[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PROS AND CONS OF MAKING THE CENSUS BUREAU'S AMERICAN COMMUNITY
SURVEY VOLUNTARY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, CENSUS AND THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 6, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-126
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-941 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Ranking Minority Member
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
JOE WALSH, Illinois JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida JACKIE SPEIER, California
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Robert Borden, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the
National Archives
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona, Vice DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois, Ranking
Chairman Minority Member
DAN BURTON, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Columbia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOE WALSH, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 6, 2012.................................... 1
Statement of:
Groves, Robert, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Andrew Biggs,
resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Lawrence
Yun, chief economist, National Association of Realtors; and
Patrick Jankowski, vice president, research, Greater
Houston Partnership........................................ 50
Biggs, Andrew............................................ 70
Groves, Robert........................................... 50
Jankowski, Patrick....................................... 115
Yun, Lawrence............................................ 74
Poe, Hon. Ted, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas...................................................... 2
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Biggs, Andrew, resident scholar, American Enterprise
Institute, prepared statement of........................... 72
Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois:
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Various letters.......................................... 26
Groves, Robert, Director, U.S. Census Bureau, prepared
statement of............................................... 52
Jankowski, Patrick, vice president, research, Greater Houston
Partnership, prepared statement of......................... 117
Poe, Hon. Ted, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas:
American Community Survey................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Yun, Lawrence, chief economist, National Association of
Realtors, prepared statement of............................ 76
THE PROS AND CONS OF MAKING THE CENSUS BUREAU'S AMERICAN COMMUNITY
SURVEY VOLUNTARY
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia,
Census and the National Archives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:46 a.m. in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trey Gowdy
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Gowdy, McHenry, Clay, and Davis.
Also present: Representative Issa.
Staff present: Ali Ahmad, communications advisor; Kurt
Bardella, senior policy advisor; Molly Boyl, parliamentarian;
John Cuaderes, deputy staff director; Gwen D'Luzanksy,
assistant clerk; Adam P. Fromm, director of Member services and
committee operations; Linda Good, chief clerk; Mark D. Marin,
director of oversight; Jeffrey Post, professional staff member;
Jonathan J. Skladany, counsel; Rebecca Watkins, press
secretary; Peter Warren, legislative policy director; Jaron
Bourke, minority director of administration; Yvette Cravins,
minority counsel; Devon Hill, minority staff assistant; Suzanne
Owen, minority health policy advisor; and Mark Stephenson,
minority director of legislation.
Mr. Gowdy. This is a hearing on The Pros and Cons of Making
the Census Bureau's American Community Survey Voluntary.
The committee will come to order.
In light of our first panel, the distinguished
Representative Poe, Mr. Davis and I will wait and do our
opening statements before the second panel.
With that, Members may have 7 days to submit opening
statements and extraneous material for the record.
We will now welcome our first panel, the Honorable Ted Poe
represents the Second District of Texas. He has a long and
distinguished resume but his modesty, I am sure, dictates that
I dispense with reading that and just recognize him for his
opening statement. Welcome, Your Honor.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED POE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy and Ranking Member Davis
for the opportunity to speak before this subcommittee regarding
the American Community Survey.
I understand today's hearing is to evaluate pros and cons
of making the American Community Survey voluntary. I am here to
provide a voice for the many Americans who have called my
office angry that they are forced to provide private
information in response to the many invasive questions that the
American Community Survey requires.
Many of the callers have been from my congressional
district in Texas but even a greater number are individuals
throughout the United States who are upset because they are
forced to provide this personal information outside of what
they believe is required under the Constitution to be given to
the Census Bureau.
The information that the American Community Survey asks
spans from, do you have a flush toilet in your home, how many
toilets do you have in your home, does someone in your
household because of a physical, mental, emotional condition
have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering or making
decisions.
There are 48 questions asked in this survey, Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the American
Community Survey form that is sent to Americans.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.016
Mr. Poe. There are, no doubt, many benefits to the
information obtained through the American Community Survey. For
example, it helps allocate funding for Federal programs to
States and local entities.
I am here to suggest that the Federal Government however,
does not have an overriding, compelling interest to force
people to divulge their private matters in this survey. The
survey should be voluntary. Congress should prohibit the
Federal Government from forcing Americans to provide this
information such as what time they leave for work in the
morning and what time they come home.
People are subject to repeated harassment by contracted
agents who threaten them with fines for not complying with the
survey. It is also concerning how the Census Bureau obtains
this personal information. Let me give you a specific case in
point.
One of my constituents, Linda Roberts in Kingwood, Texas, a
single mother with a young child, received the American
Community Survey last July. She filled out the information
required by the Census Bureau and mailed it back to the Census
Bureau. Later, she began to receive weekly calls from the
Bureau asking her to complete the entire survey. She refused
because she had already complied with what she believed to be
the requirements under the Constitution to give to the Census
Bureau.
When she refused, the calls increased from every week to
multiple times every day. Then a Census employee started
showing up at her house, ringing the door bell and peeking
through the windows to see if she was there, all for the
purpose of getting her to comply with this survey. On many
occasions she came home from work in the evening to find
someone sitting in their car in front of her house so they
could knock on the door as soon as she entered her home.
Mrs. Roberts explained that she not only felt uncomfortable
providing the detailed information to the Federal Government,
but she also felt afraid every time she came to and from her
own home.
Mr. Chairman, where in the Constitution does the Federal
Government have the authority to harass citizens such as this?
The Supreme Court uses a least restrictive means test to assess
the validity of laws that could potentially infringe upon
constitutional rights of liberty. The least restrictive means
test says that if the law restricts individual liberty, it must
employ the least restrictive means possible to achieve the
overall goal.
It is clear through Mrs. Roberts' story, and through the
hundreds of other calls that I have received, that the Census
Bureau was not using the least restrictive means to obtain the
information asked in the survey. It seems they are using the
most restrictive means and most intrusive means.
Americans should have a choice to decide with they want to
submit to invasive personal information to the Federal
Government. If they choose not to do so, they should be left
alone. The Census Bureau can get the information and get
accurate information by other means. Since this is not an
actual counting of the people, it can do a survey like other
organizations, like posters, like marketing firms and private
entities. They get accurate information without harassing
people and forcing them to give that information.
Frankly, many Americans believe some of the information in
the American Community Survey is none of the government's
business and it intrudes on their privacy. I happen to be one
of them. There is no compelling State interest that should
allow this intrusion into private lives.
I have introduced H.R. 931, which seeks to make the
American Community Survey voluntary by removing the criminal
penalty imposed on the people who choose not to comply. The
American people should get to choose whether they want to
submit their personal information to the Federal Government.
They should not be forced and mandated to do so through the
American Community Survey. It should be voluntary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ted Poe follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.018
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Judge Poe.
Ranking Member Davis and I realize that you have an
extraordinarily hectic schedule with other commitments to other
committees. With that, on behalf of both of us, thank you for
your willingness to testify and your leadership on this issue.
We will be in recess for a few minutes so the next panel
can come up. And if His Honor would be willing for us to go
down and shake his hand.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gowdy. The hearing will come to order.
We will now welcome our second panel.
Since we did not do our opening statements in the order we
traditionally do them, I will recognize myself now for an
opening statement and then the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois.
Today the committee is gathered for an oversight hearing on
issues related to the decennial census. Specifically, we will
look at the Census Bureau's American Community Survey [ACS].
Although ACS is relatively new, it is actually more of a
continuation of the old decennial census long form. However,
the ACS differs from the old long form in that it collects data
every year. In theory, this provides more accurate and timely
data than information gathered only every 10 years.
The ACS is mailed to 300,000 households each month and 3.6
millions households per year. The goal of the survey is to
collect data used by the various levels of government,
demographers and even the private sector. While many regard the
data as useful and helpful, the ACS is not without controversy.
The objection many of us hear from constituents relates to
the intrusive nature of the questions. A sample of questions
include inquiries on healthcare plans, the number of times the
recipient has been married and whether or not the recipient has
a mortgage and if they do, how much they pay each month on the
mortgage. Not content with merely asking the questions, the
Federal Government aggressively pursues recipients with phone
calls, visits and threats of fines and jail time for
noncompliance.
Today, the subcommittee will hear from the Census Bureau
and data users about the American Community Survey, its role in
government policy and how the specific questions in the survey
relate to the Bureau and its perceived mission.
One of the questions we are sure to hear asked today is how
the results of the survey would be affected if the penalties
for noncompliance were repealed. So too we may well hear how
the census, needed for the apportioning of congressional seats,
has morphed into something that inquires about marriage,
mortgages and the like.
I am extremely interested in hearing the perspective of our
witnesses, including the one who just testified, the former
judge from Texas. He is the sponsor of a bill which would take
away the penalties associated with not responding to the ACS,
as he just testified.
I will now yield the remainder of my time to the
distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman
from California, Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for calling this important hearing.
There is nothing more important to our duties as Members of
Congress than, in fact, to read and understand the Constitution
and uphold it. At the end of the day, if we do nothing but
recognize that that is our primary responsibility, if we pass
no new laws and perhaps repeal a few, we probably will have
done more of what the American people ultimately depend on us
for than anything else.
States have an absolute ability to take surveys, to pass
laws, to regulate. Only the Federal Government has the mandate
for the census. I have read the mandate for the census. It
boils down to what is the meaning of enumeration. It is to
count. Everything beyond that is outside the constitutional
mandate.
As we review the existing laws that under our jurisdiction,
we have to answer just a few questions here today. Is it
constitutional to demand it? The answer is it is not within the
Constitution to demand this information. Is it nice to have?
Yes. Is it important to have? Perhaps. Is it extremely useful?
In many cases, also yes. Is this the least expensive way to
accumulate this information accurately? Perhaps, but the
Constitution doesn't say the government has a constitutional
obligation to spend less. If it did, we wouldn't have the
deficit we have before us today.
As I look at a world in which every day we have the threat
of litigation, criminal prosecution and, in fact, laws
threatened to be passed because Facebook, Google, and thousands
of other companies in and out of social media are accumulating
individual information, aggregating it and selling it, selling
it to people because it is useful, you have to ask the
question: what is the special role for the United States that
allows us to mandate that which we probably will litigate and
legislate against when the private sector does it?
All these questions and more, I believe, are part of the
balancing act. Our hope here today is to glean more information
for the only committee that has direct jurisdiction over the
mandate portion under the census. The moment this is not
mandated, I am quite sure plenty other committees of
jurisdiction will talk about the usefulness of this
information.
I join with the chairman in my concern that if we don't get
this right, we simply haven't done the first and most important
part of what we are sworn to do: uphold and defend the
Constitution.
I thank the chairman and yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from California.
The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Illinois,
the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to thank our witnesses for appearing. I
appreciate the comments of the chairman of the overall
committee.
I can't help but be reminded when I think of the census and
census taking, that as a young community organizer, I met the
most professional person I had ever seen or known who opened up
the census data and information to me and colleagues of mine,
people where I worked, in such a way until we became fascinated
with information that existed. Her name was Mary Grady. She
retired a few years ago and is no longer here, but she was the
most professional bureaucrat, I guess, that I had ever seen. I
will always fondly remember her.
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this hearing and I thank you
for calling it because the American Community Survey is, in
fact, beneficial to our Nation in many ways. Funding for
education, transportation and human services are determined
largely based upon data gathered by the ACS. ACS statistics
provide a means of testing the effectiveness of our civil
rights and anti-discrimination laws. The ACS is a tool that
guides the proper targeting of hundreds of billions of dollars
by the Federal Government.
Local and State governments also rely on data collected by
the ACS and use the data to target local funds. ACS data is
also critical to large and small businesses, non-profits and
academic researchers.
The integrity of the ACS would be fundamentally challenged,
however, by Congressman Poe's bill which would remove the
traditional legal requirement to answer the census questions
fully and truthfully. The Census Bureau reports that a
voluntary ACS would cost too much more, much more to administer
and the data would be less reliable.
As stewards of public dollars, we should seek the most cost
effective manner to reach our ultimate goal. I appreciate the
fact that some citizens have concerns about their privacy.
Congress has made it a felony offense to make a wrongful
disclosure of personal information gathered by the census. Some
complain about the time it takes to complete the survey. The
Census Bureau requests a mere 45 minutes to complete the ACS.
It is a civic duty and a mark of good citizenship and I also
think a level of patriotism and patriotic spirit for
individuals to be engaged in providing this information as we
seek to make our country as responsive and as effective as it
can possibly be.
In this era of Twitter, Wikipedia, Facebook and online data
where people share the most intimate details of their lives for
the world to view, as a matter of fact, they just kind of do it
automatically, as a matter of fact, they even do it on
television shows, I am not convinced that there is an
overwhelming number of citizens in our country who are
seriously regarding this as an invasion of their privacy,
although some do.
I have today several letters from interest groups
encouraging Congress to preserve the ACS as we know it and I
would like to submit these, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence,
for the record.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.039
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
I would also look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, I know we are looking at, thinking about and
talking about some limitations relative to the participation of
people, but it is kind of difficult for me to believe that the
accuracy of information that we would have would be the same
using survey techniques, approaches and other methods.
I think part of what I am relating to is the fact that I
have used the Census Bureau and the census data for so long
that I have become so intimate with some of the people who have
worked for the Bureau. As a matter of fact, I think the longest
serving individual happens to run the operation out of Region
V, Stanley Moore. Stanley has become almost an institution
himself in the lives of many of the professional groups,
colleges and universities, not-for-profits and we may have a
little different view of the importance of the Census Bureau
than some other people who have not had as much intimate
contact as we have been favored with.
I would hope that not only would we do this hearing today,
but that we would have additional hearings so that we can
further explore the impact of what is before us.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.041
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Illinois.
We will now welcome our second panel of witnesses: the
Honorable Robert Groves, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Andrew
Biggs, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute;
Lawrence Yun, chief economist, National Association of
Realtors; and Patrick Jankowski, vice president, research,
Greater Houston Partnership.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses, other than
Members of Congress, must be sworn before they testify. Please
rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Gowdy. May the record reflect that all witnesses
answered in the affirmative. You may be seated.
I will recognize you from my left to right, your right to
left and the lights will mean what they traditionally mean in
life, red being go ahead and finish that thought you have.
Don't forget to turn on your microphone before you speak.
With that, it is my pleasure to recognize Dr. Groves for
his 5 minute opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF ROBERT GROVES, DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU;
ANDREW BIGGS, RESIDENT SCHOLAR, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE;
LAWRENCE YUN, CHIEF ECONOMIST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS; AND PATRICK JANKOWSKI, VICE PRESIDENT, RESEARCH,
GREATER HOUSTON PARTNERSHIP
STATEMENT OF ROBERT GROVES
Mr. Groves. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy and Ranking Member
Davis. I am delighted to be here to talk about the American
Community Survey and its roll to the country.
I must note that because of changes we have seen in our
society at the Census Bureau we are in the middle of
reorganizing how we do things to reflect changes in the society
that have been mentioned already. We have launched a
reorganization of the Bureau, we have crafted a Cost Efficiency
Program that is based on staff proposals for saving money, we
are taking every opportunity to save pennies in order to invest
in innovation and I detail those in my full testimony that I
submit to the committee for the record.
One of the things we are doing that is different is using
the American Community Survey as a tool to make the 2020 census
more efficient. It is a key vehicle in the planning of the 2020
census and through that we believe that we will produce both a
more cost efficient decennial census and a better ACS over
time.
What is the ACS? It is literally this country's only source
of small area statistics throughout the country available for
all the communities in the Nation. As the successor to the
decennial census long form, it is the only sample household
survey that is mandatory by law. It thereby achieves the
highest rates of participation of all surveys, approaching 98
percent of the population.
The vast majority of households that are sampled into the
survey choose to participate and we have tried to limit the
burden of the survey by limiting the sample size to about 2.5
percent of the households each year. We are conscious of that
challenge to us.
The products produced by the American Community Survey
amount annually to 11 billion statistics that inform local
communities and businesses down to very small areas of space.
That amounts to about 2 cents a statistic in terms of the
efficiency of the survey. We will talk a lot today about uses
of the survey. I would be happy to do that in a Q and A.
I want to focus on the key issues that I believe are of
concern to the subcommittee. Why do we ask these questions, for
example? Why do we ask the question, does this person have
difficulty concentrating, remembering or making decisions and
does this person have difficulty dressing or bathing?
Knowing the spatial distribution of the disabled population
in the United States is crucial, both for Federal programs that
serve them, for the Veterans Administration that has to serve
disabled veterans, for the industry that serves the elderly and
is designing living quarters for them throughout the country,
and it is for that reason that we use the standards from the
Institute of Medicine to form those questions.
Why is the survey mandatory? The U.S. Constitution empowers
Congress to carry out the census ``in such manner as they shall
by law direct.'' That is unambiguous in the Constitution. When
the founding fathers, many of whom were Members of the first
Congress, passed the Census Act in March 1790, it became
obvious that their intent was to make that mandatory. There was
a $40 fine in 1790 for not complying to the census.
The long form of the census has evolved to the American
Community Survey. As the long form was mandatory, so too has
the American Community Survey that replaced it been voluntary.
What would happen if we changed this to a voluntary survey? In
2003, Congress directed the Census Bureau to do an experiment,
a piece of research to answer that question.
We found that a voluntary test yielded respondent
participation at lower levels in all three modes of data
collection. That led to an increase in survey costs because we
follow up those who did not respond on the mail side. That
produces smaller numbers of cases for just those neighborhoods
I described which means the estimates from the sample survey
are more unstable. If we turned ACS into a voluntary survey, we
estimate roughly that it would increase the costs by about $66
million a year.
For all these reasons, we are in the middle of a top to
bottom program review of the ACS that will be finished in
December 2012 and I would be happy to talk more on all these
topics.
I appreciate being here and look forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Groves follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.059
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Dr. Groves.
Dr. Biggs.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW BIGGS
Mr. Biggs. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Davis and members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today with regard to the American Community Survey and, in
particular, the legal requirement that Americans participate in
the ACS.
This issue involves important questions of both individual
privacy and lawmakers' need for accurate data upon which to
make important policy decisions. In the United States, we have
sought to achieve an appropriate balance between these two
needs. It is my opinion that mandatory participation in the
ACS, coupled with legal protections for privacy of ACS
respondents, maintains that balance in a reasonable way.
The American Community Survey replaced the census long form
which previously had gathered detailed information on a subset
of the U.S. population. Roughly one-in-six census respondents
were required to fill out the long form in addition to the
standard census questionnaire.
Researchers have pointed out technical pros and cons of the
ACS versus the census long form. The annual sample size of the
ACS is smaller than the census long form but the ACS is
produced every year whereas the long form was generated only
every 10 years. For that reason, the ACS allows for better real
time analysis and better tracking of trends from year to year.
These abilities clearly would be of interest to policymakers,
Congress and the administration.
The ACS and the long form are similar in that participation
in both was mandated by law. Like for the long form, mandatory
participation in the ACS is controversial and raises legitimate
privacy concerns of which policymakers should remain cognizant.
However, for several reasons, I believe that mandatory
participation in the ACS remains a reasonable policy.
First, the greater detailed information captured by the ACS
has allowed the standard census questionnaire to become less
detailed. For the typical American, the census process may
become less intrusive over time.
Second, the same law that mandates individual participation
in the ACS also makes it illegal for the Census Bureau to
release data in such a way that an individual's privacy might
be violated. Any census employee who violates the privacy of
census data faces significant jail time and large monetary
fines. I am not personally aware of any instance in which ACS
respondents, or for that matter, respondents to any census
survey have had their privacy violated in this way.
Third, and most importantly, without good data,
policymakers are essentially flying blind, lacking solid
knowledge of the Americans they are seeking to assist. We
already suffer too much from what might be referred to as
policymaking by anecdote. Where lawmakers seek to pass
legislation before significantly examining the severity or
sometimes even the existence of a perceived problem, reducing
the quantity and quality of data available to policymakers,
analysts and researchers threatens to exacerbate this problem.
Moreover, it is likely that with voluntary participation,
data will fall short most for individuals and households on
whom government policy is most focused, including the poor, the
less educated and those with poorer language skills. In my own
research, I have found the ACS filled gaps in existing data
sets and allowed for analysis that would have been difficult or
impossible to conduct in its absence.
For instance, I am currently using the ACS in ongoing
research on public sector compensation, some of which has been
presented in hearings before the full Oversight Committee. For
much of that research, we use the Census Bureau's Current
Population Survey. However, the ACS contains more detailed
information that has allowed us to better control for the
different skills of public and private sector employees, as
well as much more detailed geographic location that allows us
to look at where certain employees are located.
Setting public sector compensation at appropriate levels
impacts the quality of the government work force at the
Federal, State and local levels and can have fiscal
repercussions potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars
per year. Without good data, though, this kind of analysis is
extremely difficult to undertake.
Those who wish to make participation in the ACS voluntary
raise important points. We should not allow our concern for
individuals' privacy to fade even if we judge that mandatory
participation is the best policy course. In the United States,
the government exists to serve the people, not vice versa.
Nevertheless, I believe that government can best serve the
American people by continuing to gather high quality survey
data.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Biggs follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.061
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Dr. Biggs.
Dr. Yun.
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE YUN
Mr. Yun. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Davis and members
of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today
and offer a realtor perspective on the American Community
Survey.
I am here to testify on behalf of approximately 1 million
realtor members who are involved in residential and commercial
real estate. I would like to discuss how NAR uses the ACS data.
ACS provides an important input into NAR's estimation of
existing home sales as delineated in the appendix of this
testimony. NAR's monthly sales estimate is based on information
from a comprehensive sample of multiple listing services around
the country. However, NAR does not obtain information on every
single sales transaction, for example, for sale by owner sales
of which we would not be able to capture.
Rather, NAR has the data for a representative sample of
home sales on a monthly basis and then it is grossed up to
obtain an estimate for total national existing home sales each
month. The information from ACS provides the basis for this
gross up. Based on the information in yearly ACS, we are able
to obtain a benchmark level of sales that is an estimate or
level of total home sales in a given year. We then use the
sample data from the multiple listing service to estimate the
total monthly sales based on this benchmark.
Without the availability of ACS, we probably would not have
an accurate measure of the existing home sales market. It is
well known that home sales are one of the important drivers of
the economy. Timely information on an important part of the
economy would no longer be available. This combination of
public and private data provides information on a major part of
our economy, information that is of interest to decisionmakers,
the homeowners and a variety of stakeholders.
Another use of ACS is the computing of the Housing
Affordability Index at the local level. NAR publishes a closely
watched Affordability Index which is based on mortgage rates,
home prices and local household income. We rely on ACS to
provide the local income measurements. One of the popular
reports that we provide for our realtor members is the Local
Housing Market Report. Included in the report are sales, price
and housing start trends. We also include information on
population shifts and income trends and the data sets that come
from the ACS.
Our realtor members from faster growing States such as
Arizona, Utah, Texas, Florida, North Carolina and my home State
of South Carolina are particularly delighted to hear about the
changing population shifts in their States' favor, recognizing
that my observation in these conversations are just anecdotal.
The major value of ACS is that it is based on random,
statistically accurate samples permitting research analysis at
the national, State and local levels. The key word is random. A
significant, non-response error could be introduced if the
participation in the survey were optional. Moving to a
voluntary response to ACS would no doubt reduce response rates,
particularly among minority households, low-income households
and from rural communities.
The accuracy and comprehensiveness of the survey is
extremely important. Conclusions from a non-random survey could
be incorrect and misleading. For these reasons, it is important
that households selected for the survey be counted in the data
base. The option of not answering the survey could bias and
render meaningless conclusions based on the data base.
I thank you for the opportunity to present our comments on
the American Community Survey. In concluding, data integrity is
important and I hope the American Community Survey can continue
to obtain the necessary response rates needed to assure the
development of accurate and meaningful conclusions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yun follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.100
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Dr. Yun. It is good to have someone
from South Carolina here.
Mr. Jankowski.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK JANKOWSKI
Mr. Jankowski. I want to start by thanking you Chairman
Gowdy and Ranking Member Davis for inviting me here to talk
about the American Community Survey.
My name is Patrick Jankowski and I am the vice president of
research at the Greater Houston Partnership. We are an economic
development organization.
One of the things that we do at the Partnership is we try
to grow the region's economy. We try to grow jobs, try to
expand the tax base, and try to bring investment to the region.
Basically, we are trying to build prosperity in the region.
This is a job I have been doing for about 30 years. I started
at a college in 1981 doing this.
How do you recruit businesses to a region that has changed
so much over the last 30 years? When I first got started, we
would have a company call us up and want to know do you have a
piece of real estate and is it well served. That was all they
wanted to know, real estate infrastructure. That was in the old
economy, that was in the industrial age. Now we are in the
information age we're in the global economy.
When we work with companies and companies come to the
region, they want to know something about real estate and know
something about infrastructure but one of the most key issues
they are asking about is the work force and the demographics of
the region they work in and that they are looking at putting it
in.
It is the nature of the questions they ask. We will be
working with a Japanese firm. The Japanese firm will be looking
at coming to Houston and they want to know what is the size of
your Asian community, what is the size of your Japanese
community. They want to know because they need to make sure
that their ex-pat workers they assign to come to Houston are
going to feel comfortable working there.
We will be working with an engineering firm and the
engineering firm will want to know, obviously, how many
engineers do you have and how many technicians do you have in
the region. They want to know that so if they relocate to
Houston, they open up in Houston, they are bringing jobs to
Houston, they will be able to meet their staffing needs.
We work with office centers and call centers. They ask us
about commute times. One of the reasons is they want to know is
it going to be difficult for their employees to get to work.
They want to know if it is going to create staffing problems.
These are real life examples. We have 100 Japanese firms in
Houston. We have been able to recruit because we have this sort
of data. With engineering firms specifically, we have Vestas
Wind Energy, a Scandinavian company, which came to Houston to
do development and R&D work because we were able to provide
them with data about engineers. Just about any company that
looks at Houston wants to know about commute times.
It is so important that we have this good data, the data we
get from the ACS. It is also so important just because of the
nature of the changes which have been occurring in the economy
and which have been occurring in the population over the last
10 years. It is so important that we get the ACS data on a
regular basis.
Houston for example, added 1.2 million people in the last
decade. Of that, 745,000 of those are Hispanic. If we didn't
have the ACS data, we wouldn't see these changes which are
going on in our population. Consider that there were five
metropolitan areas that added over 1 million people between the
censuses. There were another 6 that added half a million and
another 50 that added over 100,000. There are 51 metropolitan
areas that lost population between the census. If we didn't
have the ACS data, we wouldn't be able to see these changes
which are going on.
Houston has been fairly successful. We actually had a
pretty good year last year. We actually were able to recruit
about 34 companies to the region or convince them not to leave
the region. The ACS data is the sole thing which kept them
there. We like to think we have a good business climate, but we
were able to provide them with the data so they can understand
the population, they can understand the work force and be
comfortable in making a decision to invest in the region, to
create jobs in the region, and to grow our tax base.
I am not unique. I like to think I am unique but I am not
unique. There are at least 5,000 other organizations like mine
across the United States in small cities, counties and States
that are trying to recruit businesses to their region. They
rely very heavily on ACS data when they are trying to make
their pitches to convince companies to relocate to their
region.
If we make the ACS voluntary, as my fellow panelists have
talked about, the quality of the data is going to go down. If
the quality of the data goes down, we are not giving the
business community the sort of good information they need to
make these business decisions. That is why I like to say making
the ACS voluntary is a bad decision. We need to continue to
give the business community good information so they can make
good business decisions to help grow our tax bases, grow jobs
and increase investment.
Once again, thank you for allowing me to speak and I am
ready to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jankowski follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73941.103
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Jankowski.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I want to be extremely clear at the outset. I don't doubt
for a second the helpfulness of the information. I don't doubt
for a second the importance of the information. What I am
trying to determine is whether or not it is important enough to
send someone to jail who doesn't answer it.
Let me ask you, Mr. Biggs, do you think it is important to
register to vote?
Mr. Biggs. Do I think it is important? Voting is voluntary.
Mr. Gowdy. That is not my question. My question was, is it
helpful and important to vote?
Mr. Biggs. Sure.
Mr. Gowdy. In fact, one could argue that is the ultimate
national survey, right?
Mr. Biggs. Correct.
Mr. Gowdy. If you want to take a mood on how people feel
and what they are thinking, go check the election results. What
is the penalty for not registering?
Mr. Biggs. In our country, nothing.
Mr. Gowdy. What is the penalty for not voting?
Mr. Biggs. Nothing.
Mr. Gowdy. You can understand how vexing it would be to
some of us when the census was designed and calculated so you
can apportion the different congressional seats. That is why we
have a census. I don't think anyone is going to argue that the
founders put that in the Constitution so we could have more
demographic information for realtors. It is to apportion the
congressional seats. That is the reason we have a census, yet
we don't punish people for not registering to vote, we don't
punish people for not voting and no one is advocating that we
do. We do punish people who don't respond to portions of this
form that have nothing to do with that right.
I want to walk through not the helpfulness of it. I don't
doubt that. I am not even doubting the importance of it. I want
to ask about the constitutional grounding of being able to ask
this. Director, I want to start with you and ask what level of
scrutiny you think we should apply? I have heard the words
compelling interest and I have heard important interest. Those
are two different levels of constitutional scrutiny. Would you
say that the government has a compelling interest in this
information or just an interest in this information?
Mr. Groves. If you go to the words in the Constitution,
Article I, Section 2, it clearly gives Congress the
responsibility to direct how the census is done.
Mr. Gowdy. Agreed.
Mr. Groves. Then in order to understand what the intent
was, I think past Congresses have looked at the first Census
Act and there it is absolutely clear, I think most historians
read it that the intent was a full enumeration of the
population in order that the reapportionment was equitably and
fairly done and the mandatory nature is specified from the get
go.
Mr. Gowdy. I don't want to cut you off but I only have 2
minutes now and I need to go through the form with you to ask
you whether or not the governmental interest is important or
compelling because the courts that look at this will have a
different analysis if you say it is compelling versus if you
say it is important.
The first several questions, I don't think anyone
challenges you have to know the age so you can apportion voting
age population. You can't stuff a district with only people
under the age of 18, so you have to know the age, you have to
know the gender and you have to know the race. I am fine with
compelling people to answer that.
Whether or not someone is forgetful, do you agree with me
that the First Amendment, while it protects your right to
speak, also protects your right not to speak?
Mr. Groves. With all due respect, I am not sure whether it
matters whether I agree but what the intent of Congresses has
been over the decades. Congresses have specified additional
information and then the courts have, in discussions not unlike
this, asked the question, is it right that the government
compel. Those cases seem clear that the intent of those
Congresses was upheld by the courts.
Mr. Gowdy. I think those cases dealt with the Fourth
Amendment and not the First Amendment which is why I asked you
specifically about the First Amendment. Those were privacy
cases; those weren't speech cases.
Mr. Groves. I am not an attorney.
Mr. Gowdy. I am not much of one either, but my reading of
it is those were Fourth Amendment and not First Amendment
cases, and I am almost out of time and perhaps we will have a
second panel. Again, no one has to convince me it is helpful.
Before all the realtors email me and call me from back home,
nobody has to convince me it is important. Nobody has to
convince me it is helpful.
You have to convince me that it is important and helpful
enough to send a person to jail who wants to exercise their
right not to answer it.
With that, I would recognize the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I think maybe we might have to have a second round because
you have generated some thoughts even in my mind relative to
the whole question of congressional intent. It seems to me I
think the intent was to get as much information as was
considered useful at the time. I agree there are changes that
have been occurring. As those changes have taken place, we
readjust and readjust our thinking in relationship to what is
needed.
I think there are even bodies of knowledge now that did not
exist in 1790. So they would not have thought necessarily of
the usefulness of some things. I guess trying to form this more
perfect Union, I guess they knew it wasn't perfect and still
isn't, but it is in formation. Every time we learn something
new and readjust, then I think we are moving toward the
perfection that we hope to have, even though I don't think we
will ever get there because if we ever got there, then we would
have to stop.
As I was thinking about the issue, my questions become even
if we find ways to save money in one way, and I think everyone
associated with government or thinking about government are
thinking how do we get the most mileage out of what we are
spending? Oftentimes, I am reminded of an individual who lived
back before some of this was written, a guy named Frederick
Douglass. He always said there was one thing he knew if he
didn't know anything else, and that is he knew that in this
world, we may not get everything that we pay for, but we most
certainly must pay and will pay for everything we get. If we
don't pay one way, then we will pay another way.
If there is some information that is needed to make a
certain kind of decision and we don't have that data, or if the
data we have is not as accurate as perhaps it could have been,
maybe we make an error and the error may outweigh what would
have been the cost of another level of accuracy. Do either one
of you think that is something we ought to be thinking about as
we think of streamlining and reducing and trying to spend the
least amount of money that we possibly can with the greatest
level of effectiveness? Mr. Director, let me begin with you.
Mr. Groves. The question of the mandatory nature of ACS is
related to your points through an indirect effect of making the
ACS a voluntary survey. If it became voluntary, as the past
research showed, the very small area uses that these gentlemen
have mentioned and other people around the country rely on ACS
for, those uses are threatened mainly because of the production
of very unstable estimates at the low level.
What happens with unstable estimates is that schools will
be built in neighborhoods where there aren't enough kids,
retail stores will be built that won't fulfill their sales
projections, roads will be built where cars won't need them.
There are costs to the quality impacts and the instability of
estimates at the small area. In thinking through these
tradeoffs, I think it is critical to talk also about the cost
side of change.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. Jankowski, are there any questions that can't be asked?
Mr. Jankowski. I haven't gone through the whole survey to
look at which questions can't be asked.
Mr. Gowdy. No, I mean are there any questions in general
that can't be asked? What is off limits?
Mr. Jankowski. You mean philosophically?
Mr. Gowdy. Not even philosophically. If the standard we are
going to use is what is helpful and what is important, can you
ask the people at that residence whether they have committed
any crimes in the last 12 months because heavens knows, we need
to apportion law enforcement services?
Mr. Jankowski. I think there is something in the
Constitution about self incrimination.
Mr. Gowdy. There is. There is the Fifth Amendment that
comes down from the First Amendment which says you don't have
to talk.
Mr. Jankowski. Yes. So in that case, that sort of question
would be off limits.
Mr. Gowdy. What about whether or not someone takes any
pharmaceuticals and to list the drugs they take by name so EMS
can know when they respond whether or not there are any counter
indications in terms of how they treat someone in case of an
emergency? Can you ask what drugs are being consumed there?
Mr. Jankowski. In a census form?
Mr. Gowdy. Sure.
Mr. Jankowski. I don't see the practical application of
something like that.
Mr. Gowdy. How about whether or not the person there has
trouble concentrating?
Mr. Jankowski. That, I can see because you need to be able
to deliver services by geographic area.
Mr. Gowdy. What service? What service would be impacted by
lack of concentration that wouldn't be impacted by what kind of
pharmaceuticals you are taking?
Mr. Jankowski. Like nursing homes, day care for the
elderly, things of that nature, services that you would
provide, social services to provide people who are having
difficulty taking care of their elderly relatives.
Mr. Gowdy. I have heard reliable used a lot. Is self
diagnosis the most reliable way to get that information?
Mr. Jankowski. No, it is not. I don't think it is an issue
of self diagnosis. I think this is an issue of someone who
probably has already been diagnosed in their household by their
doctor and they are just confirming on the form that it has
already been diagnosed by a medical professional.
Mr. Gowdy. Can you ask them what kind of magazines they
read, what kind of TV shows they watch?
Mr. Jankowski. I think Nielsen does that.
Mr. Gowdy. That is my point. There are a lot of other
people who ask these same questions. Is the mortgage
information available from other sources?
Mr. Jankowski. You probably need to defer that one to my
colleague to the right. That is an area that I am not very well
based on, mortgage information.
Mr. Gowdy. Dr. Groves, is any of this information available
from other sources?
Mr. Groves. Some of the questions are asked in other
surveys done both by other Federal agencies and the private
sector, but what is unique about ACS is that the questions are
asked of the same individual. That allows us to say not only
what is the prevalence of disability in the country but what
portion of the disabled are veterans. Since we ask both those
questions, we can target the use of the information in a much
more helpful way for small area decisions that are being made.
That is the strength.
Mr. Gowdy. The annual payment for fire, hazard and flood
insurance, the amount, is that information available from other
sources?
Mr. Groves. Yes, but once again, that single item in
conjunction with other items allow us to calculate and to give
to the Housing and Urban Development Department estimated
living costs by housing type and that is critical in Section 8
administration.
Mr. Gowdy. I am going to ask the question again. What
standard is the standard we should be using?
Mr. Groves. I think it is very simple. It really is very
simple.
Mr. Gowdy. What? Give me a simple answer.
Mr. Groves. We have attempted to go through the questions
on the ACS and ask of each one, is there a legal mandate to
collect these. I believe we can send this to you at any
moment's notice, the details, the statutes that require the
collection of that information either by the American Community
Survey itself or by the Census Bureau in service of other
Federal Government agencies. Then there are all the business
uses that are not mandated statutorily, but are useful. That
distinction I am with you on. I believe that is an appropriate
distinction for Congress to make.
Mr. Gowdy. What questions can't be asked?
Mr. Groves. What questions?
Mr. Gowdy. Cannot be asked?
Mr. Groves. In a similar meaning of the term that you used?
Mr. Gowdy. Yes. Can you ask about medicines because EMS
does need to know when treating someone at the house?
Mr. Groves. I believe that would not meet the standards of
the American Community Survey, so our question is, where is the
statute that requires the collection of information for the use
for the common good if we find that is the threshold we are
looking for in the American Community Survey?
Mr. Gowdy. My time has expired.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Voluntary versus mandatory ACS studies in 2003
and 2004, the findings demonstrated an over 20 percent decrease
in participation when the answers were voluntary. This seemed
to me to be a large decrease for a limited population and the
Census Bureau concluded that moving to a voluntary ACS would
compromise the quality of the data and increase the cost of
administering the ACS.
In addition to that, it seems to me if you are making
decisions about something and you have 20 percent less
information or less accurate information, would that drive up
the cost of not only getting the data that you need, but would
it also compromise the likelihood of the validity or the
highest level of validity of decisionmaking that then would
occur?
Mr. Groves. It is clear to me that the credibility of the
ACS statistics used by people throughout the country is
dependent on the rate of participation we get. It is also clear
from the 2003 studies that participation rate would go down
with a voluntary survey.
Our estimates are that roughly 600,000 houses that are
responding now relative to about the 2 million that respond
each year would be threatened under this. It is important, I
think, to understand why. The first receipt of an American
Community Survey is through the mail. All of us sort through a
mail making a decision about whether to open the envelope or
not. Is it important enough to gain our attention?
The American Community Survey has a message on the envelope
that notes the legal basis and the mandatory nature. That has
been shown through the research to be an effective tool merely
to open the envelope. Once the vast majority of people do that,
they then end up eventually completing the survey.
It is important to talk about the tradeoff. What would
happen if we made ACS voluntary? Imagine that world and we are
blessed that an earlier edition of this committee urged us to
do that research. We now have the research findings and the
research findings suggest that some of the key uses of ACS are
gutted by the voluntary nature and we have to talk about that.
Mr. Davis. I know the chairman was concerned about the
issue of individuals being penalized for not complying or not
answering the questions. Individuals may end up potentially
becoming incarcerated. Certainly given the fact that we
incarcerate more people than anybody else in the world, I
wouldn't want to see anybody incarcerated because they refused
to answer some census information that was inquired.
Do we have much record of people having been prosecuted for
refusing to answer questions on census forms?
Mr. Groves. I have been in this job since 2009 and I asked
the same questions about how we implemented the mandatory
nature. I can't find an example of prosecution attempts on ACS.
When I asked why, why is it mandatory and why don't we
prosecute, the answer is that we found over time that the note
that this is mandatory and the ability of our interviewers to
explain why these data are so important are much more effective
than any prosecution could be. No one has been fined, is what I
am told, because of non-compliance with ACS.
I remind us that the rate of participation is about 98
percent of the sample. This is extraordinarily high. There is
no other survey in the United States that reaches this level of
participation.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank the gentleman from Illinois.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from California,
the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jankowski, a short answer hopefully. The information
for the census is useful and you would like to have it, right?
Mr. Jankowski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Issa. It is valuable and you would like to have it?
Mr. Jankowski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Yun, the same would be true, the information
is useful and you would like to have it? It is valuable and you
would like to have it?
Mr. Yun. Yes, if it is a random sample. If it is not a
random sample, then the results would not be that meaningful.
Mr. Issa. You want good data, it is valuable?
Mr. Yun. Yes.
Mr. Issa. Dr. Biggs, you are maybe a little less interested
in it, but would you agree that this is valuable information?
Mr. Biggs. I have no financial interest, but yes, it is
valuable information.
Mr. Issa. You know that the private sector, associations
and true private sector, they want to have it, they use it and
it is valuable to them?
Mr. Biggs. That is correct.
Mr. Issa. They get it for free, right?
Mr. Biggs. Yes, they do.
Mr. Issa. Director, your turn. You are not selling this. It
is valuable. Statutorily, you are not allowed to sell it, is
that correct?
Mr. Groves. I am not sure.
Mr. Issa. Let me get to the question behind the question.
If ultimately one of your great defenses is that it costs more
to do it another way, then the first question is, you can
offset that by having the right to sell this very valuable
information, so cost is a false facade, it is a canard, right?
Ultimately, cost is something you are saying but it is not
something you particularly care about as long as the revenue
necessary either given to you by the taxpayers or provided to
be collected for this valuable information, you don't have a
problem with the raised cost then, do you?
Mark McCormick has passed away now, but he was a business
write and he described what a problem is. Director, do you know
what a problem is?
Mr. Groves. No.
Mr. Issa. It is something money won't solve. My first
question to you, and the most important question for me in this
hearing is, could money solve this problem statistically?
Mr. Groves. That is a great question, first of all. It is a
question I think about a lot. I can say that if there were an
increase in the budget.
Mr. Issa. In the budget for this particular line item, let
us not go too far here today.
Mr. Groves. Then it is unambiguous that we could restore
the size of the data set, as it were, that produces the
estimates from ACS. Then the critical question as these
gentlemen have noted is would that reestablished size produce
the same estimates. We have done some simulation on this and
sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't work. The jury is
still out on the answer.
Mr. Issa. Let us go to a more studied area. Director, you
have written fairly extensively that you view enumeration could
be done by estimation, that in fact the mandate on the
Constitution, which we do argue about here in Congress, that
says you will count could in fact be extrapolated for greater
accuracy. Literally, the convincing argument that has not
carried the day is that minorities are under-represented in the
census because, in fact, they don't answer, they have these
other reasons that they are not counted, and therefore, an
extrapolation could increase the accuracy. You are well
familiar with the issue and you and I have even talked about it
in the past, right?
Mr. Groves. Yes. I don't believe I have ever written a
single word on this but I understand what you are saying, yes.
Mr. Issa. That whole point is that we could potentially
change outcomes using further analysis. In this case where
there is no constitutional mandate and thus, no compelling
reason under the Constitution at least to mandate people answer
against their First, Fourth, Fifth and dammit, I just have a
right to liberty set of constitutional rights because there is
sort of that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It doesn't
necessarily fit in the 10 but it is clearly there.
Back to the basic question, one, given enough money, you
can overcome this or at least given enough money, you can find
out if you can overcome it and to what accuracy, right?
Mr. Groves. It would require a research program to nail it.
Mr. Issa. Let us do a what-if here. If you in fact did a
blind study or double blind study or triple blind study, you
guys are much better at the terms for it, and you did both, and
I say triple--if I can ask for an additional minute, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Where you had the straight voluntary, you had sort of the
first four questions voluntary, and then follow up to try to
encourage people to participate even if in fact they were
reticent to do so, but ultimately that would be compared
against today the you are going to jail if you don't answer
this type of threat, if you did that, you would know more than
you know today, isn't that correct, Director?
Mr. Groves. That is correct.
Mr. Issa. Once you do that, you would know whether or not
you could receive, for the benefit of these people to your left
because they want this information in many cases. It is
valuable information and they think you are a better source of
it for free than the people they pay millions of dollars to get
it, right?
Mr. Groves. That is right. Canada just did this.
Mr. Issa. Thank God it is not Sweden. I love it when it is
Canada instead of Sweden.
Mr. Groves. They are still grappling with the results as I
understand it, so it didn't work out according to expectations.
Mr. Issa. In their case, they did these blind tests or did
they change systems?
Mr. Groves. They switched their so-called long form to
voluntary, mounted it as a survey after their census in 2011
and there was a massive decline, an unexpectedly large decline.
Mr. Issa. My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, are we going
to have another round?
Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Davis and I have had a second round. Mr.
Chairman, you are welcome to also have a second round.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. I will be briefer in my second round
than my first.
This is so important and there is so much question about
whether or not the word mandate is necessary, and if so, to
what questions. I think this is where, Mr. Jankowski, you were
very good at answering some things and a little bit more
deferring in others.
At the end of the day, can't we all agree that not every
question has a compelling Federal interest that mandates it
while, Mr. Yun, there are things which do not have a compelling
Federal interest but you sure as heck would like to get the
information.
Can we all agree that is sort of part of what the study is.
It is not just about the absolute minimum, it is about nice to
have information and in some cases, must have information and
then it is a question of how you get it? Is that sort of where
the two of you would be, you would like to have the information
and you know some of it is needed, but some of it that we get,
you really appreciate whether it is needed or not?
Mr. Yun. That is correct.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs, in your case, you are sort of my
libertarian friend for a moment, if we can ask for this
information and people voluntarily give it and we can
statistically make it accurate for the other side and if we
recover the cost in some way that is beneficial to the taxpayer
either because the additional information is valuable, enough
for him to pay for it or her to pay for it, or we sell it, are
you okay, Dr. Biggs, with that?
Mr. Biggs. In general, yes. You can make the economic
argument for government conducting what we call basic research
and I think this would actually fit into the category of that,
but in general, I would. I am pretty well a libertarian person.
The number of programs and departments I think are
unconstitutional would probably shock even you, but I think for
somebody who is often accused of wanting to gut the government,
I think the place to start is not through the eyes and ears of
knowing what is going on out there.
If you cut that source of information, all the other
government programs become less efficient. Because they are
less efficient, you are extracting more from people than you
otherwise would have to. You are serving them less well than
you otherwise would. That has a cost not just financially, but
a cost to their freedom.
I think the libertarian argument cuts both ways. I am all
for cutting government. Is this the first thing we should cut?
I don't really think so.
Mr. Issa. Director, I am going to close with you. It looks
like you have a great mandate here. You have a group of people
who want to find a way to do this less onerously, you have a
dais who is committed to making sure that information that is
valuable to the taxpayers, directly and indirectly, is made
available.
You do have some pushback on the mandated. It appears as
though you don't currently have the kind of parallel, both
studies in Canada and in fact, doing your own work with these
various levels potentially. I put those out as a person who
only had to take the required stats to get a business degree.
You certainly eclipse what my teachers had, let us put it that
way.
That is an invitation, I would say, for you to come to us
with your proposals for how we get a win-win. Can we, in fact,
have Dr. Biggs get what he wants which is that the onerous
nature of mandate fades to zero potentially; Dr. Yun and Mr.
Jankowski seem like they are fine with voluntary. They just
want to make sure it is equally accurate.
I am sitting on the dais saying, I don't want the taxpayers
to have to get a big increase unless it is absolutely mandated.
Can you come back to this committee in relatively short time
with at least some draft ideas of how we could work together to
get the win for the three people to your left and the win for
Mr. Poe and the other people who believe that today, this
mandate, in its current form, needs to go away completely? The
committee certainly would like to find a win-win. Can you do
that for us?
Mr. Groves. I think this is the proper role for me and my
colleagues to comment on the technical matters and for you to
address these more philosophical matters of what should be
mandated. I would be happy to do so.
Mr. Issa. I thank you. I have never had a bad hearing with
you or a bad meeting with you, so this doesn't surprise me.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Clay who has joined us, I
thank you for this hearing. I think it is a good first step. We
obviously are the exclusive committee of jurisdiction for the
census and we take it seriously.
I thank the chairman and yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from California.
The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Missouri,
Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank all the witnesses for coming today. It is good to
see Director Groves again. I appreciate the hard work that you
and the Bureau did during the 2010 census. I believe it was one
of the most accurate and complete we have ever done.
I am, however, concerned that this is the first time that
this committee in the 112th Congress is examining an issue
related to the census. When I took over as Chair of this
committee in 2007, I discovered that during the previous 7
years, my friends on the other side of the aisle had held only
two hearings about the 2010 census. Seven years into the
planning, most of the decisions had been made. Many of them,
unfortunately, had been poor decisions that would have created
major problems and yielded poor results.
Without any oversight from the then-majority, there was a
great likelihood of failure. We took great care and made
efforts in the following 4 years to rectify the problems. We
did and we provided oversight. We held hearings and we
investigated. We asked the GAO to provide us with numerous
reports. Let me say that the GAO did an outstanding job. We
engaged with the Bureau and we listened to an enormous number
of stakeholders and we did it all transparently through more
than 20 hearings.
We have not had much follow-up from the 2010 census.
Hopefully, we will begin that process, Mr. Chair.
If this is about the American Community Survey, ACS, I am
sure others will be able to give many details on how the ACS
came to be and how it is of great benefit to us all. They will
tell us how participation will decline significantly if the ACS
were to be made voluntary. I would like to go on the record to
say that I am opposed to making the ACS voluntary.
I hope that the Majority realizes the importance of the
census and I hope that they are as committed to an accurate and
complete count as possible as I am.
With that, Mr. Chairman, let me ask one question of the
panel. I will start with Director Groves.
Mr. Groves, there are some who suggest that the private
sector should pay for census data collection. Could you address
this idea and the possible ramifications of an effort like
this?
Mr. Groves. We haven't considered this seriously, so I can
comment that it would be near unique in the world if the United
States chose to do this. Other countries, I think, have taken
the posture that this is a basic responsibility of the central
government to monitor and keep track of how we are doing as an
economy and a society and that in a democracy, the free and
equitable distribution of this information is key to the notion
of the society.
I don't know what money would be made off this is we tried
to sell it. It is clear that there are companies that use these
data, combine them with other statistics and add value and sell
these as part of their business model, so there is a bit of
that, but I have no idea what would happen if the United States
chose to do this and whether the results would be a desirable
set or not.
Mr. Clay. It is also clear that the business community
relies on data to make business decisions on where they locate
their businesses and basically how commerce flows in this
country?
Mr. Groves. It is crystal clear that successful American
firms are using empirical data to make day to day decisions and
that what products are stocked in a particular site of a
particular national store is determined somewhat by our data.
American business runs on these data and we would have to think
this through.
Mr. Clay. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman is recognized for some additional
time.
Mr. Clay. Thank you. Two minutes.
Mr. Gowdy. An additional 2 minutes.
Mr. Clay. Thank you very much.
Does anyone else on the panel have any thoughts about the
data collection and whether the private sector should pay for
it? Dr. Yun.
Mr. Yun. Like Dr. Biggs mentioned, there is certain basic
information I think the government can provide rather than
forcing upon the private sector to pay, that benefits the
country as a whole. Let me relate one long story.
I grew up in South Korea and was raised in South Carolina
but my parents went through the Korean War and it could have
been just as easy that we could have been following the other
regime. The other regime did not collect data. I should say
there is a tremendous amount of consensus among economists and
researchers in America, even though there is disagreement here
and there, I think that the level of agreement that is in
America compared to other countries that are divided like North
and South Korea because of the prevalence of the data, we can
see it, we let the statistics speak for themselves.
I think there is tremendous value in having the basic
information. With the research, people can look through it and
find the consensus as to what makes sense and what does not
make sense.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response.
Mr. Jankowski, any comments?
Mr. Jankowski. Just one comment. I can see the business
community coming back and saying, this is something I am
already paying taxes on. If I am already paying taxes for it,
why am I subsidizing it a second time?
Also, I think we need to understand who we are in the
United States, we need to understand the forces that are
shaping us and we need to understand the demographic shifts. I
think it is so important to gather this information so we
simply know what is going on in the country.
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, before we close, could I have just
a moment?
Mr. Gowdy. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Issa. I just want to follow up. Mr. Clay made two good
points.
Mr. Jankowski, you pay taxes, and Dr. Yun, you pay taxes,
but you pay taxes for the National Parks. Do you think it is
wrong to pay a fee to go in a National Park since we collect
countless dollars in that?
Mr. Yun. I believe on the National Parks, it is determined
at the local or State level and I visit many parks, I pay my
portion.
Mr. Issa. Just so you understand, the Federal Government
takes taxes to run the Park Service, we supplement that with
fees that you pay entering. It appeared as though you said yes.
I just want to make sure we understand. I came from the private
sector. Just because taxes are paid doesn't mean those who use
over and above that get a free ride. I hope neither one of you
was actually saying that.
Mr. Yun. I agree with you but I believe in the importance
of the randomness of the data collection.
Mr. Issa. That is the second point. Mr. Clay, you and I
probably agree on this much more than we will ever disagree.
You made a statement that you support specifically the mandate.
Just as you were coming in, Director Groves had said that he
wasn't sure because he doesn't have the full data about what
the cost would be and whether or not he could get, if you will,
through statistical sampling or some other secondary check,
equal accuracy or near equal accuracy through a system that
would not be mandated.
He only knew that Canada had gone from mandated to not
mandated and it didn't work out so well. Probably Canada
supports your decision that we can't just go automatically to
not mandated, but perhaps, Director Groves could repeat what he
said about the possibility that we could get to a hybrid.
Mr. Clay. Before that happens, if the gentleman would
yield?
Mr. Issa. Of course I would yield.
Mr. Clay. The ACS, what we found over the last 5 or 6
years, was beneficial. It really filled in some gaps between
the decennial census and it helped us understand and get a
clear picture about this country, about its growth, about what
areas were growing, which ones were shrinking and I think that
is beneficial.
Mr. Issa. That is one of the areas of our greatest
agreement, that this information is powerful and beneficial. I
think every one of the witnesses all agreed. What we are trying
to do is more nuance than that. That is why I said we are going
to have a lot of agreement on the need to collect this data, at
least most of it.
We can all argue over specific questions, but Director
Groves, could you just reiterate briefly, and I know you are
going to answer in writing for the committee, how you get from
what you don't know to what you might be able to know?
Mr. Clay. Before he answers, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Issa. I would yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Clay. Does that mean that the majority would support an
increased appropriation for the census for 2020?
Mr. Issa. That is why I wanted to follow up with my
business side folks to make sure they understood that the
source of funding, if there is an increase in cost for this
valuable information, might in fact come in some way, at least
sightly, from the users.
Director Groves was very good to say that it wouldn't be
completely free regardless. Director.
Mr. Clay. Thank you.
Mr. Groves. Just to get our facts on the table, we think
that the voluntary nature is in the rough ballpark of about
$68-$70 million a year. That is a key factor in your going
forward. The critical scientific work that hasn't been done is
even with that other money, would the characteristics of those
not participating bias the statistics so that all of the uses
we just heard about are indeed threatened? We don't have the
right research to answer that.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Director. That is very helpful to us
and for all of us to know what we do know and what we don't
know. Thank you for the $60 million figure. Perhaps that makes
my colleague on the other side of the aisle more optimistic
that we can reach consensus.
I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Missouri and the
gentleman from California.
On behalf of all of us, we want to thank our panelists for
a very informative, lively discussion. Whenever we balance
competing interests, especially when those interests are very
important on both sides, it makes for an instructive,
informative hearing.
Thank you for your expertise your comity and how you have
interacted with one another and with the Members.
With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]