    [Joint House and Senate Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                         S. Hrg. 116-70

                 THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 2020 CENSUS
                 AND BUSINESS USES OF FEDERAL DATA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                            JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
                         CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 22, 2019

                                   __________

              Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    37-080                    WASHINGTON : 2019

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

        [Created pursuant to Sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Congress]

    SENATE                               HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    Mike Lee, Utah, Chairman             Carolyn B. Maloney, New York, Vice
    Tom Cotton, Arkansas                     Chair
    Ben Sasse, Nebraska                  Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Virginia
    Rob Portman, Ohio                    Denny Heck, Washington
    Bill Cassidy, M.D., Louisiana        David Trone, Maryland
    Ted Cruz, Texas                      Joyce Beatty, Ohio
    Martin Heinrich, New Mexico          Lois Frankel, Florida
    Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota             David Schweikert, Arizona
    Gary C. Peters, Michigan             Darin LaHood, Illinois
    Margaret Wood Hassan, New Hampshire  Kenny Marchant, Texas
                                         Jaime Herrera Beutler, Washington

                    Scott Winship, Ph.D., Executive Director
                     Harry Gural, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                         Opening Statements of Members

    Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, Vice Chair, a U.S. Representative from
      New York.......................................................     1
    Hon. Mike Lee, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Utah................     3

                                   Witnesses

    Andrew Reamer, Research Professor, George Washington Institute of
      Public Policy, George Washington University....................     5
    Howard Fienberg, Vice President, Advocacy, Insights Association..     7
    Mallory Bateman, Coordinator, State Data Center, Senior Research
      Analyst, The Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, The University of
      Utah...........................................................     9
    Nicholas Eberstadt, Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy,
      American Enterprise Institute..................................    11

                           Submissions for the Record

    Prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, Vice Chair, a U.S.
      Representative from New York...................................    28
    Prepared statement of Hon. Mike Lee, Chairman, a U.S. Senator
      from Utah......................................................    29
    Prepared statement of Andrew Reamer, Research Professor, George
      Washington Institute of Public Policy, George Washington
      University.....................................................    31
    Prepared statement of Howard Fienberg, Vice President, Advocacy,
      Insights Association...........................................    37
    Prepared statement of Mallory Bateman, Coordinator, State Data
      Center, Senior Research Analyst, The Kem C. Gardner Policy
      Institute, The University of Utah..............................    44
    Prepared statement of Nicholas Eberstadt, Henry Wendt Chair in
      Political Economy, American Enterprise Institute...............    48
    Response from Dr. Reamer to Question for the Record Submitted by
      Senator Klobuchar..............................................    54
    Response from Ms. Bateman to Question for the Record Submitted by
      Senator Klobuchar..............................................    54

                        THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 2020
                      CENSUS AND BUSINESS USES OF FEDERAL
                                      DATA

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2019

                         United States Congess,
                              Joint Economic Committee,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:07 p.m., in Room
    210, Cannon House Office Building, the Honorable Carolyn B.
    Maloney, Vice Chair, presiding.
        Representatives present: Maloney, Heck, Beyer, Marchant,
    Beatty, Schweikert, LaHood, and Trone.
        Senators present: Lee.
        Staff present: Melanie Ackerman, Dan Burns, Sol Espinoza,
    Natalie George, Harry Gural, Colleen Healy, Christina King,
    Wells King, Vijay Menon, Michael Pearson, Hope Sheils, Kyle
    Treasure, Jim Whitney, Scott Winship, and Randy Woods.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY, VICE CHAIR, A
                   U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

        Vice Chair Maloney. I am going to call the meeting to order
    because I think meetings should start on time, and everybody's
    time is so very valuable. When the Senator gets here, his
    opening statement will be read into the record and we can
    continue, but I can start with my opening statement. And I am
    very pleased to hold this hearing, examining the many economic
    uses of the Census and other Federal data, particularly by U.S.
    businesses.
        Census data is the only source of objective and
    comprehensive data about the Nation's demographic
    characteristics down to the neighborhood level. The decennial
    Census provides the foundation for other Federal surveys,
    including the American Community Survey. The ACS tracks social,
    demographic, economic, and housing data, including educational
    attainment, income and earnings, employment status, and housing
    value.
        Census data are an essential building block, or benchmark,
    for most nationally representative surveys, public and private,
    helping us to understand the economy, our workforce, and
    opportunities for growth. Businesses use Census data to make
    economic and strategic decisions that determine the flow of
    almost $4 trillion in annual private investment. They use it to
    decide where to locate or expand operations, where to open new
    stores and distribution centers, even what products to sell in
    which stores.
        It affects where and how advertisers spend their dollars.
    When businesses plot their strategies, they look at Census data
    to understand the skills of the workforce, and the
    characteristics of potential customers.
        Let's take a few examples. David Kenny, the CEO of Nielsen,
    in a recent New York Times op-ed, described how businesses rely
    on Census data to make a broad range of strategic decisions.
    The Census is used to identify where, for example, to put power
    lines, cell towers, and hospitals.
        Target told us that the U.S. Census is one of many
    resources that it uses to better understand the communities
    where they do businesses.
        In the 7 Rivers region, which includes Southwest Wisconsin,
    Southeast Minnesota, and Northeast Iowa, hundreds of businesses
    and community leaders are using Census-based data to craft
    strategies, to fill jobs, and boost labor-force participation.
        It starts with using data to understand who is unemployed.
    Who has left the labor force? How much education have they
    attained? How do local workers compare to others nationwide?
    Are they younger? Older? More likely to be male or female?
        The strategies that emerged from a careful analysis of the
    data are varied. One approach is to expand childcare, to make
    it more attractive for women with young children to enter the
    labor market. The 7 Rivers Alliance is just one example. Every
    day, companies across the country make decisions based on
    Census data to chart their future.
        The decennial Census is used to apportion representation in
    the United States House of Representatives, and to determine
    allocation of Federal funds. Hundreds of billions of Federal
    dollars and fair political representation are on the table, and
    depend on the Census.
        Where we build roads, bridges, schools, and other core
    infrastructure is based on Federal data. How we target funds to
    address cancer, obesity, and other health challenges depends on
    the Census.
        Unfortunately, the 2020 Census has been politicized through
    the citizenship question. Immigrant communities, already
    skeptical of the Federal Government, are reluctant to take part
    in a survey that they believe could be used against them,
    jeopardizing their status.
        A recent study at Harvard found that the citizenship
    question could lead to 6 million Hispanics missing from the
    count. That means Hispanics would be underrepresented in
    Congress, and would receive less in Federal dollars. It means
    that businesses would not get accurate data about the role
    Latinos play in the U.S. economy. It means the 2020 Census
    would not provide a fair and accurate count.
        The point of the Census is to get a full count of the
    population. Any proposals that would limit or discourage
    participation would run counter to this very objective. This
    would undermine the integrity of the Census data, inflicting
    substantial harm on businesses and others that depend on
    accurate data, and it would undermine the right of every
    American to be represented.
        Now, getting the count wrong would be costly with far-
    reaching effects on nearly every segment of the population and
    on nearly every industry in our economy. We would be
    misallocating resources through misguided business investments,
    and poorly targeted government expenditures. We would be using
    flawed data on the basis for making and evaluating decisions,
    and we would be doing this for a decade.
        Accurately counting all of our people should not be a
    partisan issue. Businesses, researchers, policymakers, State
    and local governments, all count on the data that flows from
    the Census. We should all work to make it as accurate as
    possible. I look forward to the witnesses' testimony, and I am
    so pleased to welcome the chair of the committee for his
    opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Vice Chair Maloney appears in
    the Submissions for the Record on page 28.]

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR
                               FROM UTAH

        Chairman Lee. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be
    here, and I appreciate you, Vice Chair Maloney, for putting
    together this hearing on this important topic.
        Today, Federal data and surveys provide the American people
    with a lot of information, including some invaluable
    information about our society and our economy. But there are
    two key categories of information that are currently absent
    from our Federal surveys, categories that I would like to
    highlight a little bit during today's hearing.
        First, our Federal surveys, and in particular, the American
    Community Survey, or ACS, and Current Population Survey, or
    CPS, fail to include information about past involvement with
    the criminal justice system. In other words, they do not tell
    us whether someone has been convicted of a crime, or has been
    put on probation, or on parole, or whether they have been
    incarcerated at some point during their lives.
        Such data would, I believe, be invaluable for understanding
    how much these experiences might serve as a barrier to
    employment. For example, it would help us answer questions like
    how many people are out of the labor force, because they have
    criminal records? And how does this vary in terms of geography
    and in terms of the geographic makeup--the demographic makeup
    of any particular community?
        In our own research on prime-age men who are out of the
    workforce, the JEC's Social Capital Project has found that one-
    third of these men have been incarcerated. And there is further
    evidence to suggest that men who are not employed are much more
    likely to have a criminal record than men who are. Indeed, we
    ought to have a fuller picture of this often-forgotten segment
    of our population, and figure out what we might do to help
    them, or what we might be doing to hinder them, what impacts
    our laws might be having on them, that we are not aware of, or
    that we didn't intend.
        Our goal should be to make sure that our criminal justice
    system is, in fact, just that the punishment fits the crime and
    the criminal, being neither too lenient, nor too harsh, and to
    help these men and women reenter society and become productive
    members of their families and of their communities.
        That is precisely why I have worked with many of my
    colleagues on legislation to this end, legislation like the
    First Step Act, which was signed into law by the President
    after being passed by both Houses of Congress in December, and
    which included some much-needed sentencing and prison reforms.
        Having complete data on these topics in our Federal surveys
    would only further assist us in accomplishing these goals,
    these same goals as set out and identified and passed into law
    in the First Step Act.
        Second, our surveys include limited information on social
    capital, and on what we call associational life, which is
    arguably the most important factor in understanding our
    Nation's health and happiness. The Current Population Survey
    includes a few questions on social capital and associational
    life since 2002. But there is still a whole lot of information
    that is lacking, that we don't even seek.
        For instance, it provides little information on trust or
    confidence in our institutions, especially local ones. It does
    not track loneliness, happiness, or the availability of
    emotional support. It does not include information on the
    availability of public amenities, like libraries, parks, and
    playgrounds, which have been shown to have a high correlation
    with things like community involvement.
        The CPS could--and I believe should--provide more
    information on the social integration that takes place between
    families, among friends, neighbors, congregants, and coworkers,
    and it could provide important details on the ways that
    technology hinders and helps social integration and
    interaction.
        Furthermore, having more social capital information in
    these surveys would help all of us, simply because, as research
    shows, strong social capital is conducive to finding and
    getting work. Learning this information would provide some
    missing pieces to a puzzle, giving us a clear picture of ways
    we can strengthen our economy, and help our citizens be happy
    and productive members of their communities.
        So, I look forward to hearing our testimony from these
    witnesses today, and grateful that you would be willing to join
    us. Thank you, Vice Chair.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Lee appears in the
    Submissions for the Record on page 29.]
        Vice Chair Maloney. Thank you so much, and welcome to all
    of our panelists, and I would like to introduce our
    distinguished panel of witnesses. Dr. Andrew Reamer is a
    Research Professor at the George Washington Institute of Public
    Policy and George Washington University. He was formerly at the
    Brookings Institution. He provided an expert report in the New
    York v. Department of Commerce lawsuit, and has previously
    testified before this committee. Dr. Reamer has 20 years of
    experience as a Consultant in U.S. regional economic
    development. He received a Ph.D. in Economic Development and
    Public Policy, and a master of city planning from MIT, and a
    bachelor of science in economics at the Wharton School,
    University of Pennsylvania. He is a member of several Federal
    advisory committees, including the National Advisory Committee
    on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, and the Workforce
    Information Advisory Council.
        Mr. Howard Fienberg is Vice President of Advocacy at the
    Insights Association. In this role, he lobbies for the
    marketing research and data analytics industry, focusing
    primarily on consumer privacy and data security, the Telephone
    Consumer Protection Act, tort reform, and the funding and
    integrity of the decennial Census and the American Community
    Survey. He is the Co-director of The Census Project, a 500-plus
    member coalition in support of a fair and accurate Census,
    which advocated for uninterrupted funding for the Census during
    the government shutdown. He has led other business groups to
    support funding for the decennial Census. He has an MA in
    international relations from the University of Essex in
    England, and a BA in political science from Trent University in
    Canada.
        Ms. Mallory Bateman is the State Data Center Coordinator
    and a Research Analyst at the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
    at the University of Utah. The State Data Center is a
    partnership program between the states and the Census Bureau.
    As Coordinator, Ms. Bateman utilizes her background in
    research, analysis, and public involvement to produce training
    and technical assistance based on data from the Census Bureau
    for the government, researchers, and community members. Prior
    to her time at the institute, she worked as a Research Analyst
    at the Utah Foundation and researched a diverse range of
    topics, including demographics, voting policy, and local roads.
    She earned her BA in urban planning from the University of Utah
    and a master of science in social policy planning from the
    London School of Economics.
        Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt holds the Henry Wendt Chair in
    Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute, where
    he researches and writes extensively on demographics and
    economic development, and, more specifically, on international
    security in the Korean peninsula and Asia. Domestically, he
    focuses on poverty and social well-being. He is also a Senior
    Advisor to the National Bureau of Asian Research. He has a
    Ph.D. in political economy and government, an MPA from the
    Kennedy School of Government, an AB from Harvard University. In
    addition, he holds a master of science from the London School
    of Economics.
        So I would like to welcome all of you, and I thank you all
    for your testimony, and I look forward to your testimony today
    before us. And let's start with Dr. Reamer and go down the
    line.

        STATEMENT OF ANDREW REAMER, RESEARCH PROFESSOR, GEORGE
       WASHINGTON INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGE WASHINGTON
                               UNIVERSITY

        Dr. Reamer. Chairman Lee, Vice Chairman Maloney, and
    distinguished members of the Joint Economic Committee, I
    appreciate your invitation to speak today about the economic
    impacts of the 2020 Census and the business uses of Federal
    data. The widespread use of data derived from the decennial
    Census by businesses and nonprofit organizations, workers, and
    students, and Federal, State, and local governments, has a
    substantial positive effect on the vitality of the U.S. economy
    and the Nation's 6 million private firms.
        Data sets from the decennial Census are rarely used
    themselves in economic decisions. They are only gathered once a
    decade, and they only collect a few variables like age, sex,
    and race, but they are essential for economic decision making,
    because the decennial Census provides the foundation for the
    development of three groups of Federal data sets that guide
    public and private economic decision making.
        The first group is the annual population estimates and the
    housing estimates which are essentially updates of the data
    collected in the decennial Census.
        The second group are household surveys, including, as Mr.
    Lee noted, the American Community Survey, the Current
    Population Survey, and the Consumer Expenditure Survey that
    collect data on variables that are not in the decennial Census.
        And the third group are data-derived data sets that are
    geographic classifications, urban and rural classifications,
    and core-based statistical areas, all based on the decennial
    Census.
        The vitality of the Nation's economy and the 6 million
    businesses inside it are greatly affected by decisions made by
    using Census-derived data--by the businesses themselves, by the
    Federal Government, State and local governments, workers, and
    students.
        Businesses depend on Census-derived data to determine
    whether to open a business establishment in a particular
    community, based on market demand and the availability of
    qualified labor, where to site that establishment based on
    transportation and journey-to-work patterns; how large to make
    that establishment in terms of employment and capital
    investment; what goods and services to provide, based on
    population size and characteristics; and once they are in
    business, to measure their market share and market penetration.
        The Federal Government uses Census-derived data that affect
    the U.S. economy and businesses through four avenues: one is,
    as Vice Chair mentioned, the Census and Census-derived data
    determine apportionment and redistricting.
        Secondly, they determine Federal economic indicators such
    as CPI, gross domestic product, unemployment, and poverty
    rates.
        Third, again, as the Vice Chair mentioned, the Federal
    Government uses Census-derived data to annually allocate over
    $900 billion geographically to cities and states across the
    country through 325 Federal spending programs.
        And fourth, multiple agencies like FEMA and government-
    sponsored enterprises, like Fannie Mae, use Census-derived data
    to shape policies, programs, and plans that affect businesses.
        State and local governments also use Census-derived data in
    multiple ways that affect businesses. They use data to draw
    legislative boundaries. They rely on these data to determine
    how best to deliver services, where to place schools, highways,
    and health clinics, how to design police patrols, and how to
    respond to natural disasters and other emergencies.
        State governments rely on Census-derived data to project
    revenues and expenditures so they may balance their annual
    budgets. Half of State governments use Census-derived data to
    implement tax and expenditure limitations.
        Also, State agencies use Census-derived data to direct
    federally funded sub grants to local governments, sub grants
    such as Title 1, WIOA, CDBG, and WIC.
        Finally, students and workers use Census-derived data to
    make decisions that affect labor availability to businesses.
    Students choose careers and career pathways based on Census-
    derived data, and workers use the data to determine where to
    look for a job, and in which neighborhood to live.
        In sum, economic policy and business decisions depend on
    the accuracy of the 2020 Census. If full accurate responses to
    the Census are not forthcoming, the American economy and its
    businesses will suffer.
        Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice Chair, and committee members,
    thanks for the opportunity to speak, and I am pleased to answer
    any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Reamer appears in the
    Submissions for the Record on page 31.]
        Vice Chair Maloney. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Fienberg.

        STATEMENT OF HOWARD FIENBERG, VICE PRESIDENT, ADVOCACY,
                          INSIGHTS ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Fienberg. Chairman Lee, Vice Chair Maloney, and
    committee members, thank you very much for the opportunity to
    testify today about the importance of the 2020 Census to
    American businesses.
        Census data don't just underpin American democracy or guide
    Federal spending, although those are important, but for us,
    they form the backbone of data-driven decision making in the
    private sector. This data helps U.S. businesses promote
    economic development, identify and serve customers, and create
    jobs.
        I am wearing two hats today at this hearing. The first is
    for the Insights Association, nonprofit association
    representing the marketing research and data analytics
    industry. Our members are the world's leading producers of
    intelligence analytics and insights, defining the needs,
    attitudes, and behaviors of consumers, organizations, and their
    employees, students, and citizens.
        And with that essential understanding, a leader can make
    intelligent decisions, and deploy strategies and tactics to
    build trust, inspire innovation, realize the full potential of
    individuals and teams, and successfully create and promote
    products, services and ideas.
        Now, research studies in the U.S. require the most accurate
    decennial data in order to produce statistically representative
    samples of the U.S. population or segments thereof. Even the
    most essential Federal Government surveys like the American
    Community Survey, or ACS, formerly known as the Census Long
    Form, are built on decennial Census data. Without accurate
    Census data, American businesses can't know what America needs.
        My second hat is co-director of The Census Project, a
    broad-based coalition of national, State, and local
    organizations and companies that support an inclusive and
    accurate 2020 Census and ACS, including hundreds of State and
    local government groups, business trade associations, labor
    unions, academia, and civil rights activists.
        While the Census Bureau aims for 100 percent accounting of
    the U.S. population every 10 years, it rarely achieves that
    goal. Hard-to-count populations in areas, such as remote and
    rural areas, racial and ethnic minorities, young children, and
    low-income households, are normally undercounted. But small
    inaccuracies in Census data can have a big impact, especially
    in the business world, which is why Congress must fully fund
    the 2020 Census as soon as possible.
        Now, the Census data explains more than just how many
    people live where. Although that is an important aspect. Many
    companies, whether large multinationals or fledgling small
    businesses, we use the intricacies of Census data to decide
    where, when, or if to site a business, find the right consumer
    base, discover and satisfy consumers' unmet needs and wants,
    identify and locate the best workforce to run their business or
    where the best workforce of the future may be coming from, take
    risks on up-and-coming neighborhoods, and discover locations
    with the right infrastructure and funding behind them.
        On the other side of the coin, economic development
    agencies, like the Greater Houston Partnership, utilize good,
    transparent Census data at the neighborhood level to attract
    and retain business investment from around the world to those
    cities, based on labor data, education levels, and traffic
    patterns.
        Data-driven decisions are even more reliant on accurate
    Census data when they involve smaller, hard-to-count
    demographic groups or areas. Starbucks can easily open another
    coffee shop in Manhattan's financial district, but it takes the
    most accurate, Census-based insights to justify one in rural
    Arkansas.
        Census data cover all American communities down to the
    neighborhood, and Census track levels so that we can accurately
    compare an East Asian immigrant neighborhood in downtown New
    Orleans to a low-income Hispanic suburb of Austin and a mostly
    white, middle-class small town in rural Washington.
        The trickle-down impact of an inaccurate 2020 Census would
    restrain or ruin American businesses for a whole decade. For
    example, Utah-based Qualtrics, an Insights Association member
    providing software to measure and improve the customer
    experience for thousands of brands around the world, would
    struggle to provide those insights with the data--and provide
    the data necessary for those that experience, absent Census
    benchmarks, statistical sampling.
        A utility company would not know where to site new cell
    towers, electric transmission lines, or water lines. So certain
    communities would go without enough coverage, while others
    might end up unnecessarily oversaturated.
        An obstetrics practice might not be opened in an area
    growing dense with young family households if Census data can't
    accurately reflect the neighborhood's demographic trends,
    costing the medical practice profits and the local community
    the benefits of care.
        A business might not invest in a certain neighborhood
    without special tax treatment for requisite concentrations of
    lower, moderate-income households, incentives that would be
    unavailable without accurate Census data to qualify them.
        An Insights Association member conducting public opinion
    polling would not know how representative a survey's results of
    contentious political issues would be of the total population,
    let alone important demographic segments, leaving policymakers
    and stakeholders guessing.
        Insights Association members measuring the U.S. media
    audience and thus setting the rates for advertising,
    publication, and programming across the country would not be
    able to represent the whole audience without accurate Census
    data, leading ad spending and media programming to target the
    wrong areas and demographic segments, miss others entirely, or
    not be produced and delivered at all.
        Finally, retail companies would be unable to conduct
    extensive market analysis needed to accurately determine where,
    what, and when to build, nor be able to accurately forecast
    their sales, delineate trade areas, or manage their supply
    chain.
        The dependence on accurate Census data of American
    businesses, especially the marketing research and data
    analytics industry, drives our advocacy for adequate resources
    for the Census Bureau. We are extremely concerned about
    cancellation of essential 2020 Census field testing in remote
    and rural areas, potential drop in response rate due to the
    addition of a citizenship question, but also the general
    growing distrust in government, and the administration's plan
    to not spend all their available resources appropriated in
    fiscal year 2019, in fiscal year 2019.
        We are also worried about severe impact of a CR or shutdown
    heading into fiscal year 2020, without a funding anomaly for
    the Census Bureau, since playing decennial Census catch-up can
    be very challenging and extremely expensive.
        The Insights Association and Census Project also warned
    against sacrificing the ACS in any scramble for those decennial
    funds. A funding diversion would reduce the sample size,
    preventing the survey from delivering accurate data on more
    than 40 percent of U.S. counties and small towns, mostly rural.
        For now, we are grateful House Appropriations today
    approved $7.5 billion for the 2020 Census, and $8.45 billion
    for the Census Bureau overall, in line with Census
    stakeholders' requests. The Insights Association and Census
    Project urge you to support the maximum amount of Census
    funding to ensure an inclusive and accurate accounting of our
    Nation's population, and to help to determine the fate of
    American business for the next decade and beyond.
        Thank you for inviting my testimony this afternoon. I
    encourage you to peruse my written entertainment for a lot more
    examples, and I look forward to answering questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fienberg appears in the
    Submissions for the Record on page 37.]
        Vice Chair Maloney. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Bateman.

     STATEMENT OF MALLORY BATEMAN, COORDINATOR, STATE DATA CENTER,
     SENIOR RESEARCH ANALYST, THE KEM C. GARDNER POLICY INSTITUTE,
                         THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH

        Ms. Bateman. Chairman Lee, Vice Chair Maloney, and members
    of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    today. As mentioned, I work at the Kem C. Gardner Policy
    Institute at the University of Utah, and the Gardner Institute
    develops and shares economic, demographic, and public policy
    research that helps the public and decision makers make
    informed decisions in Utah.
        Also, I am a member of the Census Bureau's State Data
    Center Steering Committee, a member of the Utah Complete Count
    Committee, and chair of the Gardner Institute 2020 Census
    Technical Advisory Committee.
        Utah's unique demographics and thriving economy provide
    insight into how important the 2020 Census and other Federal
    data are to the economic success of the State. In states with
    shifting demographics, decision makers cannot make wise and
    timely decisions to support and build flourishing communities
    without the decennial Census and other Federal data.
        Utah's 3.16 million residents have distinct demographics.
    We are the youngest State with the largest average household
    size, but we are following national trends of aging and
    diversifying racially, ethnically, and culturally.
        Utah's growth has been the fastest in the Nation since
    2010. Our strong job growth and broad industry growth attract
    new people to our State each year. Throughout the decade,
    migration has become a more significant component of our
    population growth, and in the past 5 years, we have added over
    100,000 new residents because of net in-migration.
        Additionally, new communities have emerged since 2010. In
    some areas, this means completely new investments in
    infrastructure, public safety, education, housing, and
    businesses. These areas have no baseline. So the 2020 Census is
    the first opportunity to learn about the population.
        Some of Utah's rural areas have experienced population
    losses since 2010. While data from the American Community
    Survey provides us some insight to these changes, we need the
    100 percent coverage provided by the 2020 Census to more fully
    understand the changing demographics of these communities.
        The 2020 Census and other Federal data are paramount to our
    State, so we can understand the characteristics of new growth.
    Without it, we lack information about these new Utahns.
        The Utah State Data Center regularly handles requests for
    demographic information from the public sector, private
    industry, and citizens seeking to learn more about their
    communities or regions. The data provided help with decisions
    about programming, investments, business location, and future
    planning.
        I have been surprised to meet decision makers who believe
    that decennial data are only used by and for government. I work
    closely with our statewide Complete Count Committee co-chairs
    to maintain a constant narrative that decennial Census data
    provides the baseline for myriad data sets and funding
    calculations across all industries and government.
        If funding calculations utilize a per capita measure or a
    sampling window based on a total population, it is highly
    likely decennial Census data is the denominator. Our director
    of demographic research, Dr. Pamela Perlich, likes to call our
    team the denominator people. Decennial Census data is the
    baseline for the State and county-level estimates and
    projections we produce, and those projections are a direct
    input for education, healthcare, transportation, and
    infrastructure planning efforts, which then turn into a
    significant investment at the State and local level.
        Utahns are recognizing the importance of a complete count
    from the 2020 Census. And community leaders from non-profits,
    community organizations, private industry, banking, and
    municipal government have partnered to urge State decision
    makers to support local outreach efforts this year. They
    emphasize the importance to a diverse array of interests, from
    economic development, to health and safety of Utah residents.
    The State, cities, counties, and the State library are
    discussing various allocations to support a complete count in
    2020.
        The work by Professor Reamer indicates that in fiscal year
    2016, Utah received about $5.7 billion from Census-guided
    funding programs. Calculations by our Utah Governor's Office of
    Management and Budget indicate that this was around 27 percent
    of the State budget in that time frame. These investments will
    pay for themselves quickly.
        We are reliant on a complete count of everyone in our State
    once, only once, and in the right place, to provide us with an
    updated framework once a decade. We want to inform decision
    makers across agencies, organizations, and industries on who
    their constituents and customers are, and plan appropriately in
    regions that may need additional assistance.
        Thank you for holding this hearing, and I look forward to a
    successful 2020 Census.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bateman appears in the
    Submissions for the Record on page 44.]
        Vice Chair Maloney. Thank you.
        And Dr. Eberstadt.

    STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS EBERSTADT, HENRY WENDT CHAIR IN POLITICAL
                 ECONOMY, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

        Dr. Eberstadt. Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice Chair, members of
    the committee, distinguished co-panelists and guests, America's
    statistical agencies are the eyes and ears of our democracy.
    Whether you are a progressive, or a conservative, in favor of
    more government or less, you need good data to inform your
    efforts to make our country better.
        For most of our history, the U.S. statistical system has
    been well ahead of the curve, if not a virtual wonder of the
    world. Recently, though, our Federal information systems have
    not fully kept up with the social and economic changes they
    should be helping us monitor. They are currently incapable of
    providing key facts and figures we need for confronting some of
    our new and pressing domestic social troubles. In my book,
    ``Men Without Work: America's Invisible Crisis,'' I tried to
    highlight the collapse of work for grown men in our country, in
    recent decades.
        Although the employment situation for working-age U.S. men
    has been slowly improving, the latest BLS figures indicate that
    their employment rates are still just on par with the levels of
    1939, as reported in 1940 Census, which is to say, we still
    have a Depression-scale problem on our hands.
        Our failure to cope more expeditiously with this problem
    may be partly related to the inadequacies of our statistical
    services to illuminate important dimensions of it. I
    highlighted a number of shortcomings and gaps in official
    information in that book I mentioned.
        Today, I wish to speak about just one of those gaps, but it
    is an enormous blind spot, and given the realities of life in
    our country today, a critical and inexplicable one. I refer to
    the virtual absence in our Nation's statistical compendia of
    facts and figures about America's arrested and sentenced
    populations. These are large and growing populations, yet our
    government statistical systems can tell us almost nothing about
    them.
        The explosive surge in both arrests and felony sentencing
    in modern America is a fact of life. In 2016, 91 million
    Americans were included in the Interstate Identification Index,
    the database the FBI uses to determine whether someone has a
    criminal record. That is two-fifths of the adult population.
        What do we know about this huge contingent of people?
    Almost nothing. Age, sex, ethnicity, living arrangements,
    family situation, income, educational profile, health status,
    and all the rest of the data the Federal Government collects on
    our population are not cross-referenced here.
        And the situation is even worse concerning the American
    felon population. It is not just that the government provides
    no information on the social, economic, or health conditions of
    these men and women. Astonishing as this may sound, the
    statistical system does not even offer an estimate for the
    total size of the population of Americans who have a felony
    conviction in their background.
        Academic researchers have attempted a demographic
    reconstruction, though. According to their estimates, this
    convicted population shot up from under 2 million persons in
    1948, to nearly 20 million in 2010. By those numbers, roughly
    one in 12 American adults had a felony conviction in 2010, one
    in eight adult men. That was 2010. Rough calculations suggest
    the total population with a felony conviction in America today
    might equal or exceed 24 million.
        We hear a lot about mass incarceration. Over 2 million
    persons in America are in correctional facilities today.
    Usually missing from the conversation about mass incarceration,
    however, is any recognition that these imprisoned Americans may
    represent less than one-tenth of the total population of felony
    convicts.
        Today, 20 million or more Americans not behind bars may
    have a felony conviction in their past. This immense population
    is effectively, statistically invisible. The Census Bureau, the
    Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control,
    none can tell us practically anything about conditions of life
    for these tens of millions of Americans in our society.
        Needless to say, evidence-based policies to help
    reintegrate ex-cons and ex-felons back into the labor force and
    into families and into societies require evidence in the first
    place.
        We have a chance to end this statistical darkness.
    Including just one or two questions on criminal justice system
    history in the ACS could end this statistical darkness, and
    linked administrative data offer another avenue for redressing
    this darkness, with much greater speed and at far lower cost.
        For obvious reasons, approaches to reentry and
    rehabilitation today remain largely anecdotal. It is past time
    to take the steps necessary to begin wresting our approaches to
    public policy in this realm on facts.
        Thank you, Madam Vice Chair and Chairman. I would like
    also, if I could, to add some additional materials to the
    record with your permission.
        Vice Chair Maloney. Absolutely.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Eberstadt appears in the
    Submissions for the Record on page 48.]
        Thank you all for your testimony, and we appreciate your
    research and all your work in the area.
        I would like to ask Mr. Fienberg about the addition of the
    citizenship question to the Census, and the effect that this
    will have on the accuracy of the data. We heard from all of you
    the importance of having accurate data, but we had a case
    recently that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Judge
    Furman in New York ruled that the addition was frivolous, and a
    tremendous mistake, and would lead to an undercount. Six former
    heads of the Census Bureau, both Republican and Democratic,
    signed letters and spoke out that adding the citizenship
    question would result in an undercount.
        And we know how much businesses depend on this. The
    professionals at the Census Bureau also came out and spoke out
    against adding this question and said that it would result in
    an inaccurate count, inaccurate data, for the Census--for the
    2020 Census. And in preparing for this, we spoke to Maurine
    Haver, a constituent of mine, who is President and CEO of Haver
    Analytics. Haver is the premier provider of time series data
    for the global strategy and research community and maintains
    over 200-plus databases from over 1,000 government and private
    sources that rely on Census data. She is concerned the
    citizenship question may reduce the quality of the Census data.
    Reams of professionals have joined her in this decision. And,
    Mr. Fienberg, do you and the businesses you have worked with
    share her concerns about the data accuracy of the 2020 Census?
        Mr. Fienberg. I do. I should say, I am commenting in the
    capacity with the Insights Association hat on, rather than--the
    Census Project doesn't have a position on the citizenship
    question. The Insights Association does. We joined an amicus
    brief with a lot of other businesses to the Supreme Court case
    on this issue. And we do have a great concern.
        I can't tell you with any great certainty what the impact
    will be on a numbers basis. I don't think we have good enough
    data to be able to say, and that is part of the problem that we
    have going into this. But there is enough data to be able to,
    you know, justify that--expect there will be a significant drop
    in the self-response rate for the decennial, which is the
    people actually responding without us spending a significant
    amount of time and money to get them to respond.
        So even that alone, you can expect a significant increase
    in, you know, the amount of money that is going to have to go
    towards nonresponse follow-up, which is the going door to door
    to get people to respond. And even if we are able to get the
    100 percent accuracy at that point, you know, that would still
    cost us an absolute fortune in nonresponse follow-up.
        But I don't think we are going to be able to achieve that,
    because there will be some people that will still be deterred
    from responding, based on the concerns about the citizenship
    question. That will trickle down into the data. Just as an
    example, I cited for the media measurement among my members to
    be able to accurately measure the audience for advertising and
    programming among the Asian immigrants, or the Hispanic
    population, is going to drive advertising rates all over the
    map, and it is going to make everyone's spending in this area
    much less accurate, and there will be a lot of wasted
    resources.
        Vice Chair Maloney. There are also--people feel that there
    will be an undercount based on the political climate of fear,
    and that possibly that has increased the likelihood of an
    undercount. Dr. Reamer, I would like to ask you about that. In
    fact, there was a hearing yesterday with the Secretary of HUD,
    and he said that their policy would be to deport anyone in
    public housing and remove them from public housing if they were
    undocumented. Yet their children are citizens. As you know, if
    you have a child in America, they are considered an American
    citizen.
        So we could be facing a situation where parents could be
    leaving the country, but the children are staying here, and how
    are we going to take care of these children, with the
    separation of the families? So when you read about this type of
    crackdown, it might have the effect on people of not wanting to
    answer the citizenship question, therefore, not responding to
    the Census.
        Do you think the climate for the 2020 decennial Census,
    which many have characterized as a climate of fear and
    uncertainty, presents a greater risk that we may see an
    undercount in 2020, and how do you think that would affect
    American businesses? And from all of your testimony, you cited
    the extent to which American businesses and the private sector
    rely on the Census data.
        Dr. Reamer. The Census Bureau's own research shows that
    there is a climate of fear. They have held focus groups where
    people run out of the room when they are asked the citizenship
    question. The heart of the Census research that was used in the
    citizenship case, that both the plaintiffs and the defendants
    used, was the Census Bureau's estimate that the nonresponse
    rate for households with noncitizens would be 5.8 percent less
    than the response for households with citizens. The
    implications of that are that a lot of people would be missed.
    As Howard says, there is nonresponse follow-up. Maybe in 2010,
    65 percent of the people mailed back their form. This time they
    will have----
        Vice Chair Maloney. So that would be around 6 million
    people, the 5.8?
        Dr. Reamer. Yes.
        Vice Chair Maloney. That is a lot.
        Dr. Reamer. And the Census Bureau then has to find these
    people, and it doesn't always succeed. It either finds them and
    get the information, or it doesn't find them. If it knows they
    are there, it imputes what it thinks the characteristics are,
    which may be wrong. So Howard's members may be--say, well,
    there is this many Hispanics in this community, but, in fact,
    it is 10 percent less or 10 percent more.
        And also, the Census Bureau misses people that they don't
    even know they miss. So----
        Vice Chair Maloney. Regretfully, my time is up.
        And so I now recognize the Chairman, Mr. Lee, for his 5
    minutes or 6 minutes because I went over.
        Chairman Lee. Thank you very much, Vice Chair Maloney.
        Ms. Bateman, I would like to start with you, if we could.
    As I mentioned in my opening statement, the Census Bureau is
    really good at collecting a lot of information, but none of the
    Census Bureau surveys that I am aware of has any measures for
    things like loneliness, happiness, the availability of sources
    of emotional support, nor do they, to my knowledge, have any
    information on the availability of public amenities, access to
    public parks, playgrounds, libraries, and so forth. And those
    are things that are often at least associated with high levels
    of community involvement.
        First, do you believe that the addition of survey questions
    addressing some of these topics could help researchers better
    understand the health of civil society?
        Ms. Bateman. They could provide insight, as long as people
    understand the concepts. I think there would have to be some
    explanation of what you are looking for. And I know that this
    is a topic that is coming up all over the globe. So you could
    probably find existing formats and surveys that could help
    provide guidance, but it would be an interesting thing to look
    into.
        Chairman Lee. It certainly--even though it is difficult to
    measure, it is certainly not impossible to measure, right?
    There are ways you could devise questions that could at least
    allow us to get access to some of this information?
        Ms. Bateman. Other countries are definitely looking into
    this.
        Chairman Lee. Are there any other topics that you would
    suggest trying to address in order to assess the health of our
    civil institutions or the health of civil society?
        Ms. Bateman. That is a big question. I think if you could
    have a survey that people felt safe--and they trusted the
    institution in the first place--to respond, you could
    extrapolate and add more questions, touching on that type of
    topic, but it would require trust----
        Chairman Lee. Sure.
        Ms. Bateman [continuing]. In the institution.
        Chairman Lee. Yeah, sure. They have got to have trust in
    the institution. If they don't trust, then you are not going to
    get as much of a response. But high response rates alone, if
    you are not asking the right data, won't give you that.
        It gives me some comfort to know that in other parts of the
    world, they track such information. So we know it is not
    impossible. We also know that it is desirable, and that there
    are good things that could come from it. Sometimes we fail
    adequately to appreciate the impact our laws might have on
    relationships, on the--what brings people together as families,
    as neighborhoods, as communities, as fellow congregants and so
    forth.
        Mr. Eberstadt, I would like to ask you a couple questions
    if I could. We found a limited number of relevant survey
    questions that deal with social capital. As we have undertaken
    the Social Capital Project through the Joint Economic
    Committee, we have looked high and low for this. We haven't
    found a whole lot of it. And I think much of your work touches
    on things that are related to this--the web of relationships
    that connect people together. We have, at the family level, at
    the community level, represent really, I think, what are
    people's best chances of succeeding in life, especially their
    best chances of thriving.
        What, if anything, would you recommend to be added to the
    Census Bureau surveys in order to give us a more accurate and
    fulsome view of associational life in America?
        Dr. Eberstadt. Senator, first and foremost, a salute to you
    and your committee for investigating this important question of
    social capital. I think your team has done great work, very
    promising work so far. I can mention one item in particular,
    which I believe you are currently prohibited from inquiring
    about, and this is the religious adherence, or religious
    devotion of American citizens. Since 1976, the Census Bureau
    has been prohibited from asking such questions. And that has
    been taken, I think, broadly, as best practice, by all other
    statistical organizations.
        Since secular approaches and religiosity seem to have some
    bearing on social capital, this would, I think, be a
    reasonable, and maybe a very interesting question to include.
        Chairman Lee. Thank you. Along with that, what do you think
    we ought to be asking about in terms of people's criminal
    records? The fact that, as much of your research indicates,
    there is a high connection between someone's criminal
    background, whether they have been on probation, parole,
    supervised release, or served time in prison, or all of the
    above, should we be asking more about that, and what could that
    tell us?
        Dr. Eberstadt. Sir, I think the most expeditious and
    inexpensive way of casting light in this area would be to link
    up existing administrative data with something like the Current
    Population Survey, the monthly job report data. This could be
    done by the Census Bureau and other statistical U.S.
    authorities, paying attention to confidentiality and privacy of
    the individuals in question.
        This would be able to show, at least for a start, what
    sorts of patterns we see in the sentenced population currently
    on probation or on parole, with respect to employment, income,
    family situation, and the CPS questions. It would probably take
    about 3 weeks to get information on those 5- or 6 million
    persons.
        Questions for the ACS, I think, would have to be tested
    very carefully and prepared very carefully, since this is such
    a sensitive and personal area of life, but if they could be
    adequately tested and rolled out, I think this would help to
    illuminate this darkness I was describing.
        Chairman Lee. Thank you. That is very helpful.
        Thank you, Vice Chair Maloney.
        Vice Chair Maloney. Thank you so much.
        And Representative Heck.
        Representative Heck. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.
        Dr. Reamer, listening with interest to a lot of the
    provocative dialogue here about adding additional questions for
    deeper information, but I want to step back and make sure I
    have this thing in correct perspective. As I read the
    Constitution, as I understand it, is not the first and foremost
    objective of the Census to get an accurate count on the number
    of noses in America?
        Dr. Reamer. Yes.
        Representative Heck. Thank you. I have been doing a--well,
    and anything that would detract from that would, therefore----
        Dr. Reamer. Yes. And if I could insert--and I am happy to
    talk to members and staff afterwards--I have a bunch of ideas
    for how to collect social capital and the population
    characteristics that would not involve adding questions to the
    Census.
        Representative Heck. So I have been doing a fairly deep
    dive in the last few years on the issue of the crisis of
    soaring housing prices and the shortage of houses, housing
    units available in America. We have compiled, through our task
    force, a report called ``Missing Millions of Homes.'' And for
    our conclusion that we are missing millions of homes, we
    utilized a lot of Census data, housing vacancy survey, rental
    vacancy rate, home ownership rate, a joint HUD/Census effort on
    American Housing Survey, a building permit survey done by
    Census, and I could go on and on.
        I think, Mr. Fienberg, I want to direct this to you. We
    know that we are millions of homes short based on this data.
    But here is what we also know, which is that over the course of
    the last decade, there has been fairly flat funding for our
    efforts to collect this kind of data. I am asking you this
    because you made such a point of the importance to have robust
    funding for a totally accurate count.
        And I guess I want to ask you, as it relates to certain
    public policy challenges and social problems, like the lack of
    housing units available, to what degree, even if you could
    describe this qualitatively, is our ability to understand these
    challenges, hampered by a shortage of funding and complete
    accuracy?
        Mr. Fienberg. I don't know how much funding is necessary
    for 100 percent accuracy. I wish I did. That would be great to
    be able to tell you exactly----
        Representative Heck. Are we there?
        Mr. Fienberg. No. I think we are--part of the problem is
    that Congress has to deal with a 10-year budget window for the
    decennial Census, and it is very difficult for Congress to deal
    with that 10-year window when you are going year to year, and
    the Census Bureau starts out at the beginning of a decennial
    cycle at very little money, and then suddenly the last couple
    of years is spending in many billions of dollars and required
    to pull it off.
        Representative Heck. Well, would you--Mr. Fienberg, would
    you say that our ability to deal with these problems is, in
    some fashion, affected, if not curtailed, by an absence of
    having as accurate data as is reasonably possible?
        Mr. Fienberg. Absolutely.
        Representative Heck. And this would include housing?
        Mr. Fienberg. Oh, definitely, yes. In fact, I would guide
    you towards a letter--a letter I referenced from the National
    Association of Realtors on how they use housing data to try to
    keep on top of the need for housing and the housing markets.
    And there is also extensive work done by the National
    Association of Home Builders using Census data in trying to,
    again, impute into where housing is and where it should be.
        Representative Heck. Ergo, the need to provide adequate
    funding.
        Mr. Fienberg. Absolutely.
        Representative Heck. So I want to shift to another--kind of
    parallel subject. One of the most fundamental and essential
    mandates that we have set for ourselves, I think, would be to
    maintain an economy and a state of maximum employment. And as a
    matter of fact, that is a statutory mandate of the Federal
    Reserve, price stability and full employment. Yet we can't seem
    to define ``full employment'' in statistical terms, or if we
    can, we can't measure it. I know this because we are currently
    at 3.6 percent unemployment, and the Fed has said full
    employment is 4.3 percent unemployment.
        And, obviously, we are well past their definition of full
    employment, and yet--unless somebody informs me otherwise--the
    Phillips curve has been repealed, we still are seeing modest
    wage growth, and we are still adding 150- to 250,000 jobs a
    month. So we are clearly not at full employment.
        I am trying to sort out, is that because we are so far past
    the beginning of the decade that our data is fading, the
    accuracy of it? Is it because we haven't had adequate funding?
    But clearly, there is a disconnect here. You are looking at one
    another, like, not me, not me. Ms. Bateman, you, what accounts
    for this? Why is it that we are so far past the full employment
    data, or target that they have set, and yet we are adding
    jobs--Dr. Reamer has an answer. Thank you, sir.
        Dr. Reamer. I don't know if it is an answer. I don't think
    it is a problem with the data. I think labor force
    participation rates are low historically. So what is happening
    is that additional people are joining the labor force. I think
    it is a question about, why is it that unemployment is so low,
    and yet inflation has not taken off. And jobs are added----
        Representative Heck. You are saying the Philips curve has
    been repealed?
        Dr. Reamer. Well, it may have been amended in----
        Representative Heck. God wrote the Phillips curve, Dr.
    Reamer.
        Dr. Reamer. So I think it is--it is a research question
    that it is--it is not an issue with the age of the data. It is
    an issue with the dynamics of the workforce, and back to
    adequate funding, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is dying for
    adequate funding. They have been flatlined by Congress for the
    last 10 years. So their budget is 15 to 20 percent below what
    it was in 2010.
        Representative Heck. I think you have made my point.
        I am out of time. I yield back.
        Vice Chair Maloney. Thank you.
        Representative Schweikert.
        Representative Schweikert. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.
        Actually, to Mr. Heck, my understanding, is there an entire
    group--of Ph.D. economists--and demographers over at the Fed
    actually working on Phillips curve? Do you have to actually add
    in a conceptual shock absorber for potential labor force
    participation that we had sort of written out? You know,
    companies now being willing to hire felons, others, but also
    impacts of technology, changing productivity and other things.
    So there is always noise in the data.
        I have a dozen things here, and I want to disclose in a
    previous life, I lived in TIGER files.
        For those of us from Utah, Texas, Arizona, where we have
    quickly growing, substantial population movements and shifts, I
    understand the 10-year Census with as many questions as
    possible for businesses and economic decision making. But for
    communities like mine, we look dramatically different than we
    did 10 years ago, if every day I am getting 3, 400 new
    residents in my State. If we do the 10-year Census, is there an
    elegant way to start doing what a lot of my businesses, my
    universities, even my State government is trying to look at,
    and that is ways to almost crowd-source much more living data?
        And if that makes sense, you know, how do we look at every
    day, how many building permits, birth rates, deaths, everything
    else? But you also actually even start to look into how many
    gallons of fuel sold, how many this, how many that. Are we
    basically still living in a data-design model that is decades
    out of date? And you think about all--everything from social
    indicators, of how many people signed up for SNAP this week, to
    how many people we believe, you know, picked up a job, or this
    and that. There has got to be a way that, when I am looking at,
    you know, my community, I am not looking at data that is 10
    years old.
        And, I mean, we are living in a time where we are walking
    around with super computers. I am frustrated, and somewhere in
    here, there may actually be--and forgive my heresy--a data-
    modeling opportunity between government, university, Census,
    business, to build us a model.
        And why this is so important is, what I want to know is
    what I am seeing in the TIGER files--excuse me--in the U6 data
    real? Am I really seeing those with personal issues moving into
    the labor force? Am I really seeing millennial women moving in,
    but not millennial males? And is that living data the type of
    thing we could also be, as we are doing policy every day, be
    reacting to? In some ways--I know I don't have a classic
    demographer on the panel, but let's do a little bouncing. Being
    from sort of the university mechanism, is what I am speaking
    heresy?
        Ms. Bateman. I don't know that it is heresy, but our team
    would advocate to look to your research universities. Our team
    produces an annual update to estimates and population
    projections and also looks at housing units in the State. We
    have a database where all the local cities report their
    building permits to our database. So we have these ongoing
    partnerships with the community to keep an up-to-date data set.
        Representative Schweikert. Okay. Dr. Eberstadt.
        Dr. Eberstadt. Sir, what you say is music to my ears. I
    love to hear that.
        Representative Schweikert. I am the least musical person
    you are ever going to meet.
        Dr. Eberstadt. Well, let me give it a try.
        Representative Schweikert. And I actually have read your
    books.
        Dr. Eberstadt. Big data, linked administrative data, and
    other Census data which are indispensable, all wonderful
    opportunities. With respect to U6 and to the Phillips curve,
    the Humphrey-Hawkins Act was written at a time when working age
    men were either----
        Representative Schweikert. I think of us not going there. I
    know exactly where you are going, and actually, I am not a big
    data person. I am more of a--I have now moved to crowd source
    data. I actually believe big data gets old very fast. Living
    data is more useful.
        Dr. Reamer.
        Dr. Reamer. Right. Three points. One is the Census Bureau
    produces annual population estimates that are very good. If the
    Census is accurate, the bulk of the update annual is based on
    records, births, deaths and tax forms where people move from
    one year to another. So in terms of the actual head count, it
    is pretty good.
        I think what would be helpful is, one, getting a contingent
    work supplement on the CPS so you understand that aspect of the
    workforce.
        And secondly, Vice Chair Maloney mentioned Maurine Haver.
    She and I are working to create the third annual conference
    that brings together statistical agencies with Amazon and Uber.
        Representative Schweikert. Something like that I would love
    for--please forgive me, Vice Chair Maloney. Just one quick.
        Being someone who also spent a bunch of time bathing in the
    community survey, I actually have to disagree with you on just
    something. I think I actually distrust the government. There is
    some academic research out there that that was a bigger
    fragility in return rates than citizenship or all the other
    things that were being sort of discussed and tested.
        So we may actually--I know one is a political hot potato
    and fits the, you know, us against them. We may actually have a
    whole cultural thing we have to work through because that was
    one of the real problems on the community survey, research.
        So with that, I yield back.
        Vice Chair Maloney. Thank you. And we have been joined by
    Representative Beyer from Virginia.
        Thank you for being here.
        Representative Beyer. This is my first time in this room
    finding the button. Thank you very much for being here.
        First, Dr. Reamer, my daughter just graduated with her MPA
    from G.W. Friday morning.
        Dr. Reamer. Congratulations.
        Representative Beyer. Thank you. Thank you. She seems
    thrilled to have it. Now all she needs is a job, and things
    will be good.
        Dr. Reamer. My mother graduated from the University of
    Washington.
        Representative Beyer. Wow. The one degree of separation.
        And I really want to thank you all for talking to us about
    the business uses of the Census data. When I opened a Land
    Rover dealership 22 years ago, we went months without selling a
    Range Rover until I turned to the Census data and figured out
    where our customers lived, where our potential customers lived,
    and all of a sudden, it worked out really well. And the biggest
    concern that we have in my district right now, throughout
    Northern Virginia, is the fear of undercounting.
        And so we obviously have a sadly divisive political
    climate. The meeting at the White House this morning is the
    latest example. Has that dampened business' willingness to
    advocate for the Census and participate in Census research and
    all the controversy over, you know, for example, the
    citizenship question? Or just the----
        Vice Chair Maloney. Will the gentleman yield for 2 seconds?
        Representative Beyer. Yes.
        Vice Chair Maloney. You are raising a really important
    point. We had difficulty getting business representatives to
    come which we have never had before. We had the Chamber of
    Commerce in prior years.
        Nielsen wrote a big report, and yet they said they didn't
    want to come because of the divisions and the fight over the
    citizenship question and the divisions between Congress. So
    that is a very important point that you raise.
        Thank you for raising it.
        Representative Beyer. From the positions that you have,
    have you seen any reluctance on the part of businesses to be
    part of this?
        Mr. Fienberg. I have. Sorry. Certainly we are used to a lot
    greater participation from the business community and advocacy
    for the Census. In the case that I am not--things I am not
    directly involved in, but in the preparation for the decennial,
    businesses play a huge role in helping to get out the count,
    getting people involved, making sure that both people,
    companies' employees and their customers are going to be
    getting out know that the decennial Census is coming, making
    sure that they are going to self respond.
        It is hugely important. A lot of them are not getting
    involved this time around. A lot of them have a little bit
    hesitancy, showing hesitancy in getting involved in
    presentation and advocacy, you know, on all sides because of
    the citizenship question. And that is not a specific thing
    saying that they are opposed to the citizenship question. I
    think the average business--and most businesses don't have a
    position on it one way or the other. They are risk averse and
    don't want to be involved in a political controversy, period.
        So yeah. There are some companies that will care deeply
    about it because of the impact on the data that they are going
    to rely on, but most are more concerned about being involved in
    the political controversy and being seen as taking a side on a
    political issue.
        Representative Beyer. So, I don't know if this is Ms.
    Bateman or Mr. Fienberg, I know you have been pressing for full
    funding of the Census, but one of the things that has concerned
    me is the dramatic reduction in the number of people that are
    intended to be hired from the 2010 Census, and I know that what
    I read is that supposedly the technology is so much better that
    we don't need to have all those people working the streets.
        But do you have concerns that there aren't going to be
    enough human beings knocking on doors for the people that
    didn't mail it in or go online?
        Ms. Bateman.
        Ms. Bateman. Yes. I know, especially in Utah, we do have
    very low unemployment, and that wasn't the case in 2010. And so
    specifically in our case, I know that our partnership
    specialists and partnership team is trying to start very early
    to try to get people on board and trying to reach out to
    different groups than they had in the past, trying to figure
    out jobs where people might have more flexible hours that they
    could find--the opportunity for a second job would be
    appealing. But I know that our low unemployment in Utah is
    definitely a concern.
        Mr. Fienberg. And if I recall correctly, there was supposed
    to be--according to the Census bureau, they were going to be
    aiming for 1,500 partnerships staff that they are going to be
    sending out in the field. According to the GAO, they are not
    likely to hit that this year in terms of their hiring. You need
    to hire them now.
        And admittedly, in 2010, I believe they were closer to
    4,000 partnership staff, and it is a huge deal in a very large
    country, especially as you move west in the country when going
    door to door and making contact with people in remote areas is
    extremely complicated.
        And again, in a condition where the government is not
    trusted, you need to have people out in the field setting up
    relationships with the local church, with local community
    groups, with local trusted entities to make sure that there is
    someone other than just the government knocking on the door
    saying they are there to help.
        Representative Beyer. Dr. Reamer, I only have a couple of
    seconds left, but I am fascinated by not just big data but by
    the progress we made on machine learning and deep analytics.
    Will this Census be able to be used in very different, more
    important ways because of that evolution?
        Dr. Reamer. I think so. Both coming in and going out,
    right, that kind of machine learning and high tech computing
    will be used to produce a more accurate Census. And then going
    out, the capacity to match for the Census Bureau, to get
    administrative records, to get private sector records, match
    them up with Census records and do modeling, I think, is a new
    frontier for us.
        Representative Beyer. Thank you very much.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Vice Chair Maloney. Thank you very much.
        Representative Marchant. Thank you.
        Representative Marchant. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I am from a very high growth district and State and from a
    background of being a mayor and in the State legislature, so we
    have depended on the Census Bureau giving us more frequent
    updates than every 10 years. So that data we rely on much more
    than we do the every 10-year data except for the
    reproportionment of our Congressional seats and then the
    funding issue.
        My question to you is after all of the public policy is
    taken into consideration and the Census is actually done, and
    you go through this very delicate process at the end of the
    Census where you have this undercount adjustment that takes
    place, and I would like to know your opinion of how much the
    undercount adjustment actually erodes some of the information
    that is in the report itself.
        And if you have a citizenship question which we are
    concerned about in Texas as well because we want every nose
    counted, period, because so much of our funding for our cities
    and counties, school districts depends on it, and of course,
    the number of seats we have in Congress depends on it.
        Will there be an adjustment to the Census, in your opinion,
    based on a question that they think or the general opinion is
    that there is a possibility that this question could suppress
    the number. Will there been an adjustment for the undercount
    for the undercount, or will there just be a general
    readjustment of the definition of undercount?
        And I know that is a really--a question that doesn't get
    asked very often, but I think that this may be the first time
    in many, many decades that the undercount may be one of the
    most political things that happens as a result of this Census.
    You can take a stab at it.
        Dr. Reamer. Congressman, my understanding is that there is
    no adjustment. So whatever the count is, that is the count, and
    that was a Supreme Court ruling of 20 years ago. Because in the
    1990s, the Clinton administration proposed to adjust because in
    1990, 5 out of 100 African Americans and 5 out of 100 Hispanics
    were missed, so that was the proposal. And the Supreme Court
    ruled no, you have to use the actual count, so there is no
    adjustment of the count. The count is the count.
        Representative Marchant. Yes.
        Dr. Reamer. But after the count is what is called a post
    enumeration survey----
        Representative Marchant. Yeah.
        Dr. Reamer [continuing]. Which tries to measure Census
    coverage. In other words, Census goes back the year after it
    went into the field and said how well did we do? And so you can
    go online. I am happy to you give you the web address. For the
    Nation, for every State, for every county above 100,000 or
    200,000 people, there is an estimate of Census coverage
    measurement.
        How many people were accurately counted? There are a lot of
    duplications, 3 out of 100 people are counted twice. Three out
    of 100 people are missed. So they cancel each other out. There
    is a one-page CCM chart for the counties in the Dallas area, or
    wherever, for that.
        And the same thing will happen in 2020, so people can look
    and see how well did the Census Bureau do? There is a breakout
    for the Nation by race, ethnicity, age. So they do a
    retrospective analysis, but the count itself is not adjusted.
        Representative Marchant. But in the State legislatures and
    their process of redistricting those States that have that
    process, they wait for that information to come out many times
    to seriously get down to the actual drawing.
        And so my question is, to reiterate, Texas, the fast
    growing States, want the most accurate Census. They want every
    nose counted. I know that Utah does and Texas does. So I am
    interested in that policy question.
        I am also interested in Mr. Eberstadt's point about felons.
    Now, your definition is not felon. Your definition is someone
    that has experience with the criminal justice system.
        Dr. Eberstadt. Yes, sir. I referred to two separate
    populations. One was in the III, people who have a criminal
    record that can be accessed through the FBI or through police
    authorities. That is one group.
        The second group is people who at some point in their life
    history have been convicted of a felony, of a serious crime,
    punishable by a year or more in prison.
        Representative Marchant. I am over my time, but do you
    think there is a possibility that if a question is put on there
    that is not asked properly, it could actually have an effect on
    who is willing to respond?
        Dr. Eberstadt. Yes, sir. Absolutely. It has to be.
        Representative Marchant. Yeah. Thank you.
        Vice Chair Maloney. Congresswoman Beatty.
        Representative Beatty. Thank you, Ranking Member, and thank
    my colleague over there. It was a perfect segue for me to not
    just ask you, Dr. Eberstadt, but the rest of the panel. I want
    to take special note to--I would be very interested in your
    testimony and to emphasize for the record that some of the
    information presented in your written testimony, especially the
    chart we have, indicated that black men who are out of the
    labor workforce at a higher rate than their counterparts, even
    though maybe they had a lower interaction with the criminal
    justice center may be where my colleague was going, but you
    were very specific here. I suggest that this might also be an
    economic issue worthy of a fuller examination beyond the Census
    for this body to take a look at since we are talking about
    economic development.
        But I would like to focus more on your position that we
    need more information about persons with a criminal history. So
    I would like to pose the question to the entire panel. Do you
    have concerns that the inclusion of a question about a person's
    possible criminal history might affect, one, participation of
    the Census, or the accuracy of the data?
        Dr. Eberstadt. Ma'am, it is a critical question, and it is
    a very sensitive question that one would be asking people. It
    would have to be tested very carefully. It would have to be
    rolled out in a very careful way so as to ensure that this did
    not adversely affect participation in the ACS or in other
    surveys where it might be asked.
        We have a way of test piloting this investigation that
    wouldn't have any effect on nonresponse rates, and that would
    be by linking up existing administrative data on probation and
    parole, with proper privacy and confidentiality controls, to
    the existing data coming out of our monthly jobs report, out of
    our current population survey.
        That way all of the data would come from administrative
    sources already, and it would be possible to get a sense of how
    much of an impact sentencing has.
        Representative Beatty. Would anybody else like to make a
    comment, and maybe while you are thinking, I want to go to you,
    Mr.--is it Finberg?
        Mr. Fienberg. Fienberg.
        Representative Beatty. Fienberg. Research shows us that
    asking stigmatizing and sensitive questions such as citizenship
    status might lead us to reduced rates of some community wanting
    to fully and fairly and accurately be counted in a Census. So I
    am concerned about the unprecedented politicizing of the 2020
    citizen Census if such citizenship questions are the first step
    down a very troubling path.
        Like, how would it affect the integrity of the Census and
    the Federal statistics based on the Census if we were to ask
    questions that residents might not want to answer fully or may
    be fearful that responding, for example, have you ever been a
    victim of domestic violence? Have you ever been incarcerated?
    How would that effect a business participation in the Census,
    and that is you and then anyone else quickly because we only
    have a minute.
        Mr. Fienberg. I am not sure about business participation
    specifically. I know certainly a lot of different questions
    they do carry a stigma and concern for folks. I think the idea
    of putting, I think, those kind of questions on the decennial
    is questionable at best because are you trying to focus just on
    the head count. But certainly those questions are asked across
    a lot of Federal surveys. And to Dr. Eberstadt's point,
    administrative data is a very good way to start in trying to
    get a better picture on a lot of those topics.
        Representative Beatty. Well, and let me tell you why I say
    not only businesses. You know the reasons that the Census are
    used. It was articulated before. It is for the reapportionment
    board in drawing the lines. It is for how Federal dollars come
    back into the community. There is a whole host of reasons, and
    so maybe I should do a little cultural thing here.
        I can tell you coming up there were days when the person
    would come along and ask very personal questions. My father
    would not answer them because he felt that it was going to have
    some type of indication with the IRS, or somebody was going to
    come and start doing another investigation.
        I don't really believe in this wonderful America that we
    live in that things have changed so much as we still have not
    been able to reform immigration reform. We still need to reform
    our criminal justice system.
        So I know my time has run out, but I think we need to take
    a look at this. I think we are kidding ourselves if we think
    because there have been Federal studies that people are going
    to open their doors automatically to give the answers you want.
        Thank you, Vice Chair.
        Vice Chair Maloney. I want to thank all of my colleagues
    for participating today and our distinguished panel of expert
    testimony.
        And as we have heard this afternoon, businesses,
    researchers, policymakers, and communities across the country
    count on a fair and accurate Census to make a broad range of
    economic and strategic decisions. We must do everything
    possible to ensure that the 2020 Census is accurate.
        The record will remain open for 7 business days for any
    member who wishes to submit a statement or additional
    questions.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        Thank you all very much. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, Vice Chair, Joint
                               Economic Committee
        I am pleased to hold this hearing examining the many economic uses
    of Census and other Federal data, particularly by U.S. businesses.
        Census data is the only source of objective and comprehensive data
    about the Nation's demographic characteristics down to the
    neighborhood-level.
        The decennial Census provides the foundation for other Federal
    surveys, including the American Community Survey. The ACS tracks
    social, demographic, economic and housing data, including educational
    attainment, income and earnings, employment status and housing value.
        Census data are an essential building block or benchmark for most
    nationally representative surveys--public and private, helping us to
    understand the economy, our workforce and opportunities for growth.
                      general business use of census data
        Businesses use Census data to make economic and strategic decisions
    that determine the flow of almost $4 trillion in annual private
    investment.
        They use it to decide where to locate or expand operations and
    where to open new stores and distribution centers. Even what products
    to sell in which stores. It affects where and how advertisers spend
    their dollars.
        When businesses plot their strategies, they look at Census data to
    understand the skills of the workforce and the characteristics of
    potential customers.
                     business examples--large corporations
        Let's take a few examples.
        David Kenny, the CEO of Nielsen, in a recent New York Times op-ed,
    described how businesses rely on Census data to make a broad range of
    strategic decisions.
        The Census is used to identify where, for example, to put power
    lines, cell towers and hospitals.
        Target told us that the U.S. Census is one of many resources that
    it uses to better understand the communities where they do business.
                      business examples--regional planning
        In the 7 Rivers region, which includes southwest Wisconsin,
    southeast Minnesota and northeast Iowa, hundreds of businesses and
    community leaders are using Census-based data to craft strategies to
    fill jobs and boost labor force participation.
        It starts with using data to understand who is unemployed, who has
    left the labor force, how much education have they attained. How do
    local workers compare to others nationwide? Are they younger, older,
    more likely to be male or female?
        The strategies that emerged from a careful analysis of the data are
    varied. One approach is to expand child care to make it more attractive
    for women with young children to enter the labor market.
        The 7 Rivers Alliance is just one example. Every day, companies
    across the country make decisions based on Census data to chart their
    future.
                                 federal policy
        The decennial Census is used to apportion representation in the
    U.S. House of Representatives and to determine allocation of Federal
    funds. Hundreds of billions in Federal dollars and fair political
    representation are on the table.
        Where we build roads, bridges, schools and other core
    infrastructure is based on Federal data.
        How we target funds to address cancer, obesity and other health
    challenges depends on the Census.
                            it has been politicized
        Unfortunately, the 2020 Census has been politicized through the
    citizenship question. Immigrant communities, already skeptical of the
    Federal Government, are reluctant to take part in a survey they believe
    could be used against them, jeopardizing their status.
        A recent study at Harvard found that the citizenship question could
    lead to 6 million Hispanics missing from the count.
        That means Hispanics would be underrepresented in Congress and
    would receive less in Federal dollars.
        It means businesses would not get accurate data about the role
    Latinos play in the U.S. economy.
        It means the 2020 Census would not provide a fair and accurate
    count.
        The point of the Census is to get a full count of the population.
    Any proposal that would limit or discourage participation would run
    counter to this very objective.
        This would undermine the integrity of the Census data, inflicting
    substantial harm on businesses and others that depend on accurate data.
    And it would undermine the right of every American to be represented.
                                   conclusion
        Getting the count wrong would be costly with far-reaching effects
    on nearly every segment of the population and on nearly every industry
    in our economy.
        We would be misallocating resources through misguided business
    investments and poorly targeted government expenditures.
        We would be using flawed data as the basis for making and
    evaluating decisions.
        And we would be doing this for a decade.
        Accurately counting all of our people should not be a partisan
    issue.
        Businesses, researchers, policymakers, State and local governments
    all count on the data that flows from the Census.
        I look forward to our witnesses' testimony.
                                   __________

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Lee, Chairman, Joint Economic Committee
        Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us for this hearing of
    the Joint Economic Committee. I want to thank Vice Chair Maloney for
    organizing a discussion about this very important series of topics.
        Today, Federal data and surveys provide the American people
    invaluable information about our Nation's society and our economy. But
    there are two key categories of information that are currently absent
    from our Federal surveys--categories that I'd like to highlight during
    today's hearing.
        First, our Federal surveys--and in particular, the American
    Community Survey (ACS) and Current Population Survey (CPS)--fail to
    include information about past involvement with the criminal justice
    system. In other words, they do not tell us whether someone has been
    convicted of a crime, been on probation or parole, or been
    incarcerated.
        Such data would be invaluable for understanding how much these
    experiences are a barrier to employment. For example, it would help us
    answer questions like:
        How many people out of the labor force are there because they have
    criminal records? And how does this vary in terms of geography and
    demographics?
        In our own research on prime-age men who are out of the labor
    force, the JEC's Social Capital Project has found that one-third of
    these men have been incarcerated. And there is further evidence to
    suggest that men who are not employed are more likely to have a
    criminal record than men who are.
        Indeed, we ought to have a fuller picture of this often-forgotten
    segment of our population and figure out what is necessary to help
    them. Our goal should be to make sure that our justice system is, in
    fact, just--that the punishment fits both the crime and the criminal,
    being neither too lenient nor too harsh--and to help these men and
    women re-enter society and become productive members of our families
    and communities.
        That's precisely why I've worked with many of my colleagues on
    legislation to this end, like the First Step Act, which was signed into
    law by the President this past December and included much-needed
    sentencing and prison reforms. Having more complete data on these
    topics in our Federal surveys would only further aid us in achieving
    these goals.
        Second, our surveys include limited information on social capital,
    or our associational life--which is arguably the most important factor
    for understanding our Nation's health and happiness.
        The Current Population Survey has included a few questions on
    social capital and associational life since 2002, but there is much
    that is lacking. For instance, it provides little information on trust
    or confidence in our institutions, especially local ones. It does not
    track loneliness, happiness, or the availability of emotional support;
    and it does not include information on the availability of public
    amenities like libraries, parks, and playgrounds, which have been shown
    to correlate with community involvement.
        The CPS could--and I think should--provide more information on the
    social interaction that takes place between families, friends,
    neighbors, congregants, and coworkers. And it could provide important
    details on the ways that technology hinders and helps social
    interaction.
        Furthermore, having more social capital information in these
    surveys would help all of us simply because, as research shows, strong
    social capital is conducive to finding and getting work.
        Learning this information would provide us some missing pieces to
    the puzzle, giving us a clearer picture of ways we can strengthen our
    economy and help our citizens be happy and productive members of our
    communities.
        I look forward to hearing our witnesses' insights on these topics
    today. Thank you.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Question for the Record for Dr. Reamer Submitted by Senator Klobuchar
        Census Bureau researchers reportedly recommended against adding a
    citizenship question to the 2020 Census, which they said would produce
    citizenship information that is less accurate and more expensive than
    existing government data.

          Doesn't the inclusion of a citizenship question
    compromise the accuracy of the Census by making certain residents less
    likely to respond?

        Census Bureau researchers say they expect that the inclusion of a
    citizenship question on the 2020 Census will compromise the accuracy of
    the total population count and the distribution of population
    characteristics (such as age, sex, and race).
        Sources:

          J. David Brown et al., ``Understanding the Quality of
    Alternative Citizenship Data Sources for the 2020 Census,'' U.S. Census
    Bureau, CES 18-38, August 2018.
          J. David, Brown, et al., ``Estimating the Potential
    Effects of Adding a Citizenship Question to the 2020 Census,'' IZA
    Discussion Papers 12087, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), 2019.
          Mikelyn Meyers, Center for Survey Measurement, U.S.
    Census Bureau, November 2017
            Presentation: Respondent Confidentiality Concerns and Possible
    Effects on
            Response Rates and Data Quality for the 2020 Census
            Memorandum: Respondent Confidentiality Concerns

        Summary finding from the 2018 paper, p. 54:

            This paper's examination of several Census Bureau surveys with
            and without citizenship questions suggests that households that
            may contain noncitizens are more sensitive to the inclusion of
            citizenship in the questionnaire than all-citizen households.
            The implication is that adding a citizenship question to the
            2020 Census would lead to lower self-response rates in
            households potentially containing noncitizens, resulting in
            more nonresponse follow-up (NRFU) fieldwork, more proxy
            responses, and a lower-quality population count. (emphasis
            added)

        On pp. 38-39 of the same paper, the authors estimate that
    households with a non-citizen would have a Census self-response rate
    5.8 percentage points less than households without a non-citizen. They
    further find that as ``the level of concern about using citizenship
    data for enforcement purposes may be very different in 2020 than it was
    in 2000 or 2010,'' the 5.8 percent differential is a conservative
    estimate--it may well be higher.
                                   __________

     Question for the Record for Ms. Bateman Submitted by Senator Klobuchar
        In 2016, we saw unprecedented foreign interference in our
    elections--including through social media platforms, where foreign
    agents sought to discourage voter participation in our country.

          How concerned are you about potential hacking or
    disinformation campaigns in advance of the 2020 Census in light of the
    fact that it will be one of the first Censuses performed online?

        Thank you for your question regarding potential cyberattacks or
    disinformation campaigns in advance of the 2020 Census.
        I am not a cyber-security expert, but as a frequent user of Census
    Bureau products the introduction of an online response form is a topic
    I am watching for this very reason. I know that this is a top issue for
    the Census Bureau, as they recognize the constantly evolving potential
    for threats to online material. I also know that the privacy
    restrictions placed on data via Title 13 are of paramount importance to
    career members of the Census Bureau.
        Due to this context, I rely on the reporting of the career Census
    Bureau staff, particularly through the 2020 Census Program Management
    Reviews. These reviews have been held quarterly since 2013. The August
    3, 2018, PMR had a session highlighting what the Census Bureau is doing
    in regards to cybersecurity. In his opening comments, Kevin Smith
    (Chief Information Officer) said:

            I want to stress that the protection of the data we collect is
            the Census's highest priority, and I want to describe it is not
            just the technology but the people and the processes we use in
            our culture we go through to help make sure everyone is aware
            of the importance of the data and takes action to protect it.

        Video for this PMR can be found here https://youtu.be/
    pLZlt83rLZg?t=2085 and the accompanying slides can be accessed at this
    link: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-
    management/pmr-materials/08-03-2018/pmr-cybersecurity-08-03-2018.pdf?#.
    Additional sessions on ``System Readiness'' touch on cyber security in
    the October 2018 and February 2019 PMRs.
        Additionally, we had the opportunity to host Census Bureau Director
    Dillingham at the Gardner Policy Institute on May 7. During his visit,
    he participated in a Newsmaker Breakfast, speaking to the public about
    the 2020 Census. In his remarks, he mentioned that the Census Bureau is
    working closely with experts in and out of government to stress test
    their system and create a platform that is nimble and could adjust to
    threats. He mentioned that the Census Bureau is working with the
    largest IT firms in the Nation to address the issue. (Topic begins
    around 49:30--https://www.facebook.com/gardnerpolicyinstitute/videos/
    850462068623931/)
        Regarding disinformation, the Census Bureau has mentioned that this
    will be addressed in their forthcoming communications plans. The 2020
    Census communication efforts in Utah are being constructed with the
    consideration that digital campaigns to create confusion may very well
    be present. Additionally, the State Data Center network is constantly
    watching for things that might confuse people regarding the decennial
    count. The network is active and engaged. This slightly more grassroots
    space for states allows space for clear, connected narratives to
    develop and be disseminated more quickly than through formal Census
    Bureau processes.
        I know the reintroduction of paper forms for voting is proposed in
    some communities to avoid cyber interference. Although online response
    is getting all the press, there are alternatives. If communities feel
    unsafe or uncertain utilizing the online response platform, paper forms
    and over-the-phone response are options for response in 2020.
        Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this topic.

                                      [all]