is the managing director at New
Bridges Strategies in Kuwait. Prior to joining, he founded and
managed Blackthorn Rhino, a firm dedicated to providing
technical consulting liaison and management services to
multinational companies pursuing business opportunities in the
defense, industrial, financial and commercial sectors in the
Middle East. He has resided in Kuwait since 1992, and has been
working in Iraq over the past year. Welcome to the
subcommittee, sir. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF LEIGH GRIBBLE, VICE CHAIR, AMERICAN BUSINESS
COUNCIL OF THE GULF COUNTRIES, ON BEHALF OF CENSUS 2010
COALITION; LUCY STENSLAND LAEDERICH, U.S. LIAISON, FEDERATION
OF AMERICAN WOMEN'S CLUB OVERSEAS, INC.; AND CLARK H. BENSEN,
CONSULTANT AND PUBLISHER, POLIDATA CO.
Mr. Gribble. Thank you very much. Good afternoon,
distinguished chairman and committee members. I may go over 5
minutes, but I would ask your indulgence, because I left my
plum job in Baghdad and drove 8 hours last week and it took
about 23 hours to fly over here. So if I go a couple of minutes
over, I would beg your indulgence.
Mr. Putnam. Fair enough.
Mr. Gribble. Again, as noted, I am a retired naval officer
and the owner of a consulting firm that is incorporated in the
State of Florida. I have lived in Kuwait in connection with my
military service and my consulting business for over 12 years.
However, I pay taxes and vote in Florida's 7th Congressional
District, which is where my company is registered and where I
hope to return to live full time within the next few years.
Among the various civic activities I am involved in
overseas and within the United States, I serve as the vice
chairman of the American Business Council of the Gulf
Countries, and am on the executive committees of the American
Business Council of Kuwait, and the American Chamber of
Commerce of Iraq.
Additionally, I am honored to represent overseas American
citizens for the Census 2010 Coalition on the Secretary of
Commerce's Decennial Census Advisory Committee.
Today I am testifying on behalf of the Census 2010
Coalition, a coalition which represents diverse interests of
such overseas American citizens groups as the 98 U.S. Chamber
of Commerce-affiliated American chambers abroad; the
Association of American Citizens Abroad; the Association of
American Residents Overseas; Republicans Abroad; and the
Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas, FAWCO.
FAWCO is also represented here today by my dear friend and
one of the very few reasons I can think of to visit France,
Lucy Laederich. I am as humbled today as I was in June 1999 and
July 2001, when I was privileged to appear before this august
subcommittee to give voice to the concerns of thousands of my
fellow private American citizens around the world.
Rather than take up your valuable time rereading points
that I made in those two previous appearances, I would
respectfully request, Mr. Chairman, that you accept my
testimony from June 9, 1999, and the July 26, 2001 hearings, as
attached to my written testimony today, for inclusion in the
record of this hearing.
Lucy Laederich of FAWCO has allowed me to review her
upcoming testimony and her presentation of lessons learned in
the 2004 overseas census test. It is quite extensive and
accurately reflects what I saw in Kuwait during the conduct of
the test. So with your indulgence, I will not spend a lot of
time discussing lessons learned today except to emphasize two
important points:
First, we all know that extensive media outreach is crucial
to conducting a successful census. We also know that media
campaigns are extremely expensive in the United States. This is
because there are literally thousands and thousands of print
and broadcast media outlets for U.S. residents to choose from.
In the United States, the Census Bureau has to spend large
amounts of money to cover the broadest possible spectrum of
media to reach the maximum number of individuals in cities,
towns, and rural areas where people may have access to 5
newspapers, 20 radio stations and hundreds of TV channels to
read or tune into.
Overseas American citizens do not have so much choices of
what to read, listen to, or watch in the English language
media. But, they generally have access and pay attention,
regular attention, to five almost global outlets and media
streams. These worldwide outlets and streams are the
International Herald Tribune, the Voice of America, and the
U.S.-based international news channels, CNN, Fox News and
MSNBC.
Media buys in just these five outlets and streams should
reach the vast majority of American citizens around the world,
and would not break the Census Bureau's advertising budget. The
Census Bureau did not advertise in those outlets or streams
during the 2004 test census, except for a very limited ad buy
in the International Herald Tribune in France and Mexico toward
the end of the test period. Any overseas census is bound to see
low response rates if it is not well advertised.
Second, mandatory participation in the U.S. census is
required by statute for all U.S. residents. Obviously the force
of law is used to compel participation in the census and
thereby increase response rates. What would U.S. response rates
be if the threat of a penalty for nonparticipation was not a
factor to be considered by potential respondents? I daresay it
would drop off steeply.
There was obviously no such penalty provision hanging over
the American citizens in the three test countries. Many here in
Washington scoff at the idea of making participation in an
overseas census mandatory. They say it would be an
unenforceable requirement, yet the IRS requires overseas
American citizens to file U.S. income tax returns and pay
required taxes, again under penalty of law. Human nature being
what it is, even the slight possibility of running afoul of the
Federal Government would be a prime motivator for many overseas
American citizens to complete census forms and would raise
response rates. Any overseas census should require mandatory
participation, just as the U.S. census does.
I would like to now offer some thoughts on why the utmost
effort should be made to bring the census process into the 21st
century and why it is mortally imperative that Congress act to
include overseas American citizens in the census.
When I started drafting this testimony, I was in the middle
of a month of travel that included business meetings and events
in Kuwait, Bahrain, Kurdistan, and Northern Iraq and Baghdad.
On the first of September, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, John
Negraponte, and I had the privilege of addressing the inaugural
reception to the American Chamber of Commerce in Iraq in
Baghdad. It was a diverse gathering of more than 80 American
business people, ranging from individual lawyers and
consultants to representatives of major contractors involved in
reconstruction and consumer products companies. Our remarks
that evening were punctuated by the sounds of nearby mortar
fire, but the noisy explosions did not drown out the
conversations or dampen the spirit of the American business
community in Iraq as it gathered to celebrate the founding of
the newest U.S. Chamber of Commerce overseas, and the fact that
we were entering and building yet another market for American
goods and services in the global economy.
I certainly never imagined when I was growing up that I
would find myself in such a place in Baghdad at such a historic
time, nor do I suppose the founders of our country ever
imagined that American voters would be living overseas in
significant numbers when the Census Act of 1790 was passed and
laid down the foundation for one of the principal, if not
primary purposes of conducting the census, the determination of
the voting population of each State.
In fact, it was not even until the mid-1970's that American
citizens resident overseas were even allowed to vote by
absentee methods. If the census is to be successfully conducted
and true to its primary mission of determining the voting
population of each State, then it must take into account the
21st century realities of an America that has a global economy
and a substantial population resident overseas, whose votes are
recorded in every State of the Union.
The census should no longer be conducting their Rules of
Usual Residence that were devised and appropriate in the
1700's. The Rules of Usual Residence must be updated to reflect
the existence of a global American population that votes while
far away from home.
Equal protection is not just a good idea, it is the law and
it is constitutionally mandated by the 14th amendment. Equal
protection under the law means that all American citizens and
residents enjoy the same rights and privileges. Simply, the
government is not allowed to offer rights and privileges to
some citizens and residents and deny these same rights and
privileges to others, yet by not including private American
citizens resident overseas, the Federal Government does just
that. The Census Bureau does count overseas federally
affiliated Americans and U.S. military personnel in the census,
but they do not count me and equal protection is denied. Even
though I pay Federal income tax, those portions of the Federal
budget that are allocated to Florida and my home place of
Ormond Beach based on census population data do not include
money that should rightfully be expended there on my behalf,
because do I not exist, according to the census, and equal
protection is denied.
The strength of my vote is diminished because the census
does not count me, and so the current system fails to include
and apportion me in and to the voting population of the State
of Florida and its 7th Congressional District, and again equal
protection is denied.
Many argue that if American citizens resident overseas are
counted in the census and the resulting data is used for the
purposes of apportionment and redistricting, that biases will
be introduced that may cause perturbations in the current
apportionment and redistricting processes and unfair advantages
to some States or districts. But with judicious modification of
the Rules of Usual Residence and acceptable statistical
remedies, this should be avoidable. Equal protection under the
law must be enforced for all American citizens, including those
residing overseas, by counting them in the census.
Now, to the question of cost effectiveness of counting
American citizens resident overseas in the census, is it
necessary and cost-effective to break down the population of
the individual States into 14 separate racial and ethnic
categories and then tabulate and analyze reams of data about
these categories? Certainly it is not under the original Census
Act of 1790. But Congress has been sage enough over the years
to mandate the modifications to the census process to reflect
the changes and requirementsin and of a constantly evolving
American population. Now that the American population includes
an uncounted but significant number of citizens resident
overseas, the census process needs modification again to
properly reflect this.
The GAO concludes in their review of the 2004 overseas
census test that it would not be cost effective to count
Americans resident overseas in the census. As best I can tell
from the report, this conclusion is based in very large measure
upon an overseas census test response rate that is perceived as
low. This response rate appears to be solely based on comparing
the number of forms printed before the test for the Census
Bureau and the actual number of responses received--520,000
versus about 3,700. If they printed 6,000 forms, would 3,700
look like a good number? I may be mistaken, but I believe that
the number of forms printed reflected the Census Bureau's best
estimate of how many printed forms might be needed to conduct
the test, and was certainly not intended to be used as a
measurable response.
Comparing a pretest number of required forms to the actual
responses received by printed form Internet input hardly seems
to be statistically significant or cost effective itself. We
all understand that there are huge obstacles to be overcome in
order to count American citizens resident overseas in the
census and then to put that resulting data to fair and
meaningful use. But Congress should not allow the debate over
whether to do so to continue to focus on the logistical and the
statistical; rather, the focus should be on deciding whether it
is moral and right to continue to deny equal protection under
the law to American citizens resident overseas.
I have to believe that the answer to that question is no. I
also believe that Congress can come up with the necessary
statutory changes, funding, and mandates to the Census Bureau
to rectify this injustice, and I urge you to do so.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much, Mr. Gribble.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gribble follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.031
Mr. Putnam. I will let all of you know that we are
expecting votes again at 4 or somewhere thereabouts. So I would
ask all of you--and I appreciate the distances that you have
traveled--but I would ask you to summarize your written
remarks, knowing that your full text will be in the record.
Our next witness is Ms. Lucy Stensland Laederich. She is
the U.S. liaison for the Federation of American Women's Clubs
Overseas, a nonpartisan network which comprises 72 independent
organizations in 33 countries around the world. FAWCO has been
actively involved in advocating the inclusion in the U.S.
census of private American citizens residing temporarily or
permanently abroad. Its members, especially, Ms. Laederich, are
considered invaluable overseas Ambassadors for America.
Welcome to the subcommittee. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Laederich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
extremely honored to have been invited to testify here and to
address you, even though I am equally daunted to be speaking
for a population that is equal in size to the 25th State in the
Union.
Thank you for saying some things about me. I don't need to
say those, but I can add to what you said, that I was
privileged to have a front-row seat to the 2004 census test
from my home in Paris, where I did not choose to live--but we
can go into that at another time if you want.
You have asked me to testify about the lessons learned in
the 2004 test, but I want to explain why those lessons and the
recommendations of this committee are so important to those I
represent.
My remarks here and in the written record have been
approved by FAWCO--which you have mentioned, but it is also the
oldest and largest organization representing private-sector
Americans abroad--as well as the Association of Americans
Resident Overseas based in Paris, and American Citizens Abroad
based in Geneva.
Alongside the American Business Council of the Gulf
Countries, we have all devoted a great deal of energy to this
cause over the past decade. Using only the figures that were
available to us, which were State Department estimates, we
produced a map that I believe you have in front of you there,
which I think very dramatically shows the size and scope of the
population we are talking about.
We want to congratulate the Census Bureau for taking on a
huge challenge. Under two directors, that both Leigh and I have
had the pleasure of knowing, it has moved this cause forward in
good faith and to the best of its ability with the resources
available to it.
As we heard earlier from you, Mr. Chairman, the
Constitution mandates a count of every person physically
present in the United States, legal citizen or not. We know
that counting U.S. citizens abroad is not constitutionally
mandated, but in today's global world--and Leigh has said--it
is as logical as a count of people physically present on
American soil called for in the 18th century. It is the only
thing that can provide a picture of the real American
population in the 21st century, present and active throughout
the world.
Our organizations don't all agree on the purposes for which
statistics should be used, but there is one on which we all do
agree; that is apportionment. We are not so naive as to believe
that this will be easy. But we are American enough to believe
that it is important. Until the statistics used to apportion
seats include the corresponding overseas population, State
representation will be skewed, and the House of Representatives
will not be representative of the real global American
population.
We regret the fact that the total number of respondents was
far below what we hoped, but we remember that the Census Bureau
did not set out in the 2004 experiment to test for response
rate or coverage. The aim was to test the questionnaire itself
and the way in which Americans were reached and encouraged to
respond.
My written testimony goes into more detail on both of those
aspects. But I would like to mention just a couple of things
with regard to each. For the questionnaire, we know that the
objective was to make the overseas questionnaire as similar to
the domestic short form as possible, but we still recommend
changes to make it more appropriate for the overseas
population.
We feel it should be one, mandatory for U.S. citizens, two,
clearly and obviously protected under Title 13 of the U.S.
Code. In other words, when I say ``obviously,'' that should be
obvious to the respondents. It was not. And three, clearly a
civic action. The Bureau chose a very good slogan: ``easy,
Important, Confidential.'' ``important'' and ``confidential''
need to be made abundantly clear to the respondents.
As regard to outreach, my written testimony goes
considerably more into detail there, but we would recommend
adopting the equivalent of the U.S. system with regional and
local offices around the world staffed by one person from the
Census Bureau and one local American familiar with the country
and its American population; other forms of outreach, like the
domestic census-in-schools program; paid advertising in a wide
range of media, not concentrated in one American newspaper;
congressional funding for U.S. Embassies and consulates abroad,
by far the best equipped today to help coordinate and
contribute to an effort like this; and some funding for upline
planning involving those familiar with the population in
question, both organizations like ours and consular officials.
We should remember that in 1781 no one knew yet how to
count persons physically present in the new United States
either. Despite procedures refined over time, the domestic
population still is not fully counted. We do not at all want to
distract from the domestic effort. On the contrary, we want to
see them complemented by statistics that would show the global
reality of the modern America.
We all realize that if we knew how to count overseas
Americans, the overseas census test would not be needed. But
unknown territory and the unknown universe that you mentioned
yourself, Mr. Chairman, earlier, unknown territory must not
deter us any more than it deters the child who falls the first
time he or she tries to walk. One day that child will walk
right into university.
Other countries like France count their citizens abroad,
and the United States can do it too. The time has come as we
enter the 21st century for a real sea change in mentalities
about America's place in the world; an understanding that the
overseas American population is a vital and integral part of
the global American community.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Laederich follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.035
Mr. Putnam. Our next witness is Mr. Clark Bensen. Mr.
Bensen is a consultant and the publisher of Polidata
Demographic and Political Guide, which produces reference tools
for demographic and political research. An attorney by training
and a data analyst by practice, Mr. Bensen has been analyzing
data related to the art of politics for over 25 years. He has
been involved in redistricting and census issues throughout the
past three redistricting cycles, and has developed political
and census data sets for every State in the Union.
In addition, on several projects he has been responsible
for the establishment of a nationwide data base of demographic
and political information. His participation has included
service at every level of politics, moving to Washington
following the 1980 elections.
Welcome to the subcommittee. And you are recognized for 5
minutes, sir.
Mr. Bensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Much of what I had in
here, of course, will be summarized for two reasons. One is the
time; and two is that much of what actually I wrote here as
problems with the test has actually been covered by the GAO
report. So let me just highlight a few things here that have
come up and I believe are issues that need to be addressed.
Again, I basically am a redistricting consultant. And what
I do is I assist people around the country who actually draw
the lines in which you Members get the wonderful chance to run
for office. And one of the paramount concerns that
redistricting people have is that the data that they are
provided by the Bureau is in fact the most accurate, the best
data available that can be gathered. And this means that it is
gathered from an exhausting and objective physical counting of
the American public.
Now, redistricting people are also one of the very few data
users in the country that actually use the census block level
data. And I might add that if in fact anything is done with the
count of overseas Americans, I believe the first important
distinction is, it should not be used for redistricting, if in
fact it is used for apportionment. And I say that advisably,
because I believe the data at the census block level would be
very suspect with the overseas Americans added in, largely
because we really don't know what physical address many of them
have and whether you can verify them, validate them, whatever.
I just think even considering it for redistricting is beyond
the pale.
Now, apportionment at the State level has its own problems,
one of which is--and I believe, Mr. Chairman, you brought this
up before about what the Constitution says, and are there
limitations. I believe the major limitation is actually the
language of counting people in each State, which goes back to
the physical residence rule.
It is fairly clear to say that members of the military and
Federal employees and their dependents have an enduring tie to
the United States. Most of them are over there temporarily and
involuntarily. They will return. There is what we call a
logical nexus for them. It is much more difficult to say what
the nexus is for many overseas Americans, although obviously my
patriots here have a very strong logical nexus to the United
States. But I believe that is a constitutional problem from the
standpoint of who gets counted in the overseas count. And I
shouldn't even say count, because it would obviously be, as the
GAO person said, hundreds of counts. Each country would have
its own separate problem. However, I don't think that means you
have to just say you can't do it. I think it is an open
constitutional question. But I think the touchstone is again to
have an annual enumeration and to have the logical nexus.
Let me summarize another area of problem, which is
basically again going to how good a job can we make to count
these people? And this goes to what Mr. Gribble was saying,
too, about the bias. The bias here is, basically, could be two
levels. One is from the nation-by-nation count, and two is by
the State-by-State count. I use as an example in my written
report about the counting in Mexico versus counting in Canada.
It may be easier to count in Canada the overseas Americans--
well, probably more people from Canada come from the northern
States. It may be difficult to count in Mexico, and many
Americans in Mexico may come from the southern States. So there
is a bias as to which States you go to, which are the easier to
count, and then, likewise, in the results as they come back.
And this bias again goes back to the constitutional problem
with the census itself, which is the actual numeration. We all
know that, in fact, there have been millions of Americans that
have not been counted over time, but the point is the Bureau is
supposed to count as many people as it can, house by house,
without any possibility of manipulation.
Bias is not necessarily intentional manipulation, but it
could be. That is part of the problem and one of the concerns
with counting the overseas. I think from the standpoint of
including them in the census, I just don't know see that is
going to be a real probability, certainly not by 2010, possibly
by 2020, I wouldn't rule it out for that.
But I think one of the biggest problems here from the
standpoint of 2010 is the Bureau does a very good count at
counting people. That is their mission, that is why they go
there to work every day; they want to count people, they want
to find people, they have an address list, they have a concept
of how many people there are. They can claim success and give a
coverage rate and assess the efforts they have done.
That is not going to be possible with this. And in that
sense, we are really setting the Bureau up for a failure. And
as one who actually uses the data from the Bureau very clearly,
I mean, this to me is a problem.
So that is one of the problems I see with this. And I
believe the GAO report goes over the feasibility problems and
stuff. I think the only logical thing to do is to work on an
overseas survey over time so we can all assess the degree to
which overseas Americans exist nation by nation, and then
possibly for the 2020 census we consider how to implement that.
Thank you.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bensen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8351.039
Mr. Putnam. Ms. Laederich, do I read your testimony
correctly that you have been in France since 1970?
Ms. Laederich. Yes. That is right.
Mr. Putnam. So if we were to have an actual enumeration,
what State would you want to be apportioned to?
Ms. Laederich. I vote in the State of Connecticut. That is
my last State of residence. And under the UOCAVA, which covers
our voting from overseas, I vote there. So I would assume that
it would be there.
Mr. Putnam. Is that something of a model that we would
adopt, that people would get to select what State they wanted
to be identified with? I mean, what if they choose not to vote,
or haven't voted in years?
Ms. Laederich. I would think, with all due respect, that
would be up to Congress to decide, but that there is a model
right now, which is the law that governs our voting. So that
might be the first thing to take into consideration. And once
Congress had made that decision, I would assume that
individuals would not be able to decide whether they liked it
or not.
Mr. Putnam. Who would be determined to be eligible for the
count? Would it be everyone who is eligible to be an American
citizen? In other words, if a British family, on vacation in
Disney World, and gave birth to a baby, and then went back
home, and that baby--technically has some citizenship rights--
but would we have an obligation to seek out that person, even
if they had no interest in exercising their American
citizenship?
Mr. Bensen, you are the attorney. Would you like to take a
crack at that?
Mr. Bensen. Well, that goes back to what I was saying
before about the logical nexus aspect of any overseas American.
I think one of the aspects, an advantage of actually doing a
survey over time, would be to assess the degree to which every
person that does respond does have a logical nexus. I would say
in that case, the person probably does not have any logical
nexus to the United States, and then that ties into the whole
voting aspect too.
There are people who can vote overseas, but voting does not
necessarily mean they should be counted for the census. And,
likewise, there are other people in the census that should
probably be allowed to vote, too. It is a good starting place.
But I think the key there really is what is the logical nexus.
What is the tie that binds that person, as a citizen, to the
United States?
I read a while ago, a couple of months ago, I guess, some
of the campaigns were down in Mexico trying to register voters,
and there was an example of a woman who had not lived in the
United States for 65 years, but they were going to register her
to vote. That is another problem, too, because that ties into
the State laws and how they allow people to vote.
I believe 10 States do not now have some sort of overseas
vote, for people to vote in Federal elections, even if they
have never lived here. And that is part of the problem. Many
overseas residents, overseas Americans, have never lived in the
States, any State. And that is a problem from a redistricting
standpoint again, too. Where do we put this person?
Mr. Putnam. For our two visitors from afar, I am looking at
these numbers. There is an estimated million Americans living
in Mexico; France, over 100,000. Do you attribute this
abysmally low response rate solely to lack of advertising? What
factors led to this response rate problem?
Ms. Laederich. Well, in my written testimony I do mention
some other things. I am afraid that we don't have time for all
of that. And Leigh would certainly have other answers.
I do believe that--I am sorry to say that a certain amount
of responsibility must fall on the outreach organization that
was responsible for reaching out, not that they were
incompetent, by any stroke of the imagination, but that
decisions were made that could have been made better.
I think to a great degree one of the big mistakes--how can
I say this nicely? One of the problems was that people familiar
with the populations in question were not involved enough. Now,
the Census Bureau did involve all of our organizations
tremendously, but perhaps not sufficiently.
Mr. Putnam. Mr. Gribble, would you like to add anything to
that?
Mr. Gribble. I would have to agree with Lucy, that I don't
think that the outreach by the contractor was as good as it
could have been. Again, in Kuwait we had no advertising. We had
a couple of posters that were put up in areas where Americans
congregated. And I am sure that caused some responses. At the
end of the day, how many folks in America, if they didn't think
that somebody was going to come knocking on the door, would
have answered their response--or made their response? It is
hard to say.
But, again you know, as we understood it, this test wasn't
to measure the response rates. And the numbers on that chart
are kind of a scientific wild guess as well. We simply don't
know.
When Clark talks about the biases that may be coming in,
assuming that folks in Canada are from the northern States,
until we start to do this and get into an iterative process of
refining the data and how the census is done, we are never
going to know. We assume. We are assuming a lot of things. But
until we start doing it, we are not going to really get a
handle on it. Again, we have said it before, nobody expects a
perfect census the first time around. The census in 1790 was
not perfect.
Mr. Putnam. I suspect Mr. Clay and Mrs. Maloney--even I
would concede that the census in 2000 was imperfect as well. I
said it before, I believe you said it, Mr. Gribble--that you
want to be counted for apportionment purposes. That is the
primary reason. Why do you want to be counted?
Mr. Gribble. I want to be counted for everything. I want
equal protection. I pay tax dollars. My tax dollars come to
Washington, and those tax dollars are allocated out of the
Federal budget based on population data and do not reflect me
back in Ormond Beach.
Now, a lot of my friends overseas are not coming back to
the States. In the Gulf region, where there are about 55,000 of
us, the vast majority are coming back and coming back soon. Why
should I come back to Ormond Beach, having sent all of my tax
dollars up here, and not have as good a school system as I
could possibly have? It is not fair. It is not right.
Mr. Putnam. Ms. Laederich, in your testimony you said that
the groups disagree on the why. Please elaborate.
Ms. Laederich. No. Excuse me. I didn't say that we
disagreed on why. I said that we don't all agree. There is a
difference. I think that there is a difference, because there
are some of us who feel now, now we want this, and are working
toward that. There are others who feel we must try for
everything right away.
We don't all agree about the hows and the wherefores. We
agree about the whys. I think a little bit like Congress, you
don't necessarily know the answers to things you study. We are
here today to study. And I think that we would agree that what
we would like to see is a continuing studying process so that 1
day we can have all of those wonderful things.
All I wanted to say was that apportionment seems to me to
be the absolute bottom line that almost has a constitutional
basis, because, again, we vote and should be counted here for
that reason.
Mr. Putnam. My time has expired. Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start with Mr.
Bensen, please.
Mr. Bensen, in his testimony, Mr. Gribble says that
counting some Americans overseas and not making an effort to
count all Americans overseas violates the concept of equal
protection. Do you agree with that assessment?
Mr. Bensen. Well, first off, I think from a legal
perspective, when attorneys think of equal protection, they
think of State action and not Federal action, but that is kind
of a nicety.
I think there is a problem with the concept of, in essence,
a selective enumeration instead of an actual enumeration. And
that is part of the problem; that if we just count the easy
ones, it is not going to be fair to the ones where it could be
harder to count. I mean, why should someone who lives in a
country that has a harder situation to count not be counted?
Why should the Bureau not try as much as it can to count that
person, versus a country where it is very easy to count them?
Mr. Clay. I couldn't agree more with you. We undercount
African American males every 10 years with our Census Bureau.
And they still haven't gotten it right over a 100-year period.
So I don't know how they would ever get it right for overseas
Americans.
Let me ask the other two panelists. Even if the Census
Bureau were to cut the costs of enumerating Americans overseas
in half, and they counted the 6 to 10 million people some
estimate to be the population, the cost would be enormous,
between $4 and $7 billion. The cost would rival what was spent
to count the 284 million people in the 2000 census.
If you were in our shoes, how would you explain to the
American public the justification for doubling the cost of the
census? Either one can take a stab.
Mr. Gribble. I don't know where those numbers come from,
and I certainly wouldn't try to dispute them. But, again, I do
not worry about logistics and statistics. I am worried about
you doing what is right, what is morally right.
Mr. Clay. You don't worry about the tax dollars we have to
spend?
Mr. Gribble. My tax dollars come here and don't go home. I
don't have as much of a strong tie to my tax dollars right now
as I would like to have.
Mr. Clay. OK, Mr. Gribble. How about you?
Ms. Laederich. I say in my written testimony that it seems
to me very, very clear that costs would go dramatically down as
we moved forward. It is obvious that at the beginning of this
test it is going to cost a lot of money. As more and more
people respond on line, costs could be cut. As we make better
and better use of the State Department's registration of
American citizens abroad, costs will go down.
The present cost per respondent is not a fair picture of
what it would be as we move forward.
Mr. Clay. OK. Thank you for that response.
Let me go back to Mr. Bensen. You indicate that you
questioned the constitutionality of including Americans
overseas in the census. The Census Bureau director seems to
believe that the Courts have given him the authority to
continue including them. Can you clarify this disagreement for
us?
Mr. Bensen. Yes. In fact, that was one of the few things
that I did disagree with in the GAO report where basically they
said that the Census Bureau has broad discretion to count these
people.
Rephrasing that to say the Census Bureau does have wide
discretion to count them, once it is clear that they can count
them, is very correct. The Secretary of Commerce and the Bureau
have wide discretion once they are doing something that is
constitutionally sound.
I don't think the question of constitutionality really
refers so much to the military overseas, as long as they are
actually counted in something that is close to annual
enumeration, because, as I said, they have a very clear nexus,
they are in each State from the standpoint of the principal
residences rules.
The problem really goes back to the other overseas
Americans where the question is really, what is their nexus,
and can you in fact include them? I think from my personal
perspective, I think it is clear you can include some of them.
It is really just a question of where you draw the line, which
goes back to the residency rules.
Mr. Clay. It also makes it very difficult to determine,
like the chairman brought up, the fact that the one woman had
not been in this country for 65 years. Where you would you
determine their residency to be here?
Mr. Bensen. Well, I think that is pretty much the crux of
the problem. It is difficult enough to get the forms. Once you
get the forms, then you have to figure out where they are
supposed to go. Then you have to figure out what their actual
connection is. Those are all things that the Bureau is not
geared up to do, doesn't have the tools for it.
And going back to your previous question about the cost, it
is really a substantial problem from my perspective, because as
we all know, counting the census stateside is an enormous
problem. Anything that distracts the Bureau from doing that I
think is just going to be a problem. And this from a
practitioner standpoint, if we were in fact to add 4 million
people, let's just use that a number, we added them to the
apportionment formula now State by State, the odds are not very
great it is going to change more than a couple of seats in the
whole thing.
So the point is, if you want to say to your constituents
that, yes, we did spend these billions of dollars and it did in
fact shift one, two, or three seats from Iowa to Florida, or
something like that, OK, but the net effect is not likely to be
very huge, because in fact it takes so many extra people to
shift over a seat.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you. Since we have no one else on our
side, I recognize Mrs. Maloney for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And first
I would like to request permission to place my opening
statement in the record. And I regret I was not able to get
back--I had a conflict--to question Ms. Dalton and Mr.
Kincannon, and I would like to place and have the committee
send them my questions and have them respond in writing, if you
could; because I think this is a very important issue,
particularly as we are in a global economy, and over and over
again we are dispatching Americans abroad.
I think it is absolutely fundamental that our men and women
in the military who are protecting us abroad have the right to
vote, have the right to be counted, and have all of the
protections. The same for our Federal employees. And I would
say it is the same for American business that is now involved
the global economy.
They tell us over and over that you can't go backward. We
are in a global economy. We must be part of that global
economy. You visit the State Department and they talk about
economic strategies to make sure that our businesses are able
to compete and win in the world economy, and that we have to
work toward counting our Americans citizens. That is part of
our Constitution. It is one of the first directives that they
give in the Constitution, is that we will have a census every
10 years. And what I don't understand is this throwing our
hands up in the air and saying we don't know how to do it and
we are going to give up. And we still have another 6 more years
that we can work on this.
So I disagree very much with the GAO report. I accept it.
But I feel that is not the American way. We go forward and try
to figure it out. Do we have all of the answers? No, we don't.
And we have to be fair and we have to be balanced. And it has
to be accurate and not have any room for any type of
manipulation.
But it is not fair to the American citizens, some of whom
are our best Ambassadors for our country as they live in other
countries. And I feel that we should make every effort to count
them. And I feel that we should go forward.
And my question is really to the two representatives of the
American Business Council and the Federation of American
Women's Clubs: Why can't we go forward with the 2006 test? Have
we gotten our census in our own country completely right? No.
We work every year to make it better. And the professionals
dedicate their time to making it better.
We should begin to count Americans abroad. And I am getting
tired of this. We had one director who was committed to it,
then we had the second director who was committed to it.
Everybody says they want to do it. Everybody says it is the
fair thing to do. And then they say, We can't do it. And I just
don't understand that. I don't see why we cannot go forward
with the 2006 test.
So I would like to ask Ms. Lucy Stensland Laederich, and
then Mr. Leigh Gribble, why we can't go forward with the 2006
test and your comments on it.
Ms. Laederich. Mrs. Maloney, I think that we both think we
can if Congress will make it possible. We certainly hope we
can. That is why we came here from Kuwait and from France. And
as I think you know, we have been working on it for a long
time. We certainly hope that it will be possible to go with the
2006 test.
Mr. Gribble. I really don't have anything to add to that. I
couldn't agree with you more.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Bensen, why can't we go on with the 2006
test?
Mr. Bensen. I think I covered a lot of that initially in my
responses, which is I just don't think it's an attainable goal
within the concept of the 2010 census, given the requirements.
I'm not against doing continued research. And I can tell you
that the 2006 test and the 2004 size and scope--obviously,
other things would be considered, but I don't think it's
possible to do that in time for the 2010 census, given the
inherent problems with running census counts or summaries for
100 plus nations.
Mrs. Maloney. If we don't start going forward, we won't be
there for the 2010 and we won't be there for the 2020. I would
suggest--and I have been a strong advocate for the funding for
the census. I'm down on the floor fighting to make sure they
get their funding, because I believe the research that they
conduct is an incredibly important to conduct policy. We can't
make policy if we don't know how many poor we have, how many
well we have, how well educated are people.
It is the blueprint of our Nation. As we move into a global
economy, we are in it whether we like it or not. We have to
make an effort to understand where our citizens are, how many
businesses are abroad, employing how many Americans. And they
are citizens, they are paying taxes, and they have every right
to be counted as any other American.
I would suggest we have to go forward. Possibly what we
find is we cannot use it in the 2010 census. But the fact
remains that we are not going to be ready for the 2020 census
if we don't go forward, make mistakes and try to tackle this
difficult task. I feel it is not responsible if we do not fund
and go forward. Maybe we find the problems, but how do you
correct the problems if you don't go forward and find them? So
I strongly feel that we should go forward with the test and see
where it is.
Maybe it is that we cannot decide the fundamental question
that you are concerned about in reapportionment, but maybe we
can address some of the concerns about where do we find out
citizens, what are they doing, how are they involved in other
countries. It just finding who they are and how many they are.
This is just a guess that it is 4 million. I bet it is a lot
more than that. But we have to have a sense of who they are.
We are in a global economy. The trend is going to be more
and more and more Americans are going to be living abroad.
I want to share with Mr. Putnam--I know we have to go
vote--but every time I lift up a business directory of
businesses in the district that I represent, they are all in
the global economy, every single one of them. All of them have
stations abroad and are growing abroad, and I think that the
only responsible thing is to do the impossible task. I mean,
this is America. We put people on the moon. We can't count
people abroad. I can't understand that. I feel there is the
lack of the political will to do this, and we cannot run away
from this responsibility--and we are going to miss a vote.
Mr. Putnam. I apologize. We have less than 6 minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. Send it to my office.
Mr. Putnam. I want to thank you particularly for traveling
the distance that you have come and the passion that you bring
to this. Your testimony sheds light on a very important issue
that we are obviously continuing to try to resolve, and we
appreciate your willingness to be with us. We collectively
believe in a solid 2010 census and recognize the challenge of
counting citizens around the world. Today, we have heard the
obstacles but want to continue the dialog to address this
issue.
In the event there may be additional questions, the record
will remain open for 2 weeks for submitted questions and
answers.
Thank you all very much. This subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]