[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COUNTING EVERY PERSON:
SAFEGUARDING THE 2020 CENSUS
AGAINST THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTACKS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 29, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-108
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-984 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Jim Jordan, Ohio
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Harley Rouda, California Gary Palmer, Alabama
Ro Khanna, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Clay Higgins, Louisiana
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Peter Welch, Vermont Chip Roy, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Mark DeSaulnier, California Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Jimmy Gomez, California
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Katie Porter, California
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Janet Kim, Counsel
Elisa LaNier, Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 29, 2020.................................... 1
Witnesses
Panel 1
Vincent Barabba (remote), Former Director, Census Bureau (1973-
1976 and 1979-1981)
Oral Statement............................................... 4
Kenneth Prewitt (remote), Former Director, Census Bureau (1998-
2001)
Oral Statement............................................... 6
Dr. John Eastman (remote), Professor, Dale E. Fowler School of
Law, Chapman University
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Robert M. Groves (remote), Former Director, Census Bureau (2009-
2012)
Oral Statement............................................... 9
John H. Thompson (remote), Former Director, Census Bureau (2013-
2017)
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Panel 2
Dr. Steven Dillingham (in person), Director, Census Bureau
Oral Statement............................................... 50
* The prepared opening statements and statements for the
witnesses are available at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
The documents listed below are available at: docs.house.gov.
* Pew Research Center, ``20 metro areas are home to six-in-ten
unauthorized immigrants in U.S.'', article; submitted by Rep.
Palmer.
* Pew Research Center, ``Five facts about illegal immigration
in the U.S.'', article; submitted by Rep. Palmer.
* Pew Research Center, ``Explore unauthorized immigration by
state using our new interactive'', article; submitted by Rep.
Palmer.
* Center for Immigration Studies, ``Map: Sanctuary Cities,
Counties, and States'', exhibit; submitted by Rep. Palmer.
* Migration Policy Institute, ``Profile of the Unauthorized
Population: United States'', exhibit; submitted by Rep. Palmer.
* A list of Committee Hearings; submitted by Chairwoman
Maloney.
* The ``System of Record Notices''; submitted by Rep. Porter.
* The ``OMB Purpose Statement''; submitted by Rep. Porter.
* Statement for the record of Vanita Gupta.
COUNTING EVERY PERSON:
SAFEGUARDING THE 2020 CENSUS
AGAINST THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTACKS
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:46 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carolyn Maloney
[chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Cooper,
Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Rouda, Khanna, Mfume,
Wasserman Schultz, Sarbanes, Welch, Kelly, DeSaulnier,
Lawrence, Gomez, Pressley, Tlaib, Porter, Comer, Jordan, Gosar,
Foxx, Hice, Grothman, Palmer, Higgins, Norman, Roy, Miller,
Green, Steube, and Keller.
Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess
of the committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Thank you all for being here today. Our Constitution
requires that every 10 years we count every person living in
the United States of America.
We use this count to allocate more than a trillion dollars
in Federal resources, to draw legislative maps, and to assign
Electoral College votes to states.
It is no exaggeration to say that the census is a
cornerstone of our democracy. Last week, the president issued a
memorandum directing the Secretary of Commerce to provide him
with all the information necessary to exclude undocumented
immigrants from the census count for apportionment purposes.
Let me be clear. The president's direction is
unconstitutional, it is illegal, and it disregards the
precedent set by every other president, beginning with
President George Washington.
The Constitution requires the census to count, quote, ``the
whole number of persons in each state,'' end quote. Federal law
requires the Secretary of Commerce to report, quote, ``the
total population,'' end quote, of each state to the president
and it requires the president to transmit this information to
Congress.
In the 230-year history of the census, no president has
ever tried to manipulate the census count in this way. In fact,
just two years ago, the Census Bureau reaffirmed its commitment
to do the exact opposite of what the president is now trying to
do.
The Bureau committed to counting every person, regardless
of citizenship or legal status under the rules of Congress set
in the Census Act of 1790.
The president's decision to release this illegal memo now
appears designed to inflict maximum damage to the accuracy of
the ongoing 2020 census.
In just two weeks, the Census Bureau will start visiting
the homes of millions of people who have not yet responded to
the census.
The president's latest attack on immigrants could sow fear
and confusion in communities across the country and could lead
many people to decide not to participate. This will hurt
communities that are already undercounted, underrepresented,
and underfunded.
Addressing the chaos caused by the president's memo will
drain valuable resources from the Census Bureau, which is
already struggling to administer the 2020 census in the middle
of an unprecedented pandemic and it will further divide our
country at a time when we need unity.
Of course, this is not the first time that President Trump
has attempted to politicize the census. For more than two years
he tried to add a citizenship question, even though the Census
Bureau's own studies showed it would depress response rates in
many communities.
When this committee investigated, Secretary Ross and other
administration officials denied they were trying to exclude
immigrants from congressional apportionment and, instead,
claimed falsely that the Department of Justice needed
citizenship data to enforce the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court saw through their explanation, calling
it, quote, ``contrived,'' end quote, and blocking the addition
of the citizenship question. And when Secretary Ross and
Attorney General Barr refused to turn over documents about the
real reason for the citizenship question, the House held them
both in contempt.
Now the president is trying again to weaponize the census
to hurt immigrants and help Republicans. As a Nation, we depend
on the census to be nonpartisan, fair, and accurate.
As I told Director Dillingham the last time he appeared
before us, our Constitution requires it, our communities rely
on it, and our democracy depends on it.
We are here today at this emergency hearing because the
Trump administration is threatening this cornerstone of our
democracy.
We will hear from four former Census Bureau directors who
oversaw the census during both Republican and Democratic
administrations.
They will share their views on the president's
unprecedented attempts to manipulate the census count and why
it is important to count every person in the United States.
Then we will hear directly from the current Census Bureau
director, Dr. Dillingham. I expect Dr. Dillingham to give us an
honest assessment of how the president's memo could impact the
accuracy of the census and what the Bureau is doing to address
this risk.
I thank all of our witnesses for participating today and I
look forward to your testimony. I now recognize the
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Comer, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Comer. Chairman Maloney. I appreciate you calling this
hearing today on the 2020 census.
Let me begin by saying unequivocally the 2020 census is
counting every resident in the United States, regardless of
citizenship status. Any assertions to the contrary are scare
tactics, which have the consequence of reducing participation
in the census.
The census is underway now. I want to encourage every
American to complete their census form. Starting in August,
census enumerators will be fanning out across the country to
count nonresponding households.
I encourage everyone to engage with an enumerator if they
come to your door. But if you are concerned about an enumerator
coming to your door, you can complete your 2020 census online
now at mycensus2020 or my2020census.gov.
I truly wish the hearing today were an oversight hearing of
the 2020 census because COVID-19 has created a lot of
operational challenges for the census.
Unfortunately, this committee has conducted no oversight of
these impacts. Once again, Democrats are focusing their efforts
on political issues, not the basic good government oversight
this committee is charged with conducting.
Last week, President Trump took a very important step to
ensuring the sanctity of our Nation's elections and equal
representation under the Constitution.
The president directed the Secretary of Commerce to report
an apportionment count for the House of Representatives, which
includes nonlegal residents in the United States including
illegal immigrants.
All Americans should care about who is being included in
the apportionment count. Including illegal immigrants in the
count for representation in Congress only dilutes the
representation of all Americans who vote in elections and makes
a mockery of our basic principle of one person one vote.
The president's action restores the concept of
representational government envisioned by the Constitution. In
a country so closely divided as the United States, illegal
immigrants and noncitizens have a material effect on
representation.
Representation should matter to everyone. It is a simple
question of fairness. Predictably, the Democrats' liberal
interest groups have already filed lawsuits against the
president. Like the sound and fury surrounding the citizenship
question, the legal questions about the president's action are
likely to wind up at the Supreme Court.
This hearing today is the Democrats' first shot across the
bow of Chief Justice Roberts and the other Supreme Court
justices. The intimidation of the Supreme Court begins today.
I urge us all to focus on the task at hand, the completion
of the 2020 census count now underway.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Now I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our first
panel is composed for former Census directors. We are grateful
to have their expertise.
Our first witness today is Mr. Vincent Barabba, who served
as Census director from 1973 to 1976 and again from 1979 to
1981.
Then we will hear from Kenneth Prewitt, who served as the
Census director from 1998 to 2001.
Next, we will hear and go to Robert M. Groves, who served
as the Census director from 2009 to 2012.
Finally, we will go to John H. Thompson, who served as the
Census director from 2013 to 2017.
The witnesses will be muted so we can swear them in.
Unmuted so that we can swear them in.
Witnesses, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
[Witnesses are sworn.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Let the record show that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
Without objection, your written statements will be made
part of the record, and with that, Mr. Barabba, you are now
recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF VINCENT BARABBA, FORMER DIRECTOR, CENSUS BUREAU
(1973-1976 AND 1979-1981)
Mr. Barabba. Thank you.
The Thomas Theorem, formulated in 1928, stated that if men
define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.
In essence, the Thomas Theorem surfaces the potential that when
incorrect situations are perceived by people as real, they are
real in their consequences.
The real problem with the president's current action is
that by reintroducing his illegal desire of only counting
citizens using the many approaches he has taken is to ensure
that he achieves his real objective.
That is to make sure less people will be counted in states
with large minority populations which did not support President
Trump or the positions he has taken.
If this occurs, those areas will have their representation
in Congress and other legislative districts reduced as well and
they will receive fewer government-approved allocations based
on the census count.
However, the incorrect perception of possible direct harm
by filling out the form by noncitizens is not correct because
it is against the law for any Census Bureau employee to
disclose or publish any census or survey information that
identifies an individual or business.
This is true even for inter-agency communications. The FBI
and other government entities do not have the legal right to
access this information.
Violating the confidentiality of a respondent is a Federal
crime with serious penalties, including a Federal prison
sentence of up to five years, a fine of up to $250,000, or
both.
In fact, when these protections have been challenged, Title
13's confidentiality guarantee has been upheld in the courts.
I will now provide an example of how the Census Bureau and
other agencies work together to follow Title 13.
On August 13, 1980, late that afternoon, four FBI agents
arrived at the district office in Colorado Springs armed with a
search warrant authorizing them to seize the census documents
including completed questionnaires in the course of their
investigation of a case involving alleged questionnaire
falsification and payroll fraud.
I was immediately informed of the situation and contacted
the director of the FBI. After a brief flurry of telephone
calls to employees in Colorado, we agreed to a mutually
satisfactory conclusion that could be reached while the
disputed questionnaire remained in the custody of the Census
Bureau.
Ultimately, the documents were placed in a secure room
protected by two locks with one key held by the FBI and the
other by a local census official.
Under this arrangement only sworn census employees were
allowed to enter the room. But an FBI agent had to be present
when the door was open.
While the door was unlocked, an agent was stationed outside
the room to monitor the activities of the census personnel.
The Census Bureau brought in experienced Census Bureau
enumerators from outside the Denver area to reinterview the
respondents in the area where the alleged fraud had taken place
and compared the original questionnaires with those from the
recanvass.
Census Bureau officials prepared a report that described
all significant discrepancies uncovered but did not reveal any
confidential information.
As the chairwoman mentioned, I served as Census Bureau
director through the appointment by presidents of both
political parties. In 1980, I had the honor of providing the
Secretary of Commerce with the Census Bureau statement showing
the population of the states and the number of representatives
to which each state is entitled, which he then forwarded to the
president.
I was also proud of the fact that our outreach program to
low-income and minority population led to an estimated count of
nearly 97 percent of our population.
The 1980 census was also a clear demonstration of the
nonpartisan manner in which the census should be conducted. The
1980 census was designed and planned during a Republican
presidency and successfully implemented as designed and planned
during a Democratic presidency.
It will be up to Congress and the press to make sure that
disinformation being created by the president be addressed
forcefully and that his true motivation be made clear.
The census belongs to the people, not the president. The
entire population of persons in the United States should
participate willingly in the 2020 census and use the moment to
reaffirm our Founders' intent that everyone be counted.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you so much for your testimony
and your service.
We will now here from Dr. John Eastman, professor, Henry
Salvatori Professor of Law, and community service director,
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence Dale E. Fowler School
of Law and Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute.
Dr. Eastman?
[Inaudible.]
Chairwoman Maloney. We seem to have some technical
problems. We are going to go to the next speaker after Dr.
Eastman and come back to him because there seems to be a
problem with connecting with him.
Thank you.
We will now turn to Dr. Prewitt.
Mr. Prewitt, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH PREWITT, FORMER DIRECTOR, CENSUS BUREAU
(1998-2001)
Mr. Prewitt. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
We know that this discussion will include concern about
the--in putting the noncitizens and/or the illegals into the
apportionment count. I just have to say three things about
that.
First, we have never done it. The census has never done it.
Second, they can't do it by asking questions. You are not
going to knock on the door and say, are you or are you not.
And third, the administrative records are inadequate to do
it. So, even if it was a good idea, we don't know--we don't yet
know that we can do it--that the Census Bureau can do it.
With that as my starting point, I want to go on and say
some things about the larger census, as the ranking member
invited us to do.
We all know that we are about 62 percent with respect to
nonresponse with respect to self-reporting. But that leaves,
you know, more than a third of the population uncounted.
I have to really stress this point. Nonresponse followup,
hard to count, very difficult census territory, as we all know,
and we are not in control. We as the Census Bureau, the we as
the Congress, the we as the White House.
COVID is in control of whether we will be able to--that is,
the Census Bureau will be able to do this count successfully
before the end of the year, which they are now on that--on that
schedule.
We know about 15 percent of the American population has
already told us in polls that they do not intend to cooperate
with the census.
So, I would like to make two, three quick points.
How do I define a successful census? The Bureau will know,
as no other unit of government can, if the numbers will
accurately reapportion and fairly distribute Federal funds for
a decade.
It knows that the census count is the denominator of every
vital statistics we rely on, whether the number--whether it is
the number of consumer products, whether it is a differential
rate of infection across the population subgroups on the
pandemic, and so forth. Every number that we use for 10 years
is anchored to the quality of the census.
Second, the Bureau knows that these statistical facts can
easily damage the flawed numbers that will be produced will--
that we will inflict on society will create serious damage to
this society, and it is not pretty.
Ten years of homeless veterans because we mis locate
their--mislocate their--sorry, mislocate their hospitals. Ten
years of tropical storm disaster relief that is too little and
too late because traffic congestion is underestimated.
Ten years of foreplanning by local school districts because
they have flawed estimates of how many first graders are going
to show up. Ten years of missed Chamber of Commerce--misled
Chamber of Commerce because predictions of population growth
and characteristics are off base.
We know that will be the consequences of a census that does
not count as best it can, quite separate from who is in the
apportionment count. We have to start with a good census.
The third thing I would say about this is the Bureau will
not want to inflict the damage that flawed numbers will
produce. The Census Bureau is too honorable, too scientific,
too proud of its professional standards, too faithful to its
constitutional duties. The Bureau will struggle with the
enormous burden of whether to release substandard results.
I urge the Congress to share the burden. I would ask the
Congress to please appoint, using the National Academy of
Sciences or some other apolitical trusted institution of its
choosing, to produce pre-determined quality metrics that can
assess if the final 2020 numbers reasonably match what the
Bureau knows that they should be, and the Bureau has very good
estimates from ACS, from the demographic analysis. Very good
estimates of how many people across the states, all the way
down to census track levels.
So, if we can have this special group of experts to sort of
create the metrics by which we will judge if we have an
adequate census to do what it is supposed to do, and if not,
what steps should the country take.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
We are going to return to Dr. Eastman, if we have solved
the difficulties of reaching him.
Dr. Eastman?
Mr. Eastman. Let us try--let us try this again.
Can you hear me now?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, we can.
Mr. Eastman. Very good. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JOHN EASTMAN, HENRY SALVATORI PROFESSOR OF LAW AND
COMUNITY SERVICE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTINAL
JURISPRUDENCE, DALE E. FOWLER SCHOOL OF LAW, CHAPMAN
UNIVERSITY; AND SENIOR FELLOW, CLAREMONT INSTITUTE
Mr. Eastman. Chairman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and
other members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to
participate in this important hearing.
I actually think President Trump's directive is not only
good policy but perfectly constitutional, and I want to
address, real quickly, something Mr. Prewitt said.
I think there is a confusion here between the two purposes
that we use the census for. One is for apportionment, set out
by Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution.
The other, exercising Congress's spending power or its
commerce power, is to do a whole myriad of other things like
allocate Federal resources, determine where we are going to
need schools and VA hospitals, and what have you.
President Trump's order addresses the apportionment part of
that. It doesn't have anything to do with the broader purposes
of a total count on the census.
I think the political theory underlying the reason we have
the apportionment clause is extremely important, and so let me
begin with that.
We get our political theory from the Declaration of
Independence. It sets out universal principles. All men are
created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain
inalienable rights. But we apply those universal principles in
a particular context. The Declaration starts off by talking
about one people separating themselves from another.
The theory of representative government is that it is based
on the consent of the people to be governed. Not on the consent
of people elsewhere, but on the consent of the particular
people that are setting up a government.
Now, those principles--the consent of the government, the
representative government theory--find their selves into the
text of the Constitution.
Right from the very beginning it says, ``We, the people of
the United States.'' It doesn't say, ``We, the people of the
world'' or ``We, the people of any foreign nationals who happen
to be present when we take a census.''
It is ``We, the people of the United States.'' That
language is mimicked then in the apportionment clause. Article
1 Section 2 Clause 1 says representatives are chosen by the
people, that same people referring back to the people of the
United States, now the people in their several states.
Then in Clause 3, it says that the people, again, and they
choose their representatives based on the total number of
persons. That refers back to their representatives. That refers
back to the people in the several states.
Proof of this is the clause excluding Indians not taxed.
That was a clause that was designed to recognize and to exempt
from the census count those people who were in the states but
not part of our body politic who were not citizens. As the
Supreme Court held in Elk v. Wilkins, Indians not taxed are
excluded from the census for the reason that they are not
citizens.
In other words, the whole political theory of the
Declaration codified into the Constitution is that we are
counting people for purposes of apportionment in order to
reflect accurately representative strength and divide equally
and fairly the representation among the several States based on
their numbers of people who are citizens, who are part of the
body politic.
I will give you an example. If the census--if the 1984
Olympics was held in 1980 and it happened to coincide with
Census Day, we wouldn't have added two or three congressional
seats to California because there were a couple million people
visiting Los Angeles for the Olympics.
This has always been our history. Diplomats, visitors have
never been counted because they are not part of the body
politic. They don't adhere to the necessity of the theory of
representative government.
The Supreme Court has upheld this as well. It is recognized
in Reynolds v. Sims, for example, which was the equal
protection one person/one vote case, that it is the equal
number of citizens. They refer repeatedly to the language of
citizens rather than total population.
Now, for most of our history, there wasn't much difference.
The disparity between citizens and noncitizens was, roughly,
similar one district to another. So, we didn't have to get into
this question.
But we now live in a circumstance where there are vast
differences state by state between the number of citizens
compared to the total population, and to continue to count
total population for apportionment purposes is to give an undue
weight that people--to states that have large numbers of
noncitizens living within their borders.
That is not consistent with the principles of
representative government. It is unfair to those states that
continue to have only citizens. It is particularly unfair when
the number of noncitizens includes large numbers of people who
are not here legally at all.
It creates a perverse incentive to encourage illegal
immigration, to undermine the weight of the votes of citizens
elsewhere in the country.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I look forward to your
questions.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
I now--next, is Mr. Groves, and I understand that you have
a hard stop at 11. You will be excused with our thanks, and you
may have questions for the record.
Mr. Groves, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. GROVES, FORMER DIRECTOR, CENSUS BUREAU
(2009-2012)
Mr. Groves. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney and Ranking
Member Comer.
Since 1790, each U.S. decennial census has sought to
enumerate all residents in the country. Some of the first words
in the U.S. Constitution seem to illuminate the intent of the
Founding Fathers on this score.
Before the decennial mandate as laid out in Article 1
Section 2, the prior section, Section 1, notes the
qualifications of membership in the House of Representatives.
I quote, ``No person shall be a representative who shall
not have attained to the age of 25 years and been seven years a
citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected,
be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.''
So, I note the explicit designation of the word
``citizenship'' for qualifications of members of the House, and
the very next section, Section 2, outlining the decennial
census, the word ``citizen'' is not used, either in referring
to the census or to the apportionment of the House of
Representatives.
Instead, the phrase ``whole persons'' is used. This goal, a
complete enumeration of all persons, residents, in the country
has been the basis of all censuses since that conducted by
Thomas Jefferson in 1790. It has been the basis of
reapportionment decade after decade. Indeed, the decennial
census is the only event we have in this country in which all
persons participate.
I am not a lawyer and, thus, will not comment on the legal
basis of the recent memorandum. I will, instead, comment on the
critical needs of the Census Bureau, going forward, with an eye
toward quality assurance and transparency.
I have four points.
One, the Census Bureau technical staff must be free to
complete the 2020 census at the maximum level of quality
possible within the unprecedented constraints of the pandemic.
As you know, the technical staff of the Census Bureau has
requested the delay in the delivery of various products. This
request flows from the delay in the conduct of various stages
of data collection.
This delay, no doubt, has saved lives of enumerators whose
public service will make these efforts successful. I applaud
the technical staff of the Census Bureau making this decision.
The decision, however, forces a delay of delivery of 2020
products. I support this delay and urge Congress to authorize
it.
No. 2, all of us need to convey the message again very
clearly that the 2020 census must enumerate all persons
resident in the U.S.
Regardless of the outcome in the administration's
memorandum, the decennial census has the goal of enumerating
all persons in the United States. We must double down on this
message in the coming days.
No. 3, the Census Bureau should release all quality
indicators of the measurement of citizens required under the
July 11, 2019, executive order.
Rarely in the conduct of censuses throughout the world is
the responsible agency asked to produce official estimates
critical to the society without prior testing.
The attempt to assemble from administrator record systems
and other sources counts of citizens at small geographical
areas is unprecedented in the history of the Bureau.
With unprecedented efforts comes the obligation to inform
the country of the strengths and weaknesses of a product. I
urge Congress to assure that evaluations of the accuracy of
such statistics be presented along with the estimates
themselves.
No. 4, the credibility of the 2020 census can be achieved
only by wide dissemination of quality indicators of the data.
I urge the Census Bureau, given the unique nature of this
data collection, to publish intermediate indicators of quality
of the 2020 census.
These would include process indicators, comparisons with
population estimates from demographic analysis in comparable
tabular form, and initial field data from the post-enumeration
survey, for example, match rates of households.
Credibility requires transparency. The sooner the country
can see multiple indicators of the 2020 census quality, the
sooner the use case for the census can be made.
In conclusion, I am pleased to submit this written
testimony. I look forward to testifying before the committee.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
We will now conclude this panel with Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF JOHN H. THOMPSON, FORMER DIRECTOR, CENSUS BUREAU
(2013-2017)
Mr. Thompson. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking
Member Comer, and members of the committee. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify before your committee regarding the July
21, 2020 memorandum for the Secretary of Commerce on excluding
illegal aliens from the apportionment base following the 2020
census.
I am extremely concerned that this action will adversely
affect the quality and accuracy of the 2020 census. The
remainder of my testimony will focus on five areas that I
believe are critical for your committee and the leadership at
the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau to consider.
First, effects of the directive on the 2020 census response
for the hard-to-count populations. I believe that the
memorandum has a high potential to reduce the likelihood of
census participation for the hard-to-count populations
including noncitizens and immigrants.
A significant component of the Census Bureau plan to get a
complete count of these populations is getting out a message
that the 2020 census is important to local communities and that
respondent information is kept completely private and not
shared with any outside entity, including law and immigration
enforcement.
I am very concerned that the release of this memorandum
will increase the fears of many in the hard-to-count community
that their data will not be safe. The end result will most
likely be increased nonparticipation and increased undercounts
of these populations.
Two, effects of not accepting the Census Bureau
recommendation to extend the 2020 census deadlines. The Census
Bureau, through the Department of Commerce, has requested that
Congress extend the deadlines for providing apportionment
counts on redistricting data by four months. It is critical
that these deadlines be extended.
The effective conduct of the operation to enumerate those
households that do not self-respond, nonresponse followup, or
NRFU, is necessary to achieve a fair and accurate enumeration
for all populations.
I am concerned that not extending the deadlines will force
the Census Bureau to make adjustments to the NRFU. These
adjustments will most likely include reducing the number of
NRFU visits and increasing the use of statistical methods to
impute responses into a much greater percentage of housing
units than in previous censuses.
The consequence of actions such as this would tend to
underrepresent the hard-to-count populations and over represent
other populations.
Three, the risk of introducing serious errors into the 2020
census apportionment counts before the quality and accuracy of
the 2020 census is understood.
For the 2020 census, little is known at this point
regarding quality, accuracy, and most importantly, the number
of undocumented persons that will actually be enumerated.
I am very concerned that a much lower number of
undocumented persons will be counted in the 2020 census
relative to previous censuses due to increased fear that their
information will not be secure.
At the same time, a significant portion of legal residents
could be over counted. It will take very careful analysis to
understand the properties of the 2020 census and to determine
how many, if any, undocumented persons are included in the
enumeration.
This analysis will not be available when the apportionment
count is released. Therefore, using the existing estimates of
the undocumented population to reduce the 2020 census numbers
would have unknown and possibly serious adverse effects on the
accuracy of the resulting apportionment.
Four, there must be transparency in how the estimates of
the undocumented population are constructed. The 2020 census is
the foundation of our democracy and there must be assurances
that any actions that would affect the census are based on
objective methodologies. A long-held principle of the Census
Bureau is openness and transparency.
Five, the importance of not even giving the appearance of
political interference with the conduct and tabulation of the
2020 census.
Perceptions that the results of the 2020 census have been
manipulated for political purposes will greatly erode public
and stakeholder confidence not only in the 2020 census but in
our democracy.
When I was directing the 2000 census as a career executive
under the leadership of Census Bureau Director Dr. Kenneth
Prewitt, we went to great lengths to assure all stakeholders
that data-driven decisions were being made and that there was
no consideration of politics in the conduct of the census.
I would strongly urge the current Census Bureau and
Department of Commerce senior officials to follow these
principles for the 2020 census.
In conclusion, thank you for this opportunity and I look
forward to answering any questions that you may have.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The chair now recognizes
herself for five minutes for questions. I would like, first, to
thank all of you for joining us today.
It is powerful to hear from four former Census directors
who have been appointed by presidents of both parties.
Collectively, you have served Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy
Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald
Trump.
On July 21, the president issued a memo directing the
Secretary of Commerce to provide him with the information
necessary to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census
count for apportionment purposes.
Many people have opined already that the president's
memorandum is unlawful and unconstitutional. I have studied it
closely and believe it violates the clear language of the
Constitution and existing Federal laws.
But I want to ask each of you the same question for a yes
or no answer.
In your opinion and based on your knowledge and experience,
does the president's July 21 memo seeking to exclude
undocumented immigrants from the apportionment base appear to
violate existing Federal law and historically enduring views of
the Constitution, yes or no.
Mr. Barabba?
Mr. Barabba. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Dr. Eastman?
Mr. Eastman. No.
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Prewitt?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Groves?
Mr. Groves. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Second question. Based on your
knowledge and experience, does the Constitution require the
census to count every person living in the United States at the
time of the census, including undocumented immigrants?
Mr. Barabba, yes or no?
Mr. Barabba. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Dr. Eastman?
Mr. Eastman. No.
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Prewitt?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Groves?
Mr. Groves. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. A third question. Based on your
knowledge and experience, do you agree that the Federal law
requires the president to send Congress an apportionment count
based on the census count of the total population of the U.S.,
including undocumented immigrants?
Mr. Barabba, yes or no?
Mr. Barabba. Yes. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Dr. Eastman? Dr. Eastman?
Mr. Eastman. No. No.
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Prewitt?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Groves?
Mr. Groves. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. And, last, and is it correct that all
previous censuses and apportionment counts in the history of
the United States have included both citizens and noncitizens,
including undocumented immigrants?
Mr. Barabba, yes or no?
Mr. Barabba. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Dr. Eastman, yes or no?
Mr. Eastman. No.
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Prewitt?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Groves?
Mr. Groves. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. I think that all of these
answers speak for themselves. The president may not pick and
choose who is included in the census count or the apportionment
base.
The Constitution, Federal law, and the historic practice of
the Census Bureau dating back more than two centuries all
require the census count and the apportionment base to include
every person in the United States, regardless of their
immigration status.
I now yield to the distinguished ranking member for five
minutes for questions.
Mr. Comer. Dr. Eastman, thank you for testifying today, and
let me be crystal clear. I strongly support the president's
order. I want to start with a few basic questions.
What is the constitutional and legal justification for the
president's apportionment decision, briefly?
Mr. Eastman. Well, the Constitution says count all persons
in the several states. That refers to the people of the several
states. That refers to the people of the United States.
As the Indians in the tax exclusion clause makes clear, it
was designed to cover citizens. Those are the people that we
are choosing representatives to represent. It doesn't include
people who are here visiting and, certainly, not people who are
here visiting unlawfully.
Mr. Comer. Right. So, why is using total population not a
good metric for an apportionment count?
Mr. Eastman. Well, for many of our nation's--much of our
Nation's history, total population was, roughly, approximate in
district by district to citizen population.
That is no longer the case, and the political theory and
the text and the reference to the people that is contained in
the Constitution suggests that we now take account of the fact
that we have great disparities, district to district, for
apportionment purposes on the number of citizens versus the
total population.
Mr. Comer. Will you briefly explain the principle of one
person one vote?
Mr. Eastman. Well, the idea of one person one vote, set out
by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims is tied to the idea of
representative government, that we should each have an equal
vote in who our--we are going to choose as our representative.
We are not talking about other people in the world having a
say in who we choose as our representatives. It is one person,
and that means one citizen one vote because those are the
people that are choosing who is going to represent them in this
particular place in this particular government.
It is not a world government. It is a government of the
people of the United States.
Mr. Comer. So, for the issue at hand, can you explain how
counting illegal immigrants for purposes of apportionment
dilutes the political power of citizens and legal immigrants in
states with fewer illegal immigrants?
Mr. Eastman. Take two states, like California, 2.5 million
estimate illegal immigrants. That is, roughly, three or four
additional congressional seats beyond what the citizen
population would allow, and you are diluting the votes of
citizens in other places that have not encouraged such illegal
immigration into their states.
If our representative government is going to be based on
citizens, then diluting the vote of citizens to overweight the
apportionment in the number of seats, and it is not just seats
in Congress.
It is seats--it is votes in the Electoral College for
president as well. And this is not partisan. California and
Florida and Texas would all lose seats if the president's order
is upheld. That is, you know, some on the Democrat side, some
on the Republican side.
This goes more to the basic notion of representative
government, and who it is our elected representatives are
supposed to be representing, and it is citizens here. It is not
people from elsewhere in the world.
Mr. Comer. So, doesn't counting illegal immigrants for
purposes of the apportionment base distort the principle of one
person one vote?
Mr. Eastman. It most certainly does and it dilutes the
votes of legitimate citizen voters in states that have low
numbers of illegal immigrants or other foreign nationals
present within their borders.
Mr. Comer. My last question. How does the president's
memorandum on apportionment restore equal representation in
apportionment in the House of Representatives?
Mr. Eastman. Well, it gets back to the apportionment base
that I think our Constitution envisioned, certainly, the theory
of our Declaration of Independence envisioned, and that is the
one people that are choosing our representatives we are going
to apportion that people according to state and allot the
number of congressional seats based on that, not however many
people we can cram into the state leading into the census to
bolster up our numbers.
It is citizens who are choosing representatives. It is
citizens those representatives are representing and, therefore,
the apportionment ought to be tied to citizenship.
Mr. Comer. Well, Dr. Eastman, you have done an excellent
job explaining this issue that I think an overwhelming majority
of Americans support. I appreciate your testimony and look
forward to further questions.
Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Representative Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair, and this is an
important hearing and I appreciate this hearing.
I would like to approach this--my question from a
constitutional basis, as I practiced constitutional law before
I was elected to Congress.
The Trump administration's attempt to exclude undocumented
immigrants from the citizen count appears to me to be plainly
unconstitutional.
The language of the Constitution is pretty clear. Article 1
Section 2 says that the apportionment of representatives shall
be based on, quote, ``the actual enumeration of,'' and here are
the words, ``the whole number of persons.'' Persons. I am
underlining that.
The Fourteenth Amendment says, ``Representatives shall be
apportioned''--again, I am quoting--``among the several states
according to their respective numbers, counting the whole
number''--here again is that word--``of persons in each
state.''
Persons. I don't see citizens and I don't see any other
word, such as voters. So, I really don't need to have taught
Constitutional law the way I did.
You don't need a law degree of any kind or a dictionary to
go through the exercise I have just gone through. Whole number
of persons in each state, every single person. Since most of
you have been directors of the Census Bureau, for the record, I
would like your answers to the following.
Does--in your understanding, does the term ``whole number
of persons'' in each state include undocumented immigrants
living in the United States?
Mr. Barabba?
Mr. Barabba. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Prewitt?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Groves?
Mr. Groves. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Ms. Norton. I would like to ask each of you, based on your
experience--your actual experience--a related question. During
your tenure as director of the Census Bureau did you have any
doubt that the Constitution requires the census count to
include undocumented immigrants living in the United States?
Mr. Barabba?
Mr. Barabba. No, I did not have any doubts.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Prewitt?
Mr. Prewitt. No.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Groves?
Mr. Groves. No doubts.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. No doubts.
Ms. Norton. Let me direct you--if the Trump administration
had any doubts they might go to the Census's own website. Here
is a question from that website--Bureau's website--entitled,
Fighting 2020 Census Rumors. Setting the Record Straight.
Question: Are noncitizens counted in the census? Answer:
Yes, everyone counts. The 2020 census counts everyone living in
the country including noncitizens. I put this on the record
because anything this hearing--conclusions we come to should be
based on just such documented evidence.
The administration might also have looked at a letter sent
to Congress from the Justice Department in 1989 when George H.
W. Bush was president and Attorney General Bill Barr was the
head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel.
That letter affirms the department's--the Justice
Department's conclusion that both the enumeration clause and
the Fourteenth Amendment, quote, ``require''--and here I am
quoting them--``the inhabitants of states who are illegal
aliens to be included in the census.''
Mr. Thompson, as the most recent Census director on this
panel, could you briefly explain why you believe it is
important that the census include everyone, every living
person, in the United States, not just citizens or voters?
Mr. Thompson. Certainly. So, the Census Bureau is charged
with a very difficult task and that is counting everyone in the
United States.
The Census Bureau has no enforcement powers whatsoever.
They are a statistical agency. So, they wouldn't even have the
ability to try to ascertain someone's legal status or not legal
status.
Now, I might add, that if they tried to do that then they
would produce counts that were seriously flawed.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. I
yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The chair now recognizes Representative
Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Dr. Eastman, in your testimony and opinion piece you wrote
in June of last year, you connected the citizenship question to
the fundamental notion engrained in our system of government,
the consent of the governed.
Representation is based on such consent and this notion was
confirmed in the Fourteenth Amendment, which excluded Indians
not taxed because they were not part of the political body. You
conclude then that citizenship is at the core of
representation.
However, in today's discussion, we are again addressing the
question of whether we can allocate representation based on the
known presence of millions of individuals who are not citizens.
Question to you, do you feel that President Trump's
memorandum calling for an apportionment count that tallies only
the number of citizens and legal residents in a state is in
line with the core founding tradition of the Fourteenth
Amendment?
Mr. Eastman. I do. Not only is it in line with it, I think
it is compelled by it. The notion of consent of the governed
requires that we apportion our representatives based on who is
going to be governed, not on people who are here illegally or
people who are temporarily visiting, or Indians not taxed. I
think the Supreme Court's decision in Elk v. Wilkins is very
clear.
The reason that clause is there, Indians are not taxed or
excluded from the count, is because they are not citizens.
Well, the Indians not taxed right now are illegal immigrants or
foreign nationals who are visiting this country that are not
part of our body politic. The same principle applies.
Mr. Gosar. That has a lot to do with application of our
laws to the governed as well as trying to make sure that we are
beholden to the country, would it not?
Mr. Eastman. It does. Look, the very notion of consent of
the governed is that a particular people decide on the kind of
government they are going to have and who the representatives
in that government are going to be to govern them in order to
best secure the inalienable rights that they have from nature
and nature's guide.
It is not designed to give other people a voice. I mean,
why have we spent the last three years concerned about Russia
interference in our election if we think anybody from the world
over ought to have a say in the choosing and the allotment of
our representatives?
The fact of the matter is it is the body politic, the
particular people that choose our representatives to govern
ourselves and to apply laws to other people while they are
visiting here, but they are not the governing body. They are
not the political regime.
Mr. Gosar. Dr. Eastman, you actually heard the discussion
from the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. You know,
she says that the--specifically that citizens are not
enumerated. Can you address that?
Mr. Eastman. Sure. So, it says counting the number of--
whole number of persons, but it says their representatives, and
the ``their'' refers back to the people in the states, in the
several states.
``The people'' refers back to the very opening language of
the Constitution, ``We, the people of the United States,''
allotted according to the people in the states and it is those
persons that we are going to count.
We have never in our history counted every single
individual who happens to be within the state at the time of
the census. We have not counted visitors. We have not counted
Indians not taxed. We have not counted diplomats.
The principle of reason why we don't count such folks is
they are not part of the people. They are not persons that form
part of the people in the states that are the people of the
United States.
You can't read that one word in isolation, as she did. It
is part of the larger language of Article 1 Section 2 as well
as the Preamble and it is part of the principles that are set
out in the Declaration of Independence tied back to the very
notion of consent of the governed.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you.
Finally, Madam Chairwoman, I would like to express my
concern with the actions of this body over the past several
years. Partisan leadership has forced this committee to
consider this simple question of having a person identify
themselves as citizen on numerous times.
However, we have only had a few hearings on the topic of
issues like hard-to-count populations, an issue for my district
and I am sure districts of several other members of this
committee.
This misdirection has forced this committee to deal with
how we ask one question to non-Americans more so than how we
ensure Americans in these hard-to-count populations so it can
participate in the entire census, even though the majority
constantly states its intentions to count every person.
American voters and American tax dollars send us all to
Washington, DC, to provide for and oversee the census. Yet,
partisan leadership has neglected its true intention, which
concerns members like myself who are focused on ensuring their
constituents get their proper representation and protection
from their Federal Government.
Maybe we ought to entertain that if we are going to give
another stimulus what we ought to do is ask that they fulfill
filling out their census if you wanted to get everybody's vote.
Maybe that is an incentive that we could go by.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The chair now recognizes Representative
Lynch.
[No response.]
Chairwoman Maloney. We now recognize Representative Cooper.
Mr. Cooper. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Maloney, and also
I would like to honor Delegate Norton. Your line of questioning
has exposed the fact that for those not keeping score back home
that virtually every living director of the census supports
your view that the president has taken a unilateral and
outrageous version of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is
probably unconstitutional.
You would think that a country as old and as distinguished
as America would be able to reputably count its own citizens
and follow the precedent established by every living Census
director to count not only citizens but others such as
undocumented people in each district.
There are countless questions surrounding the census and an
issue we are facing in my congressional district is this. I am
told that outreach specialists, partnership specialists, will
have their contracts terminated September 30 and that the
census will continue until October 31.
So, I would like to find out from the previous Census
directors what effect this could have on the accuracy of the
count when partnership specialists are terminated a month
early, a month before the census has ended.
I do not know the impact of this decision on enumerators
themselves, but it would seem that partnership specialists
would not have been hired unless they added some value to the
process.
So, I would like to hear from Mr. Prewitt, Mr. Groves, Mr.
Barabba, and Mr. Thompson about the effect of this premature
and early termination of census specialists on the accuracy of
the count.
Mr. Barabba. This is Mr. Barabba. Let me speak first.
In fact, yesterday I talked to the individual who is
responsible for the area in which I live and she was very
concerned that we would be--her contract would be eliminated
one month before the activity is completed.
She had reached out to many, many organizations throughout
the area and keeping in contact with them is important to the
absolute completion of the census, particular in areas that we
have in our district in our area like Salinas and other areas
which have significant minority populations.
Mr. Groves. Let me--this is Bob Groves. Let me just
comment.
If there is one piece of evidence that we have with great
assurance it is that local community leaders that have the
trust of diverse communities in their areas are key to the
original response, the self-response, as well as the
nonresponse followup stage.
We know this from several decades of work. Any interference
in their performance will affect the quality of the census and
we should avoid it whenever possible.
Mr. Cooper. Is it going too far to say that the----
Mr. Prewitt. This is----
Mr. Cooper. Go ahead.
Mr. Prewitt. Sorry. Just one more
[Inaudible] of this. We have a vast pro bono labor force
out there trying to help us do the census. This was launched in
the 2000 census.
It had never existed before, and it is responsible for the
fact that we have a self-response and a nonresponse of the
people who don't respond. It is attributable to that crowd of
people, and they are in the thousands, in the thousands.
They are school teachers, they are union leaders, they are
Chambers of Commerce leaders, in the thousands to help us do
this census and they think their job is to count everyone.
Mr. Cooper. What can communities do to prevent the
termination of these partnership specialists or to, if need be,
supplement or substitute the work of these specialists in that
crucial month of October?
Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Barabba. I am not sure what communities could do but
the Congress can certainly do something, and that is to make
sure that the period is extended.
Mr. Thompson. So, as my former colleagues have all said, a
really important component of getting a complete count is
getting--is getting the message out on the local level that the
census is very important to your community and, very
importantly, that the census is completely confidential, which
is not a message that can go out from Washington.
We started these programs in the 2000 census and we saw
some dramatic decreases in the undercounts of various hard-to-
count populations.
So, for the month of October, it is critical that local
communities, local leaders keep getting those messages out
about why the census is important to their community and that
it is completely confidential. The census doesn't share
information with anyone.
Mr. Cooper. I thank the chair. I see that my time has
expired.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes Congressman Jordan.
[No response.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Congresswoman Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Eastman, the president's memorandum notes the
interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment term, quote,
``persons in each state,'' end quote, is subject to judgment.
Leading up to each decennial census, the Census Bureau releases
a detailed rule on determining residency for each decennial
census count. Do you agree that the standard for residency is
subject to judgment?
Mr. Eastman. I do, and we have routinely altered that. We
have included people who are long-term residents in the state
but not short-term residents.
We have included people who are no longer residents in a
state but are abroad because of work or military service or
what have you, and every census those parameters.
Ms. Foxx. So, do you believe it is appropriate for
residency criteria to change to exclude illegal aliens?
Mr. Eastman. I do.
Ms. Foxx. Mr. Thompson, when you were director you drafted
the current residency rules for the 2020 census. Is that
correct?
Mr. Thompson. Yes, it is, Congresswoman.
Ms. Foxx. So, it is fair to say that you support counting
every person residing in the United States, legal or illegal.
Is that correct?
Mr. Thompson. That is correct.
Ms. Foxx. OK. When you were director, did you support
changing the rules for military residency?
Mr. Thompson. I did.
Ms. Foxx. So, let me understand this. There are many
Americans who reside overseas including military personnel, yet
they are enumerated as if they were residing in the United
States.
But they aren't residents because they are not present on
April 1, 2020. So, using your logic, military personnel
deployed abroad should be excluded. Is that correct?
Mr. Thompson. No, ma'am. We did a lot of review of the
previous census residence rules. We put them out in the Federal
Register for comment, and based on a lot of input, we made the
decision that we should count the overseas military in the
United States.
Ms. Foxx. OK. Well, that is absolutely the way it should
be, in my opinion. But because we recognize these individuals
are normally U.S. residents but were asked to serve abroad and
will return when their short service is over.
They are serving the country and deserve to be counted and
represented. But their representation is diluted by illegal
aliens being counted, even though they have broken our laws to
come here.
Mr. Thompson, another question for you. The 2020 census
residency criteria changed how prison inmates are counted. For
the 2020 census, prison inmates are enumerated at their prison,
which is technically their residence on Census Day. Is this
correct?
Mr. Thompson. That is correct, and that is where they have
been counted in most censuses.
Ms. Foxx. OK. Well, it is very controversial because some
people believe that they should be counted at their residence
pre-incarceration because that is their normal residence, not
the prison.
Some people argue you are diluting the representation of
inmates by counting them at their prisonsites. So, you believe,
though, the prison inmates' representation is diluted--do you
believe that it is diluted because of how the census enumerates
their location?
Mr. Thompson. So, the final decisions on where to count the
prisoners were made after I actually left government service.
But I support the Census Bureau's decision to count the
prisoners where they are incarcerated.
Ms. Foxx. So, you believe the fair representation of prison
inmates. Why do you support the dilution of prison inmates and
other citizens' constitutional representation by supporting the
counting of illegal aliens?
Mr. Thompson. Throughout my experience at the Census
Bureau, which included 27 years as a career employee and then
four years as a political appointee as director, I operate
under the guidance that the census was the count everyone in
the United States, regardless of status.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
We now recognize Congressman Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Can you hear me?
Chairwoman Maloney. We can hear you.
Mr. Lynch. Great. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, for holding
this very important and very timely hearing, and I want to
thank all of our witnesses as well.
I would like to ask a question of Mr. Barabba, Mr. Groves,
Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Prewitt. I notice that back in April you
each signed a public letter supporting the Bureau's request to
delay this process, and I think, Mr. Prewitt, you were quoted
in one of the articles that I read.
You said that, ``The truth is that the only thing in charge
of this census right now is the virus, not the Bureau, not the
president, and the virus will be in charge until it isn't.''
Mr. Prewitt, would it be correct to say that the
coronavirus presents an enormous challenge to the Census Bureau
to conduct an accurate and timely count of the American people
under these conditions?
Mr. Prewitt. A huge, huge challenge, unprecedented.
Mr. Lynch. Yes. Now, the reason that--I am assuming that
the reason that you requested the delay was to give the Bureau
more time. I mean, this is--this is the largest and most
complex census ever conducted in this country.
Then you add--and that is in normal times. Then you add in
the pandemic and the limitation on the enumerators and people
being hunkered down.
I guess I am assuming that you all wrote that letter based
on it being in the best interest of the country. Is that
correct?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barabba. Yes, sir.
Mr. Groves. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Now, this most recent memorandum that the
president submitted last week directing the Census Bureau to
take a whole different approach to this census, in the middle
of the census, it seems to me that this new memorandum of
questionable legality, really, will require the Bureau to
dedicate considerable resources and a huge work around in light
of the new memorandum. Would that be a correct assumption here?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes.
Mr. Barabba. It would.
Mr. Groves. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. So, you have got this whole shift in resources,
this redeployment, and a whole different program that has been
put in as of last week directing the Census Bureau to change
their plans, and yet--and yet on Monday the Census Bureau also
posted on its website that despite this huge demand on
resources that arose last week with the president's memorandum,
the Census Bureau says that it is working toward this plan to
complete the field data collection by October 31, 2020.
Do you think it is feasible to dedicate all those resources
to the object of the new memorandum and, yet, not have the
accuracy of the census impacted?
Mr. Prewitt. Right now, the Census, I believe, sir, is at
risk of being inadequate to do the task it is charged to do, a
serious risk. And I would like to take as much of the burden
off of them as we can. That is operational burden, timing
burden, and so forth.
I was extremely disappointed when it turned out that they
were not going to get the four-month extension going on into
2021, which we were counting on and they were planning around
that, and then suddenly there is a reversal on that decision.
In my sense, the chances of having a census accurate enough
to use is unclear. Very, very much unclear whether we will even
have a census.
That is why the debate about the illegals or undocumented
is beside the point if we are not even going to have a census
that we can take to the American people, and that is what I am
worried about.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much, Mr. Prewitt.
Madam Chair, my time has expired and I yield back. Thank
you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
I now recognize Representative Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a couple of reports, one of which is from the Pew
Research Center, about the transient nature of people who are
here and are here unauthorized, here illegally.
About 40 percent of the people who are here illegally are
here--won't even be here for the next census. Given that, the
transient status of millions of foreign residents in the U.S.,
doesn't it make it even more problematic to include
unauthorized noncitizens, people who are here illegally and who
are here temporarily, to be counted for apportionment, Dr.
Eastman?
Mr. Eastman. Yes, I agree, and I think it applies to legal
temporary immigrants as well, people on temporary work visas or
student visas.
Mr. Palmer. Well, the point being----
Mr. Eastman. It is a very transient population, yes.
Mr. Palmer. Yes, sir. The point being is that these are not
people who will be here to participate in our government in any
form or fashion.
I would like to also point out that 60 percent of the
unauthorized immigrants, the people who are residing here
illegally, reside in just 20 metro areas that are self-declared
sanctuary cities, counties, or states.
By violating Federal law by establishing themselves as
sanctuaries for people here illegally, including some who have
committed felonies, by the way, have these states created an
advantage for themselves that could cause harm to states that
aren't declared as sanctuaries?
Dr. Eastman?
Mr. Eastman. Yes. Yes, they do. Depending on the
distribution of the illegal immigrant population, states that
are encouraging illegal immigration stand to gain a large
number of seats in the House of Representatives as well as
votes in the Electoral College president----
Mr. Palmer. Well, could that----
Mr. Eastman [continuing]. To the detriment of other states.
Mr. Palmer. Doesn't that create an incentive for certain
states and certain places to declare themselves sanctuaries to
give benefits, to give protection from prosecution for whatever
crimes they might commit to increase the number of people in
those areas to give them this advantage? I mean, isn't that a
rational thing to do if you are already acting in contradiction
to Federal law?
Mr. Eastman. Well, it is rational in the short term,
Representative Palmer, and not so much in the long term. But,
you know, Alabama is likely to lose a seat in Congress and an
electoral vote for president as a result of this kind of
encouragement for illegal immigration to reside in certain
states like California.
Mr. Palmer. Well, speaking of rational, and I try to be
rational. I try to be linear in my thinking so I start and
follow evidence to where it might lead.
Your points early on about the right to self-government
resides with the citizens, not with noncitizens, whether they
are here legally or illegally, and to make this point, we don't
allow foreign citizens residing in the United States, whether
they are here legally or illegally, to run for office, do we?
Mr. Eastman. No, we don't.
Mr. Palmer. OK. We don't allow people who are here from
foreign countries, whether they are here legally or illegally,
to make campaign contributions to U.S. candidates, do we?
Mr. Eastman. No, we do not.
Mr. Palmer. Presumably, we don't allow people who are here
from foreign countries, whether they are here legally or
illegally, to vote in our elections, do we?
Mr. Eastman. It is illegal for them to vote, although we
have got evidence that large numbers have voted.
Mr. Palmer. That is why I say presumably.
So, let me ask each of the other panelists. Are those laws
fair?
Mr. Prewitt--Dr. Prewitt, are those laws fair? Should we
allow foreign citizens to run for office, to make financial
contributions to candidates, or to vote in our elections? It is
a yes or no.
Mr. Prewitt. Let me just--I am sorry. You are asking me a
question?
Mr. Palmer. No. No. It is a yes or no. Do we--should we
allow foreign citizens to run for office, should we allow
foreign citizens to make campaign contributions, should we
allow them to vote in our elections whether they here legally
or illegally? It is a yes or no. Your silence is----
Mr. Prewitt. That is what the law is now and I agree with
the law.
Mr. Palmer. OK. That is a great legal answer.
Mr. Thompson, yes or no?
Mr. Thompson. I agree with the laws in the United States.
Mr. Palmer. That is a--you agree that we shouldn't allow
that.
Dr. Eastman, I think I know your answer but give me a quick
answer, yes or no.
Mr. Eastman. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Palmer. All right. If that is the case, why in the
world would we think it should be legal to allow people who are
here illegally or legally to be counted for apportionment to
influence our government when close to 40 percent of them won't
even be here for the next census? Can you answer that? It
doesn't make sense, does it?
Mr. Eastman. Yes, I don't--it doesn't make sense and I
don't think it is consistent with the theory and the text of
the Constitution either.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentlemen. I yield back.
Madam Chairman, I would like to enter these documents into
the official record.
Chairwoman Maloney. May I see what the documents are?
Mr. Palmer. Yes, ma'am. They are documents from the Pew
Research Center and one of them is from the Migration
Population Institute located here in Washington, DC.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. Without objection.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the chairwoman and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. I now recognize Representative
Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for
your long leadership on trying to preserve an accurate census
and a fair and transparent process associated with it. Your
leadership has meant a great deal and has served our country
well. Thank you.
I must say, listening to this discussion, Dr. Eastman would
be apparently very happy with the decision of Roger Taney and
the Supreme Court that ruled on Dred Scott because in that
decision they decided that no African American, free or slave,
was a citizen of the United States deserving of any of the
privileges of white people.
But that is actually the language of the ruling and,
therefore, no blacks would have been counted in the census and
we would have had millions of Americans declared noncitizens,
under Dr. Eastman's logic, not counted in a census and we would
have had no picture of America, especially south--at the
southern part of America in terms of the actual demographics
just how tolerable the numbers were of African Americans per
the Constitution were singled out to be counted as three-fifths
of a person for the purpose of census which, by the way,
inflated the numbers of southern representation to the Congress
at the time.
You know, immigrants throughout American history have been
subject to this kind of smear and innuendo we have been
listening to. You know, they are all criminals. They are all
trying to cheat. States are using them to inflate their
numbers.
You know, there were movements in the 19th century, the
Know Nothing Party, to ban them, to deny them the vote. Irish
immigrants--there was a big movement in New York in the mid-
19th century to deny Irish immigrants the right to vote because
they were illiterate, they were ignorant, they worshipped a
foreign religion.
They weren't really Americans. This kind of nativism, this
kind of bigotry, frankly, has no place in the carrying out of
the census.
The language of the Constitution--and for a crowd that
talks about originalism, well, the language is clear. It says
persons. It doesn't say citizens. It says persons.
It wants to get a feel how many people are here at a given
time. How many people are residing in the United States of
America. Not what their future intentions are, not what their
status is.
Are they residing here, for the purpose of understanding
the population of the United States at any given time, and that
is how the census has been carried out.
Let me ask Mr. Prewitt, and all of the former directors
could answer this as well. Have we ever adopted, to your
knowledge, in the carrying out of the census in modern times a
selective process of not enumerating certain individuals
because of their status?
Mr. Prewitt. No, sir.
Mr. Barabba. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Groves?
Mr. Groves?
[No response.]
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. None.
Mr. Connolly. And why do you think we need to have account
of the people, the persons, residing in the United States? Why
is that important? Why isn't Dr. Eastman right--let us only
count citizens--full-blooded American citizens and nobody else?
Mr. Prewitt. My quick answer on that is they--they are
paying taxes if they put gasoline in their car. They are paying
property taxes if they live someplace. That is, they are
functioning as people living in a country and, more than that,
that you have a really difficult, difficult situation to
uncount from.
I don't think the under members of the committee have paid
enough attention to my first point. We do not know--the Census
Bureau does not know how to do what the president is asking
them to do and it is going to hurt the census and, therefore,
we are at risk of not having the census in 2020.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Thompson, is it--is it the case that, for
example, throughout American history this is what we have done?
We counted immigrants whether they were citizens or not in
the 19th century at the turn of the 20th century as well as
currently. Isn't that the case?
Mr. Thompson. That is the case.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. So, this--what Dr. Eastman is
propounding sounds reasonable except it would fly in the face
of over 200 years of practice and American history and, in my
view, would flaunt the actual words of the Constitution of the
United States.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Representative Roy.
Mr. Roy. Madam Chairman, before I start, may I ask which of
the experts remain available for response?
Chairwoman Maloney. I believe--I believe Mr. Groves had an
appointment at 11 and had to leave but the rest are there.
Mr. Roy. So, Mr. Barabba, Prewitt, and Thompson are all
available?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Roy. OK. Thank you. Sorry.
Mr. Eastman, let me ask you just a quick question about the
law. If I recall correctly, there was a case in which Justice
Thomas in 2001 in dissent clarified that there was a split in
the circuits and a split in the law, Ninth Circuit versus the
Fourth and the Fifth, as to what the court's position would be
on the question at hand, on apportionment and what we are
talking about.
Is that true and would you expound on that? Very briefly,
because I need to move on.
Mr. Eastman. Yes. So, it was a case out of Hawaii that was
dealt with. They wanted to apportion locally based on citizen
population rather than total population. The court upheld that
and there was language in it that strongly suggested such was
compelled by the notion of representative government.
Judge Kozinski on the Ninth Circuit specifically said that
even though the decision doesn't absolutely require that
technically, the logic of it compels it and I think that is
right.
If I could go back. Representative Connolly, I know you are
protected by the speech and debate clause, but that doesn't
mean I should not respond to the slanderous statement you made.
I do not defend Judge Taney's decision in Dred Scott. In
fact, I am a vigorous defender of the dissenting opinions in
that. It was an absolutely wrong decision. African Americans
were treated as citizens in this country and Taney was wrong.
I will not let you get away with the slander just because
you are protected by the speech and debate clause.
Mr. Roy. Well, Professor, I was going to give you an
opportunity to respond. I am glad you did. I was going to ask
you that question. I thought it was irresponsible of my
colleague to ask a question along those lines and I am glad
that you responded.
It was not appropriate to direct that toward you on a very
debatable question, a very real question, and at a bare minimum
we can all agree that there is a split in the jurisprudence or
a difference of opinion in the jurisprudence on whether or not
apportionment should be accounted for in the way we are
discussing, and that this is a live question and that
citizenship, in fact, matters.
The citizenship must matter. If we are to be a nation of
laws and if we are going to have citizens vote, citizens
running for office, that we should have a robust debate and
discussion and that, frankly, this body, this Congress, ought
to act.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent last
year fighting every ounce of effort on the part of this
administration or this body and Republicans in this body to try
to ask a question, a simple question, on the census as to
whether or not you are a citizen or not.
The vast majority of Americans recognize that that is an
important question to ask. But I would just say again to the
professor we agree. At a bare minimum, there is a split in the
jurisprudence on this question. Is that correct?
Mr. Eastman. That is correct.
Mr. Roy. Thank you.
A question here for Mr. Barabba, Prewitt, or Thompson, and
I am going to go through a few things because I have a limited
time here, and then I just want to get your yes or no on
whether I am characterizing this appropriately.
My understanding of the way the census counts is that we
have something called count imputation and that we have
something called characteristic imputation, and that in count
imputation we have status count imputation, we have occupancy
count imputation, and we have household size count imputation.
What does this mean for the average listener? It means that
we make stuff up. It means that we have situations where we
literally have an address, we can't find the house, and we
impute to that address the--or I would say the count of a house
nearby.
It means that we go through an occupancy and say, well, we
find the house and there is somebody there but we can't find
them. So, we just say well, you know what, the next-door
neighbor there is five white people in that house so we are
just going to put five white people in this house. Or that we
have household size imputation that says well, we don't know
how many numbers in it.
Well, we don't know if it is one or two or three but we are
just going to guess that it is five or ten based on who is next
door. And that, in fact, we have characteristic imputation
where we go into race and characteristics, and that this is a
reality of what our Census Bureau does in order to achieve
numbers.
Now, that is what is actually going on. Now, there is a
whole another thing where we have the community survey, the
ACS, and I would ask Mr. Eastman, if you would jump in here
real quick, is it not correct that the ACS is used and that the
court acknowledges that it is appropriate for it to use those
estimates and sampling for purposes of the application of the
Voting Rights Act?
Mr. Eastman. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Roy. So, my question here would be would it not,
therefore, of course, be appropriate to use, if you are a
state, for redistricting purposes, not apportionment?
Let me just ask this question--for redistricting purposes
the same data if you are going to use it for the Voting Rights
Act?
Mr. Eastman. Yes, absolutely, and it is more current
because it is taken every year instead of just the decennial
census.
Mr. Roy. You should use the ACS in this case. If we are
going to be doing apportionment you can use the ACS for
apportionment?
Mr. Eastman. I believe we could, certainly, to coincide
with the census.
Mr. Roy. So, my question to the former directors of the
Census Bureau, am I incorrect that the Census Bureau does in
fact have to fill holes and make assumptions on data when they
go house to house when they get into this and that imputation
is a way that the Census Bureau does that? Just a yes or no,
and then I will finish my questions, Madam Chair.
Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you for unmuting me. The Census Bureau
has used a technique called count imputation because if they
don't do anything that means they are assuming everything is
vacant or nonexistent, which isn't the case either.
Mr. Roy. Mr. Prewitt?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes, it is a longstanding practice. It is used
as rare as possible. You would much rather get a direct
response. But we don't always get direct responses and we don't
do--just say, oh well, that is too bad, we will just have to
go. These are well established technical statistical processes
that have given us a more complete census than we would
otherwise have.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, sir. Then Mr. Barabba and then I am
done, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Barabba. I concur with my colleagues' comments.
Mr. Roy. Thank you all.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
We now recognize Congressman Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Madam Chair, thank you very much. Thanks for
calling this super important hearing, and it is really
wonderful to hear all of the prior Census directors who
converge around a very simple conclusion, which is that the
president's proposal is a radical break from history and a
radical break from the text of the Constitution, a radical
break from the structure and the spirit and the meaning of the
Constitution.
So, basically, every methodology we have for interpreting
what the Constitution means supports the proposition that we
have been doing it right for more than two centuries. That is,
we have been counting everybody. That is the way we have done
it.
There is no reason to overthrow that right now and what we
are getting, really, from the administration is a whole series
of attacks on the election, attack on mail-in balloting, the
president threatening not to observe the final results of the
election if he doesn't like it, and so on. This is all part of
kind of a anticipatory temper tantrum by the president.
I wanted to correct a couple of things that were floating
out there, specifically about voting and citizenship, and there
seemed to be this false equation between voting and
citizenship.
The Supreme Court has been very clear that they don't imply
one another. There are, obviously, large categories of people
who are citizens who can't vote, starting with children, and
historically the vast majority of citizens couldn't vote
because women couldn't vote as well as children, as well as
people who weren't land owners or property owners.
Conversely, there were lots of people who could vote who
were not citizens for the vast majority of American history,
and even today there are lots of municipalities and localities
which allow people to vote without regard to citizenship in
local elections.
But the way that it--the way that it existed through the
18th and 19th and, really, up to the early 20th century was
that what mattered was race qualifications, gender
qualifications, property and wealth qualifications for voting,
and if you were a Christian white male property owners, it
didn't make any difference what your, quote, ``citizenship''
was, and that was a confusing concept anyway for more than a
century whether that was determined at the state level or the
Federal level. We didn't have these kind of rigid ideas about
citizenship that are being propounded right now.
So, that was a conservative position having to do with land
ownership and property ownership and race and gender for a very
long time. It wasn't until we started getting immigrants coming
in from southern Europe and other places that that turned
around.
But you should go back and check out the history leading up
to the Civil War and the admission of Kansas and Nebraska and a
number of the other states there because it was the Republican
Party which was the great champion of alien suffrage in
America, and the advocate of the idea that if you would be
willing to move out to the Midwestern and the Western states
you should be allowed to vote before you became a citizen.
That was Lincoln's position. That was the position of the
Republican Party. It was the South's position that there were
all these radical immigrants coming over from Europe bringing
anti-slavery ideas that they should--it was their position that
they shouldn't be included for that reason.
In fact, if you look at Article 1 of the Confederate
Constitution of the United States it says that you must be a
citizen of the Confederacy in order to vote, something that we
don't have in the U.S. Constitution, which is why noncitizens
could vote for most of our history and in lots of cities and,
indeed, in corporations.
I wonder if the position on the other side is that you need
to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a member of
a corporate board of directors and to vote in a corporation in
America or to own stock in America. I mean, that would be a
really startling position. But it seems to flow from what they
are saying.
Let me just ask, I got curious about this whole question of
the Indians not taxed that was repeated so joyfully by one of
the witnesses, and I wonder, Mr. Prewitt, if I could come to
you.
What is the situation today of Indians not taxed?
Certainly, there are children who are Native Americans who are
not taxed but also adults who are not paying taxes. Are they
counted today as part of the census despite the constitutional
tax?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes, they are.
Mr. Raskin. Huh. OK. That is interesting.
Let me ask another question of you, Mr. Prewitt. If we were
actually to go ahead and adopt the president's proposal and now
we see why, of course, they were pushing for their citizenship
question, which was struck down by the Supreme Court as lawless
and a violation of the whole Administrative Procedures Act. But
now we know why they were doing it.
But if we were to go ahead with this, how would they
actually--since we don't know who is a citizen and who is not a
citizen, how would they go ahead and try to make that work?
Mr. Prewitt. In my judgment, there is no way. This is what
worries me about this initiative. The expert on administrative
records at the Census Bureau for many, many years and I will
now quote her--she is now at Georgetown University. ``To
produce a good number, that is, a good number separating out
the documented from the undocumented, you need to be able to
draw a clear line between the two categories. But that sharp
definition doesn't exist in the administrative records
available to the Census Bureau.''
This is an article in Science Magazine just published
yesterday. So, we are all anxious about this initiative, not
because of the arguments that are being made about so forth and
so on. It is what it is going to do to the census itself in
2020. And, look, if we don't come up closer to 100 percent than
we are now coming----
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Prewitt [continuing]. Then we are in trouble.
Mr. Raskin. So, Madam Chair, just to conclude, it is not
only unrooted in the text of the Constitution an impractical
but it is a danger to having the real census counted and
completed.
Thank you very much for your indulgence, Madam Chair. I
yield back to you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Congressman Hice?
Congressman Hice? He is online.
You need to unmute yourself, Congressman Hice.
Mr. Hice. OK. All right.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. Great.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank all our witnesses for being here today.
Unfortunately, I think it is, largely, a waste of your time as
yet again it is for ours. I mean, we continue not doing our job
of oversight and in this case specifically as it relates to the
census.
We have--here we are four months into the census and this
is the first time we have had a hearing about it. We have
only--so 120 days into this we are just now getting around to
it, and as Mr. Prewitt shared a little earlier, we may not even
have a census this go around because of the pandemic and other
issues.
Yet, the irresponsibility of this committee to do proper
oversight, this is the only third committee hearing--full
committee hearing--of the year for my count, and it is just
unacceptable that my colleagues have been willing to show up
for work as we have done in the Republican Party.
Perhaps we would be able to continue our oversight, and to
somehow think now that we are engaged in an emergency over this
and even in this emergency hearing we are still not providing
oversight as to what is happening with the census is
unthinkable to me and highly irresponsible.
I would ask the chair if we could get back to the order of
what this committee is supposed to be involved with. But as it
relates to right now, to, again, somehow think that it is
unreasonable or unconstitutional for us as a nation to have the
number of citizens who are in the country as well as the total
number of people in this country is just unthinkable to me.
That this is somehow a radical break for us to know the
number of citizens as well as noncitizens is, in itself, an
absurd way of thinking about all of this, to me. But here,
nonetheless, we are.
Dr. Eastman, I appreciate the testimony that you have given
and the answers you have given. I know this has already been
covered but I think it is worth reiterating again. Is the
president within his authority to direct a memorandum to the
Census Bureau?
Mr. Eastman. I believe he is, and I think the Supreme
Court's decision in the Franklin v. Massachusetts supports
that.
Mr. Hice. Likewise, he is within his authority to ask the
Bureau to send him an apportionment count that includes
citizens and legal residents. Is that correct?
Mr. Eastman. That is correct.
Mr. Hice. OK. And just reiterate, again, why this is so
important that we have a count of citizens, not just--illegals
as well? I mean, we need to know. I am fine if we want to know
the total number here. But the critical aspect is knowing the
citizens. Again, emphasize why that is the case.
Mr. Eastman. The importance of knowing the citizens and
apportioning according to the citizen distribution is because
it is the citizens that control that government. It is not
foreigners that control our government. That is one of the most
basic premises of the consent of the governed principles set
out in the Declaration of Independence.
Mr. Hice. Absolutely. I mean, I don't see what is so
complicated about this. It is illegal for a noncitizen to vote.
It is illegal for them to be involved in our political process.
Yet, now, for all practical purposes, we have a political
class, a political party, that is determined to give citizens
of foreign countries the right to vote in our Federal
elections, to be involved in impacting our Federal elections.
This whole thing, to me, ought to be deeply troubling and,
at worst, it should be seen as election interference. For us to
enable or fight on behalf of individuals who are illegally in
this country to impact the voting power of the citizens in this
country is
[Inaudible]
Quite frankly, if you look back--I don't know, Dr. Eastman,
if you caught any of the D.C. Statehood debate that we had
around here. But it is the same thing then as it is now. It is
all about gaining and strengthening political power for the
Democratic Party.
It shrugs off all norms. It shrugs off common sense. It
shrugs off the law in itself, and I would just thank you again,
for you testimony here today and I would implore my colleagues
on the other side to end these showboat hearings and let us get
back to the work of good census oversight.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, I thank the gentleman for his
testimony, and I would just like to respond to his attack.
I read the president's census memo carefully and I believe
that it is blatantly unconstitutional and that complying with
his memo would violate Federal law. That is why we called this
important hearing, and I would like to say you don't have to
take----
Mr. Hice. Madam Chairwoman is certainly entitled to her
opinion.
Chairwoman Maloney. Sir, may--I did not interrupt you. May
I complete?
You do not have to take my word for it. All four of--four
former Census directors that served both Republican and
Democratic presidents said that they also believe that the
president's memo appears to violate the Constitution and
existing law.
So, this is serious, and I now recognize Congressman Rouda.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Madam Chair.
It must be exhausting for Republicans when the president
tweets out lies and you are forced to defend it. It must be
exhausting to be a Republican when the president of the United
States holds a press conference and sells snake oil salesmen
cures for the coronavirus.
It must be extremely exhausting to come in here and defend
the president of the United States when he takes
unconstitutional actions such as he has done here.
Candidly, I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry that members
of the House of Representatives of the United States of America
are afraid to speak their mind, to speak the opinions that they
hold, to speak the truth that they know in their hearts and
their mind and defend this president at all costs. Defending
the indefensible.
It seems that the primary argument that has been stated, as
Representative Raskin pointed out, at least a half dozen times
in this hearing is that Indians not taxed were not counted.
The utter stupidity in that statement lies in the fact that
undocumented immigrants last year, according to the Internal
Revenue Service, paid $9 billion in payroll taxes. According to
the Internal Revenue Service, undocumented immigrants paid $12
billion in Social Security benefits more than they received.
And according to the Institute of Taxation and Economic
Policy, undocumented immigrants paid $12 billion in state and
local coffers.
Yet, here we are. Here we sit today because of this
memorandum by this president telling us clearly what is most
important to this president. Yet, we sit here today, 140,000 of
our fellow Americans are dead.
Tens of thousands more Americans will die in the coming
months because of the utter lack of leadership by this
president. The economic collapse of our country is unfolding
before our eyes because a president is unwilling to do what is
necessary as the leader of the United States to ensure that we
take the actions we need to take to protect Americans, and tens
of millions Americans are out of work, struggling to figure out
how to pay rent, pay the mortgage, pay medical bills, and put
food on the table for their families.
Yet, here we are today because of this president showing us
and the minions that follow him what is important to them. Not
as a Democrat, not as a former Republican, but as an American.
We are better than this.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
I now recognize Representative Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Chairwoman and Ranking Member, and
thanks to our witnesses.
The right to vote is sacred. As Americans, we are blessed
to live in a country that respects the time-honored tradition
of one person one vote. Wars have been fought, marches have
been led, blood, sweat and tears have been shed defending and
advancing this fundamental right.
Unfortunately, Democrats are attacking this very right and
are trying to disenfranchise American citizens in order to gain
more power. Some states, such as California, have already
flirted with openly allowing illegal immigrants to vote in
state and local elections.
Currently, in California you can register to vote online.
All they require is you check a box certifying that you are a
U.S. citizen and you either provide a Social Security number or
a California driver's license. But remember, driver's license,
which they also grant to illegal immigrants.
Disturbingly, the L.A. Times reported that over 1 million
illegal immigrants had driver's license in California and that
was 2018. The fact is today's Democrat Party leadership, they
don't care about one person one vote.
They care about obtaining power at any cost, even if they
have to attack the very foundation of our republic, American
citizenship, and the right to vote. Now Democrats are
continuing their offensive on the Constitution by attacking the
2020 census.
They have managed to politicize every step in the census
process, even criticizing President Trump for trying to include
a citizenship question. Moreover, Democrats are ignoring
history and the rule of law. The citizenship question has been
included on most censuses from 1820 to 1950 and as recently as
2000.
Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 the questions
inclusive is--inclusion is perfectly legal. Despite this, the
Democrat shenanigans managed to get the question removed by
default since it was too late to add the question before the
surveys were printed.
The citizenship question, when used to determine
apportionment, is a simple manner of fairness and common sense.
American citizens have certain rights that noncitizens do not
have, the most fundamental of which is the right to choose our
leaders.
Democrats are eager to cry foreign interference when it
comes to the Russian hoax. But if we count illegal immigrants
in apportionment, particularly those new to our country, how is
that not foreign interference?
I guess all Russia has to do is send a few thousand people
across our porous southern border into California and they get
an extra vote in Congress.
How is continuing illegal immigrants--counting illegal
immigrants in the census or in the apportionment process not an
assault on the fundamental rights of every American citizen?
I would like to ask my Democrat colleagues if an illegal
immigrant can vote, then what is the point in citizenship? Why
not have France just vote in our elections? What is the point
of our legal immigration system?
There is no escaping the fact that including illegal
immigrants in the apportionment process dilutes the vote of
every single American citizen.
Not only is it unfair, it creates an incentive for states
to accept more illegal immigrations. Authors Hans von Spakovsky
and Mike Gonzalez have written including illegal immigrants in
the apportionment process, quote, ``perversely incentivizes
states to encourage more illegal immigration in violation of
U.S. laws and the well being of American citizens, all in order
to gain more congressional representation. Simply put, those
here illegally should have no say in electing America's
leaders,'' end quote.
Make no mistake. The Democrats are simply grabbing power at
the expense of the American people again. The Democrats have
actually made the point of the unfairness of counting illegal
immigrants for apportionment in this committee today.
Many of the Democrat members have asked in survey fashion a
series of questions of each of our witnesses. The answer: yes,
no, yes, yes, each time. The problem is this. It is a biased
sample.
They allowed us one witness and they provided three
witnesses who share their opinion. It is unfair. It is biased
and it is exactly what we will get if we count illegal
immigrants in apportionment.
It will misrepresent the votes of Americans in states that
abide by our laws. The assertion that the opinion of the Census
directors is somehow reflective of the people of America is
absurd. They are three voices out of 330 million people. Their
opinion counts three out of 330 million.
Rather than helping to get the Census Bureau an accurate
count during a very difficult time with the pandemic, Democrats
are further throwing a wrench in the process by coupling
statutory relief with the census poison pill provisions.
It is shameful. But it all goes to show you the truth.
Democrats are more about power than they are about the
integrity of our elections or the fundamental right of every
American citizen.
Thank you, Chairman, and I yield.
Chairwoman Maloney. I thank the gentleman for his
testimony, and I do want to point out that the Census Bureau is
not asking people about the citizenship status on the 2020
census, which the Trump administration wanted it to do.
They tried to do that. But this was struck down by the
Supreme Court of the United States of America. So, the
citizenship question was removed.
I now recognize Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Representative
Schultz, from the great state of Florida.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am going to present some inconvenient facts that really
fly in the fact of the ridiculous argument that was just made
by the gentleman who previously spoke, and that is that in the
section from census.gov labeled the importance of
apportionment, it reads, ``Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S.
Constitution mandates that an apportionment of representatives
among the states must be carried out every 10 years.''
Therefore, apportionment is the original legal purpose of
the decennial census, as intended by our Nation's Founders.
Apportionment is the process of dividing the 435 membership
seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states
based on the state population counts that result from each
decennial census.
The apportionment results will be the first data published
from the 2020 census and those results will determine the
amount of political representation each state will have in
Congress for the next 10 years.
Not only does the Constitution not qualify what type of
person or category of individual will be counted for
apportionment, the Trump administration's own Census Bureau
specifically leaves out any reference to categorizing the type
of individual that we are counting and whether or not they will
count toward apportionment.
The Founding Fathers intended that everyone living in the
United States other than originally counting slaves,
tragically, as three-fifths of a person should be counted for
the decennial census specifically for apportionment. That is in
the Constitution, too.
So, what is going on here is that the U.S. Supreme Court
scuttled the administration's bigoted plans to try to
intimidate people who are not citizens from answering the
census and, thus, being able to be counted and counted for
apportionment purposes and instead are trying to back door the
citizenship question by using an executive order to not count
those who are not citizens in apportionment.
It is not constitutional, it is not legal, and it is
transparent in its, really, venomous political intent.
My question is that we have a number of--a number of
experts here and I want to just go through a couple of key
facts. This committee's investigation showed that the likely
reason for the citizenship question was electoral politics.
I would like to ask Mr. Barabba do you agree that the
policies proposed by President Trump's memo last week to
exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment count
are consistent with the real objective for the proposed
citizenship question?
That was for Mr. Barabba. Did you hear the question?
Mr. Barabba. I did not hear my name. I am sorry.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is OK.
Mr. Barabba. Would you repeat the question, please?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, Madam Chair, if I can have a few
additional seconds to make sure I don't lose my time.
Do you agree that the policies proposed by President
Trump's memo last week to exclude undocumented immigrants from
the apportionment count are consistent with what their real
objective was in originally proposing the citizenship question?
Mr. Barabba. I believe what he is trying to do is to have
an effect on the outcome of the apportionment process to his
favor.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Could you be a little more specific?
Mr. Barabba. Well, if you count fewer people
[Inaudible] as I pointed out in my testimony, who are low
income, they are more likely to be people who do not vote for
the president because of his positions.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Prewitt, can you explain why
fears in the immigrant community about the census would depress
response rates and, ultimately, lead to a less accurate census
count?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes, because they are afraid that the answers
will be used against them as the--it was, unfortunately,
produced in the 1941 period with the Japanese American 60 years
ago.
We are still talking about that. It cast a very long shadow
over the census, and what we are going through now will cast
another very long shadow. If they are afraid that it will be
used against them, as a group, then they have a reason to sort
of dodge it and not respond to it and hide out.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson, after the issuance of this recent memorandum,
it really is even harder to escape the conclusion that the
Trump administration is attempting to manipulate the census
count for political purposes. If this behavior is normalized,
what impact do you think this will have for the future of our
democracy and ensuring an accurate count in the decennial
census?
Mr. Thompson. So, that is an excellent question,
Congresswoman. It is incredibly important that the census be
viewed as a nonpolitical objective enterprise because it is the
foundation, one of the cornerstones, of our democracy and
perceptions that it is being politicized, as Dr. Prewitt said,
will have a long, long lifespan and it will make it very
difficult to take not only this census but censuses in the
future.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
We now recognize Representative Higgins by remote. He is
online.
Representative Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Madam Chair----
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This type of anti-American rhetoric that I am hearing from
my colleagues across the aisle today is exactly why regular
American patriots don't like politicians and don't trust the
government. What are the Democrats trying to hide right now?
This is the number-one thing. This is the major point that is
incredibly clear.
Across America, from sea to shining sea, by hard-working
American citizens, voting rights in America and congressional
representation in America belong to American citizens, period.
Our nation's fabric has changed through the generation. The
census is conducted primarily for apportionment every 10 years.
This is a--this is a challenge that has evolved and changed
over the course of time, and what we now face is the very clear
fact that illegal residents of our country or illegal occupiers
of our country have significantly affected representation.
What are the Democrats hiding? Illegals interfere with our
republic when it comes to congressional apportionment and
voting.
President Trump's new policy would restore congressional
representation to its rightful owners, the citizens of America.
What are the Democrats hiding? Why would we not want to know
how many citizens versus noncitizens are in our country?
I will tell you why. America, I hope you are paying
attention. Estimates range from 12 million to 25 million
illegal aliens in this country. That is 700,000 constituents
per congressional district. That is 17 to 35 congressional
districts that can be swayed by illegal aliens within our
country.
The 115th Congress majority
[Inaudible] Republican majority was 47. The 116th Congress
the Democrats hold a 34-vote majority. The reality is that
illegal aliens present in our country, if counted for
apportionment, actually do shift the balance of one man one
vote away from densities of population of American citizens
toward densities of population of illegal immigrants.
My colleagues across the aisle don't want America to know
that, but I do, because we prefer to speak the truth, and I--
and I take offense to some of the language that has been used
toward myself and my colleagues by the gentleman prior.
You don't know our heart, sir--good sir. You calling us
minions and other things. You are wrong for that and you know
it. America is watching and they know it.
Mr. Eastman, you are a constitutional scholar, are you not,
good sir?
Mr. Eastman, please unmute yourself.
Mr. Eastman.
[Inaudible] unmute.
Mr. Higgins. My question was are you a constitutional
scholar, sir?
Madame Chair, I would like this time observed.
Mr. Eastman. Let us try again. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Higgins. Yes, sir. Mr. Eastman, my question was are you
a constitutional scholar, sir?
Mr. Eastman.
[Inaudible]
Mr. Higgins. Please unmute yourself, sir.
Mr. Eastman. Yes, I am.
Mr. Higgins. All right. We are back on track here. Welcome
to 21st technology that doesn't work for remote committee
hearings. I urge my colleagues to return to regular order.
Mr. Eastman, are you familiar with the--with the
president's new policy that we are discussing today? Can it not
be challenged in court as constitutional or unconstitutional?
Mr. Eastman. According to
[Inaudible]
Mr. Higgins. Your audio is not functioning, sir.
Mr. Eastman.
[Inaudible] Let us try this. Is that better?
Mr. Higgins. Yes, sir. That is better.
Madam Chair, I would like this time observed--the delay.
Mr. Eastman. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Eastman, my question to you is very
simple. You are familiar with President Trump's policy
regarding the census that we are discussing today. Can this
policy be challenged constitutionally in court or can it not?
Is that not our process?
Mr. Eastman. Well, it has already been challenged in four
different cases in court. I believe when it gets to the Supreme
Court, based on the Franklin v. Massachusetts case, the Trump
policy will be upheld. But it will
[Inaudible]
Mr. Higgins. And if--in the interest of time, if the
President Trump policy is overturned by the Supreme Court,
which is our judicial procedure, I would encourage my
colleagues to wrap their passion up in a judicial challenge
properly. If the president's policy is overturned by the
Supreme Court, then that is it, isn't it?
Mr. Eastman. Well, that is--yes, that is it and Congress
would certainly have a say with a constitutional clarifying
amendment. But I believe the Constitution allows for the policy
already.
Mr. Higgins. Very well. So, prior Supreme Court rulings
that have established by majority rule in the Supreme Court
that an agency's action is final when an agency completes its
decisionmaking process, specifically as it regards to the
census, that the president is not required to transmit the
secretary's report directly to Congress; rather, that he uses
the data from the census in making his statement. Are you
familiar with that rule as written by Justice O'Connor?
Mr. Eastman. Yes, I am. That is the Franklin v.
Massachusetts case to which I have been referring.
Mr. Higgins. Yes, sir. It certainly is.
So, Madam Chair, I thank you for your indulgence. We had
some technical difficulties from the gentleman.
I just want to clarify that what is before us today is the
balance of power of the representative republic if American
citizens that we are supposed to serve, and if any of my
colleagues or fellow Americans across the country have a
problem with the president's decision, then by all means,
follow the constitutional process by which you would challenge
that as to Article 3 and the judicial process.
Madam Chair, I yield.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
I now recognize Congressman Sarbanes from Maryland.
Congressman Sarbanes?
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Madam Chair. Can you hear
me?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, we can.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK. Well, I appreciate the hearing.
You know, fundamentally, you can't run a country if you
don't know how many people are in your country, and that is the
purpose of the census, plain and simple.
It is not a Democratic power grab. This is a patriotic
exercise that we engage in every 10 years to know who is in our
country, how many people, so we know how to provide services
and resources and function as a country.
That is what this is about. This is about being able to
function properly and efficiently as a country so we know where
to build the roads and the hospitals and the schools. I want to
know how many people live in my district.
Whatever district I am representing as a Member of Congress
I need to know how many people there are living in that
district so I know what the schools should be, how many
resources should come behind community health clinics, what is
the capacity of the hospitals that we need and our other health
care providers.
That is the purpose of this, and if we don't take the
census seriously we are not going to be able to function as a
country in an effective way. So, that is what this is about.
This isn't about political power grabs. This is about doing
what makes common sense and what our Constitution calls upon us
to do every 10 years.
Now, I don't want to belabor what the president has done
because it is very clear, based on the testimony, and I think
an easy reading of the Constitution that what the president has
proposed most recently is not only unconstitutional, it is
completely unworkable.
I would like the former directors, if they would, to give
me your perspective on this very delicate line that we are
walking right now.
On the one hand, we know that the census needs to be
completed within a certain period of time so that the data all
works, and the further we get away from April 1 the more
potentially compromised that can be.
On the other hand, we don't want to rush the census in a
way that would undermine its accuracy and I fear that the
president is seeking to do that now, from what I understand. He
is trying to sort of telescope the process here.
So, could you speak, and any of you are invited to weigh in
of the former directors--tell me what your greatest concerns
are right now about our ability to conduct the census in an
efficient way to gather up the data, to be confident in it, and
how do we navigate this window that we have to pull that off?
I will turn it back to the directors.
Mr. Thompson. I can start. The career people who are
experts at making the census requested a four-month extension
of the deadlines that is in their title.
They know what they are doing. They know what it is going
to take to get the census done. Not extending those deadlines
is going to put tremendous pressure on the Census Bureau. It is
not clear what kind of quality counts they can produce if they
don't get the extension. So, it could be a really big problem.
Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Prewitt?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes, I would just add to that, as I tried to
say in my opening testimony, I really do think right now we
ought to be appointing an independent apolitical groups of
statisticians and otherwise informed people--National Academy
of Science can certainly do this--and look at metrics, what
will be telling us that we have a census that is inadequate for
the purposes of reapportionment.
It is inadequate for the purpose of trending over a
trillion dollars and it is inadequate as a base number for all
of our other surveys for 10 years.
I think we are at risk of giving to the country a set of
numbers which will make what previous--what you said at the
very beginning. You want to know how many coming to school, how
many in the hospitals, what is the traffic load, what about
emergency preparation.
All of those depend upon numbers, and I am very worried
that we may not have those numbers at a level at which we are
able to give them to the president at the end of this calendar
year.
So, the extra four months is really important.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate
the opportunity and I think what we are hearing is the politics
need to be kept away from this space.
The president is trying to politicize it. We need to keep
it in a safe zone and get this right and do it properly for the
benefit of the country.
I yield back.
Mr. Barabba. Chairwoman, can I make a comment, please?
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Who is wanting to make a
comment?
Mr. Barabba. Yes. I would just add to what my colleagues
have said that the manner in which the president is positioning
his question on citizenship would me more--it is designed to be
alarming to noncitizens to be counted, and its approach is
going to make it difficult for the census to do its job, which
is to count everyone, every person in this country.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
I now recognize Representative Robin Kelly from remote.
Kelly.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Ms. Kelly. A couple of points I wanted to make, first, that
I have been on Oversight for over seven years and most of that
time I was in the minority, and I never remember the minority
having more than one witness. I just wanted to make that--make
that point.
Then I thought I heard one of my colleagues say that we
want to have the undocumented count because that will help us
with our sanctuary cities. Well, Chicago is a sanctuary city
and New York is a sanctuary city, and we already know that
Illinois will lose one congressional seat.
So, counting the undocumented is not helping us over
another state that you may represent that doesn't want to count
the undocumented.
But I wanted to ask Mr. Groves if undocumented immigrants
do not respond to the census either because they are afraid of
being identified or are motivated because of this memo, what
effect do you predict this will have on the distribution of
Federal funds and would it affect some communities more than
others?
Mr. Prewitt. If I am unmuted I will--Dr. Groves has left.
Ms. Kelly. Oh, I am sorry. That is right.
Mr. Prewitt. Yes, that is right. Yes.
Ms. Kelly. I have been waiting so long.
Mr. Prewitt. I am sorry. I will give you a very quick
response.
Look, right now with respect to the 62 percent of the
public that has sent in a form, that is a highly variable
number state by state that goes up as high as 72 percent and it
goes down as low as 52 percent. That is a 20 percent difference
between those two states.
If that carries forward for the rest of the census, that
means you are going to have states that are counted close to a
100 percent and states that are counted at 80 percent, and that
is not a functional census.
Ms. Kelly. Is that by
[Inaudible]
Mr. Prewitt. Hugely disproportionate the way the Federal
funds get spent because the Federal funds is a fixed number and
it is proportionate to size. So, if somebody is a 100 and
somebody is 80, the one that is 100 is actually going to get 20
more because it is going to be spent somewhere. So, it is a
very serious issue.
Ms. Kelly. Also the other thing is, when I think about one
of the counties I represent is Cook County and even if someone
is undocumented if they need help or care the county or the
city, you know, they still will help.
They just don't, you know, leave people to die or to be
homeless and that kind of thing. They still feel that
responsibility and none of that is free. You know, it costs
money.
Mr. Prewitt. Yes.
Ms. Kelly. So, that is why it is so important.
Madam Chair, I yield back early.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back,
and I now--Representative Grothman is now recognized.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Thank you very much and thank you for
having this hearing. Always enjoyable.
I think there is some confusion, so the first question I
have is for Dr. Eastman. The president's memo, as I understand
it, doesn't include distribution of Federal funds. It is only
for the purposes of apportionment. Am I wrong on that?
Mr. Eastman. No, you are absolutely correct on that. The
two are distinct and actually the constitutional authority is
different for each of the two.
Mr. Grothman. OK. So, this idea that if we don't count
people who are here illegally is going to result in, say, less
Federal aid to the city of Chicago, that is not accurate,
right?
Mr. Eastman. That is not accurate. The count will be there.
The question is what are the numbers we use for apportionment
purposes, not for all the other myriad uses for the census.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Good.
Now, I want to ask you about other people who are--you
know, I happen to live in Wisconsin. There are people who could
be in Wisconsin for a variety of reasons. There could be people
who were born there and will die there and live there their
whole life.
There can be people there who are diplomats from a
consulate in Chicago who are driving around, seeing what is
going on up there. You could have tourists who plan on leaving.
You could have people who spend seven months of the year in
Florida and five months of the year in Wisconsin. You could
have somebody coming over from Iowa who is taking care of an
aging relative and expects to return home.
Could you comment on these different situations? Are all of
these people supposed to be counted for apportionment purposes?
None of these counted for apportionment purposes? If we go
through them, a diplomat, they are not counted, are they, even
though they are in Wisconsin?
Mr. Eastman. No diplomats are counted even though they are
persons in the state, if you want to take the technical reading
that has been offered. Visitors are not counted. Temporary
people passing through are not counted, and I think that is--
Indians not taxed are not counted, we haven't had that category
since citizenship was offered in the 1920's, broadly, to Native
Americans.
But for the first century and a quarter of our Nation's
history they weren't counted. It is because what the--as the
Supreme Court said, what we are aiming for here is who is being
represented, who is in charge, who are the sovereign people
that are choosing the representatives and allocating the
distribution of seats in Congress and electoral votes based on
that.
Mr. Grothman. OK, and I will give you a specific example.
Let us say I am in Wisconsin. Let us say a woman moves into
Wisconsin to take care of her aging mother and expects to
return home from Iowa, has no intention of staying in
Wisconsin. Maybe her mother is even in home hospice. Should she
be counted as a Wisconsin resident?
Mr. Eastman. I don't believe she should be and I don't
think the Census Bureau does. They ask where her normal place
of abode is.
Mr. Grothman. OK. If I am in this country illegally, how
under any circumstances--what contortions would you reach to
say that a person who is here illegally intends to stay
permanently.
I would think if I was caught in a country illegally for
whatever reason, I would expect to return home. Isn't it kind
of insulting to somebody to say if they are here illegally we
are going to make the assumption they are there permanently?
Mr. Eastman. Well, I think so and, you know, you can read
this into the phrase ``in the state.'' The other argument has
been, well, anybody that is residing in the state. Well, they
have added the word ``residing'' to there.
So, why don't we also add the word, more consistent with
the theory, ``lawfully residing there?'' That gets more at the
question of who is being represented--those who are here
lawfully.
Mr. Grothman. Well, right. I am going to go back to the two
situations. If you have someone in Wisconsin taking care of an
aging relative until they pass away, you know, we consider they
are a permanent resident another place, right?
I think, normally, if you have a college student who is in
Wisconsin for nine months and then returns to Iowa that Iowa is
considered their place. They don't intend to stay in Wisconsin
full time.
By what logic could you say if someone, say, is overstaying
a visa and, you know, but plans on returning home--you assume
returning home--how in--what type of legal logic could you have
to say that we expect that person to stay in Wisconsin
permanently?
I don't understand that. Can you imagine a legal theory
that we are going to assume somebody who comes here illegally
is going to be considered a permanent resident?
Mr. Eastman. Well, there is one theory that has been
floated called virtual representation. Even though they are not
part of the citizenry of that state or that community they are,
nevertheless, there and so, therefore, the people would treat
them as if they are being represented even though they have no
say in the government. I think that is fundamentally
incompatible----
Mr. Grothman. Well, why don't we assume they are going to
leave, though? That is what I don't understand.
Mr. Eastman. Yes, I don't--I don't--Congressman, I agree
with you. I don't understand it either. But I am trying to
tease out the theory on the other side to try and make some
sense of it and I can't.
It is so fundamentally incompatible with the notion of
consent of the governed that is the cornerstone of our system
of representative government.
Mr. Grothman. Well, I just will say on behalf of the
illegal citizens in my state I think it is insulting to imply
that in the future they are never going to obey the law.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Congresswoman Lawrence is recognized.
Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to bring
the focus back to what the census is established, and that is
to count every person. I was a mayor and I know that the amount
of people who are driving over my roads go into the population,
goes into the formula of how much I come to the Federal
Government, say I need X amount of bill dollars or any X amount
of dollars.
I need to know how many children are going to our schools
so that we can anticipate the amount of brick and mortar, the
amount of taxation for educating the children in our community.
It is so sad that this current administration uses every
single angle to politicize it and have it to be a Democrat or a
Republican issue.
The census has nothing to do with your political
affiliation. It has everything to do with the enumeration of
the people who live in this country so that we can
appropriately allocate the funds to run our country.
I know in my district there is a very rich and, thank God,
amazing diversity of people. Strong representation from the
Middle East and Bangladesh, other countries. We have Jewish. We
have African. We have India.
So, when you knock on the door of a home and you say, are
you legal or not legal, the trust, because of this
administration's just absolute aggressive immigration
demoralizing the value of people in our country, it creates
fear, whether you want to admit it or not.
Mr. Thompson, are you still here?
Is Mr. Thompson still here?
Mr. Thompson. Yes, I am here.
Ms. Lawrence. OK. Is it true that the immigrant communities
have historically been undercounted in the census and can you
explain why this is pragmatic?
Mr. Thompson. That is an excellent question, Congresswoman.
So, the Census Bureau has always been measuring a
differential undercount and that is for the white non-Hispanic
population they have been measuring slight overcounts and for
other populations, the African Americans, Hispanics, they have
been measuring undercounts. American Indians, they have been
measuring undercounts, and they call it the differential
undercount.
So, the implications of that are--filter through all the
important uses of the census including apportionment, including
redistricting, and including the allocation of $1.5 trillion in
Federal funds every year.
If there is an undercount in a community, then that
community doesn't get its fair share of any of those resources.
Ms. Lawrence. So, when a community does not get the proper
allocation of funds. When we start talking about poverty, when
we start talking about generational misrepresentation, it is
all tied to the census and how we count the citizens and the
people of this--of this country. Is that correct?
Mr. Thompson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Lawrence. Do you agree that President Trump's executive
order is likely to make the problem worse by discouraging legal
immigrants from completing the census?
Mr. Thompson. Yes. I included in my testimony my concerns
that the memorandum was going to increase fears among the hard-
to-count populations, which would include immigrants,
noncitizens, that their data would not be safe, and therefore,
their nonparticipation.
Ms. Lawrence. Madam Chair, I just want to be clear on the
record. The census is not a Democrat of Republican issue. It is
an issue about how we will fund our country.
I sit on Appropriations and I say often if you want to know
where a person's heart is, if you want to know what your values
are, follow the money. If we systematically eliminate and
discourage participation, then our values will be very clear
that if you are a minority, if you are immigrant, you have no
value.
Thank you so much. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Thank you to the gentlelady
for her powerful statement.
Congresswoman Miller is now recognized.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Maloney and Ranking Member
Comer, and to all of you witnesses who are here today.
As we will discuss further in the next panel with Dr.--
Director Dillingham, apportionment is drastically different
than taking the census.
It is essential that the census count every person living
in the United States as this data is used to appropriate
Federal resources to the communities in need. Another use for
this data is to fulfill the constitutional duty of
apportionment.
Apportionment is the essential process that Congress takes
to make sure that the Members of Congress are distributed
fairly and proportionally across the United States.
Allowing some states with a high number of undocumented
immigrants to subvert the will of American citizens by denying
other states their fair representation cannot be allowed.
While many across the aisle actively champion illegal
immigration and deny the government's duty to protect our
sovereign border, to turn around and try to distort the
president's actions to protect American democracy into a
constitutional crisis is an absolute farce.
This hearing is just a continuation of the lack of
leadership that America is so tired of seeing out of
Washington.
I support President Trump's memorandum of apportionment and
reiterate the importance of making sure Americans' voices are
heard here in Congress and at the ballot box.
Dr. Eastman, how would counting residents living in the
United States illegally undermine the representation of legal
American citizens?
Mr. Eastman. Well, it would create an apportionment that
shifts numbers of representatives in the House of
Representatives and also the electoral votes for president from
places where there are not large numbers of illegal immigrants
to places where there are, therefore, diluting the vote and
political power and sovereignty of the people in the states
that do not have large numbers of illegal immigrants and
benefiting those that have violated our law.
Mrs. Miller. So, how are smaller rural states, which
already have very few Members of Congress negatively impacted
by the larger states who are bolstering their census counts
with undocumented immigrants?
Mr. Eastman. Well, we have got a number of states that will
lose or not gain a seat in Congress as a result of counting the
large number of illegal immigrants that have consolidated in
particular states--in three or four states, for example. It
would shift away from the rural states and it would debase the
votes of American citizens in large portions of the country.
Mrs. Miller. So, basically, in a congressional district
where half the population is comprised of undocumented
immigrants, is that fair representation to a district that is
comprised entirely of American citizens? Doesn't that dilute
the representation that citizens have in Congress?
Mr. Eastman. It does so in two ways. It gives that state
with the illegal immigrants an additional seat in Congress.
That creates--that enhances their political power, and it also
takes each voter in that district and essentially makes their
vote worth twice as much as the votes in a district where there
are no illegal immigrants.
Mrs. Miller. So, historically, why has it been the standard
to use total population for apportionment instead of the number
of citizens, and does this actually subvert the democratic will
of American voters?
Mr. Eastman. Well, historically, we have used total
population because there was not a differential between total
population and citizen population, and so total population was
a very good proxy for the political representation.
But we now have a vast disparity between citizen and
noncitizen areas of the country and that is skewing the
political authority of the people that are supposed to be
choosing the representatives to govern.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. I now recognize the vice
chair of the committee, Congressman Gomez, for five minutes.
Thank you for coming.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to remind people, I am actually very happy that
President Trump and the administration revealed its true
colors.
For the long time, if we remember back when they were
trying to add the citizenship question to the census it was
always about enforcing the Voting Rights Act and they repeated
it and repeated it and repeated it.
But even your Republican chair, Trey Gowdy, didn't even
believe that was the case, right. He even made the argument
that their logic didn't make sense because they have been
enforcing the Voting Rights Act--the Justice Department--since
its existence without having that information on the--of
citizenship on the census.
So, we always knew what this was about. It was about Kris
Kobach. It was about the apportionment expert trying to create
a scenario that they can make an argument why undocumented
immigrants and not all people should be counted in
apportionment. That was what it was always about.
So, it just revealed their true colors that they put
forward this executive order and this memo of understanding,
and the reason why it was always about that because this
administration and Trump have always attempted to use the
census as a political weapon to marginalize communities
throughout the country.
I believe that this is only the next step because I believe
the true direction that this administration wants to go and
some individuals on the right of the political spectrum is to
undermine the Fourteenth Amendment itself, the idea that any
person or persons born or naturalized in the United States are
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are
citizens of the United States.
That is where, ultimately, they want to go. They, as I am
talking about the Trump administration, I am talking about the
people who are on the right who don't see people who are born
here as valid citizens of this country.
So, this is just the next step, you know, what President
Trump has done in these memos. But I believe that it will be
found unconstitutional.
I believe that some of the recent rulings by the Supreme
Court indicate that this court is not a Republican court or a
Democratic court. It is the Supreme Court of the United States
of America and I look forward for this case to go forward.
But the present memo does, I believe, violate the
Constitution. It also violates Federal statutes as enacted by
Congress.
Title 13 states that after the census is complete the
Secretary of Commerce shall send the president, and I quote,
``the tabulation of total population by states, which then the
president must transmit to the Congress a statement showing the
whole number of persons.'' It doesn't say anything else. It
says of persons in each state.
I would like to go down the line and ask each of you a
question. In your experience as director of the Census Bureau,
do you ever--did you ever understand Federal law to allow the
Secretary of Commerce to exclude undocumented immigrants from
the census count he or she is required to send to the
president?
Mr. Barabba?
Mr. Barabba. No. The answer is no.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Prewitt?
Mr. Prewitt. No.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. No.
Mr. Gomez. Those are some simple questions when it comes to
this issue, that it has never been allowed and no one has ever
requested it. But this administration is trying to once again
use the census for political ends and to marginalize the
undocumented community and undermine our democracy.
We have a choice to make. The country is getting more
diverse. No matter if we throw up roadblocks, no matter what we
do, the country is changing. But it is not about how--we
shouldn't allow those changes to determine our character. It is
how we handle those changes that will determine the character
and the values of this country.
I am proud to be an American and a lot of the people who
are here, undocumented or otherwise, are also proud to be in
this country and we will fight for our place in this country
every step of the way until the day that we are no longer on
this Earth.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Gomez.
The chair now recognizes Congressman Keller.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ranking
Member Comer.
Last week, the president issued a memorandum directing the
Department of Commerce to provide him with an apportionment
count which only includes those in this country legally.
Since we all know that an apportionment count, a census
count, and a redistricting are different things, I am concerned
that the title of this hearing conflates all of these into one
group.
Creating the assumption that these terms are all the same
thing makes the accusation that the president's actions are
unconstitutional, which they are not.
Dr. Eastman, can you explain how an apportionment count is
different from a census count and redistricting?
Mr. Eastman. Sure. The census count total count that is
addressed to things like Federal spending and how many schools
we need and how much space we need on the highway, those are
exercised pursuant to Congress's power under the commerce
clause and under the spending clause, and we get a total count.
It doesn't matter on what basis you are here.
But apportionment is supposed to be tied to people who are
choosing representatives, and we can have an apportionment
count of the persons in the state for that purpose that is
different from the total population count that would include
visitors, it would include people on temporary visas, and would
include all of those other things. We can have two different
counts.
The president's memo is directed to the apportionment
count, what numbers of persons are we going to use for
distributing our political power in this country based on the
population of citizens, of we the people.
Mr. Keller. Thank you.
This committee has spent endless hours holding hearings,
conducting investigations, issuing subpoenas, and holding
administration officials in contempt of Congress all due to an
issue with the citizenship question on the census.
While this effort eventually--was eventually abandoned, a
citizenship question should not be controversial and neither
should using an apportionment count of only those who reside in
our country legally. If someone is here illegally they should
not be represented in the U.S. Congress.
Dr. Eastman, why did the Supreme Court rule that a
citizenship question being asked on the census questionnaire is
in fact constitutional?
Mr. Eastman. Well, because, first of all, history. We have
asked that question on almost every census in our entire
history.
The only reason it blocked it from the current census is
because the Supreme Court found that the department had not
properly gone through the requirements of the Administrative
Procedures Act. But it went out of its way to say asking about
citizenship is perfectly constitutional.
Mr. Keller. OK. Just one thing. I know there has been a lot
of discussion on why we need to make sure that the
representation is correct. But I know the--some of the people
on the left want to do away with the Electoral College.
By counting people who are not U.S. citizens here legally,
is that a way to make the Electoral College less relevant or,
over time, irrelevant by shifting representation away from
American citizens?
Mr. Eastman. It does. It has the same effect of diluting
the votes of citizens that the apportionment of the House of
Representatives has because the Electoral College votes are
based on the total number of seats one has in the House of
Representatives plus the two senators.
Mr. Keller. So, if I couldn't get an amendment through or I
couldn't get a national popular vote and I wanted to do away
with Electoral College, I would--I would want to count people
for representation purposes who are in our country illegally?
Mr. Eastman. You certainly would alter the impact of--that
citizens have on the outcome of elections and that undermines
the very notion of the consent of the governed.
Mr. Keller. And the point, I guess, I want to make, by the
way the Trump administration wants to make sure that we know
the difference between when we are talking apportionment and
census and redistricting, we want to take care of everybody
that is here in our country but we also want to make sure that
the government is selected by American citizens and not people
who are not citizens of this country. Is that correct?
Mr. Eastman. That is correct, and I don't think it is
partisan. Look, I mean, if you look at the numbers, Texas is
going to lose seats as a result of this as well as California.
It is hard to say that that is a partisan outcome. It is a good
governance outcome.
Mr. Keller. It is an outcome that means we are exceptional
because we are Americans and we should have government that is
decided by American citizens and not people that are foreign
nationals in our country illegally.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. I thank the gentleman, and I thank all
of the panelists for their testimony and remind them that
they--there will be additional questions that may come to them
and I would be grateful for their swift response.
We will now go to the second panel, but first I would like
to respond to Mr. Hice's request that we have a--he mentioned
we needed a hearing on the hard-to-count communities and stated
that we had only had not enough hearings on the census.
I would like to place in the record that since I have been
chair there have been five hearings on the census, including
one on the ``Hard-to-Count Communities in the 2020 Census,''
which was January 9, 2020.
We were also privileged to have Director Steven Dillingham
here on February 12, and appreciate him coming back very much,
and we also had one on ``Beyond the Citizenship Question:
Repairing the Damage and Preparing for We, the People'' in
2020, and we also had one on ``Getting the Count: The
Importance of the census for Both States and Local
Communities,'' and on March 14 we had Commerce Secretary Wilbur
Ross.
So, I would like to place in the record these hearings that
we had, five, and mention to Ranking Member if you would like
to have another hearing on hard-to-count communities, as Mr.
Hice mentioned, we would be glad to accommodate having another.
I would also like to place in the record the listing of 12
full committee hearings that we have had on different subjects.
But, obviously, five with both the full committee and
subcommittees has been a priority, as it should be, for this
country.
I would like to place this in the record. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. So, the first panel is dismissed with
our great thanks. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your
service. Thank you for coming back to testify with us from
across the country. We are very, very grateful. Thank you.
We are also grateful that we are joined by Mr. Steven
Dillingham, the current director of the Census Bureau. We thank
you very much for your time, for your service, and for agreeing
to be here. We are very appreciative.
If the witnesses would please rise and raise your right
hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about
to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
[Witness is sworn.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Let the record show that the witness answered in the
affirmative. We thank you. Without objection, your written
statement will be made part of the record.
With that, Mr. Dillingham, you are recognized for your
testimony. Again, thank you for your service.
And I just want to add, the coronavirus has changed
everything and it has really changed how we have been able to
conduct the census, and I appreciate your service during this
very, very difficult time.
Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR, CENSUS BUREAU
Mr. Dillingham. Chairwoman and Ranking Member, I don't know
if you noticed but I had my own specially designed mask, and I
provided one to you and the ranking member. So, I hope you will
find it useful, at least for getting the message out. Thank you
so much.
Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and members of
the committee, I am honored to be with you today. I would like
to congratulate Ranking Member Comer on his recent appointment.
I appreciate the support of Congress and this committee's
commitment to a successful 2020 census. The nonpartisan U.S.
Census Bureau is the Nation's leading Federal statistical
agency.
Its career and noncareer staff work together to advance its
mission, always in accordance with governing laws and court
rulings. The Census Bureau does not set policy nor does it
control the use of its data products.
The Census Bureau adheres to the highest standards of
scientific integrity and transparency, and the principles and
practices of Federal statistical agencies.
Meeting challenges posed by the unprecedented brutal
pandemic remains a top priority. The Census Bureau's dedicated
work force has worked hard and professionally to keep the 2020
census on track.
This morning I am pleased to highlight some recent
developments. On July 21, the president issued a Presidential
memorandum that has been the topic, certainly, of the first
panel.
In response to the memorandum, Secretary Ross called upon
the Census Bureau to examine the directive and commence efforts
to develop methodologies for producing a special tabulation for
apportionment.
A group of expert career staff will examine possible
methodologies. Operations are not affected by the memorandum.
We remain committed to counting every person in the right place
and only once.
To help the Census Bureau meet challenges posed by the
pandemic, the White House Office of Management and Budget
submitted a request to supplement our hiring pay incentives,
outreach, and replenish our contingency funding to provide the
necessary flexibility.
Despite the pandemic, the 2020 census self-response has
been a tremendous success. We are now at almost 63 percent with
more than 92 million households counted. About 80 percent have
chosen to respond using the internet. Our response system has
not had a single minute of down time since we first invited
people to respond online, beginning in March. We successfully
set up--we sent up--we say up to five mailings because if you
do answer in self-response you are not receiving, hopefully--
after a period of time, not receiving additional mailings.
But we successfully sent up to five mailings and an
additional mailing to areas with post office boxes. Our sixth
mailing has begun and should reach 34 million nonresponding
households.
In September, we will be sending a seventh mailing,
including questionnaires, to the lowest responding tracts in
hard-to-count areas.
Our update leave, which is our operation to hand deliver
packets to housing units, well, it is generally complete.
Certainly, 99.--the last I looked was--I think it was about
99.9 percent. It is basically complete except for some very
small communities.
Our counting college students continues to progress. We
have a special operation to ensure a complete and accurate
count of college students. College students must be counted
where they live or stay most of the time as of April 1.
Congress is considering legislation which was passed by the
House to alleviate confusion among college administrators.
The largest component of our field operation nonresponse
followup is underway and expanding rapidly. We have begun a
soft launch in selected areas where we could do so safely and
effectively. The first six area Census offices began work on
July 16. Six more began on July 23. Tomorrow, 35 others will
begin work and 40 more will start on August the 6. They will be
announced today. The remainder will begin this work on August
the 11th and will be covering the entire nation.
Today, we are announcing that as part of our nonresponse
followup operation we will contact some households by phone.
Health and safety of Census Bureau staff and the public
remains our priority. The provision of personal protective
equipment, trainings, and adherence to social distancing
reflect our commitment to health and safety of the public and
our employees.
We require all census employees interacting with the public
to wear a face mask, regardless of location. We daily monitor
health conditions nationally and at the state and local levels.
Our hiring of census takers and staff continues.
We now have 3 million applicants available as temporary
census workers. We continue receiving about 1,500 new
applicants each day.
Our 248 area census offices are completing the hiring
process for about a half million temporary census workers. More
than 900,000 job offers have been accepted.
Our partnerships are unprecedented, exceeding our most
ambitious goals. With almost 400,000 partners, we are expanding
our outreach to hard-to-count populations.
Despite having to delay the mobile questionnaire assistance
efforts due to the pandemic, partnership staff have identified
assistant sites where people go when they leave home, such as
grocery stores, such as pharmacies and other places, in
compliance with local, state, and Federal safety guidelines.
We have seen great examples in New York City, and I know
that you have participated, Madam Chairwoman, in Kentucky as
well and probably in all member districts. The 2020 census
communications campaign continues to expand its reach.
We increased the communications contract budget from $500
million to $700 million and increased our media buys, which are
in progress now.
We will run many types of advertising in low response rate
areas, including those with hard-to-count audiences.
As voices in your communities, thank you for sharing our
message that participating in the 2020 census is easy, safe,
and important. We appreciate your strong support for 2020
census and our operations.
Our committed employees and volunteers remain on mission
and are accomplishing tremendous results. Our offices have led
other Federal agencies in reopening in a rapid, phased, and
safe manner.
I could not be prouder of our talented and dedicated career
and temporary work force soon to become the Nation's largest.
We are grateful that almost every House and Senate office is
active as a 2020 census congressional partner.
We look forward to our continued work together and thank
each of you for your support. Together, we are reminding
everyone that the 2020 census belongs to our Nation at large
and will help shape a better future for all who live here.
Thank you so much. I look forward to your questions.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you, and the chair now recognizes
herself for questions, and I appreciate your testimony that the
census belongs to the people and it is part of our future.
I do want to report that in New York the census has been
nonpartisan, professional. They have responded to every request
from the mayor to attend various meetings from the community.
They have been at the community boards, the block associations.
They work weekends, handing out information in the parks
and have responded to every request my office has made for them
to join us in getting the word out to the public in a
nonpartisan professional way, and I want to thank you for that.
Mr. Dillingham. Madam Chairwoman, I want to thank you that
I had some particulars with regard to your efforts in the food
distribution areas of New York City and appreciate you as well
as your colleagues all across the country.
Chairwoman Maloney. It is very, very important.
But I must tell you, Director Dillingham, I am very, very
concerned about the president's memo, and I have read the
president's memo very carefully and I believe that it is
blatantly unconstitutional and that complying with this memo
would violate Federal law, and I strongly urge you not to
violate Federal law.
But you don't have to take my word for it. We had quite a
lengthy hearing today and all four of your professional
nonpartisan predecessors testified on the previous panel that
they believe the president's memo appears to violate the
Constitution and existing law.
So, I would like to ask you, do you agree with your
predecessors that the memo appears to violate the Constitution
and existing Federal law?
Mr. Dillingham. Madam Chairwoman, I was able to catch parts
of that hearing. I know just, perhaps, the latter parts, and I
was amazed at what a healthy discussion and debate and a very
livid one at times with regard to policy and history as well as
law.
They are in a different position than I am in. I respect
them greatly and we have many things in common, certainly, the
completeness and accuracy of the 2020 census.
We have other things in common and that is the respect for
the Bureau, the Census Bureau, as well as the principles that
govern it, the relevance, the credibility, the integrity, the
independence, et cetera. So, we have much in common.
But I am not in a position where I can express my opinions
with regard to the policy, with regard--and it wouldn't be even
wise with the history and, certainly, not with the legal
analysis, which is now a subject of litigation.
So, as I did last year, I have to beg off. I cannot answer
or even give my personal views because my job as the Census
Bureau director will be to execute the 2020 census and we do
abide by court decisions and controlling law.
So, we will have to wait and see how that legal debate
comes out and we will do our job. But that is our focus. Our
mission right now is a complete and accurate count that will
include everyone living in this country.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. Well, in your job executing the
2020 census did you or anyone else, in your knowledge, from the
Census Bureau contribute to the president's July 21 memo or
provide input on it before it was released?
Mr. Dillingham. Madam Chairwoman, I certainly did not and I
am not aware of others in the Census Bureau that did.
Chairwoman Maloney. I understand there are, roughly, five
political appointees. Did any of them participate in this memo?
Mr. Dillingham. Madam Chairwoman, I think, including
myself, we have six now and that is out of more than 6,000
employees.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK.
Mr. Dillingham. But to my knowledge, they did not and I
would not have reason to think so. We do have--I am sure, as
you have pointed out, we have two new ones. So, I can't speak
for actions that occurred prior to them joining the Census
Bureau.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, let us move on to the nuts and
bolts of the memo. It appears that the president is asking the
Commerce Department for information that would allow him to
exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment base.
As we all know, the Census Bureau will not be asking people
about the citizenship status on the 2020 census. The Trump
administration tried that. The Supreme Court struck it down.
So, my question is, Director Dillingham, how will the
Census Bureau and Department of Commerce be determining the
number of undocumented immigrants in each state?
Mr. Dillingham. Madam Chairman, I can tell you that, as you
refer, the Presidential memorandum has some specifics in it,
and prior to that we did have an executive order last year that
also directed us to look at our administrative data.
The Census Bureau has a long history of collecting
administrative data that is very valuable in very many
different ways.
So, this particular Presidential memorandum, and it
resulted in the Secretary of Commerce giving us the directive
and guidance to proceed with the requirements of the
Presidential memorandum and it calls upon us to look at our
administrative data and any data that we have in trying to
determine the number, which is a statistic, on undocumented
persons in the country and for the use of applying it to the
apportionment count.
So, what we are doing we have experts at the Census Bureau
that are now beginning the process of looking at methodologies
and we have collected data from many agencies, Federal
agencies--many of the memoranda were already in existence by
some additional Federal agencies--to see what we can gain from
that administrative data and what the methodology might be in
developing a count of undocumented persons, and that process is
just beginning. The Presidential memorandum just came out last
week.
Chairwoman Maloney. Dr. Dillingham, your testimony says the
Bureau, and I quote, ``has begun to examine and report on
methodologies,'' end quote, to let the president exclude
undocumented immigrants.
So, my question is, what steps has the Bureau taken and
will you share any reports with this Oversight Committee that
has jurisdiction for the census and its operations?
Mr. Dillingham. Madam Chairwoman, as you are aware, we are
a very transparent organization, and maybe the precision of
that statement was--may be a little bit misleading at this
time.
We have convened a group. The group was selected by a
career deputy at the Census Bureau, and they have been tasked
with this. There have been no reports. There are no draft
reports.
But they have previous experience in this area. So, they
are generally aware of methodologies that have been considered
to be applied to administrative data and so, for them, this is
a new tasking to look at. But we--they are just beginning their
work.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. Thank you. I think it is obvious
that the president is going to try to use some external
information that does not come from the census count to exclude
undocumented immigrants.
So, my question, Director Dillingham, is isn't it true that
the Bureau cannot provide the president with actual responses
from every person in the U.S. confirming their immigration
status?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, we are to look at the administrative
data that we have, which we have been collecting, and to
determine to what extent it might identify and how it would
identify and how the data could be matched, et cetera.
We are just--we have just recently--there is still some
data that hasn't been finalized, but we have received most of
the data from the other Federal agencies and we are receiving
data as well, pursuant to the executive order last year, from
some state agencies.
So, that process is--again, it is underway. There have been
no reports. There have been no analysis that I have seen and it
is--they are moving rapidly as possible to look at the data,
look at the methodologies, and to--really, to find options to
see if that is--how that would be done.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Dr. Dillingham, if the Census Bureau and the Commerce
Department are going to be relying on external data that they
have cobbled together to estimate the number of undocumented
immigrants, then I believe that they, clearly, will be
violating the Constitution which requires, and I quote,
``actual enumeration,'' end quote.
So, I am concerned about that. You testified in February
before this committee, and I quote, ``We must work together to
foster public trust,'' and I agree. It seems to me that
following the words of the Constitution----
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Maloney.Federal law and 230 years of precedent
are essential parts of that public trust, and we owe it to our
children and to future generations to pass an objective,
nonpartisan, and fair census, and I hope we can work together
to reassure the public that the government will follow the
Constitution.
And I yield to you for your comments and then to my
distinguished ranking member for his questions.
Mr. Dillingham. Madam Chairwoman, you are exactly right
that everyone, regardless of how they feel about the
development of a new option with the apportionment data,
everyone is committed and the Presidential memorandum provides
that we will count everyone.
So, we will develop the number, the total count, and we
want it as accurate and complete as possible. The issue, as you
have described, is one, is there going to be a new tabulation
for purposes of apportionment.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. I yield to my distinguished
colleague.
Mr. Comer. Thank you. Director Dillingham, thank you for
being here today. Let me begin by thanking you for being here.
I think you arrived probably three hours ago. I apologize that
you weren't on the first panel.
It is unprecedented and somewhat disrespectful that the
head of such an important government agency would be put on the
second panel. But, nevertheless, you have had a great attitude
and I appreciate you being here and I look forward to some good
questions.
Let me begin by saying the online response this year has
been remarkable. Your enumerators are now in the field
practicing social distancing and utilizing PPE.
I think it is important to note that you are putting the
care of your workers and the public at the forefront, and I am
told the census is well positioned to deliver a timely and
accurate count.
Turning to the president's memorandum on apportionment,
from a fundamental fairness perspective, it is the right thing
to do.
We cannot allow individuals unlawfully present in the
United States to dilute the votes of citizens and lawful
immigrants who waited their turn to come to this country to
engage in our democracy, and I am confident a majority of
Americans share that opinion.
With respect to the census, it is more complex than a
simple head count. Let us touch on tourist visas, for example.
If a tourist overstays their visa and they just don't leave,
are they considered a resident?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, we have a historically developed set
of criteria for residency that we apply, and, as you described,
if it is a simple tourist who is not usually residing where
they are found in this country, no, we would not--we would not
want to count any response from those individuals. They
should--it should be explained on the form their usual
residence is the key wording.
Mr. Comer. So, for purposes of apportionment, if a person
who stayed longer than 60 days over, which I am under the
impression that is the legal definition of a United States
resident by the way the census rules are, this person who
overstayed their visa they are not lawfully present and,
therefore, it is fair say that they wouldn't deserve to have
representation in Congress. Is that correct?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, again, we apply the criteria of usual
residency and it will differ by times and circumstances. But
that is the criteria we use for delivering a complete and
accurate count.
Mr. Comer. So, what--back to the earlier question that
the--Chairwoman Maloney asked, what data bases does the
president's memorandum propose we use to determine who will be
included in the apportionment part and who should not?
Mr. Dillingham. The Presidential memorandum does not really
specify. But in the executive order of last year it specified a
number of agencies. I had the listing here but we have some--I
think it is 16 or 17 agreements in place.
Some were already in place before that happened. But it is
a wide variety of Federal agencies, and in addition to that,
the executive order asked us to begin collecting state data
where possible.
There are many uses of the data generally but some of the
data uses include matching to make sure you have the right
individual so you are not double counting, duplicating, et
cetera.
So, we have some 16 or 17 agreements in place where the
data has come to the Census Bureau or is in the process for a
couple of them still coming, and then we have some state data
that we have available.
So, we will be looking at that data very carefully, and the
Census Bureau--administrative data is not new and some nations
actually do their census based on administrative data, and one
of the things as well under the executive order is for us to be
thinking about the next census.
So, there are a lot of people that actually disagree on
this question that are very interested in the utility, and as
the chairwoman pointed out, the accuracy of administrative data
because it could have many benefits in the future as it does
now.
Mr. Comer. So, you are confident that we can get an
accurate count of legal citizens for the purpose of
congressional apportionment?
Mr. Dillingham. I am confident that we are going to analyze
the data we have and look at the methodologies that might be
employed for that purpose.
Mr. Comer. Mm-hmm. Well, I am confident that you can get
the accurate count and I know the--a majority of Americans
expect that because what America is seeing now, especially from
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is a Congress
that continues to spend at an unprecedented rate deficit
spending.
They are seeing mayors in certain cities in the United
States turn a blind eye to vandalism and violence, and they
expect to be represented fairly and accurately in the U.S.
House of Representatives, and this is very important.
I don't think anyone here questions the importance of the
census. One thing that many of my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle have tried to imply and imply falsely is that
citizens would not be counted. The census is going to count
everyone, correct, and not leaving anyone out?
Mr. Dillingham. That is correct. That is correct.
Mr. Comer. But what the president----
Mr. Dillingham. What the----
Mr. Comer. Exactly.
Mr. Dillingham. Those few that you mentioned, perhaps.
Mr. Comer. Exactly. What the president's memorandum states
and what the Census Bureau is going to implement is the fact
that law-abiding citizens, legal citizens of the United States,
should not be at a disadvantage with respect to congressional
apportionment.
I think that the memorandum is constitutional. I think it
is the right thing to do. If anyone out here questions how this
is going to impact funding, it is not going to impact funding
because we are counting everyone.
The memorandum is solely clearly focused on congressional
apportionment, and we are talking about as many as 24 seats in
the U.S. House of Representatives. It is a significant number
of representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives.
So, I appreciate what you are doing. We feel, at least in
my district, that this is the right thing to do. I think the
majority of Americans feel it is the right thing to do, and we
look forward to hearing further reports on the implementation.
You are doing a great job getting people counted and we
look forward to the data that will be used to determine the
correct apportionment as we move forward.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Dillingham. Ranking Member, could I offer one point?
The terminologies here vary but, again, the Presidential
memorandum, in case I misspoke, is focused on the undocumented
who lack legal status, differentiating on citizenship.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you very much. The gentleman
yields back.
I recognize my colleague, who is a chair of one of the
subcommittees, Jamie Raskin, and I want to thank him for his
leadership on the census.
He has had several hearings in his subcommittee and field
hearings on the importance of counting the hard to count and
the importance of the census on local and state delivery of
services. So, I want to thank you for your leadership on the
census. Thank you for joining us today.
Mr. Raskin. I mean, I would just return the compliment,
Madam Chair. You have really been an outspoken and just
unabashed champion of the census at every turn in this
Congress, and so thank you for your leadership.
I remember we have had several hearings on this and one of
them was in New York City before the nightmare of the COVID-19
crisis took over.
So, Mr. Dillingham--Dr. Dillingham--welcome. A few simple
questions. Is the word ``person'' synonymous with the word
citizen in the Constitution, according to your----
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, I want to thank you and all
you are doing for the 2020 census and I understand you also
wear a hat as a constitutional scholar.
So, as I explained to the chairwoman earlier that it was a
very dynamic display of democracy here today with differing
opinions, both as to history and policy and legal analysis, and
I understand that several lawsuits have been filed that would
be looking at these definitions.
So, I have to beg off from offering any legal analysis or
opinion myself because my job is to administer the 2020 census.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Just my own little insight on it is that
when the Founders of the Constitution wanted to use the word
citizen they used the word citizen, like in Article 3 Section 2
establishing diversity jurisdiction in Federal courts where a
citizen from one state could sue a citizen from another state.
But here, in Article 1 Section 2, the Founders said that
the apportionment of representatives must be based on, quote,
``the actual enumeration of the whole number of free persons.''
Of free persons.
So, I mean, can we agree that if the president's new
interpretation is pasted onto the census, this will be a
radical departure from everything that we have done for more
than two centuries?
Mr. Dillingham. This Presidential memorandum has nothing to
do with our operation right now with the census. We are
counting everyone. It has to do with a tabulation that has been
requested on apportionment.
Mr. Raskin. Right, and but for more than two centuries the
census has counted all persons, right, and the administration's
attempt to try to impose a citizenship question even was
invalidated by a Supreme Court that Donald Trump helped to
construct himself. But that Supreme Court said that this was a
lawless effort by the administration, right.
So--OK, so you--in other words, you are just going to
remain agnostic on the constitutional question here?
Mr. Dillingham. I think I have a----
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Dillingham [continuing]. Professional obligation is the
prudent thing to do.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Would you pronounce, at least on this one?
Has the text of the Constitution changed in the last two years?
Mr. Dillingham. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Raskin. OK. And how long have you been with the census?
Mr. Dillingham. Just over a year and a half at this point.
Mr. Raskin. OK. But it is your understanding that
noncitizens have always been counted in the census, according
to the constitutional text?
Mr. Dillingham. It is my understanding that the
Presidential memorandum is requesting for a change in the
tabulation and calculation of--for apportionment purposes.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Let me switch over to talk about COVID-19.
Are we taking care of our people sufficiently? Are we--are you
training your census count takers in all of the proper COVID-19
precautions?
Mr. Dillingham. We are certainly trying to. I think we are.
But we are very vigilant on that. We are continuing to do
assessments each and every day, seven days a week, certainly,
with the data from the CDC, from Health and Human Services, the
state data, the local government data.
We actually have a fusion center that is monitoring
developments seven days a week. We have purchased the personal
protective equipment. We have plans for obtaining more. We have
a process by which everyone wears their mask.
So, yes, we are doing everything. We are very diligent and
we want to make sure that those practices are not only in the
training but we want to monitor. So, yes, I think we are doing
an excellent job.
Mr. Raskin. OK. The reason I ask is that I have heard from
a field enumerator in training who has quit or is planning to
quit because of COVID-19, and this person told my staff that
despite, you know, your formal expressed commitment to taking
care of everybody they are not getting any real training on how
to minimize COVID exposure in their work. So, they are given
the Purell and the cloth mask but no real instructions on how
to conduct themselves to limit exposure. So, it would be great
if you could get back to us.
Mr. Dillingham. Yes. Sure.
Mr. Raskin. Please do get back to us, if you would, with
really what your plan is to fully educate the whole staff and
to make sure that this is something we are on top of because
enumerators can, obviously, become super spreaders if they are
not following the right precautions.
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, we certainly will, and I will
say that we do have challenges because a lot of our training is
virtual training. But we are also improving that training and I
will say when we are hiring, you know, 500,000--a half a
million employees, I can't say there is never slippage. But we
are doing what we can and we will continue to enhance if we
identify any needs.
Mr. Raskin. Do you have a publication like COVID-19 rules
for the road or specific instructions?
Mr. Dillingham. I don't have the training curriculum with
me, but we can get you that.
Mr. Raskin. OK. If you would share it with us----
Mr. Dillingham. Certainly.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Just so we get that out there. We
want to make sure, one, that all of our enumerators are
properly taken care of, and two, the public knows that so that
no one is afraid to interact with them.
Mr. Dillingham. Absolutely. And I might point out also, as
I mentioned in the opening statement that, you know, we are in
the early stages of launching the enumeration now. So, we are
learning at this stage, and on August the 11 we will be,
basically, enumerating nationally.
So, we have phased this in so that we can learn and it is a
very dynamic environment with the virus and so we are learning
as we go and doing what we can to make sure everyone is
protected.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I appreciate that, and you can become a
model to the rest----
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Of the government and the rest of
the country. I appreciate it.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired.
I now represent by video Congressman Gosar. Can you hear
us? Congressman Gosar, you are now recognized.
Mr. Gosar. I can hear you. Can you hear me?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, we can. Thank you. You are now
recognized.
Mr. Gosar. Thanks, Madam Chairwoman.
Director Dillingham, we have heard the fear mongering for
months from my friends on the left and the liberal media
accomplices of the allegations that the responses to the 2020
decennial will fall behind previous decennials.
Could you elaborate, despite the fear being spread by those
on the left, why the current self-response rate is in fact on
par or slightly ahead of previous decennials at the same period
of time?
Mr. Dillingham. Let me say that, as we pointed out, the
internet option that we have implemented this year, there was a
lot of concerns of last year in ensuring that all the
protections were in place, the technologies were in place, and
we are very--to some extent, a little bit surprised how people
prefer the internet option and in this environment it is by far
the safest option and the most efficient option.
So, 80 percent of our self-responses are coming in via the
internet. We still have the telephone option and in different
times and right now, for various reasons, that is picking up a
little.
But frequently people will use the telephone option to just
ask questions about how they can do the internet option. So, we
have that, and, of course, they can do the traditional paper
option.
So, having those three options for self-response as well as
expanding our mailings, our extensive outreach activities, are
making a difference. So, we are very pleased to be where we
are.
Mr. Gosar. Can you hear me?
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Gosar. Can you hear me?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, we got you.
Yes, you can proceed.
Mr. Gosar. Can you hear me?
Mr. Raskin. Yes. Yes, you can proceed.
Mr. Gosar. Oh, OK. I am sorry.
Now, we have heard for months from my liberal friends on
the left that the integrity of the Bureau's network and backup
system are inadequate to handle the online response. Did they--
they
[Inaudible] with this fear before the census started, kind
of like what we have been seeing today. Has the Bureau's system
ever crashed as predicted by our liberal friends?
Mr. Dillingham. No, it has not. It has been tremendously
successful and, as I said, we have not had a----
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Gosar, I think you need to mute one of your
devices. I think you are getting feedback. I think you might
have us on two different devices. There we go.
Mr. Dillingham. We have had tremendous success with the
three options and the favorite option for self-response is the
internet.
[Pause.]
Mr. Gosar. Director Dillingham, the majority likes to say
that this administration does not want to count everyone. It
does not want to reach hard-to-count communities.
Has anyone in the Trump administration, including Secretary
Ross, ever suggested you do less than your highest level of
effort to count everyone, including the--reaching the hard-to-
count communities?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, the latter part of that question is
absolutely accurate. We are devoting tremendous effort all
throughout the Census Bureau with seasoned professionals to
make sure that we reach everyone and, particularly, the hard-
to-count areas.
[Pause.]
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Gosar, have we lost you?
[No response.]
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Gosar? OK.
Why don't we proceed at this point then with Ms. Tlaib and
we will come back to Mr. Gosar when we get him back up.
Ms. Tlaib, you are recognized now for five minutes.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Chairman.
Dr. Dillingham, during our oversight hearing when you last
testified on February 12 I asked you about the administration's
failure to include a racial or ethnic category for individuals
who identify under MENA, which is the Middle Eastern or North
African category.
Following that meeting, I sent you a letter along with our
Oversight Chairwoman Maloney inquiring why this decision was
made, and I have to say I was pretty, you know, underwhelmed
with the explanation.
Since then, I worked with Committee on Appropriations to
ensure that this issue is a priority in the 2030 census and,
currently, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science
report does say, I quote, ``The committee directs the Census
Bureau to conduct a feasibility study on including a race
category for individuals identified as MENA, which was not
ultimately included in the 2020 census questionnaire.''
So, Dr. Dillingham, will you commit on record to do as the
committee directs and conduct the study to include a race
category for individuals who identify as MENA?
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, I do remember your request.
My understanding was we did at least partially reply, and there
may have been some other information that it may be in process.
Ms. Tlaib. No, I am asking you, we put this in the
committee----
Mr. Dillingham. Yes, with regard--with regard to Congress,
I think you had indicated it was appropriators asking us. We
are, certainly, very interested in looking at that topic and we
are very beginning the process of looking at the 2030.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. Yes. OK. Yes.
So, I just want you to know----
Mr. Dillingham. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. Dr.--no, I hear you, because the
20--so the previous administration already decided to do it.
You all just ignored it. So, are we--so just to be clear, like,
right now we are saying the committee also expects the
questions--the MENA category to be on the 2030. Will you
support----
Mr. Dillingham. I will support the research as to----
Ms. Tlaib. Will you support anything
[Inaudible]
Mr. Dillingham. Yes, I will support the research into your
issue and I do think that one of the improvements that was done
is, in fact, the write-in. But I understand that you wanted
more than that and we will look into it. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Tlaib. So, also will you commit on record to do as the
committee directs and conduct this study to include--I am
sorry. The committee report also put in there that the
committee also expects that the questions on sexual orientation
and gender identity will also be examined for possible
inclusion in the 2030 census.
Will you commit on record to do as the committee directs
and examine for the possible inclusion question on sexual
orientation and gender identity?
Mr. Dillingham. Madam Congresswoman, we will look at that.
That has been a topic that has, you know, been examined,
continues to be examined, and we do have questions in some of
our surveys that, in fact, get to the heart of those questions.
I think that there is a need to make sure that questions of
that type would work with the census. But we will, certainly,
study that.
Ms. Tlaib. I appreciate that.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, and I kind of want to switch subjects
now.
On April 13, 2020, Secretary Ross personally called leaders
in Congress to tell them the administration needed additional
time to deliver redistricting data because of delays due to the
coronavirus pandemic.
In order to honor that request
[Inaudible] 2020 members of the Oversight Committee
introduced the fair
[Inaudible] census that
[Inaudible] 2020 the delivery deadline
[Inaudible] the administration had requested well into
2021.
Also, the census official leading field operations said in
May, quote, ``We have passed the point where we could even meet
the current legislative requirement of December 31. We can't do
that anymore.''
Dr. Dillingham, briefly, do you agree with the assessments
by--that has been put forth by your colleague, Mr. Olson? Why
or why not?
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, if you could repeat the
latter part of your question. But----
Ms. Tlaib. So, it is--yes, Tim Olson said, ``We have passed
the point where we could even meet the current legislative
requirement of December 31. We can't do that anymore.''
Do you agree with Mr. Olson?
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, I can assure you that we
do--are doing continuous assessments and there had been----
Ms. Tlaib. So, you don't agree with him?
Mr. Dillingham. I can't--I can't agree with--we got many
more assessments ahead of us here and we are proceeding with--
--
Ms. Tlaib. OK. Well----
Mr. Dillingham [continuing]. As soon as possible----
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Mr. Dillingham [continuing]. To conduct the census.
Ms. Tlaib. You know, he runs the field operations, Mr.
Dillingham.
Mr. Dillingham. He does.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. And he is telling you this is bad--like, we
are not going to be able to meet the deadlines. This is--I
don't know, it is common knowledge. I mean, if they are the
ones on the ground with the direct contact with the people and
the residents, I think you should listen to them.
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, I also--I always listen to
him and he is a very important and knowledgeable member of the
team.
Ms. Tlaib. But you are just--OK. Yes. Well, despite the
operational delays, the White House is now stating that corona
relief funds will allow the Trump administration to rush
apportionment count by December before President Trump could
leave the White House. So, it now appears that the
administration is trying to finish before December 31.
You know what this is really about and I got to tell you, I
just need you to choose your country first and making sure
that--because, for me, it is not about reapportionment.
It is also about class sizes, health care, services for our
residents, and I don't--you know, the constant politicizing of
our census has been disgusting and, really, undeserving. Our
residents don't deserve this kind of count.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair?
Ms. Tlaib. They want to be counted. They want to be able
to----
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair?
Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. Move forward and you have people
out in the field telling you----
Mr. Comer. She is over time. Madam Chair----
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. I--well, I yield. I thank you very much.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chairman?
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chairman?
Mr. Sarbanes.
[Presiding.] This is--this is Congressman Sarbanes. I think
I have taken over the chairing of the committee----
Mr. Comer. Who?
Mr. Sarbanes [continuing]. If I am not mistaken, and would
yield to Mr. Palmer next for his questions.
Mr. Comer. OK. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure. She was
over time. Thank you.
Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Palmer, you are recognized.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the chairman.
Director Dillingham, for the record, and you can speak
slowly so that all my colleagues understand it, but does the
census intend to count everyone?
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, it certainly does.
Mr. Palmer. OK. So, for the record, we are counting
everyone?
Mr. Dillingham. We are counting everyone who lives in this
country and it is their usual residence. That is correct.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman, and I think that is the
proper approach for the Census Bureau, and I don't think we
should make it about anything else but counting people who are
in the country.
Now, let me ask you this. We have got the issue of
undocumented people living here and, as I raised this point
earlier in the first panel, a substantial number of those are
transitory individuals who--about 18 to 20 percent of whom will
not be here for the next census.
So, one of the issues that I wanted to ask you about is how
does the Census Bureau count undocumented immigrants or people
who live in that transitory situation where they are only here
for a few years and then they are gone? Do you--do you deal
with that at all?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, Congressman, we--if someone is living
here for a few years, in all likelihood they are going to be
counted if they are usually residing here.
Now, that doesn't mean they have legal status. So, one of
the reasons the president, I assume, who directed us to look at
the administrative data or for issues similar to that, what is
the status of some of the people that are usually residing in
the country and is it an undocumented status or is it in the
illegal status.
Mr. Palmer. So----
Mr. Dillingham. And that is one of the things for the
Presidential Memorandum.
Mr. Palmer. So, let me be clear. So, when there is someone
here who is only going to be here, say, another year or two,
they will be counted in the census, even though--because you
don't know when they are leaving, that they will be counted.
Mr. Dillingham. That is correct.
Mr. Palmer. Now, this--I want to ask another question, then
I will come back to that. But do you include short-term
visitors? I mean, people here who are on student visas who
might be here for a year getting a Master's or two years
getting a Ph.D. or maybe even four years for an undergraduate
degree. Do those--are those people counted?
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, usually a year makes a big
difference. So, it--if they are usually residing here and April
1 they are residing here and it is their usual residence, we do
count them.
Mr. Palmer. OK. Well, that raises and, I think, reinforces
the point that I tried to make earlier about we should count
everybody.
But we shouldn't count everybody for apportionment, because
you just testified that you count people who are here on
student visas for the census.
But I don't think--well, I won't say that I don't think
anybody would reasonably argue that those people should be
counted for apportionment because I think there are a number of
people that are here now would say they should be.
But I think that raises this--a very serious issue for
counting people who won't even be here maybe for the next
election but they would be counted for apportionment and it
would have a profound impact on representation in Congress for
a number of states that--and I raised this point as well in the
previous panel about states that are--declared themselves
sanctuaries.
There are 20 metro areas, 60 percent of the unauthorized
immigrants live in 60 cities--I mean, in 20 metro areas that
have declared themselves sanctuaries, which creates this, I
think, an incredible incentive for people to come there because
they are going to be protected from Federal law enforcement,
even those who have committed felonies. I mean, this doesn't
make any sense to me.
But I do appreciate the fact, for the record, that you are
counting everybody. I just think that I feel like, and I think
a lot of my colleagues agree, that we shouldn't be counting
people who are here temporarily or unlawfully for apportionment
purposes.
I thank the gentleman and I yield back.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. [Presiding.] I thank the--the gentleman
yields back.
The chair now recognizes Debbie Wasserman Schultz from
remote.
Congresswoman Schultz?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK, great.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Director Dillingham, just a couple
of weeks after the Supreme Court struck down the citizenship
question, the administration issued an executive order that
instructed the Commerce Department to obtain an estimate of the
number of citizens and noncitizens by other means.
And Attorney General Barr was very clear about the purpose
of doing that. He said, and I quote, ``There is a current
dispute over whether illegal aliens can be included for
apportionment purposes. Depending on the resolution of that
dispute, this data may possibly prove relevant.''
You appeared before an Oversight Subcommittee just a few
days later and were asked directly by Representative Pressley
if you could confirm the citizenship data collected under the
president's 2019 executive order would not be used in
apportionment counts and you responded, quote, ``The--we
produce, I, and apportionment counts. Let me get back to you on
that.''
Mr. Dillingham. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Unquote. When you testified on July
24, 2019, were you already aware of the president's plans to
exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment counts?
Mr. Dillingham. No, Congresswoman, I was not.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. When did you first become aware that
the president, the Commerce secretary, or anyone else in the
administration was planning to exclude undocumented immigrants
from the apportionment counts?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, I was only formally aware upon
issuance of the Presidential memorandum. But there was--I was--
--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. When did you first become----
Mr. Dillingham. There was a press story a couple of days
earlier.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my
time.
When did you first become--not formally, but when did you
first become aware that the president, the Commerce secretary,
or anyone else in the administration was planning to exclude
undocumented immigrants from the apportionment counts?
Mr. Dillingham. I heard--there was a story in the local
press here in the D.C. area, perhaps a Capitol Hill newspaper
or, as I recall, someone reported a story that such a directive
may be coming down. And it was on a--as I recall, it seemed
like it was late on a Friday and I was waiting to learn more,
and then a few days later the directive was issued.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are the director of the census,
you learned about the president's intent to issue an executive
order from the--to exclude undocumented immigrants from
apportionment counts in a newspaper article?
Mr. Dillingham. Actually, when I saw the formal----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Is that correct
[Inaudible]
Mr. Dillingham. The formal decision, when it was posted on
the Web.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, no one gave you a heads up? You
had no discussions prior to formal notification or seeing a
newspaper article?
You had no discussions with anyone at all prior to either
seeing a newspaper story or a formal production of the
executive order?
Mr. Dillingham. That is absolutely correct.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are under oath. You are under
oath. You had no----
Mr. Dillingham. Absolutely. Absolutely, and I will swear to
it all day long under oath.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. Just making sure that we are
clear. That is unbelievable to me that you are the director of
the Census and you didn't hear anything about this before the
formal execution of the EO or a newspaper article.
Mr. Dillingham. That is correct.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And that is because the decision to
exclude undocumented immigrants from apportionment counts is,
clearly, unconstitutional. As a Federal officer, I am sure you
took an oath.
You certainly took one here today, but you took an oath to
uphold and defend the Constitution. Do you not have the
obligation as the Census director to know how the data your
agency collects will be used?
Mr. Dillingham. At no time----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And how do you reconcile this
memorandum--let me finish my question, please. How do you
reconcile the recent memorandum with the oath that you swore to
uphold?
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, let me explain that the
Census Bureau produces statistics and data. We have no control
over its uses.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It certainly is your responsibility
to know that the data that you collect is used according to the
Constitution, isn't it?
Mr. Dillingham. I am aware of the provision for
apportionment in the Constitution, yes. Yes, Congresswoman.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Your obligation under your oath is
to make sure that you are--the data that you are collecting is
that you are aware of how it will be used. How do you reconcile
the recent memorandum with the oath you swore to uphold? Or are
you just a data receptacle?
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, like any Federal statistical
agency, we produce the best, most comprehensive, complete, and
accurate data possible and we have received this request in a
Presidential memorandum to look at our data.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. I understand that. Reclaiming
my time.
I understand that you have received that request.
Mr. Dillingham. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are responsible for the
decennial census.
Mr. Dillingham. That is correct.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And the use of the data according to
the Constitution. This executive order is not compliant with
that, and I think anyone looking at the pattern of the
administration's actions can see that this memorandum is an
attempt to do an end run around the ruling of the Supreme Court
and the requirements of the Constitution.
I only hope that someone leading the Census Bureau, and if
not you then someone else, will stand up and follow the law,
not follow a lawless president.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
Grothman? Mm-hmm.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Always enjoyable. I am going to
followup on what the--some of the questions the gentleman from
Alabama asked.
If I am in the military and I am from Wisconsin, and I am
stationed a variety of places over a period of years, never in
this country--stationed in Germany, stationed in Korea--but I
just decide to keep Wisconsin as my permanent address--I may
pay taxes in Wisconsin, I may vote in Wisconsin, even though I
am not there--where should they count that person for the
purpose of the census? Or since they are never sleeping in the
United States should they not count them at all?
Mr. Dillingham. We have special provisions for counting the
military, and there is special criteria that, certainly, our
leadership has been implementing for a period of years, that
how they count people from either place of deployment or their
legal residence. We can get back to you with the exact
criteria, but we do count the military.
Mr. Grothman. Is that--is that statutory or is that just a
rule?
Mr. Dillingham. I will get back to you if there is a
statutory basis for it. But it is one of--it is our criteria.
Mr. Grothman. It is kind of relevant as to whether it is
statutory or a rule, isn't it?
Mr. Dillingham. It is.
Mr. Grothman. Very, very relevant.
Mr. Dillingham. We have a practice--accepted practice.
Mr. Grothman. Yes. I would like to know that.
Mr. Dillingham. OK.
Mr. Grothman. Second question, as far as students are
concerned.
Mr. Dillingham. Yes.
Mr. Grothman. If somebody lives in Wisconsin but goes to
school in Ohio, you know, returns over summer break, returns
over--you know, probably given how much people go to school
nowadays it might be half the time spent at both places, and
that person, therefore, I think, probably should file taxes in
Wisconsin and vote in Wisconsin. But you are saying that person
should be considered a resident of Ohio?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, we--the enumeration criteria does not
match the tax requirements, and what we do with college
students it is where they usually reside and we look at April
1.
So, basically, to simplify we generally count, particularly
full time college students, where they are residing and if they
are on a college campus outside of their state that is where we
count them.
So, that at University of Wisconsin, you will have a lot of
students from Ohio that would be counted there. It is really to
capture the count for that locality.
Mr. Grothman. OK. I would say it is about 50/50 and let us
say they are on Spring Break on April 1. That doesn't matter,
though, if they are home with their parents for a week on April
1?
Mr. Dillingham. The April 1 is, particularly with the
pandemic, is not quite as determinative as to where their usual
residence is.
Mr. Grothman. OK. So, you are saying--OK. Interesting.
And with regard to diplomats, if somebody is from France,
has been living in an apartment in Virginia for six months, you
count that person for the census or for six years even, you
count that person as a Virginia resident for purposes of the
census?
Mr. Dillingham. It is based on their usual residence. I
think there are some exceptions for consulates and embassies
that people are actually living in an embassy. But we do count,
again, people where they usually reside.
Mr. Grothman. OK. So, if a student comes here from France
and is here for three months and then leaves for three months
and comes here for three months, where are they counted?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, that might be a tough question as to
where they usually reside. But I will----
Mr. Grothman. Usually reside means where they physically
are?
Mr. Dillingham. Where they usually physically are. Correct.
Mr. Grothman. I talked to people a while ago on the last
panel--I think I have this right--and I gave an example in
which someone from Iowa, an Iowa resident all the way, car
registered in Iowa, votes in Iowa, pays tax in Iowa, they come
to Wisconsin because mom is in home hospice and they want to
take care of their mom at the end of their life. They intend to
return to Iowa. At what point, for the purposes of the census,
is that person going to be counted in Wisconsin instead of
Iowa?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, it is probably going to be where they
claim that they usually reside.
Mr. Grothman. They don't even know yet, right. They are
just kind of hanging--they don't know yet. They are hanging you
out in Wisconsin with mom.
Two months in? Four months in? When they are there for six
months----
Mr. Dillingham. Well, yes. If it is hard for--to determine.
Usually----
Mr. Grothman. It is not hard--it is not hard for the
Wisconsin Department of Revenue to determine. It is not--it is
not difficult for people who vote to determine where they
should be.
Just a minute. We will wait here for a second.
[Pause.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Can someone mute their--there is a
disruption. Can someone mute their devices, please? Please mute
your devices.
[Pause.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Please mute your devices, please. OK.
I am sorry. You will get extra time, Mr. Grothman. I am
sorry.
Mr. Grothman. You did a good job there. You have a career
in law enforcement waiting for you if you ever move on from
here.
Yes, in that situation at what point does that person say,
I am counted in Iowa instead of Wisconsin, or Wisconsin instead
of Iowa?
Mr. Dillingham. It will be an individual factual
circumstance. I might add, generally, that might help with this
is that when people, particularly students, move, for example,
to Madison, Wisconsin--they are from out of--Madison,
Wisconsin, and they are from out of state, generally, there are
sort of tradeoffs.
So, if they come from another state, that they are not
counted where they are perhaps paying taxes or their parents
live, they would be--and vice versa, so that is sort of the
reasons, I think, behind the criteria.
Mr. Grothman. OK. I will give you a final question because
people were asking about this race stuff. Obviously, you know,
with intermarriage so many people in this counter are
interracial. Who determines what so-called race you are?
Mr. Dillingham. The respondent determines and can write in.
Mr. Grothman. Whether you are one-eighth something? Whether
you are----
Mr. Dillingham. The respondent determines.
Mr. Grothman. It has nothing to do--it is entirely
subjective, unlike where I live?
Mr. Dillingham. That is correct.
Mr. Grothman. I could be one-sixteenth Mexican, I am
Mexican, I am Mexican?
Mr. Dillingham. That is correct.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Thanks.
Chairwoman Maloney. I want to thank the gentleman for his
line of questions. It was interesting. I would like to add to
it Americans living abroad that were assigned to--are American
citizens but they are working abroad or maybe just vacationing
abroad for several years. Where are they counted?
Mr. Dillingham. Actually, they are not counted if they are
not--if they are not usually residing in the U.S., and one of
the reason, there has been much research and there has been
prior case law on that, as I understand it, but at the same
time we have people from those countries that may be living
here with the same circumstance.
So, we only count those residing in the country, and if
they are--if they are abroad for years of study or whatever
purpose that we don't count them.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Congressman Sarbanes is recognized.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
Dr. Dillingham.
I wanted to talk to you about the time lines that you are
working under. Could you review for me the--am I understanding
it correctly that the field operation that was originally
scheduled to finish, I guess, maybe the end of July was pushed
to October as a result of these dynamics that you are--you have
referred to?
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, we did have a shift in
schedule because of the pandemic. So, in late March, we had to
really call a halt to our operations that required human
interactions for reasons of safety, just like the rest of the
country, the governments and the businesses.
We, basically, had to suspend our operations, and at a
point in time we had to start to begin our assessment process,
well, when do we think, with the current knowledge, we can
restart and complete the process.
And as you are well aware, nationally, and, certainly, with
the president's task force they begin to lay out criteria and
guidance for what we call reopening and resuming our
operations, and we are really in the forefront of the Federal
agencies in getting back to business and opening our 248
offices all across the Nation.
We have to do it safely and we have to do it, and also we
will have to enumerate safely.
Mr. Sarbanes. Was there also a request by the
administration--I think it came to Congress--to push back by
two or three months tabulations related to the apportionment
and that process from what it would normally be?
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, those--my understanding is
there were discussions but that wasn't at my level, and so that
is my understanding that there had been some discussions and
consideration of that and has been also reported in the news.
But that is not something I personally participated in.
Mr. Sarbanes. Is it also true--and then is it also true
that very recently the administration appears to have reversed
direction on that and is now suggesting that they want the
census to be wrapped up quickly so that that tabulation that I
just referred to could actually happen before the end of the
year? Are you aware of that?
Mr. Dillingham. I am not aware of all the many reasons
except to say that the Census Bureau and others really want us
to proceed as rapidly as possible and to get this--get a
complete and accurate count as soon as possible.
Mr. Sarbanes. Mm-hmm. Do you worry about the census being
compromised if there is pressure to finish it too quickly and
what would that date be, in your mind?
Mr. Dillingham. I don't have a date in----
Mr. Sarbanes. How much time do you need? How much time do
you need to give us the assurance that the census can be
conducted in a way that yields a robust result?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, Congressman, we certainly want a
complete and accurate census. So, that will be, certainly, a
consideration as to when we consider the job is done.
Mr. Sarbanes. Mm-hmm. Well, I mean, my anxiety here is that
the administration originally seemed to be reasonably
accommodating the pressure of the pandemic on your efforts by
requesting some extension of time with respect to how the
results are tabulated for certain purposes.
That was in line with your own judgment that you needed to
push the field operations back by two or three months. So, that
was consistent.
But now we are hearing that they are looking for money to
push the process forward and what I am concerned would be a
very premature way and would actually undercut your ability to
get this done properly.
So, you are sort of being whipsawed right now between these
two different impulses and I am alarmed at that and I think it
could undermine the census.
So, we are going to keep a very close eye on this and try
to protect the independence of this process from the--this
politics that are leaning in on you right now.
With that, I will yield back.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. I want to thank the gentleman for
raising that important point. The census professionals have
told me that they need at least 10 weeks to do a professional
count and they are starting on August 11, and there has been
some rumors of trying to complete it by December 31.
The professionals that I have talked to in the Census
Bureau say that that is impossible, that they need to have the
full 10 weeks to get the--they expect to knock on the doors at
least six times to get an accurate count.
We are supporting, really, Secretary Ross's suggestion and
request to extend the time for the census. So, there are others
that say that for political reasons the president wants it--to
have this earlier so that he can make determinations about what
information is sent to the states, and I think that is,
clearly, unconstitutional and wrong.
I want to thank you, Mr. Sarbanes, for helping me out
earlier and becoming the chair. Thank you for your work and for
your questions.
I now recognize Congressman Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Dr. Dillingham, are you present today voluntarily or by
subpoena, good sir?
Mr. Dillingham. I am sorry. I am going to have to ask you
to repeat that question.
Chairwoman Maloney. He asked if you were here voluntarily
or by subpoena.
Mr. Dillingham. No, I am here voluntarily.
Mr. Higgins. I can repeat my questions, Madam Chair. Thank
you.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK.
Mr. Higgins. Are you here voluntarily or by subpoena, good
sir?
Mr. Dillingham. I am here voluntarily. That is correct.
Mr. Higgins. I think it is important that America
recognizes that you are voluntarily appearing at a hearing that
is titled ``Counting Every Person: Safeguarding the 2020 Census
Against the Trump Administration's Unconstitutional Attacks.''
Are you a gentleman of integrity and good faith, sir?
Mr. Dillingham. Certainly, I strive to be. I think I am. I
have had the distinction of being confirmed by the U.S. Senate
unanimously on two occasions, the first time in 1990 by the
committee that was chaired by then Senator Biden, and then most
recently by Senator Ron Johnson.
I have served six administrations so I have considerable
experience, and I think they determined that I met the
qualifications by statute as well as their criteria for being
unbiased, objective, and professional.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you for your service and that
clarification. You are a gentleman of distinguished
accomplishment and we very much appreciate your participation
in the effort to secure an accurate and very thorough census.
You are this administration's director for the U.S. Census
Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Is that correct?
Mr. Dillingham. That is correct.
Mr. Higgins. So, you are--you are the main guy representing
the, quote, unquote, ``Trump administration'' as you sit before
this committee today?
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, I will say that my statute--my
selection was to be nonpartisan and the agency is nonpartisan
and a pretty independent statistical agency.
Mr. Higgins. As it should be. But you represent the
administration's best effort to sure an accurate census. Is
that correct?
Mr. Dillingham. For an accurate census, absolutely,
Congressman.
Mr. Higgins. And you intend to do just that, sir? You
stated--you quoted that the president's directive, which
stated, in part, ``to provide information permitting the
president to the extent practical to exercise the president's
discretion to carry out the policy of the exclusion of illegal
aliens from the apportionment base to the extent feasible and
to the maximum extent of the president's discretion under the
law.'' That is a quote from the president's directive.
You stated that this does not change the Census Bureau's
plans for field data collection across the Nation. Do you stand
by that statement, sir?
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, I do, that our operations will
continue as planned in the context of this Presidential
memorandum. It does not impact. It really is a request for a
special tabulation for apportionment purposes, which is apart
from getting a complete and accurate count of people living in
our Nation.
Mr. Higgins. Exactly. I very much appreciate you appearing
before the committee today in service to our Nation, doing your
very best to lead a large team of dedicated Americans to
determine a precise count for our census.
Your appearance before the committee today, despite the
fact that this was a premeditated effort to identify President
Trump's administration and the census efforts to be
unconstitutional, I applaud your courage for appearing today
minus a subpoena.
My final question to you, sir, you stated in your written--
in your written testimony that the Census Bureau is working to
complete data collection as soon as possible and it strives to
comply with the law and statutory deadlines. Is that--does that
quantify your efforts, sir?
Mr. Dillingham. You are exactly right. That is what we are
trying to do, and the final question was we are proceeding in
that direction, if that answers your question, sir. I am a
little bit--I have a hearing problem. I did volunteer for a
year's service in Iraq and sometimes the----
Mr. Higgins. That makes two of us.
Mr. Dillingham [continuing]. Acoustics here are
challenging.
Mr. Higgins. That makes two of us.
Sir, thank you for appearing before us today.
Madam Chair, I yield.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Congressman.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you, and we now recognize
Congressman Welch.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for this
hearing and, Dr. Dillingham, thank you for appearing
voluntarily.
A couple of things. One, just an observation. I know you
can't speak about the administration's position on many of
these issues. You have got to just do the job as best you can.
But I note the irony that the position of the
administration, essentially, is that undocumented immigrants
are not, quote, ``persons.'' They are not persons. In that
respect, that analysis shares--it shares the finding of the
U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott, which was the most
ignominious decision of the Supreme Court in our history, which
said that African Americans were not persons.
So, I think that I am just saying that because I think you
should understand--all should understand why we are appalled by
that administration position.
What I would like to ask you about specifically, Doctor, is
the challenge of getting an accurate count in rural areas, and
Vermont is quite rural and our response rate is, I think, 47th
in person and 40th on the internet, and we have challenges with
access to broadband in many parts of our state, and we also
have migrant workers who are helping us in our agricultural
sector. I understand that your Census Bureau Center for
Economic Studies predicted a 2.3 percent drop in self-responses
and an eight percent drop in responses in households with
noncitizens, including--that includes legal noncitizens.
My question to start is have the census self-response rates
lagged in rural areas and what among--that is No. 1, and how
are you going to address that?
Mr. Dillingham. Sure. Congressman, we track the areas all
across the country and we do it by census tracts, and anyone in
the country can go to our website and they can see how their
jurisdiction, their tract, their community is doing with self-
response rates.
I don't have the figures here before me, but we are well
aware that in some rural communities you have special
challenges and we have very special procedures that we do.
I discussed earlier, maybe in my prepared statement, about
our update leave and we also have various ways that we are--
increased mailings that we are doing in the low-response areas
and we have a variety of things that we will be enlisting in
the weeks ahead.
Beginning August the 11th we should be in all communities,
and I hope that we have already made progress in most of the
rural communities. But we will do everything we can according
to our best abilities and informed by the knowledge of the past
and the previous decennial census and current data.
Mr. Welch. Well, just to interrupt----
Mr. Dillingham. Yes.
Mr. Welch [continuing]. What are some of the specific
things? It is hard. I mean, it is hard to get access to people
who are quite skeptical, even suspicious, of government and
anyone coming from the Census Bureau is perceived by many to be
a government person.
So, what are the specific things you are doing,
particularly among the immigrant community to find them and
count them?
Mr. Dillingham. Certainly. One of the--the most important
thing, well, we have our communications campaign and we have
very targeted communications even on local radio and whatever
communications those communities--that will resonate with them
and they will get the information.
In addition to that, we, of course, have a partnership
specialist, usually selected from those areas, that have
knowledge of those areas. We are also, very importantly, using
our partners.
With 400,000 organizations, the largest ever, those
organizations literally reach into every community in this
country. Now, I will say that during the pandemic----
Mr. Welch. I only have a few minutes. I only have a few--I
only have a few seconds. Just----
Mr. Dillingham. I am sorry.
Mr. Welch. If you are unsuccessful in getting a full count,
how does that undercount adversely affect communities or states
like Vermont?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, if you have an undercount, you know,
the census data is some of the most used data, if not the most
used data, at least indirectly, in the country.
So, it is used for, certainly, the allocation of
resources--Federal, state, and local. It is used for planning.
It is used for research. It is used for decisionmaking.
So, there is a--and it is used in the private sector. So,
it is very useful, and our theme that in the message we send is
``Help Shape Your Future: Answer the 2020 Census.''
We are trying to communicate that messages and our
partnerships are doing a lot in that effort in that we will
have, you know, a half million people for where we haven't
received the responses knocking on the doors. But we have more
than that in our partnerships.
Mr. Welch. Thank you, and I yield back.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. We thank you, and we now recognize
Congressman Roy I believe by WebEx.
Congressman Roy?
Mr. Roy. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Chairwoman. Appreciate it.
Dr. Dillingham, thank you for your stamina here. I think
this hearing has been going for a little while. I was present
for the first panel, dialing in for the second one, but
appreciate your presence and your service to our country.
I had just a couple of questions. You know, I asked some
questions to some of your predecessors earlier. I just want to
make sure I understand this correctly.
Am I right in my understanding, and kind of leaping off of
Mr. Welch's questions, that when you don't actually come in
contact with a person, don't get a response, go to a house,
don't find it, that there are systems in place in the Census
Bureau, for better or worse, right--we could debate the
efficacy--where you have imputation?
Essentially, where you go through count imputation, whether
that is status count imputation for, you know, literally you
can't find the address of the house, or occupancy imputation
where you find the house but you can't find a person, or, you
know, household size imputation where you don't know how many
people are there, and that it is practice to impute the numbers
or, you know, the--what you find in one house in a neighborhood
to the house you don't find or to the individuals you don't
find.
And that there is a second category, characteristic
imputation, where you are imputing the characteristics of
people in the neighborhood, say, there are five white folks in
a house over here. We are going to say that there are five
white folks in this house by imputation.
Am I, roughly, right? I mean, just a short yes or no and a
brief explanation, if you need it. Am I, roughly, right that
that is something that you carry out and engage in for a not
statistically insignificant number of the people you are,
quote, ``counting,'' unquote?
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, I would have to qualify my
answer to that. We do use an imputation process when we have
exhausted all efforts at counting the individuals at that
residence, as you pointed out.
So, there is a process. The numbers are low and we hope
they remain extremely low. But there are times when we have
reason to believe, evidence, that someone is living in a
household but we are unable to communicate with them. Then, in
fact, we do have an imputation accepted method that has been
accepted by the courts.
Mr. Roy. Doctor, I am sorry to interrupt because we have
limited time. I hate this. I would rather have just a nice long
conversation.
Mr. Dillingham. Sure.
Mr. Roy. Do we have a rough estimate of how many that we
are talking about here? Are we talking about hundreds of
thousands? Are we talking about millions? When we are talking
about counting the uncountable, right--that is a phrase I have
heard used in the census world community and so forth--what are
we talking about here on the rough numbers?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, I can get you more precise numbers.
But we are not talking millions. We are talking about those
where we have exhausted our efforts and we have reason to
believe people are living in that household and then in those
instances there is an imputation option.
Mr. Roy. OK. I would appreciate a response to that about
how many numbers and broken down to the extent possible we
count imputation and characteristic imputation and, you know,
the various methods you all use to fill in those holes.
Another question is, Dr. John Abowd, is he--am I correct
that that is the individual overseeing the special tabulation
for redistricting?
Mr. Dillingham. I am not sure if he has direct management
of that. But he is over our research and methodology section
that contributes to that process.
Mr. Roy. Did Mr. Abowd testify against the efforts by the
administration to count or to ask the question of citizenship
on the census last year when it was in litigation?
Mr. Dillingham. I am aware that he was a witness in that
case, yes.
Mr. Roy. And he testified against inclusion of that
question?
Mr. Dillingham. I have not reviewed his testimony but I
think it was considered by many to be--that it raised
questions.
Mr. Roy. OK. I just think it merits noting that he has got
an intimate involvement in how we are overseeing the tabulation
for redistricting and he was testifying against inclusion of
the question, which is an administrative decision, and I think
bears some questioning as to how this process is being carried
out.
I don't know how much time I have left, probably not a lot.
I will go ahead and end with that. I would appreciate your
response to that question, generally, and I do appreciate your
taking time in being here. Thank you.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Congressman.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
I now recognize the vice chair of the committee,
Congressman Gomez from--by remote.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Dillingham, thank you for being here with us.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you.
Mr. Gomez. There is a lot of uncertainty, but one thing is
definitely clear, that if the Census Bureau is not allowed to
continue its count through October and has time to produce the
data and they have--as you requested, there is going to be a
significant undercount when it comes to the population of the
United States.
So, I am going to ask you a series of questions that I need
answers to.
Mr.--Dr. Dillingham, it is my understanding that OMB sent
language to the appropriators requesting an additional $448
million in funding but not granting your request to extend the
statutory deadline for the data.
Did you see the OMB language before it was sent?
Mr. Dillingham. No. No, I did not. But I am aware we put in
a request for a----
Mr. Gomez. All right. Thank----
Mr. Dillingham [continuing]. A billion dollars and I got
approximately half of that in the Senate bill, I guess.
Mr. Gomez. OK. Good to know.
So, you didn't see it. So, therefore, you did not approve
it, correct?
Mr. Dillingham. Let me--let me ask you again. Will you
describe what it is? I am aware that we were requesting
additional funds as part of the appropriations process. I
wasn't involved in the discussions, negotiations.
Mr. Gomez. Correct. Also in your request--hold on. Your
request was also to extend the statutory deadlines for the
dating and they sent it without including that language. So,
you are saying that you never saw the language before it was
sent. So, has the record----
Mr. Dillingham. I will--let me--let me----
Mr. Gomez. I have to go on to the next question.
Mr. Dillingham. Sure.
Mr. Gomez. Have you discussed with Leader McConnell the
need----
Mr. Dillingham. Let me correct. Let me correct.
There have been discussions about the schedule and our
ability to continually assess it. So, I am aware of that topic.
Mr. Gomez. Yes, but you did not see the language before it
was sent, as you stated. Have you discussed with Leader
McConnell the need for the extension?
Mr. Dillingham. Have I discussed with who? Excuse me.
Mr. Gomez. Leader Mitch McConnell in the Senate. The need
for the extension.
Mr. Dillingham. Oh, I have--I have not discussed with House
or Senate leadership any specifics about that.
Mr. Gomez. OK. In this new plan, is it the idea of career
Census officials that are pulling back the enumeration date,
like not granting the extension, to do the in-person
enumeration through October and to ask for--originally
requested for a four-month extension to get the data to
Congress by April 21? Is the new deadlines and new plans, is
that the idea of career Census officials?
Mr. Dillingham. I can, certainly, say that in discussions
we have made assessments along the way and they have discussed
with the House and Senate staffs who we have briefed on a
weekly basis, and I am sure probably--I am not privy to those
discussions but I am sure the topic of extension time and a
shift in schedule were discussed.
Mr. Gomez. Is the new schedule one prepared by career
Census officials?
Mr. Dillingham. I will say that we make assessments and,
certainly, our career officials are involved in those
recommendations. Absolutely. We listen to our career people as
to where we--their assessment as to where we are.
Mr. Gomez. So, are you still sticking to the Bureau's
request for Congress to--for a four-month extension to April
2021 off of the December 31 statutory deadline for delivering
the president the populations total required to reapportion the
House of Representatives?
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, to be clear, someone asked me
earlier am I aware that discussions have been held between the
administration and Congress.
Mr. Gomez. OK. Let me ask you again.
Mr. Dillingham. I am, but I am not party to those.
Mr. Gomez. I reclaim my time.
Mr. Dillingham. Yes.
Mr. Gomez. You support your original request, the Bureau's,
which you are in charge of----
Mr. Dillingham. Yes, correct.
Mr. Gomez [continuing]. Request to Congress to extend the
delivery of the data to April 2021?
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, all requests, as my
understanding, go through the Office of Management and Budget.
We do not directly----
Mr. Gomez. I am asking you, do you still stand by your
original request? I yield--I reclaim my time. Do you still
stand by that extension deadline request that you made--the
Bureau made?
Mr. Dillingham. We have, for planning purposes, made
assessments and continue to do so.
Mr. Gomez. Yes, sir. I am looking for a yes or no. It seems
like there is a--there is an obvious pattern that you are not
in control of the Census Bureau and that the political
appointees of this administration are.
You know your name will go down in history if this is the
worst census ever conducted by the U.S. Government. You are not
going to run away and just--and say that this was only because
of the Trump administration later on. You will be responsible.
Your name will be associated with it.
So, we are going to keep pushing until we have
accountability and a complete and accurate count of every
person in the United States.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Dillingham. That is our mission, Congressman, and let
me say that I am not involved directly with the Hill
negotiations on the--on revising the schedule.
Chairwoman Maloney. I thank the gentleman for his question
and his passion, and now I recognize Congresswoman Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, and thank you,
Ranking Member Comer.
Dr. Dillingham, I want to personally thank you for what you
are undertaking to do that is a Herculean effort to complete
the census this year in the midst of a pandemic. I wish you all
the best of luck and Congress stands ready to support you any
way we can in any essential information or mandate once this is
completed.
My district is a representation of how difficult the census
can be to compete. Four of my 18 counties in my district have
100 percent of their population living in hard-to-count
neighborhoods.
I spent last year making sure that I visited each one of
these counties and I can tell you from firsthand experience how
rural my community in West Virginia is, and this has only been
exacerbated by the coronavirus and the pandemic but, actually,
in a way, it helped us with this because we were very slow to
get the pandemic and we haven't had it to the proportion that
has gone on in the country.
It is critical that we count each of our constituents and
then once we have that count that we are apportioning
congressional seats to each of the states fairly.
As an American citizen, the representation you have in the
Federal Government should always be fair and accurate. Counting
people living in the United States illegally in apportionment
is an attack on our democratic institutions and seeks to take
away the vote, the voice, of the American people.
I strongly support President Trump's actions to protect the
sanctity of our constitutionally mandated process for
apportionment and protecting the voice and the representation
of the American people in Congress.
Is the first 2020 census counting of all the people in the
United States, regardless of legal residency status? Yes or no.
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, I don't want to get into the
details of people that may be not establishing residency, may
be temporary. That was another discussion with a Congressman.
But your question, I think, goes to the heart also of the
last question and comment. We are absolutely dedicated to a
complete and accurate count of the people residing in the
United States, and I do think that we are poised--we were
poised, I think, not to have one of the worst but, in fact, to
have the very best census ever and that remains our goal.
So, we have not only embraced all sorts of innovations, all
sorts of technologies, but our goal is to have the very best
count possible, a complete and accurate count of everyone.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Does the apportionment process play any role in how the
census is conducted or is congressional apportionment only
tabulated once the census count has been concluded?
Mr. Dillingham. We do the complete census count of everyone
and then we are looking, particularly as pointed out, at other
data sources to determine whether we can identify a group that
the president has recommended to subtract from the
apportionment count.
It is a tabulation. So, we will have a complete and
accurate count but we are also working to determine the data
and methodologies that might supply that additional
information.
Again, we are a statistical agency and a data-producing
agency, not a policy agency.
Mrs. Miller. And that is how you will be able to implement
the apportionment memorandum, correct?
Mr. Dillingham. That is the way we are proceeding. You are
correct, Congresswoman.
Mrs. Miller. All right. Thank you.
I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. Congressman Lynch is recognized via
remote. Congressman Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK.
Mr. Lynch. Yes. Can you hear me? Can you hear me?
Mr. Dillingham. Yes, I can. Yes, I can.
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.
Mr. Lynch. OK. All right. Thank you.
Dr. Dillingham, back in June--so I represent, along with
Congresswoman Pressley, I represent the Boston area.
Mr. Dillingham. Sure.
Mr. Lynch. We have got hundreds of thousands of students
that normally attend school within my district and Ms.
Pressley's district as well.
So, Boston is traditionally one of the more difficult
larger cities to count, I think, partly because of the influx
of students.
You sent a letter back in June to the college presidents
asking them for their cooperation in tendering the rolls--the
roll of students, the lists of students that are attending and
their addresses as of April 2020.
I just would like to get some update on how that is going.
I am a bit concerned because we are experiencing right now an
undercount in the process.
I have been working with our fantastic Secretary of State
Bill Galvin. This is his third stint. He has been around a
while, like me. He does a great job on this.
But we got running behind our historic count levels
compared to previous census operations, and I am just wondering
how we are making out on the student assessment in terms of
tracking them.
You know, a lot of the students are learning remotely so
they may not be in their intended location. The schools have
closed down. They are not even in the same city. How are we
dealing with that?
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, that is an excellent question.
Let me say this. I thought I might have the facts and figures
with me. I can't put my hands on them.
But we are making progress. But as I said in my opening
statement, we want to do that as accurately, as efficiently,
and as soon as possible. So, even though we are making
progress, there is still some confusion among the colleges and
universities because there are some special provisions for
protecting student information.
So, there is a grouping of colleges or some colleges, and I
understand I think you have the most colleges per geographical
area in the country, and we want--we want to get that
information at least in roster form and it will save millions
of dollars if we can get it accurately and efficiently,
particularly the students that are living off campus.
The House passed a bill with a provision in it and I will
bring that to your attention. But that is--we are making
progress. I seem to recall that maybe 60 percent of the
colleges, but I will check the record on that.
We want all the colleges, and we--and the concern is that
perhaps that we wouldn't protect the information. We protect
the data better than anyone in the country that I am aware of.
We understand colleges do a lot, but I think we protect it
as well if not better, and we have Federal law on our side and
we have all the safeguards for that information. We want it and
we would like to get it efficiently. We appreciate your
interest and other Members of Congress.
Mr. Lynch. Well, Dr. Dillingham, if I could just ask you.
You know, we can't solve everything on this call. But if I
could get your commitment that my colleagues from the Boston--
for the Massachusetts delegation that are interested in this
and we have got a ton of colleges and universities to myself
and Ms. Pressley----
Mr. Dillingham. Yes.
Mr. Lynch [continuing]. And Secretary Bill Galvin, if we
could talk with you in your office just to get an assessment on
that because time is short, as you know. Is that possible?
Mr. Dillingham. Absolutely. You will get some assessment
this week.
Mr. Lynch. OK.
Mr. Dillingham. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Lynch. All right. All right. Thank you so much, and I
will yield back the balance of my time.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you very much. Thank you very
much.
And I now recognize Congresswoman Porter.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much.
Mr. Dillingham, is the Census Bureau using state
administrative records to conduct the 2020 census operations?
Mr. Dillingham. We do use administrative data for some of
our purposes of trying to discover whether there is duplication
in the management of the census. I can't tell you exactly which
data sets.
Ms. Porter. Super. Is the Census Bureau using these records
or are going to be using these records to determine the
citizenship status of individuals?
Mr. Dillingham. We do have administrative records that will
be used for us to looking at the numbers of citizens and
noncitizens. That is correct.
Ms. Porter. OK. Under the Privacy Act, there should be a
system of records notice--it is called an SORN--explaining what
these administrative records will be used for. Have you
published a SORN, a system of record notice?
Mr. Dillingham. It is my understanding we have complied
with all the regulatory needs. But I will double check. We can
get back to you on specifics.
Ms. Porter. OK. So, do you know if that SORN explains what
the records will be used for as required by the Office of
Management and Budget?
Mr. Dillingham. Are you talking about our administrative
records?
Ms. Porter. Yes.
Mr. Dillingham. Are we--are we sharing that information
with the Office of Management and Budget?
Ms. Porter. Yes.
Mr. Dillingham. We actually have to have their permission
to do that.
Ms. Porter. Great. Does that statement that you gave to the
Office of Management and Budget and that system of record
notice, does it say anything--does it disclose to the American
public that you will be using administrative records to
determine if someone is a citizen?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, we--the executive order is quite
transparent and points that out and actually the agencies too
that will be providing this data. So----
Ms. Porter. But, respectfully, sir--respectfully, sir, do
you have an obligation to comply with the Privacy Act----
Mr. Dillingham. Yes.
Ms. Porter [continuing]. And to file that system of record
notice and to require the statement of purpose with the Office
of Management and Budget? So, I am asking you do those
statements, which you are responsible for, advise the American
public as required in Congress, as required in OMB, as required
that the administrative records will be used to determine
citizenship status?
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, I will double check on that.
But it would certainly be my understanding.
Ms. Porter. OK. I actually have it in front of me.
Madam Chairwoman, I ask to enter the system of record
notice and the OMB purpose statement into the record.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection, yes.
Ms. Porter. So, the answer, Mr. Dillingham, is no. These
disclosures don't make any mention that you will be using
administrative records for citizenship, and since you are going
to be using these records, both Federal administrative records
to help determine citizenship, you should have submitted a
request to the Office of Management and Budget. You should have
submitted supported statements explaining exactly how those
Federal records would be used.
The notices are very clear. They say indicate how, by whom,
and for what purpose the information is to be used. The
president's executive order doesn't waive or relieve you of the
requirement to be transparent.
Will you commit to filing a new system of record notice
that clearly advises that administrative records will be used
to determine citizenship status?
Mr. Dillingham. I am not sure I understood the last part of
your question. Would I be--would I be assured that I do what?
Ms. Porter. Will you please commit to following the law----
Mr. Dillingham. We will----
Ms. Porter [continuing]. With regard to the Privacy Act and
filing a new system of record notice and a new statement of
purpose to the OMB? If, in fact, I am correct that your
existing statement makes no mention of using the administrative
records for the purpose of determining citizenship when that in
fact is--you have testified is your intent?
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, I will certainly ask our
legal counsel to look in the statement of records notice to see
if we are in compliance.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much.
My last question for you is will you count every person
regardless of citizenship because that is what is required by
the Constitution?
Mr. Dillingham. As I have said here today, we are going to
count everyone living in this Nation.
Ms. Porter. OK. So, the Constitution says that
representatives shall be apportioned among the several states
according to their respective numbers, which shall be
determined by adding the whole number of free persons.
In the Constitution, what do you think person means in that
context?
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, that was a topic of the
first panel here and, as I said in my opening remarks,
discussing the policies and history and, particularly, the
legal analysis isn't one of the--it wouldn't be prudent for me
at this time.
As the director of the Census Bureau, we have to get the
work done and I am not going to engage, and quite frankly, I am
not prepared to engage in the legal analysis or the policy
debate.
We are a statistical agency producing statistical products,
and if they are legal we will produce them and it will be the
best available data that we have.
Ms. Porter. Mr. Dillingham, I appreciate that. But you
can't wax on about your faithful execution of your
constitutional duty and then dodge questions about the
Constitution in the same hearing.
But I do appreciate your following up on the systems of
record notice under the Privacy Act and I will followup with
you directly about that.
I yield back.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you so much.
Chairwoman Maloney. I thank the gentlelady for her
questions, and before I recognize Representative Ranking Member
Comer for his closing remarks, I want to seek clarity on one
thing, if I could, Mr. Director.
I asked you earlier if you would send this committee the
results of the Bureau's analysis under the president's memo,
and you responded that the Bureau would be transparent.
Mr. Dillingham. That is correct.
Chairwoman Maloney. So, can I take that as a yes that you
will share the results of the Bureau's analysis?
Mr. Dillingham. It is the policy and practice of the Bureau
to share with the world any final decisions we make on that.
But in the discussions of it, and I cannot pledge that. I can
say that as we--as decisions are made they will be transparent
for everyone and particularly the users of the data.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. I now recognize Ranking Member
Comer for his closing remarks.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairman Maloney. I appreciate,
again, you calling this hearing today on the 2020 census.
I want to reiterate what I said at the beginning of this
hearing this morning by saying that everyone should complete
their census form and engage with census enumerators if they
come to your door. Very important that every single American is
counted.
I support the president's action last week to exclude
illegal immigrants from the apportionment count, as do a
majority of Americans.
Including illegal immigrants in the count for
representation in Congress only dilutes the representation of
all Americans who vote in elections and makes a mockery of our
basic principle of one person one vote.
I just want to make some points to correct the record about
some things that we have heard today. Democrats have made some
very misleading or incorrect statements that I would like to
take this opportunity to correct.
First, we have heard from Democrats that the president's
memorandum means that illegal immigrants are not counted for
purposes of the 2020 census. This is not correct.
Illegal immigrants are still counted for purposes of the
2020 census. The Presidential memorandum does not direct the
Census Bureau not to count illegal immigrants.
It only affects the subsequent use of census data to
conduct the apportionment of congressional seats and Electoral
College votes among the States.
Illegal immigrants, while counted for the census, will be
excluded from the apportionment base.
Second, we have heard from Democrats that the president's
memorandum will divert funding or actual Federal funding
flowing to states as a result of the 2020 census. This is also
incorrect.
The president's memorandum does not direct or divert any
Federal funding or exclude illegal immigrants from being
considered in future funding decisions. Complete census 2020
data, once tabulated, will be available for Congress, Federal
agencies, state legislatures, and municipalities to use when
making funding decisions.
We have also heard from Democrats that the Supreme Court
ruled that asking whether someone is a citizen is
unconstitutional. That is not correct.
In fact, the Supreme Court actually held that asking
whether someone is a U.S. citizen on the census is lawful. The
justices said that, quote, ``In light of the early
understanding of and long practice under the enumeration
clause, we conclude that it permits Congress and, by extension,
the Secretary of Commerce, to inquire about citizenship on the
census questionnaire,'' unquote.
Although the administration had failed to comply with some
procedural requirements in reinstating the question, which had
appeared on previous census forms, the question itself was not
ruled to be constitutional.
We have also heard that the president's memorandum is
unconstitutional. Not so, says the constitutional law expert,
Dr. Eastman, who testified here this morning.
We heard from him that the proper understanding of the
Constitution is that we should only apportion seats based on
the citizenry and not foreign inhabitants, especially those who
are here illegally.
They are here illegally. Counting those unlawfully present
creates perverse incentives, dilutes representation of voters
in states with fewer illegal immigrants, and undermines the
principle of one person one vote.
Representation should matter to everyone. It is a simple
question of fairness.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. I want to thank the ranking member and
all of the participants today, all of our panelists, and
especially you, Director. I thank you for your public service
and for voluntarily coming here today to be with us.
I want to close by saying that it is an undisputed fact
that the coronavirus has changed everything in our country. It
has changed everything, the way we do things, and I would say
that the coronavirus has changed the census.
Because of the tremendous challenges, the concern for your
enumerators' health, the enumeration was put off. From your
testimony today, you say the enumeration for the hard-to-count
will begin August 10.
When you put this off, you also--or rather, Secretary Ross
asked us to put off the date for collecting the information and
also for sending the apportionment to the states from October
2020 to the end of April 2021.
Our Congress, our members of our Democratic Caucus, we
passed a bill in the coronavirus and we included the date
change that you requested.
So, it is against this backdrop of all these challenges
that you are confronted with the hard-to- count, with the
coronavirus, and a--I would call it a disruptive and historic
disease that has really overburdened the Census Bureau and
created more challenges not just with the Census Bureau but to
all of government.
And it is against this backdrop that President Trump issued
what I consider an illegal memorandum last week and the purpose
that we called this hearing, this emergency hearing, is in
response to that memorandum.
This memo would dramatically change the manner in which the
census count is reported. I agree with my colleague that you
have testified and I applaud you that everyone will be counted.
We will all work hard to get undocumented, everyone counted in
the census.
But on Monday, I want to point out that the Bureau posted
on its website that the Census Bureau is working toward the
plan to complete field data collection by October 31, 2020.
Yet, I noticed today that this notice has been removed from
your website. Yet, it hasn't been replaced with a new date or
with any date on when the field data collection is supposed to
happen.
Now, I believe we should do what the census professionals
say they need, that they need this postponement to get the
field data by October 31 and to report it later in April 2021.
But it has been reported in the press that the
administration is trying to rush the apportionment count and
trying to push it back to December 31 before President Trump
would leave the White House if he, possibly--we don't know what
the outcome of the election is--but he would be leaving the
house before the election results, if he loses the election.
So, I am concerned that the administration is seeking to
rush the process and sacrifice the accuracy of the census for
political gain, that the president's intent is to have all of
this done before he leaves office so that he can do what I
believe is an illegal action.
So, I hope that you will live up to the standards of
professionalism, stand by the request of Secretary Ross. I did
check with the professionals in New York who are working on the
census and they are working with the numbers that Secretary
Ross requested, that the data is completed by October 2020 and
that it is translated to the states by April 2021.
I also want to say that, without objection, all members
will have five legislative days with which to submit additional
written questions for the witnesses to the chair, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses for their response, and I ask our
witnesses to please respond as promptly as they are able.
I now say that this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:28 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]