[Senate Hearing 110-834]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-834
REDUCING THE UNDERCOUNT IN THE 2010 CENSUS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 23, 2008
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-579 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES,
AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
John Kilvington, Staff Director
Katy French, Minority Staff Director
Monisha Smith, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statement:
Page
Senator Carper............................................... 1
WITNESSES
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Hon. Steven H. Murdock, Director, U.S. Census Bureau............. 4
Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.......................................... 6
Hon. Kenneth Prewitt, Ph.D., Former Census Director, Columbia
University..................................................... 16
Roderick Harrison, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Joint Center for
Political and Economic Studies................................. 18
Karen K. Narasaki, President and Executive Director, Asian
American Justice Center........................................ 19
Joseph J. Salvo, Director, Population Division, New York City
Department of City Planning.................................... 21
Arturo Vargas, Executive Director, National Association of Latino
Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund....... 23
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Goldenkoff, Robert:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Harrison, Roderick, Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Murdock, Hon. Steven H.:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Narasaki, Karen K.:
Testimony.................................................... 19
Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 75
Prewitt, Hon. Kenneth, Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Salvo, Joseph J.:
Testimony.................................................... 21
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 140
Vargas, Arturo:
Testimony.................................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 151
APPENDIX
Questions and Responses for the Record from:
Mr. Murdock.................................................. 160
Charts submitted by Senator Carper............................... 168
REDUCING THE UNDERCOUNT IN THE 2010 CENSUS
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management,
Government Information, Federal Service,
and International Security,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:34 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R.
Carper, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. The Subcommittee will come to order. I have
just joined all of you from another hearing that is going on, a
Banking Committee hearing. I serve on the Banking Committee,
and we have before us there the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Chairman of the
Securities and Exchange Commission. I just spoke with Senator
Coburn, who is on the floor of the Senate, and he going to join
us in about half an hour or so. I told him that if the census
operation continues to make progress, if we continue to make
progress in addressing some of the woes that we learned about
over the last year, we may detail both of you guys to go over
and help Chairmen Bernanke, Cox, and Paulson with their duties.
In any event, on that note, let's go ahead and get started.
I have a statement, and then if we are joined by others, we
will offer them the opportunity to give a statement, too.
Today's hearing is the fourth, as you may recall, in a
series of oversight hearings looking at the Census Bureau's
preparation for the 2010 census. One of our responsibilities in
the Congress is to conduct oversight. When things are going
well, I think it is a good idea to do oversight and acknowledge
that. When things are not going well, we have an obligation to
find out why and to make sure that we put a spotlight on
whatever is going badly in the hopes that we will find out ways
to make it go better. And I think with respect to the census, I
think we have rounded a turn, and we are heading in the right
direction now. But today's hearing will evaluate the Census
Bureau's plans to ensure the accuracy of the 2010 census.
On April 1, 2010, the Census Bureau will conduct its 23rd
Decennial Census of our Nation's population. The decennial
census is a constitutionally mandated activity that is designed
to produce a baseline of information on the number of U.S.
residents and their characteristics. Census results are used to
apportion seats in the House of Representatives, where I once
served. I represent a State, Delaware, where we only had one
Representative. In fact, there is a total of seven States that
have only one. And for us, the apportionment of seats in the
U.S. House of Representatives is not a big deal. For other
States, like California, where I think they have 53, and other
States who have between 1 and 53, it can be a very big deal
indeed.
But our census results are used to apportion seats in the
House to redraw Congressional and State legislative boundaries
and to allocate billions of dollars in Federal assistance to
State and local governments.
Census data also provide information on population growth
patterns and demographic information that are used by both the
private sector and by Federal, State, and local officials.
With such substantial reliance on census data, accuracy is
critical. Unfortunately, every census in the Nation's history
has failed to count all of our residents, resulting in an
undercount of the general population.
Looking back at the 2000 census, it was unprecedented in
terms of its budget. More money was spent on it than any other
previous census. As a result of the hard work of the Bureau,
though, it was able to reduce both the number of Americans who
went uncounted.
Despite the Census Bureau's success, undercounting still
remained an issue for many communities throughout this country.
In 2000, the official census count was 281.4 million, and the
adjusted estimate was just over 284 million. The Bureau
reported a net error of just under a half percent. And that
sounds pretty good. The truth, though, is that there were large
errors in 2000 that I do not believe we can afford to repeat
this time around.
The Bureau's own Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Survey
revealed that 6.4 million people were missed and 3.1 million
people were counted twice. In other words, the 2000 census
produced a net undercount of some 3.3 million people.
The undercount would be less problematic if it were evenly
distributed among all Americans. However, studies show that
undercounting tends to have a disproportionate impact on racial
and ethnic minorities, on children, and on immigrants. In 2000,
Asian Americans were missed nearly twice as often as whites,
African Americans nearly three times as often as whites, and
Hispanics were missed four times as often as whites.
Although today's hearing is focused on the undercount, I do
not think that we should minimize the overcount issues that
exist. In past censuses, the Bureau reduced its net undercount
by letting the people counted twice substitute for those who
were missed. That may work for statistical purposes, but it is
problematic for a number of reasons. The people counted twice
are not like the people who were missed.
I will say that again. The people who were counted twice
are not like the people who were missed. They are not the same
race. They do not have the same income. And they do not live in
the same places. The importance of getting this thing right is
striking when we think about the countless ways in which we
depend on census data.
For starters, the undercount affects the distribution of
Federal funds that are allocated on the basis of population. A
study performed by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the
undercount in 2000 would cost States $4.1 billion. This loss of
Federal funding taxes the resources of States and local
governments and compromises the level of services provided to
residents--the people that all of us work for.
Underenumeration in the census also has serious political
implications. In political representation that is based on
population, undercounted people get less credit for their
population than they are due. This skews the make-up of the
House and results in some communities being underrepresented,
while others get more of a voice than they are due.
Reaching out to those who were historically hard to count
is even more important when we consider that for every 1
percent of the population that does not respond to the census,
we are going to have to spend about $75 million, I am told, to
go door to door to get everyone counted, or just about everyone
counted. As a result, it is vitally important that we do the
necessary hard work now so that we can get an accurate, cost-
effective count in 2010 that will serve us well into the next
decade.
So as the Census Bureau begins its final preparation for
2010, we need to make sure that you are reaching out as
aggressively as we can to historically undercounted groups.
This Subcommittee looks forward to hearing from our witnesses
today and gaining your perspectives as we work together to
ensure that this happens.
We have two panels today. On our first panel of witnesses
is Steve Murdock who serves as Director of the Census Bureau.
Mr. Murdock officially became the Director of the Census Bureau
on January 4, 2008. I do not know about you, but it seems a lot
longer ago than that to me. It probably does to you, too. And
you have the responsibility of overseeing the planning and
implementation of the operation for the 2010 census. Prior to
becoming Director, Mr. Murdock was a demographer for the State
of Texas, and he played a leadership role in his State's
coordination activities in the 1980, the 1990, and the 2000
decennial censuses.
Robert Goldenkoff is the Director of Strategic Issues at
the Government Accountability Office, where he is responsible
for reviewing the 2010 census and governmentwide human capital
reforms. Mr. Goldenkoff has also performed research on issues
involving transportation security, human trafficking, and
Federal statistical programs. He received his Bachelor's of
Arts in Political Science and Master's of Public Administration
degrees from the George Washington University.
Gentlemen, we are delighted that you are here. We will ask
that you keep your comments to about 5 minutes, and if you run
a bit over, that is OK. If you run a lot over, that is not OK.
The full testimony of both of you will be entered into the
record, and I would just invite you to proceed as you see fit.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Mr. Murdock, would you like to go first?
TESTIMONY OF HON. STEVEN H. MURDOCK,\1\ DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS
BUREAU
Mr. Murdock. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Coburn, Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to come
before you again to discuss our ongoing efforts to address
issues related to the undercount in the 2010 census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Murdock appears in the Appendix
on page 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although in discussing our efforts to meet this goal, we
rightfully stress our outreach and promotional efforts,
including the advertising campaign and the Partnership Program,
today I want to stress that the Census Bureau's commitment to
improving coverage and addressing the undercount encompasses
wide-ranging activities conducted before decennial field-based
operations begin, during field operations, and after the
conclusion of field operations.
The census is based on addresses from which we identify
households in which we count individuals. Our goal is to count
everyone once, only once, and in the right place. This begins
by taking the address list, referred to as the ``Master Address
File,'' from the past census and updating it. For 2010, updates
from the U.S. Postal Service have been obtained twice annually,
and we improve that list by a process that allows local
governments to review our address list for their areas in a
process we call the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA).
In 2010, for the first time, this review included both
addresses for individual households and for group quarters,
which are housing arrangements such as college dormitories,
nursing homes, military barracks, jails, prisons, and other
facilities.
We also work with local communities to form Complete Count
Committees, that operate during the census to ensure that
residents of their communities respond to the census. Through
our partnership and other programs described below, we
establish with cooperating organizations Be Counted Centers
that allow persons who believe that they have been missed to
fill out and submit a census form and Questionnaire Assistance
Centers that will help people to complete the census through
assistance in multiple languages. The census questionnaire has
also been designed with the goal of reducing undercount and
overcount. Questions have been added to the 2010 form that can
check for consistency in completing the census form and then
improve our ability to identify both overcounts and
undercounts. The questionnaire is available in five languages
in addition to English, and for the first time, we will mail
bilingual--Spanish-English--questionnaires to about 13 million
households. Language guides are available for more than 50
additional languages.
Prior to beginning census operations, we make concerted
efforts to hire local residents for census jobs because we know
that people are more likely to respond to the census when local
people are asking for their assistance and participation.
Our first extensive field operation in the decennial census
is the formal address listing process which begins in 2009. It
involves census employees in a process of verifying all
existing addresses on the Master Address File, adding new
addresses identified, knocking on every door to determine,
where possible, the number of households living at that
address, and obtaining GPS coordinates for each household which
expedites finding such households for future census operations.
In March 2010, the massive mailing of forms to households
begins, and for the first time, we will employ a second
mailing, which has been found in many surveys to increase
response rates. We will also employ strategies that differ by
type of area so that in rural and other areas that do not have
the city style addresses that are most convenient for mail
delivery, we can obtain a good count as well.
When the non-response follow-up process used to obtain data
from households that did not respond to the census by mail
begins, we complete numerous operations that result in making a
minimum of six attempts to obtain data from households. During
this period, we also conduct enumeration of service-based
programs, such as shelters, soup kitchens, and mobile food
vans. Regional offices develop and implement hard-to-enumerate
programs specifically designed to reach specific hard-to-count
groups, and coverage follow-up operations are conducted that
involve telephone and other contacts with households where
inconsistencies were found in their questionnaires.
Finally, after the major decennial census operations are
nearly complete, we will initiate and complete a census
coverage measurement process through which we measure the
extent to which we have over- or under-counted various
population groups.
Beginning in 2008 and running through the census operations
described above is the 2010 communication program that
integrates a mix of mass media advertising, targeted media
outreach to specific populations, as well as national and local
partnerships, grass-roots marketing, the Census in Schools
program, and special events.
Members of the Subcommittee, be assured that everything we
do in the 2010 census is aimed at improving accuracy and
coverage with an eye toward reducing undercounts and counting
everyone. Whether the challenges are in remote Alaska, in
densely populated urban areas like New York or Chicago, or in
the colonias in South Texas, the Census Bureau will marshal the
efforts necessary to include their residents in the 2010
census. To us it does not matter how hard it is to reach
everyone. It matters that we reach everyone. I am happy to take
questions.
Senator Carper. Say that last sentence again.
Mr. Murdock. OK. To us it does not matter how hard it is to
reach someone. It matters that we reach everyone.
Senator Carper. That is pretty good. Who writes your stuff?
[Laughter.]
Did you write that yourself?
Mr. Murdock. Not that one, no. The gentleman is here that
wrote that, though.
Senator Carper. Will that gentleman raise his hand? All
right. You may have a second career. Thank you for that
testimony.
Mr. Goldenkoff.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT GOLDENKOFF,\1\ DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES,
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Goldenkoff. That is a tough act to follow, but, Mr.
Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to
discuss reducing the undercount in the 2010 census. As you
know, an accurate enumeration is a daunting task as the
Nation's population is growing larger, more diverse, and
increasingly reluctant to participate in the census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Goldenkoff appears in the
Appendix on page 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An undercount occurs when the census misses an individual.
An overcount occurs when an individual is counted in error.
What makes these errors problematic, as you have already
noted, is a differential impact on various sub-groups.
Minorities, renters, and children, for example, are more likely
to be missed by the census, while more affluent groups, such as
people with vacation homes, are more likely to be double-
counted. As census data are used to apportion seats in Congress
and a number of other important purposes, improving coverage
and reducing the differential undercount is critical.
As requested, my remarks today will focus, first, on key
activities the Census Bureau plans to use to reduce the
differential undercount in 2010; and, second, the various
challenges and opportunities that might help or hinder these
efforts. Importantly, in my remarks this morning I want to
stress the following: Although the Bureau has developed a range
of activities aimed at reducing the differential undercount,
these activities are generally in the planning or early
implementation stages, and a variety of uncertainties and
challenges lie ahead.
Reducing the undercount begins with a complete and accurate
address list. The Bureau develops its address list over the
course of the decade using a series of operations that include
partnerships with the Postal Service as well as with State,
local, and tribal governments. One such operations is address
canvassing where thousands of temporary Bureau employees known
as ``listers'' verify the addresses of all housing units by
going door to door across the country. To help find hidden
housing units, such as converted basements where hard-to-count
groups might reside, the Bureau trains listers to ask if there
is more than one residence at a particular address or to look
for clues such as an outbuilding or two doorbells that could
indicate additional living quarters.
Another effort aimed at reducing the undercount is the
Bureau's Integrated Communications Campaign that consists of
paid advertising, earned media and public relations, Census in
the Schools, which is a program aimed at reaching parents
through their school-aged children, and partnerships with key
national and grass-roots organizations that have strong ties to
their communities.
The Bureau also operates a range of special enumeration
programs that target hard-to-count populations. They include
the Be Counted Program, Questionnaire Assistance Centers, and
Service-Based Enumeration, which aims at including the homeless
and other individuals without conventional housing. Other
activities, such as offering in-language questionnaires, can
help improve coverage among people with limited English
proficiency.
While each of these activities can help the Bureau improve
the differential undercount, they also face open questions
that, if not resolved, could reduce the effectiveness of the
Bureau's efforts. For example, with respect to address
canvassing, the Bureau plans to provide listers with GPS-
equipped handheld computers to verify and correct addresses.
However, the companies have experienced shortcomings such as
freeze-ups and data transmission issues, and the reliability
has been problematic. The Bureau plans to conduct a limited
field test of the handhelds this December. However, if the
performance issues persist, the Bureau will have little time to
make any refinements as address canvassing is scheduled to
start early in 2009.
Another challenge is that several operations aimed at hard-
to-count groups, such as the Be Counted Program, Service-Based
Enumeration, and Group Quarters Enumeration, were not tested
during the dress rehearsal of the 2010 census, which was held
earlier this year. Consequently, the Bureau missed an important
opportunity to see how they might perform in concert with other
activities planned for 2010 as well as identify the need for
any improvements that might enhance their effectiveness.
In summary, if the various activities aimed at the hard to
count are implemented as planned, they will help the Census
Bureau achieve its goal of improving coverage. At the same
time, a number of uncertainties and challenges lie ahead, and
the success of the Bureau's efforts to reduce the undercount
will depend in large part on the extent to which the activities
are adequately tested, start and finish on schedule, get
implemented in the proper sequence, and receive appropriate
staffing and funding.
It will also be important for the Bureau to develop
effective monitoring programs to ensure the various operations
are on track and enable the Bureau to quickly respond to any
contingencies that might arise. In the months ahead, it will be
important for the Census Bureau and Congress to focus on these
issues as well as be alert to newly emerging challenges. And,
as always, we look forward to assisting the Subcommittee in
this regard.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement, and I
would be pleased to respond to any questions that you might
have.
Senator Carper. You used exactly 4 minutes and 58 seconds.
That is pretty good. You could have slowed down there right at
the end and just nailed it right at 5 minutes. [Laughter.]
The first series of questions I am going to ask actually
flow from the two charts that are to my right,\1\ to your left.
But before I do that, I will just mention something. Another
subcommittee I chair deals with clean air and nuclear safety.
And I am forever encouraging the nuclear industry to focus on
safety, to adopt at every one of our 104 nuclear power plants a
culture of safety. One of our core values in our Senate office
is ``If it is not perfect, make it better.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The charts referred to appears in the Appendix on page 168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These first three columns--this goes back to the census
from 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000, and the
darker line, actually the blue line, blue column, reflects the
undercount for black Americans, African Americans, and the
total undercount is reflected here I guess in the gray. You see
the total undercount from 1940, it looks like about 5 million
people. Compared to 2000, the total undercount was essentially
null and void, which is a great improvement. Unfortunately,
there is still a significant undercount among African Americans
of about--I think it is about 3 million people. So if it is not
perfect, make it better.
I would just ask, Mr. Goldenkoff, you just ran through a
series of things, steps that the Census Bureau has taken to
make it better; if not make it perfect, at least to make it
better. Are you encouraged that we are going to see--for the
most part the improvement, if you look at these numbers here
for undercount of African Americans from 1940, 1950, 1960,
bounced up a little bit in 1970, dropped way down in 1980,
bounced up a little bit in 1990, and then dropped down again in
2000.
Are you encouraged that the Census will, if not make it
perfect, make it better in 2010?
Mr. Goldenkoff. We are certainly encouraged from what we
have seen so far in terms of the level of effort that the
Bureau has put forth. The good news is that they are applying a
lot of the lessons learned from the 2000 census. A lot of what
they are doing is data driven. They are taking information,
demographic information, to target their resources, which is
extremely important now that the budget is constrained. They
also recognize the importance of working with local members of
the community. So for all those reasons, we are certainly
encouraged by what we are seeing.
What we do not know is how well these various operations
will work once they go live, and what we have seen, for
example, in 2000 that a lot of the plans on paper, they look
really good on paper, but things happen. And so one of the
things that concerns us is that some of these activities were
not tested during the dress rehearsal. And while it is true
that the Bureau has performed a lot of these activities before,
some of them encountered glitches in 2000. Also, the dress
rehearsal provides an opportunity to make improvements as
another data point there. Every census is different, so even if
the Bureau has performed these operations before, they have to
be--we do not know how they are going to perform in 2010
because the environment is different. And there are a bunch of
new operations that, again, while good--and we certainly
commend the Bureau and give them a lot of credit for things
like the bilingual questionnaires--the census has a lot of
moving parts. It is a big, complex machine, and without testing
these different operations, it is unclear whether they are
going to work in concert with one another.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Dr. Murdock, why don't you just briefly respond to some of
the comments that Mr. Goldenkoff has just made?
Mr. Murdock. Well, we certainly appreciate the comments
regarding the additional efforts that we are making because
there are an extensive number of those. And as he has pointed
out, the census is a very complex process. We have attempted in
every way that we could to discern how well operations will
work. We did have to curtail some things in terms of the dress
rehearsal because of rescoping efforts, because of some funding
issues last year. But we are making every effort possible to
assess how these various activities will do, and we are using
our databases from previous censuses to look at where we are
going.
One of the things we have from that is a very good idea in
most of these operations from looking at the past how a change
in those will likely affect the response we get because many of
these are spin-offs of programs and ideas that we have been
following for some time.
So, yes, we did not in all cases have the full dress
rehearsal kind of event that we would have liked, but these
activities are ones we feel confident that we are going to be
able to perform well within all of the constraints and all of
the issues that are involved in a decennial census and all of
the imponderables, the economic, social, and other
circumstances that may exist at the exact time when the census
occurs.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Dr. Murdock, can you tell us, if you will, the Bureau's
specific plans for reducing both the net and differential
undercounts now that you will not have the handheld computing
devices to conduct non-response follow-up?
Mr. Murdock. Well, in large part, we believe that the
program that we have instituted will get us an adequate
undercount; that is, we would, of course, like to have no
undercount, but we do have a wide variety of things that we are
doing that are new. And let me just for a minute mention those,
because I think what tends to happen is to look at just a few
operations. But let me just give you an idea of some of the
things we are doing this time that we did not do last time.
We have been using more frequent updates of USPS
information to update our mailing lists. We are using a GPS
during the address canvassing that will help us locate
households and go back to households who do not participate. We
have had a much more consolidated and much more activistic LUCA
program. That is the Local Update of Census Addresses. And we
have had very good participation in that. We estimate that
about 85 percent of all the addresses in the country are
involved in LUCA governmental entities that have agreed to
cooperate and look at our address lists, see if they are right,
make corrections, tell us where we are wrong, help us adjust
those.
We have an address canvassing process this census that
involves knocking on every door. The last census we knocked on
every third door in terms of verifying where we were at. We
have a coordinated Communications and Partnership Program. Last
time, we had a program--two different programs that sometimes
meshed and sometimes did not mesh, meaning that things
sometimes were not available on time or were available in large
quantities after they were needed. The new questionnaire, with
the questions that we have put on there specifically to help us
identify undercount and overcount, to look for consistencies or
inconsistencies in the responses. And very important, we
believe, is the multiple language, not only the bilingual
questionnaire that we make available, but we are making
questionnaires readily available in five languages. And we are
making questionnaire assistance guides available in over 50
languages.
So as we look at the diversity of the U.S. population and
the challenge that creates for work in terms of counting the
hard to count, we believe we have initiated a large number of
activities this census that are better than last census that
should help us address these needs.
That is not to say that this is not a tremendous challenge,
because the increasing diversity of the United States--I should
say it this way: The diversity of the United States has
increased substantially from 2000. And as a result, the
challenges for us in terms of making sure we count all of the
individual population groups is extensive.
Senator Carper. That is a pretty impressive list that you
just ran through for us.
Let me stick with, if I can, the handheld computers for
maybe one more minute. I am going to ask you to be brief in
responding to this, and this will be for both of you. And, Mr.
Goldenkoff, why don't you go first? But just how confident are
you in the functionality of the handheld computers for the
upcoming address canvassing operations?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well, I think it remains to be seen. The
key event is what happens in the test in December. So far, as I
said, they have had a bunch of technological problems that have
reduced their reliability, reduced the productivity. So what
happens in December, that I think will be key to what we can
foresee for when the address canvassing actually starts in the
spring. So we will be there. We are planning to observe the
field tests.
Senator Carper. All right. Good.
Mr. Goldenkoff. But right now it is a big unknown.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Dr. Murdock, same question. How confident are you?
Mr. Murdock. Well, as you know, when we began the process
of rescoping early this year, we had found a number of
difficulties. We have instituted a much more complete and
comprehensive management program and a testing program so that
we have, for example, during September and October of this
year, we are doing some product integration testing. During
October and November, we will be doing validation system
testing. And we have scheduled for December an operational
field test, and that will be a case where we will take the
handhelds into the field to be used exactly as they will be
used in the 2010 decennial census.
When you look at census operations, one of the things that
we recognize is that the census remains a high-risk activity.
It always is, and there is no way to reduce all of that risk.
Nothing is going to change this. But I believe the program of
oversight that we have instituted, the program of testing that
we have instituted, which is much more rigorous than what
existed previously, we are confident that those sets of
procedures put in place will lead us to a good result related
to the 2010 census.
Senator Carper. All right. OK. Thanks to both of you for
your responses there.
I am going to telegraph a pitch. I am going to ask you just
before we conclude this portion of the hearing, so that the
folks who are with you can be thinking about this, and maybe if
you need some information, they can be pulling it together. But
I am going to ask you right before we excuse this panel, Dr.
Murdock, I am going to ask you a question in conjunction with
the continuing resolution that we will adopt here in probably
the next several weeks, and maybe even several days. To what
extent are the needs of the Census Bureau reflected or likely
to be reflected? What are your needs going to be? And so just
be thinking about that as it pertains to the continuing
resolution. Don't answer the question now, but just know that
before I excuse you, I am going to ask you to give us some
thoughts on that. And if you are not comfortable in answering
it right now on the record, then we will just ask you to
respond in writing.
OK. In its final report to Congress, the U.S. Census
Monitoring Board in 2000 made several recommendations that were
offered in an effort to improve future censuses. And one of
those recommendations was that gross error rather than net
error should be used as the primary basis for evaluating the
accuracy of the census.
For example, the net undercount in the 2000 census, I think
it was about 3.3 million, but the number of people missed is, I
think, 6.4 million, while the number of people counted twice
was around 3 million. At first glance, it may seem that the
people counted twice cancel out those that were missed. And
while that may work for statistical purposes, it just does not
work out when we are trying to understand the characteristics
of the population that we are counting.
The people who were missed, as I said earlier in my opening
statement, are unlike those who were counted twice. They live
in different places. They may speak different languages. They
come from different socioeconomic backgrounds. And I think both
of you have mentioned it, the idea that folks who are fortunate
to own vacation homes may get counted twice. Families that are
fortunate enough to be able to send their children to school
away from home, in some cases those students get counted twice.
This can be problematic for State and local governments that
rely on Federal funds that are allocated on the basis of
population estimates.
Has the Bureau decided to implement the board's
recommendations and use gross error as its standard measurement
of census error?
Mr. Murdock. We have not really made a decision in terms of
how that will specifically be reported, but historically,
although it is the net that tends to get the attention, the
Census Bureau's reports have indicated both, so that we have
looked at both in our ongoing operations because we are very
aware that there are groups that we have overcounted, and that
has been reported, and there are groups that we have
substantially undercounted. So we look at both of these as we
look at our census and evaluate how well we have done.
Senator Carper. Mr. Goldenkoff, do you have any comment on
that?
Mr. Goldenkoff. We would agree with the Census Monitoring
Board. Since the early 1990s, we have been recommending that
the Bureau calculate gross error as that is a better measure of
the actual amount of error in the census. Just because you
count somebody twice, that does not compensate for missing one
person because of the demographic differences between the two
groups.
Senator Carper. I do not underestimate how difficult it is
to count everybody. And I appreciate all the efforts that are
ongoing, that are undertaken and ongoing to do a better job.
But just in terms of basic equity, the folks that we are
counting or overcounting are really people that are more
privileged than those that we are undercounting. And that
violates my sense of what is fair and equitable, and I am sure
that it does that of almost everybody, maybe everybody in this
room. So I would ask that we just keep focusing on that.
Mr. Goldenkoff, GAO has done several studies on how
inaccurate census data can affect Federal funding to States and
to local governments. What was the estimated impact of the
projected census 2000 undercount on the allocation of Federal
funds to State and local governments? What was the estimated
impact of the 2000 census on the allocation of Federal funds to
State and local governments? That is the first question. The
second one is: Which States were expected to receive the
biggest dollar losses as a result of incorrect population
estimates?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Sure. What we did was we did not look at
all grants. What we did was we looked at social services block
grants because that grant program relies exclusively on
population to allocate funds, and so it would be the most
sensitive to any changes in population. And what we found,
there would have been a total of--I think it was a $4.1 million
shift. Some States, a group of States--and I forget the exact
proportion--would have gained $4.1 or $4.2 million, and another
set of States would have lost $4.2 million. So it was pretty
much--it was a wash from that perspective, and I think the
District of Columbia would have lost the most. And I have some
information in my formal statement. We have a graph there that
shows more of the details.\1\ So it would have had a modest
impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referred to appears in the Appendix on page 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Let me sort of pivot here and go in a little bit different
direction. Maybe I will ask two more questions, and then I am
going to excuse this panel and bring on our next panel.
I think we all agree that having a complete and accurate
address list is the cornerstone of a successful census. Nearly
half of the undercount arises from missed housing units and
households. As a result, we need to know every address in the
country--a daunting task. We need to get a questionnaire to
each address. That is not easy either. We need to have them
return it, and then we need to be able to capture that
information provided accurately.
Again, for Dr. Murdock, just to start here, how does the
Bureau plan to develop a complete mailing list so that a mail
survey can reach each household? You have spoken to this a
little bit, but I just want to ask you to go back and pick it
up again.
Mr. Murdock. OK. Certainly. There are several activities
involved in this. One is that we start with the address list
from the last census, but twice a year since then, we have
obtained from the U.S. Postal Service their delivery sequence
file, which gives us an update of addresses. And in the last
couple of years, as a result of a process called the Local
Update of Census Addresses (LUCA)--we have shared our
information on addresses with local communities--cities, towns,
etc., and with States, who have reviewed those data and are
telling us of addresses that they have that we do not have on
our list, providing information on new subdivisions that may
have come into place. So with a combination of our ongoing
efforts and theirs, we are building this list.
We also have an ongoing effort on census address update
which involves all of our other field activities that are non-
decennial, and as we locate addresses that are not on our
Master Address File, those are added as well.
So we are using the best, if you will, palette that we can
start out with, with the U.S. Postal Service data. And then we
are adding to it what we think is the best of all in many ways,
and that is locals' information about their own communities and
their own cities about where addresses are and where the new
developments have begun. And we will be including that,
continuing that throughout this decade. And, in fact, we will,
even in 2010, be getting some materials on new additions from
local communities.
So it is really a very good partnership, if you will,
between us and other Federal agencies and local governments in
assisting us, and their assistance has been instrumental to
having a good address list. In addition, as we indicate when we
go out to do address listing, which is this massive effort that
we will begin next year, our people, our listing people, will
find addresses. They will note those addresses that will go
onto our list. And even during the non-response follow-up,
which is the part that occurs after the 2010 response to the
mail questionnaire has occurred, we will be identifying
addresses and ensuring that households at those addresses get
census forms to complete.
So we have an ongoing set of field operations combined
with, we think, a quite good base from the Postal Service
combined with assistance from local jurisdictions.
Senator Carper. Well, I am encouraged to hear about the
cooperation of the local jurisdictions, the State and local
governments. But when you think about it, they do have a dog in
this fight, and they do have some skin in the game. They have
an obligation to help, but they also have a special interest in
helping. And I am glad to hear that they are meeting that
obligation, or at least a bunch of them are.
A question really for both of you, and then I am going to
go back to that question I telegraphed earlier. But what
additional measures, Dr. Murdock, is the Bureau taking to
ensure hard-to-count populations in communities affected by a
bunch of hurricanes--Katrina, Rita, Ike, and the list goes on--
are counted given that many residents are displaced from their
homes in various States of rebuilding? And your comments--I am
just going to ask you to comment on that.
Mr. Murdock. Well, these incidences we really have to take
on a case-by-case basis. But what we have found, for example,
in Katrina-impacted areas is that we are going to use somewhat
different procedures than we used there. We cannot simply rely
on Postal Service addresses. So we will be using a combination
of Update/Leave, and that is where we go in and find a housing
unit, leave a questionnaire to ensure that they get it. And in
other cases, in other places, we will use an Update and
Enumerate, which means that we will actually locate the housing
unit, come back and do an enumeration of that. So it will be a
much more intense kind of effort and a recognition that
standard addresses and standard address lists will not work
necessarily in such areas. So we are giving them very special
attention.
For example, the Dallas office that covers both the
Hurricane Katrina- and Hurricane Rita-impacted areas and now
the Hurricane Ike-impacted area are working with local
jurisdictions to discern how best to ensure that all persons
are counted.
Obviously, given the recency of Ike, we are developing
those procedures right now for those areas, and we will do
those over the next few months. But we recognize that these
raise unique challenges, and it means that we are going to have
to put more people in the areas doing door-to-door kinds of
work than we would in an area that had not experienced such
devastating circumstances.
Senator Carper. Mr. Goldenkoff, you may have a comment on
that. You may not. If you do----
Mr. Goldenkoff. I think that what the Bureau is doing is
very encouraging. They know what needs to be done. They have
done it before. They recognize that the housing stock is not
stable. And I think most importantly is that under the Bureau's
protocols, they always err on the side of inclusion. So even if
something does not look inhabitable, even if it just looks like
a concrete slab, it will still be included in the address list
because a mobile home or a house can be built on that slab come
census day. So I think that we can be encouraged by the efforts
the Bureau is putting forth.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
As I said earlier, Dr. Murdock, as you know, we are working
on a continuing resolution that is likely to take us some time
into the first part of next year, maybe as far as into March.
We have been told that the Census Bureau will be taken care of,
but you may want to take this opportunity to tell me just what
that means to be taken care of and what are your needs likely
to be, an interim funding measure that will carry us, we will
say, through March? What do you need to get through until then?
Do you think you will get what you need in terms of
recommendations from the Administration? I know you are working
with the Commerce Secretary and with OMB.
And, last--and you may want to answer this for the record,
but what happens if you do not get what you believe you need?
Mr. Murdock. Well, let me answer it, first of all, that we
have received good support from the Administration in
recognizing that the Census Bureau will need an anomaly in
order to go forward, and that is because if we were to have to
continue at our budget, which we have for this year, which is
about a third of what we need for next year, it would have
devastating effects on the 2010 census. We would, for example,
not be able to open all of our local census offices, the first
150 that are critical for the address canvassing operation. If
it were delayed long enough, it could impact the very address
canvassing process itself that begins early next year.
So it is very critical that we not operate under a
circumstance of continuing resolution.
Senator Carper. All right. OK. I think that does it for
this panel for now. Thank you for an encouraging report. If it
is not perfect, make it better. Keep working hard.
Mr. Murdock. We will.
Senator Carper. And maybe someday we will have a hearing
and say you got it perfect. I hope to still be around. I hope
you will be, too. Thank you both.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Thank you very much.
Senator Carper. I will just invite the second panel to go
ahead and take your seats, if you would, please, and I will
begin introductions.
I am going to start with the introduction of the Hon.
Kenneth Prewitt. Mr. Prewitt served as the Director of the
Census Bureau from 1998 to 2001. As Census Director, Dr.
Prewitt managed decennial operations in the 2000 census. Dr.
Prewitt is now the Vice President and Carnegie Professor of
Public Affairs at Columbia University. Is that true?
Mr. Prewitt. Of course.
Senator Carper. Is it Dr. Prewitt?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes.
Senator Carper. Congratulations. And I understand you have
served on many professional advisory committees, and you are
currently most active on the Committee on National Statistics
of the National Research Council. Welcome.
Mr. Prewitt. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Good to see you.
Next, Roderick Harrison is a Senior Fellow at the Joint
Center for Political and Economic Studies, a research and
public policy institution that focuses exclusively on issues of
particular concern to African Americans and other people of
color. Mr. Harrison was the founding Director of DataBank, an
online clearinghouse of data on African Americans and other
ethnic populations. Previously, I am told, Mr. Harrison served
as Chief of the Census Bureau's Racial Statistics Branch. When
did you serve in that role?
Mr. Harrison. From 1990 to 1997.
Senator Carper. OK. And in that role you helped to expand
the content and number of the Bureau's publications and
releases on racial and ethnic populations. Mr. Harrison, we are
glad you are here. Thank you.
And Karen Narasaki, the President and Executive Director of
the Asian American Justice Center, one of the Nation's leading
voices advocating for the rights and interests of Asian
Americans. I understand you serve in a number of leadership
positions in the civil rights and immigrant rights community,
and that you are Vice Chair of the Leadership Council on Civil
Rights.
Ms. Narasaki. Correct.
Senator Carper. In addition, I am told that Ms. Narasaki is
the Chair of the Rights Working Group, a coalition of human
rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and immigrant rights
groups, and working to address a variety of issues important to
our immigrant community in this country. Welcome. We are happy
you are able to join us.
And Joseph Salvo, Director of the Population Division of
New York City's Department of City Planning. The Population
Division serves as the city's in-house demographic consultant
and provides expertise in the development of population
estimates, projections for infrastructure and capital planning.
The division is also working closely, I am told, with the
Census Bureau on the tactical preparation for the 2010 census
and evaluation of the new American Community Survey. Mr. Salvo
currently serves on the Census Advisory Committee of
Professional Associations.
And, finally--last, but not least--Mr. Arturo Vargas is the
Executive Director of the National Association of Latino
Elected and Appointed Officials, a national membership
organization of Latino policymakers and supporters. Prior to
joining NALEO, Arturo was Vice President for the Community
Education in Public Policy at the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, where he supervised and directed
the organization's community education and leadership
development programs. Mr. Vargas is a nationally recognized
expert in Latino demographic trends, electoral participation,
voting rights, the census, and redistricting.
We are delighted that each of you made time to be here
today. I just want to thank a number of you who have been
working for years to make sure that we do, as best as we can,
count everyone in this country, count them accurately. And so
thank you for those past efforts and thank you for your
willingness to be with us here today.
Mr. Salvo, I am tempted to put you at the front of the line
so you can be our ``opening Salvo.'' [Laughter.]
But I am going to withhold from that temptation, and we are
going to turn to Dr. Prewitt and ask him to lead us off. Mr.
Prewitt.
TESTIMONY OF HON. KENNETH PREWITT, PH.D.,\1\ FORMER CENSUS
DIRECTOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Mr. Prewitt. Well, of course, what that means is that Mr.
Salvo can correct me when it gets down to his turn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Prewitt appears in the Appendix
on page 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a quick prefatory comment, if I might, Mr. Chairman,
since you raised the issue of the CR in talking to the last
panel. There are three dimensions to the CR that really matter.
One, is it adequate? Second, is it timely,? Is it going to be--
because if it is adequate but late, it is the same consequences
for the census. And I hope it has some flexibility. Certainly
in 2000, if we did not have some budget flexibility, we could
not have responded to unexpected circumstances which happened.
So as the Congress deliberates about the CR, I would hope all
three of those dimensions are attended to.
Senator Carper. Good. That is good advice, and I did not
say this but I am going to say it now. Your comments do not
count against your 5 minutes that we have asked you to use, so
we will start the clock over again. But I would ask everybody
to try to stick to the 5 minutes if you could. That would be a
big help.
Thank you.
Mr. Prewitt. OK. Thank you very much.
The word ``accuracy'' has been around in census
conversation since the beginning. In 1790, Thomas Jefferson
gave the first count to George Washington, and the President
was unhappy with that count because he said it was too low.
This was not an idle concern on Washington's part. He felt like
the European powers would think that we were weak, that our
independence was fragile. So he actually instructed Jefferson
to report higher numbers, and Jefferson did some complicated
arithmetic and actually sent out the diplomatic corps, and he
actually adjusted the census in 1790 upward to try to
compensate for the undercount.
Senator Carper. So that is how we ended up with 72 million
people that year? [Laughter.]
Mr. Prewitt. And then as late as the most recent census,
the 2000 Census, it was Commerce Secretary Evans who described
it as ``the most accurate census this Nation has ever
conducted.''
Well, based on your opening remarks, and I think my own
judgment of the Census 2000, I think that is--I appreciate what
Commerce Secretary Evans said, but I think it is an inaccurate
statement itself about accuracy because of your focus on the
gross error. Anytime you have a census which overcounts and
undercounts in the magnitude that we do it, it is not fair to
call it ``the most accurate census ever conducted.''
I want to try to focus on--you have talked about the
undercount. You understand it. But I think it would be very
helpful if the full Congress understood that you can have a
very good census down to the last 1 percent, and that is when
the undercount kicks in. But you can also have a very good
census all the way from top to bottom, but if the address file
leaves out those households which are disproportionately
undercounted, you can go in at the top level and get an
undercount or you can wait until the last 1 percent and get an
undercount. So the problem with the census is you have got to
get each one of those steps, from the address file all the way
down to counting that last 1 percent, if you want to try to do
something about the differential undercount.
Now, of course, in that last 1 percent, you can also get
your overcount because that is when you are counting, double-
counting the college kids and so forth and so on.
So the important thing, it seems to me, is to understand
the distributional accuracy and numerical accuracy are two
dimensions of the accuracy conversation. And numerical accuracy
is how close do we get to the true count, but distribution
accuracy is the proportionality, of course. And anytime things
are being allocated on a share basis, as congressional seats,
of course, and as Federal funding, then distributional accuracy
is the name of the game. Because in some fundamental sense, you
could undercount; but if you undercount evenly across all
geographic areas and across all demographic groups, then you
would not be as unfair as you are in trying to get a better
census, a more numerically accurate census, but one which
builds in distributional inaccuracies. And it is extremely
difficult for the Census Bureau to manage the tension between
trying to reach everybody and yet worrying about getting
distributional inaccuracies in that. So I just want to focus
the Subcommittee's attention, if I can, on constantly as you do
your oversight, your question has to be about distributional
accuracy, not just accuracy.
I would like to conclude by saying that the Census Bureau
takes much pride in finding its mistakes as it takes in not
trying to make the mistake in the first place. It is a
scientific organization. It is in its DNA to be self-
correcting, self-improving. And the most important report card
that it produces is its Coverage Evaluation report card. It
wants to know how it did. I certainly strongly concur with your
judgment about the gross error. I do think we ought to be
basing this on gross error, not net error. But I would just
again urge the Subcommittee to pay attention to how well the
Coverage Evaluation Survey is funded, is designed, is timely,
and so forth. It is the only report card. There is nobody else
to tell the Census how poorly it did other than the Census
Bureau itself and, therefore, to tell the American people. So
focus on distributional accuracy, and the net error matters but
so does the gross error, and worry about the Coverage
Evaluation as a measure.
Finally, I would like to say that we actually did do well
in 2000 on many dimensions. Oddly, we gave back almost half a
billion dollars to the Federal Government. We came in under
budget.
Senator Carper. Did you ever get a thank-you note for that?
Mr. Prewitt. Well, can I take a few more seconds? Or I will
not stop on time.
Senator Carper. All right.
Mr. Prewitt. What was really interesting is no one wanted
to admit it because no one wanted to `fess up that somebody had
not sort of gotten this down to the right last penny and so
forth. It is what gave us the flexibility. I would much rather
have given money back and had flexibility to cover some of the
problems we ran into. But that is obviously not the way the
government normally thinks.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Carper. Thank you so much. Mr. Harrison.
TESTIMONY OF RODERICK HARRISON, PH.D.,\1\ SENIOR FELLOW, JOINT
CENTER FOR POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC STUDIES
Mr. Harrison. Yes, I am going to begin by quoting Dr.
Prewitt's comment before the 2000 census. The 2000 census was
the first that the Bureau planned to actually use all this
technical apparatus that it has for estimating the undercount
after the census is conducted, to do a one-count census where
it would adjust--it would use the surveys that it uses to
estimate the undercount to adjust the numbers to be more
statistically accurate. And the Supreme Court ruled in 1999
that this would not be constitutional for purposes of meeting
constitutional requirements for apportioning the Congress. And
the Bureau had to change, within a year, years of planning for
the one-count census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Harrison appears in the Appendix
on page 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Prewitt said at the time that using traditional
counting methods, the Bureau must run harder to stay in place.
It will run harder. It hopes to stay in place. I think you did
much better than staying in place. And, actually, I think
during the questioning one thing that you might ask is about
the very specific steps--again, I think the testimony earlier
today that this is a very complex sequence of events that build
upon each other, of operations that build upon each other, and
it requires success at any stage. If you start failing with the
address list, with the canvassing, the probability of
undercounts growing will accumulate and your likelihood of
overcoming them in later stages.
So I think you want to pay particular attention to the test
in December, to the results of the handhelds, and, if the test
suggests that everything is not resolved, to alternatives for
making sure that the address list is as complete as possible.
That said, a few points that have come up. Yes, the
undercount/overcount, the net undercount is a poor measure. The
thing that is important to note is that the undercount and
overcounts for the small geographies for which they are
calculated in the estimates of the undercount, or for
geographies small enough that it does not affect apportionment,
so what it does affect is all the other uses of the census. So
if you are switching off individuals, you still are counting
the same number of people, roughly, for purposes of
apportionment and redistricting. It is when you get to the
characteristics of those people, what their needs are, the
planning that is built upon that, that this matters.
The block grants mentioned, the difference is about a
quarter of a percentage point in funds, and the amounts
involved--this is heretical to say, but I think we must realize
that to get greater accuracy to correct those errors might not
be possible and might not be cost-effective. You are talking
about something like $67,000 in the district's budget. You
could allocate this by other means much more effectively than
getting a more accurate count.
So I do think, however--I think we should not overestimate
the degree to which--we should not underestimate the
consequences, but we should not overestimate it either. Some of
these issues would be more directly and effectively dealt with
as social policy issues than as census count issues.
That being said, clearly one thing that contributes to the
undercount, and these hard-to-reach populations particularly,
is distrust of the government, feeling that the government is
not necessarily fair. And the census, it is absolutely
essential, I think, that people participate in the census and
leave it feeling that the count has been fair, that they have
counted equally with everyone else. And that is something that
I do not think you can put a price tag on. I think the entire
integrity of the Nation, its commitments from the very
beginning of the census, does depend on that, and that is
priceless.
Senator Carper. Thank you. You were exactly 5 minutes.
Ms. Narasaki, I do not know how you top that, but good
luck.
TESTIMONY OF KAREN K. NARASAKI,\1\ PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, ASIAN AMERICAN JUSTICE CENTER
Ms. Narasaki. Thank you for inviting the Asian American
Justice Center to testify on an issue that is one of the top
priorities for the civil rights community over the next 2
years. And I have longer testimony that I am asking for it to
be submitted for the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Narasaki with an attachment
appears in the Appendix on page 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Carper. Your entire testimony will be part of the
record.
Ms. Narasaki. In 2000, we helped lead a census outreach
campaign with our partners--the Asian Law Caucus the Asian
Pacific American Legal Center, and Asian American Institute.
And over the next 2 years, we will be working with the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, NALEO,
the NASP, and the National Congress of American Indians to
really help reduce that differential undercount.
Many civil rights laws, as you know, rely on the census
data for their enforcement and implementation, and one of the
keys for the decennial is the enforcement of the Voting Rights
Act. This is what makes it even more critical, as you point
out, that the right people are counted in the right places.
For these reasons, we think it is particularly important to
make sure that there is going to be adequate resources and
strategies to try to reach the growing minority and other
historically undercounted populations. I am going to focus on
language barriers, fears, and concerns about privacy. In
addition, as we saw, as you noted in Hurricane Katrina and now
Hurricane Ike, many immigrants and minorities live in non-
traditional households and are more likely to be displaced. So
we are very concerned about what the Bureau will be doing to
address that.
In 2006, almost 55 million persons spoke a language other
than English at home. Almost half have a difficulty speaking
English well, and this lack is one of the biggest barriers for
immigrant households.
In addition, many immigrants have fled countries with
corrupt or oppressive governments. Moreover, the hostile
rhetoric of some elected officials in the heated immigration
debate we hear and the institution of some hostile policies and
widely publicized raids on the local level of homes as well as
of businesses is going to discourage immigrant participation.
Finally, concern about privacy overall, confidentiality,
and misuse of data is held by many Americans, but particularly,
as Mr. Harrison notes, minority communities. This concern has
increased because of the controversial post-September 11, 2001
policies and practices, and the Bureau's 2004 provision to the
Department of Homeland Security of Arab American data at the
zip code level reinforced this concern.
The communications plan, the partnership plan, and the
language assistance plan, therefore, are really critical to
overcoming these challenges and reducing the differential
undercount. Also, these policies, though, have to be put in
place early to enable the Bureau to hire people locally to the
communities and with the needed language skills.
The Bureau has wisely sought to integrate the partnership,
outreach, and paid marketing campaign in one communications
strategy. However, the plan is not yet final, and it is not
clear to us yet whether there will be sufficient resources
targeting each minority and hard-to-count community.
In 2000, the Partnership Program is credited for having
reduced the differential undercount. It has empowered locally
known and trusted messengers to be able to speak knowledgeably
and persuasively. And because of this lack of trust, it is very
important to have locally known people be able to tell their
communities why it is important and safe to participate.
The partners also helped the Bureau to hire a diverse
talent pool with the needed skill and local knowledge of their
communities. And we believe to maximize the effectiveness of
this program the Bureau needs to mandate that regional offices
share and consistently use best practices, and certainly more
resources are needed for this program.
Chairman Carper, we very much appreciate your commitment to
ensuring that we achieve an accurate count, and we are counting
on your leadership in ensuring that there will be sufficient
funding for the census, particularly in this critical year that
is coming up.
We also commend the Bureau's work to date to ensure that
Spanish speakers are adequately assisted, but we are concerned
about the other language minorities that need to be counted,
particularly the smaller Asian American ethnic communities who
have the highest levels of linguistically isolated households.
Finally, we think the Bureau needs to begin to work with
the necessary agencies to set citizenship and retiree exemption
hiring policies in place as soon as possible. Without the
citizenship exemption, the Bureau may not have a sufficient
pool of bilingual community partner specialists and enumerators
who can overcome the language barriers and the fears of census
in these immigrant communities.
Finally, while this hearing is focused on the preparation
of 2010, I would be remiss if I failed to urge the Subcommittee
to review the implementation of the American Community Survey,
which is, as you know, replacing this year the traditional
decennial long form. We have concerns about the accuracy of
data for small and particularly migrant populations.
Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you very much, Ms. Narasaki. Mr.
Salvo.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH J. SALVO,\1\ DIRECTOR, POPULATION DIVISION,
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
Mr. Salvo. Thank you, Chairman Carper. It is a pleasure to
be here. On behalf of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I want to thank
you for the opportunity to speak about issues affecting
undercount in the 2010 census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Salvo with attachments appears in
the Appendix on page 140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of your political leanings or assessments about
past performance of the Census Bureau, I think we can all agree
that the Bureau is struggling right now with the daunting task
of trying to engineer a successful 2010 census within a very
tight timeline. At this point, those of us who are on the
outside looking in are very concerned. We are concerned because
we would not like to see the census reduced to making a census
happen as opposed to creating a high-quality enumeration, of
course, that counts all Americans.
We have heard the Census Bureau's pledge that the 2010
census will fully enumerate the population of the Nation. I am
here today to ask the Subcommittee to hold the Census Bureau to
its pledge in two areas of concern to those of us who are avid
users of the data.
The first relates to the fact that the Census Bureau needs
to provide us with their plan regarding how it intends to mail
questionnaires to millions of housing units that lack apartment
information--information that links a questionnaire to
occupants of a specific housing unit. Remember, when
questionnaires are delivered, there are no names on those
questionnaires. This goes to the heart of what you just heard
about how the address list is the foundation for the census.
From a local community standpoint, which is where I stand,
March 2009 is as important as April 2010.
This problem affects many communities in the Nation because
there are problems with addresses in many communities--
addresses that, frankly, may not cut it for census delivery
purposes. So I would like to refer you to a series of photos
that I have in the back of my written testimony. Chairman
Carper, do you have my----
Senator Carper. I do.
Mr. Salvo. At the end my written testimony, there are four
pictures of two buildings that contain housing units without
apartment numbers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The pictures referred to appears in the Appendix on page 147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Carper. Yes, got them.
Mr. Salvo. OK. The first two pictures show a building with
three apartments, each with its own separate entrance. Since
there are no apartment numbers, the Census Bureau needs to have
a procedure to create labels when the building is examined in
the 2009 address canvass so that each questionnaire can be
attached to each individual apartment. These need to be labels
that the Postal Service can use to deliver questionnaires, for
example, Apartment 1R, for one right; Apartment 2, upper,
lower, basement.
In the second example, we see two pictures of a larger
building with five doorbells and one mailbox, which is common
in places where people sort or retrieve their own mail by name
of occupant. Putting all five census questionnaires into a
single mailbox with apartment designators can cause confusion
when trying to attach a questionnaire to each apartment,
especially when non-response follow-up is required. The Census
Bureau can avoid this problem by issuing specific instructions
to field workers in the address canvass operation on how to
label each apartment using descriptors.
To its credit, the Census Bureau has undertaken extensive
research in the post-2000 period to explore the best ways of
dealing with apartments like these that are not labeled in
preparation for the address canvass. Indeed, I have had
conversations with the New York Regional Director Lester
Farthing, regular discussions about the frustration that this
can produce in address canvassing.
A resolution is at hand. The Census Bureau has done
research, but they have yet to formally adopt a procedure to
handle this problem. Right now the danger is that with all the
pressure on the Bureau to keep its time frame and with the
block canvass of the Nation fast approaching, this innovative
work may fall by the wayside; therefore, having a serious
ripple effect on the enumeration itself.
A recent GAO report points out that the cost of the address
canvass can dramatically increase if the Census Bureau cannot
accurately anticipate the number of housing units per hour that
can be examined. The problems that exist in small, multi-unit
buildings can complicate the address canvass and greatly
increase costs in many areas if the Census Bureau fails to
implement a strategy that deals with these problematic
addresses.
Therefore, I would like to request that the Subcommittee
ask the Census Bureau if they plan on implementing a procedure
in the block canvass to label problematic housing units in
these buildings and, if so, when the details of this plan will
be released.
Can I run over a little?
Senator Carper. I am going to ask you to go ahead and wrap
it up, please.
Mr. Salvo. OK. The other point I wanted to make is that the
Census Bureau needs to make good on its promise to form
meaningful partnerships with local governments. It is hard to
overstate the importance of proactive community involvement in
the census. The only way to produce what would be considered a
good enumeration, as we actually have heard, is that local
residents need to produce messages for the people in their own
neighborhoods. And the Census Bureau needs to reach out to the
locals in a way that is, frankly, going to be more difficult
than in the past because of all the issues involved in privacy
and everything that has happened since 2000.
So as a second point, I would like to ask the Subcommittee
to require that the Census Bureau provide in detailed terms
their plans for the outreach and to consult with organizations
that deal with the local communities so that they can report to
the Subcommittee exactly what those plans are and how they are
manifesting themselves at a local level.
Thank you very much.
Senator Carper. Those are two reasonable requests. I am
going to ask at the end of the hearing if you will spend a
little time with the folks on our Subcommittee who work with me
on the Census Bureau and just discuss those requests further.
Mr. Salvo. A pleasure. Thank you very much.
Senator Carper. We will see what we can do. Thank you for
bringing them to our attention, and thanks for the pictures,
too. Pictures are worth a thousand words, and these are good
ones. They help make your point well.
Mr. Vargas, you are our last witness today. Thank you.
Please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF ARTURO VARGAS,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS (NALEO)
EDUCATIONAL FUND
Mr. Vargas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The NALEO Educational
Fund is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that facilitates
the full Latino participation in the American political
process, and we are the leading census policy development and
public education organization in the Latino community. Since
2000, we have been working with the Census Bureau as a member
of the Census Advisory Committee on planning for Census 2010,
as well as the American Community Survey. Next year, we will
transition our award-winning campaign ``Ya es hora''--which
means ``It is time''--to educate Latinos about the importance
of being counted in the 2010 census. We will devote the full
weight of our capacity and influence to help make the 2010
census a success because we know that the Latino population,
the Nation's second largest population and fastest growing, is
at greater risk than ever before of being undercounted in the
next census. An undercount of the Latino community will mean a
failed census, and to avoid such a disaster, we offer the
following recommendations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Vargas appears in the Appendix on
page 151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, Congress must fully fund the Census Bureau. The
groundwork done in the final year before the census will
determine its success. Any delay in these activities, as we
have heard this morning, will undermine the count. The Bureau
faces a daunting challenge with respect to its decision to
abandon the use of the handhelds. The Bureau must now undertake
intensive and more costly preparations to switch back to the
traditional enumeration method, such as hiring more enumerators
than originally planned. We urge Congress to fund the
administration's revised fiscal year 2009 request of
approximately $3.1 billion. We are concerned that if full
funding is not provided, other critical programs will be
shortchanged, such as partnership programs or the paid media
outreach.
Two, the Census Bureau must implement a communications and
outreach plan that uses culturally appropriate outreach
materials and takes into account the special challenges in
reaching Latino sub-groups. Earlier this month, the NALEO
Educational Fund helped the Census Bureau convene several other
Latino national organizations to meet with the communications
vendor, GlobalHue Latino, to help coordinate these efforts.
These firms need to continue to meet with us to create a wide
range of promotional materials in language appropriate for
Latino audiences, and utilize print, broadcast, and digital
media in their efforts.
Three, special strategies and preparations will be required
to enumerate the Nation's immigrant population. Our Nation's
current debate about immigration as well as actions by State
and local governments have created a climate which has
exacerbated immigrants' distrust of Government, including the
Census Bureau. It will be formidable challenge to convince
immigrants, legal permanent residents, and U.S. citizens who
live in households where family members have varying
immigration status to answer the census and that the census is,
in fact, safe and confidential.
Four, the Census Bureau must ensure that its Census 2010
workforce reflects the diversity of the Nation's population,
from its highest managerial position to its field enumerators.
The Bureau must strengthen its existing efforts to increase the
number of Latinos at the Census Bureau where they are currently
the most underrepresented population group among the workforce.
We also urge the Bureau to implement a waiver in its hiring
practices to allow the hiring of work-authorized non-citizens
to ensure that there are sufficient enumerators with non-
English-language speaking abilities. This will be especially
critical in areas that have experienced population increases of
the non-English-speaking population.
Five, the Census Bureau must quickly adjust its plans based
on the outcomes of the 2008 dress rehearsal. As we heard
earlier today from the GAO, they are offering several
recommendations. We are concerned that many aspects of the 2010
plan were not included in the dress rehearsal, which raises so
many uncertainties.
Six, Congress must reject any proposals which would prevent
the full enumeration of every person living in the United
States on census day. There have been a number of legislative
and policy efforts to exclude the undocumented from the census
enumeration. These proposals are contrary to one of the
fundamental precepts of our Constitution. We urge the
Administration and all Members of Congress to reject these
flawed proposals and to go about the business of promoting a
full enumeration of all persons living in the United States, as
required by the Constitution.
And, seven, the U.S. Senate must support a seamless and
expeditious transition in the leadership of the Census Bureau
once a new Administration takes place in January. It is
critical that there be no disruption in census operations with
the advent of a new administration. Although various components
of these operations will be overseen and carried out by career
employees who will stay on regardless of changes at the White
House, the head of the Census Bureau plays a key role by
inspiring confidence and trust in the Bureau. Any delay in the
Bureau's leadership transition will impair the Agency's ability
to keep its 2010 operations completely on track.
We are devoted to working closely with the Subcommittee,
with the Administration, and with the Census Bureau in ensuring
a full count come Census 2010.
Senator Carper. Mr. Vargas, thank you. This is a really
good panel, and each of you have given valuable testimony. We
thank you for that.
Sitting here listening to you--and some of you know each
other and have worked together before. Mr. Vargas, do you know
this cast of characters? Have you worked with these people
before?
Mr. Vargas. Yes, I do, sir.
Senator Carper. All of them?
Mr. Vargas. I think this is the first time I have met Mr.
Salvo and Mr. Harrison, but I have worked with Mr. Prewitt,
during the 2000 census, when he was the Director there. And Ms.
Narasaki and I have a long history of working together on a
variety of civil rights issues.
Senator Carper. All right. Mr. Salvo, do you know these
other folks?
Mr. Salvo. Well, I certainly know Ken Prewitt and Roderick
Harrison from his days at the Census Bureau.
Mr. Vargas. Have we met?
Mr. Salvo. You know, I am not sure. Mr. Vargas and Ms.
Narasaki I have not met.
Senator Carper. All right. Ms. Narasaki, recognize these
guys?
Ms. Narasaki. Yes, and it is a great team and cast. The
Census Bureau--and the people who work on the censuses--is
actually a fairly small family in terms of who works on it all
10 years and not just when the actually decennial is happening.
So I am pleased to be up here with my colleagues.
Senator Carper. Mr. Harrison, how about you?
Mr. Harrison. Yes, I know everybody by name. I am terrible
by sight. And we know half the people in the audience, too.
Senator Carper. Good. All right. I saw a bunch of them
nodding their heads yes or no.
Dr. Prewitt, let me come back to you, if I could. My
colleague Dr. Coburn has been detained over in the Senate
chamber, unfortunately, but one of the issues that he has been
very much interested in, as have I, has been our ability to use
technology to enable us to do a better job in conducting our
census in 2010 as compared to 10 years earlier.
One of our questions we have asked of the Census Bureau and
Dr. Murdock and the Secretary of Commerce over and over again
is why are we not able to make some greater use of the
Internet. And the question, rather than--let me just add, going
back 8 years when we were doing the 2010 census, did you have
an expectation, kind of looking ahead from that point up to
now, that we would be able to use the Internet more broadly
than we are planning to do?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes. I will preface it by saying that the
Bureau has been a technological innovator for a very long time.
The huge technological innovation in 2000 was data capture,
intelligent character recognition, enormously sophisticated,
and we did extremely well with our contractors on that.
So I certainly think the mood going into preparation for
2010 on the basis of that success was that it would be a
technologically more based, if you would, census especially
because it is the short form only. It is much more complicated
if you are carrying the long form. But only with the short
form--I myself in 2000 answered by Internet. It was an option
presented but not publicized. But since I knew it was there, I
recognized it, I did it immediately, and it must have taken me
10 seconds. I got just the short form.
So, yes, I think the expectation was we would be using the
Internet by now, and I have not followed the pros and cons,
although I have followed the handheld issue. I would like just
quickly to say on the handheld, using the handheld in address
canvassing is itself a technological breakthrough innovation.
So, in some respects, we will look back on 2010, if it is
successful in the address listing thing, as another
technological step forward. It is too bad it cannot be used in
non-response follow-up, but that is what has happened.
With respect to the Internet, I personally am disappointed.
On the other hand, I am certainly not second-guessing the
decision of the current management at this stage of the game.
At this stage of the game, the strongest thing I can urge is do
not try to put in any new procedures. We already have
procedures that are going to go out on the field untested, as
you heard from GAO, and we simply cannot burden it with any
untested procedures.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
I have one question that I am going to ask all of our
witnesses to respond to, if you would. And then I am going to
promise you some follow-up questions and ask for you to respond
to those in writing. Much of the Bureau's success in 2000 was
attributed to its partnerships with community-based
organizations. Let me just ask you to describe the value of the
Partnership Program, the value of that Partnership Program or
those Partnership Programs, and to assess its overall
effectiveness in ensuring full participation of hard-to-count
groups.
Mr. Vargas, would you like to lead us off?
Mr. Vargas. Thank you, Chairman, for that question. The
Partnership Program is absolutely critical to the success of
the census because, in essence, what happens is that the Bureau
counts on local organizations, local leaders to become the
messengers for the census that the census is safe and
confidential. In many ways, we put ourselves on the line
relying on the Census Bureau's faith that they will, in fact,
keep this safe and confidential. So not only does there need to
be a partnership at the Bureau, but a level of trust and
working relationship. And in order for that to happen, it needs
to be developed over time. We cannot have the Census Bureau
show up in January 2010 saying, ``OK, it is time for the
census.'' We need to develop that trust beginning today, which
is why funding for the Partnership Program is so critical so
that we develop those relationships over time, so that come
April 2010 we can stand up and, with a certain amount of
certainty, tell our people, our constituents, ``Fill our your
census form. It is safe and confidential.''
Senator Carper. Mr. Salvo.
Mr. Salvo. I am in a position where almost on a daily basis
people come to me for their numbers. And these are the people
that know that numbers matter, and these are the people that
need to communicate the message within their own communities
that the census message or the census process actually could be
very invigorating and exciting. I know it sounds strange when
you talk about numbers, but the fact is that once people
understand the linkage between their own destiny, living within
their own communities, and the numbers that are produced in the
decennial census--and also, I might add, in the American
Community Survey--once they get it, then response rises. And
the only way to get it is to have it delivered by one of their
compatriots right in their own community.
All of the national media attention that the Census Bureau
wants to generate, all those TV ads at a national level will
not work unless that connection is made.
Senator Carper. Good point. Thanks. Ms. Narasaki.
Ms. Narasaki. Yes, I would like to start out by commending
the Census Bureau who, over the last 10 years, has done a lot
in terms of doing focus groups of many different new or
emerging communities to really understand what the barriers are
and working much more closely with the advisory committee in
trying to work on what the outreach and advertising campaign is
going to be.
Last time around, for example, the Bureau came out with a
very catchy slogan: ``It's our future. Don't leave it blank.''
But it turned out not to translate very well into many Asian
languages.
So it is that partnership at the national level and at the
local level that will help make sure that the money that the
Bureau is investing in the advertising is actually going to
effectively reach our communities.
But as Mr. Salvo notes, some of the strongest persuaders
are going to be not the government, and not the paid
advertising. It is the earned media who is going to turn to
people in the community, the faith-based leaders, the small
business owners, the teachers and others--they are the people
who are going to be most effective in reaching out to those in
our community who are afraid and do not understand what the
census is about.
Senator Carper. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Harrison.
Mr. Harrison. I think the major points have been well made.
The partnership is perhaps the only way that many of these
hard-to-reach populations get the message of the importance of
answering the census, how it pays off. And, yes, some of the
people who know the concerns of the communities, what issues,
the education, if we have undercounts of children and do not
plan our schools, etc., for the population that has grown,
where it is. So it is that, the importance of answering the
census.
Second, particularly now in the post-PATRIOT Act
environment and in many immigrant communities, the reassurance
that, in fact, answering the census will not lead to any kind
of difficulties with government agencies at the national or
city--Federal, city, local, that is absolutely essential in
many communities.
And then, third, I am not sure that this has been
mentioned, but there are--answering the census is not simple,
particularly if you do not speak English. There are complex
issues of who belongs in the household, who does not. Partners
need to learn--I think the Bureau is going to have to rely more
in 2010 than even in 2000 on partners to be able to convey some
of the complexities of residence rules to households that might
not know whether they count this child as part of the household
or not. And these are often, again, more complex households
than the standard nuclear two-children/two-adult family.
Senator Carper. I am reminded of in our State, when I was
governor, we launched an effort to recruit 10,000 mentors to
work with kids who just needed an extra person in their life.
The young man I have mentored for the last 10 years does not
live with his nuclear family, either his mom or dad, but he
bounces back and forth between a great aunt and a grandparent.
Mr. Harrison. Very likely to be undercounted.
Senator Carper. Yes. He is just a prime example of the kind
of person that can slip through the cracks.
Dr. Prewitt, you have the last word. I am going to ask you
to just use it briefly.
Mr. Prewitt. Certainly, I think the odds of accurately or
reasonably accurately counting the new immigrant population,
especially the undocumented, is zilch without a good
Partnership Program. The Bureau itself cannot do that
population group at all. And other population groups are
equally important, but not like--we are going to have a huge
undercount in that population in 2010.
On the other hand, what I would quickly say about the
Partnership Program is that from the point of view of the
Census Bureau Director, when you really are exhausted in
Washington, being beaten up by the Subcommittee and having a
GAO----
Senator Carper. Not by this Subcommittee.
Mr. Prewitt. No. Let me do a detour here. Oddly, the Senate
forgot us after I was confirmed. I did not have Senate
hearings. I had some 23 House hearings, but the Senate just let
the census go.
Senator Carper. Wow.
Mr. Prewitt. Yes, it is interesting. But the whole IG, GAO,
the whole apparatus, it was an unusual census environment
politically. You cannot imagine how nice it was to go out to
the partnership meetings where people were excited about the
census, cared about the census, making noise about the census,
understood the census, and so forth.
The thing I would most hope to happen in 2010 with respect
to partnership is a different kind of partnership with the U.S.
Congress, which was a bifurcated--individuals very good on both
sides of the aisle, but as an entity it was not very good.
Just imagine the following: April 1st, live feed, 535
Members of Congress sitting at their desks filling out the
census form as a statement to the country. Or just imagine
April 1st, the President and his Cabinet and the leadership of
the Congress on the steps of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial
filling out their census forms. Some statement like that by the
Congress and the Executive Branch would be enormously important
for the census. And I hope something like that can happen.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
When I look at this panel--well, let me back up a little.
When I put together my staff in the Senate, when I put together
my administration as governor, and in teams that I led before
that, I always tried to put together a team that was reflective
of my State in terms of its age, its gender, its ethnic
background. And I look at this panel, this is a pretty diverse
panel, and I think one that has provided excellent testimony
for us today. And I thank you very much for that. And for those
of you who have been working in these vineyards for a while, to
try to make sure that we do come as close as we can to counting
everybody, I thank you on behalf of all those people who did
not know you were working for them. But you are doing the
Lord's work there.
We are going to leave the hearing record open for about 2
more weeks, and that will enable some of my colleagues who have
statements that they wanted to give or will give, and also to
ask a couple of questions. And I would just ask if you do
receive some post-hearing questions--you will probably get one
or two from me as well. But I would ask that as you receive
those, you try to come back with your responses in a timely
way.
I want to thank the Members of my Subcommittee staff, some
of whom are here today, and Dr. Coburn's staff, for helping put
together, I think, a very good hearing. With that having been
said, I have two other hearings that are underway right now,
and I am going to head back to them and see if we cannot figure
out how to get our Nation's economy and our banking system and
our financial and credit systems functioning again.
Mr. Prewitt. We do not want to hold you up.
Senator Carper. But I feel better about the work that we
are doing to address the undercount in the census.
Thank you all. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45579.139