U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

42–899 PDF 2008

2010 CENSUS: REDUCING THE UNDERCOUNT IN

THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY,

CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 9, 2007

Serial No. 110–55

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSISGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

TOM LANTOS, California

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

DAVID MARIN, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

BILL SALI, Idaho

TONY HAYWOOD, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on July 9, 2007 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Gonzalez, Hon. Charles, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Texas .......................................................................................................... 6

Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; and Kevin

Wolff, city council member, mayor pro tem, city of San Antonio, TX ....... 8

Kincannon, Charles Louis ........................................................................ 8

Wolff, Kevin ............................................................................................... 15

Rodriguez, Hon. Ciro, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Texas .............................................................................................................. 6

Saldana, Steven, president, Catholic Charities Archdiocese of San Antonio; Arturo Vargas, executive director, National Association of Latino

Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Foundation; L. Diane Bennett, president and CEO, Kineta Corp., Charlotte, NC; and Lydia

Camarillo, vice president, Southwest Voter Registration Education

Project ............................................................................................................ 32

Bennett, L. Diane ...................................................................................... 45

Camarillo, Lydia ........................................................................................ 61

Saldana, Steven ......................................................................................... 32

Vargas, Arturo ........................................................................................... 35

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Bennett, L. Diane, president and CEO, Kineta Corp., Charlotte, NC,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 48

Camarillo, Lydia, vice president, Southwest Voter Registration Education

Project, prepared statement of ..................................................................... 64

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 4

Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, U.S. Census Bureau, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 10

Saldana, Steven, president, Catholic Charities Archdiocese of San Antonio, prepared statement of ........................................................................... 34

Vargas, Arturo, executive director, National Association of Latino Elected

and Appointed Officials Educational Foundation, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 38

Wolff, Kevin, city council member, mayor pro tem, city of San Antonio,

TX, prepared statement of ........................................................................... 18

(1)

2010 CENSUS: REDUCING THE UNDERCOUNT

IN THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY

THURSDAY, JULY 5, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND

NATIONAL ARCHIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, San Antonio, TX.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:12 a.m., at Henry

B. Gonzalez Convention Center, 200 E. Market Street, room 103–

A, San Antonio, TX, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representative Clay.

Also present: Representatives Gonzalez, and Rodriguez.

Staff present: Tony Haywood, staff director; Alissa Bonner, professional staff member; and Will Ragland, staff assistant.

Mr. CLAY. The Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and

National Archives will come to order. Today’s field hearing will examine the issues relating to efforts to reduce the undercount

among Hispanics and Latinos in the 2010 census. Without objection, the Chair and other Members will have 5 minutes to make

opening statements, and, without objection, Members and witnesses may have 5 legislative days to submit written statements or

extraneous materials for the record.

I want to recognize my two distinguished colleagues who are

here today. Our gracious host, Mr. Charles Gonzalez, as well as

Ciro Rodriguez, for both being here and joining the subcommittee

today. Let me make an opening statement, and then I will introduce these two formally.

Let me begin by thanking my colleague and friend, Congressman

Charles Gonzalez, for agreeing to host us in San Antonio and for

the hard work of his staff in helping us to plan and prepare for today’s hearing. Our relationship goes back through generations. His

father and my father served together in the U.S. House. When I

got here, he quickly became a friend of mine, and I appreciate his

friendship.

Let me also thank Mayor Phil Hardberger and the city of San

Antonio for their cooperation in making the Henry B. Gonzalez

Conference Center available to us today. In addition, I am very

pleased that we are joined today by my friend, Congressman Ciro

Rodriguez of the 23rd District of Texas. We in Congress are so

pleased to have Ciro back in Congress where he should be and

should stay. We can clap for him.

[Applause.]

2

Mr. CLAY. The issues we will be discussing today are very important to him and his constituents, and we are fortunate to have our

colleagues’ participation in this hearing. Today’s hearing is the

third in a series of oversight hearings looking at the Census Bureau’s preparation for the 2010 census. It is our first field hearing

related to the census.

Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, it mandates an actual enumeration of the U.S. population for the purpose of apportionment of congressional seats. In addition, the information is

used to allocate $283 billion in Federal funds and to manage Federal agencies. Therefore, it is imperative that the data be complete,

accurate, and timely. This requires the Federal Government to exercise due diligence in its effort to count each and every person in

the 50 States and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the

island territories.

The 2000 census counted 35.3 million Hispanics living in the

United States. That was up 13 million from the 1990 census. The

Latino population as a percentage of the total U.S. population grew

from 9 percent in 1990, to 12.5 percent in 2000. Unfortunately, the

Census Bureau estimates that it missed over 3 million people of

Hispanic origin in 2000, and this undercount contributed in part to

a loss of over $4.1 billion in Federal funding for 31 States and the

District of Columbia. Another $3.6 billion of Federal funding was

lost by the Nation’s 58 largest couties, including Harris and Dallas

Counties here in Texas. This loss of Federal funding taxed the resources of State and local governments and compromised the level

of services provided to residents.

Data about Hispanic origin also helps to determine compliance

with Federal laws such as the Voting Rights Act, Bilingual Election

Requirements, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the National Affordable Housing Act, and other statutes that address affirmative

action, nutrition, education, veterans’ benefits, older Americans,

public health, and energy assistance. Reducing the Hispanic

undercount is necessary to ensure that these laws are enforced and

administered effectively.

This morning we’ll discuss the Census Bureau’s plan of reducing

the undercount of the Hispanic and Latino population in the 2010

census, including efforts to improve outreach to residents of hardto-count communities. The tone of the ongoing immigration debate

and recent data breaches involving various government agencies

heighten the challenge of counting residents in hard-to-count communities, where language barriers and fear of or distrust of the

government are prevalent.

To achieve a full and accurate count, the Census Bureau must

use every legal and viable means to instill public confidence in the

Bureau’s ability to collect census data without putting anyone’s privacy at risk. These efforts should include providing language appropriate materials for target populations in the Latino community,

hiring Hispanics as both senior managers and enumerators, and

maximizing cooperation of community partners to strengthen outreach and education.

One week from Wednesday, the House will be voting to provide

funding for these efforts, and today’s testimony will inform the debate as competing priorities to consider on the House floor. With

3

the help of our witnesses, we hope to learn this morning what the

Census Bureau needs and must do to be effective in meeting the

challenges associated with obtaining full information of the Hispanic population. This will be a key component of the broader efforts of securing a complete and accurate count of the entire population on census day 2010.

Now let me yield to my distinguished colleague and our gracious

host, Congressman Charles Gonzalez.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]

4

5

6

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES GONZALEZ, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Chairman Clay. First of

all, welcome to you and your staff. We all got together last night.

We were on the river, on a barge, so I think they had an interesting dinner and hopefully an enjoyable evening. And I’m going to be

really brief. I know Ciro is going to also have some comments.

What the chairman brings today with his staff is the interest

that Congress is showing on probably one of the most important aspects of what government does, and that is the census that has

been there since the forming of our country. This is a listening tour

more than anything else, and we’re here to learn and to take back

to our colleagues and to share with them the information that is

actually gathered at these field hearings.

We will be touching, of course—and I think the chairman has already touched on the importance of the census. We don’t really believe that most Americans understand the importance of the census

and how it impacts their daily lives. We’re also here to identify and

to encourage, to promote partnerships. The Census Bureau cannot

conduct the census and be successful without those local partnerships. And I think the Director and other witnesses will be addressing that, as well as leaders from our city in what we have to

do.

The census tells us who we are as a Nation. It will identify the

needs of our Nation, and it will allow us to provide the opportunity

to our citizens that have always distinguished this country more so

than any other country. That is how important the census is.

Minority communities occupy a very unique position, and you

will hear some of the concerns and some of the challenges that face

minority communities by some of our witnesses. They will be those

communities that are truly undercounted, and those are the communities whose needs are the greatest and have to be addressed

by government, as well as the private sector. The facts and figures

that are gleaned, that are actually compiled by the Census Bureau,

are not just used—again, these figures are not just used by the government, whether it’s Federal Government or it’s State or local governments. The private sector, in large measure, also makes very

important economic decisions that impact us all based on these

same figures. So I think that is our message today.

I am truly gratified that Chairman Clay chose San Antonio, because he could have chosen other cities. But I think he understands

where we are and the position we occupy as a city, and, of course,

the large Hispanic population not just in this city, but in all of the

Southwest. And with that, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Congressman. Now I will yield to

Congressman Ciro Rodriguez for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. CIRO RODRIGUEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first of all

welcome you to San Antonio also. Thank you for coming out here.

I also want to personally thank you for doing what you’re doing

right now. I know how important this is, how essential this is, and

7

I know how difficult it is to get people to start to pay attention to

the importance of this issue.

You mentioned the over 3 million undercount that occurred. If we

can just look at that—and those that are involved in redistricting,

that would have meant almost four additional Congressmen, and

not to mention that in Texas—that was a conservative figure in

Texas—we lost, just on the undercount from the previous decade,

over $1 billion. So you can figure out—I know that a welfare

counselman would know what to do with a billion bucks. Right?

[Laughter.]

So, in terms of the difference in the disparity that occurs because

of the undercount. And it’s an issue that requires these types of

hearings so that we can start getting the word out so that we can

start doing those things that are needed in making sure that everyone gets counted, and that’s important.

[Speaking Spanish.]

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And so it’s important for us to continue to have

these hearings. And I want to congratulate our chairman, but I

also want to congratulate Congressman Gonzalez. Congressman

Gonzalez played a very significant role in the last census. I know

he had a series of meetings on behalf of the Hispanic caucus. He

was engaged in trying to get them to do some counts in certain

areas and making sure that certain people got hired in order for

that to occur and that to happen. No one knows this process better

than Congressman Gonzalez and the difficulty that we have here

in the San Antonio area, in South Texas, in making that happen.

So I want to personally thank him for his engagement. So congratulations. Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Congressman Rodriguez. Thank

you for being here. The subcommittee will now hear testimony from

the witnesses before us today. Our first panel, we’ll hear from the

Honorable Charles Louis Kincannon, Director of the U.S. Census

Bureau, and the Honorable Kevin Wolff, City Council Member and

Mayor Pro Tem of the city of San Antonio. Thank you, Director

Kincannon and Councilman Wolff, for appearing before the subcommittee today.

It is the policy of the committee to swear in all witnesses before

they testify. Will you both please stand up and raise your right

hands?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CLAY. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in

the affirmative. Thank you.

Dr. Kincannon, before you begin, I want to say again how much

we appreciate your service in leadership as Director of the Census

Bureau. Congressman Gonzalez and I had the opportunity to meet

with you and Dr. Steven Murdock, who has been nominated to succeed you as Director. And based on his credentials and our conversation, I am hopeful that Dr. Murdock will bring a similar level

of expertise and commitment to the top job at the Census Bureau.

That said, you will have 5 minutes to make an opening statement. Your complete written testimony will be included in the

hearing record. The timing system is malfunctioning, but we will

indicate to you when you get close. You may proceed.

8

STATEMENTS OF CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON, DIRECTOR,

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU; AND KEVIN WOLFF, CITY COUNCIL

MEMBER, MAYOR PRO TEM, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TX

STATEMENT OF CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON

Mr. KINCANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very

much for holding this field hearing in San Antonio. And I must say

I have renewed respect for your foresight in that you chose to do

it on a day when it’s 88 degrees in San Antonio and 100 degrees

in Washington, DC. But it will make our recruiting problems here

more difficult, I think.

I am very pleased to begin with Congressman Gonzalez and with

Congressman Rodriguez. I was born in Texas, in Waco. I went

through the 3rd grade here in San Antonio, and then I spent the

rest of my youth in Corpus Christi.

[Speaking Spanish.]

Mr. KINCANNON. It stood me in good stead many times to speak

to people I otherwise could not deal with, the head of the planning,

William Frederico, the Waco community leaders sometimes who

were more comfortable speaking in Spanish. And when I worked in

Europe, I found that it opened some doors that my English would

not, so—that was taught in the public schools in Corpus Christi,

and I have gained all my life from that opportunity.

Well, I’m still going to be held to 5 minutes, so I’ll have to say

that in the past decade, a number of important changes have taken

place in our country. Among those noteworthy changes is the continued growth of the Hispanic community, our Nation’s largest minority community. The importance of this growth should not be underestimated. It is, therefore, critically important for the Census

Bureau to ensure that our plans for 2010 will provide accurate data

that will be used to create opportunity for the thousands of Latino

communities throughout our country. Based on the 2000 census, we

think we can further improve the accuracy and coverage of the census. That’s our primary goal for 2010.

One of the most significant achievements of the 2000 census was

reducing the undercount of the Nation’s historically undercounted

communities, including Hispanics, African-Americans, and American Indians living on reservations. This success was in large part

the result of extraordinary outreach efforts from the inner-city

neighborhoods of St. Louis, to the colonias of South Texas. Working

with partners in the Nation’s hardest-to-count communities was

key to achieving trust and encouraging participation.

We worked with national organizations, including NALEO,

MALDEF, LULAC, and the GI Forum, as well as the faith-based

community and locally elected officials. And to meet the needs of

the hardest-to-count communities, such a colonias, in addition to

outreach, we used different operational strategies in the field. For

2010, we know improvements can be gained throughout the census

process, from the address list development, to better response

strategies, as well as outreach among the Nation’s hard-to-count

communities.

In preparation for the 2010 census, we have conducted extensive

planning and testing. Thanks to congressional support, this will be

the best planned and most tested census in our Nation’s history.

9

Throughout the decade, the Census Bureau has placed a high priority on improving the accuracy of the census address list. We are

working extensively with U.S. Postal Service to update this address

list twice every year, and we are working with local communities

to update the address list and gather information about group

quarters; nursing homes, college dormitories, and the like, so that

we can count that community well.

Our goals for language are to provide effective ways for our Nation’s diverse communities to participate and respond to the census. For the first time we will mail bilingual Spanish/English census forms to neighborhoods with higher proportions of people who

show need to reply in Spanish. We are also identifying areas

throughout the United States where information—informational

materials in other languages will be helpful. We will also encourage local hiring efforts to ensure that we hire enumerators with

relevant language skills to the neighborhoods in which they will be

working.

The success of the census will also be enhanced through partnership and outreach. It is our commitment to work with communities

throughout the Nation so each and every person living in the

United States can be counted on census day. To do so, the Census

Bureau is planning a multifaceted and integrated communications

program to reach every community. As a part of the overall communication strategy, we intend to incorporate the lessons and successes of the 2000 census, which included both paid advertising

and reliance on partnerships.

Partnerships are fundamental to the success of the census. These

partnerships encourage participation and demonstrate the importance of the census to the community. Local leaders at the grass

roots, whether they are in churches or in schools or in business or

in grassroots organizations are more trusted by local people than

the Census Bureau. They believe us, but not quite as much as they

do people they know every day and see every day. Partners are

often our best Ambassadors in hard-to-count areas.

As I mentioned at the beginning, this census is the most planned

and tested census in our Nation’s history. Our primary goal for the

2010 census is improved coverage and accuracy. We believe all of

our coverage improvements, efforts to date, contribute to this goal.

Chairman Clay, I assure you that the Census Bureau is fully committed to the goal of counting every American in their proper place

and in their communities, especially the hard to count.

Thank you for supporting the goals of the census, which you have

done consistently.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Director.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kincannon follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Wolff, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF KEVIN WOLFF

Mr. WOLFF. Before I dig into this a little bit, I do want to give

a special thank you to Congressman Gonzalez and Congressman

Rodriguez for the great work you do for our community. Both of

you have given a lot of your lives to helping us, and I really want

you to know we really appreciate it here. I’m going to read a number of things here. That’s not my preferred mode of communication,

but there’s a lot of important information in there, and I want to

make sure I get it across correctly.

So, with that said, chairman and members of the committee, my

name is Kevin Wolff. I’m the city councilman for District 9 and the

current mayor pro tem. On behalf of the city of San Antonio, I

would like to welcome and thank the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on Information Policy,

Census, and National Archives for this opportunity to examine

plans on how the Census Bureau can work better with the city of

San Antonio to ensure an accurate count in the 2010 census.

The city takes an active role in the legislative and regulatory

process in Washington, DC, and we are honored that you have chosen our city as the site for this important hearing concerning the

upcoming 2010 census. We are very grateful for the leadership of

our hometown Congressman, Charlie Gonzalez, on the issue of the

census, and again thank this subcommittee for holding a field hearing in our great city.

San Antonio, with an estimated population of 1.3 million, is the

seventh largest city in the United States and the second largest in

Texas. Ensuring the most complete count possible is important to

San Antonio because it affects city, State, and Federal political representation, Federal and State funding of programs, economic development, planning for physical growth, and delivery of health

and human services.

In addition to our increasing growth rates and geographical

size—we’re 472.9 square miles—our population characteristics also

present unique challenges to the San Antonio census count. Of special note, Texas is now a majority-minority State, with an increasing diverse population. Texas has a minority population of 11.3 million, comprising 50.2 percent of its total population of 22.5 million.

Following this trend, San Antonio’s minorities represent 68 percent

of the city’s population. Currently, Spanish speakers constitute a

ratio of more than 1 in 10 U.S. household residents. San Antonio

has a Hispanic population of 59 percent and a significant number

of Spanish-speaking households.

Mail non-response was significant, ranging from 25 to 60 percent

in areas with a median income below 24,000 during the 1990 count.

In 2000, San Antonians had a median income of 36,000 and 17 percent of the population below the poverty level. Based on this historic data, the potential for an undercount is apparent.

In a post-enumeration survey of the 1990 census, it was determined that approximately 39,000 persons, or 3.9 percent of the

population in San Antonio, was not counted. According to an estimate from the Texas State Attorney General’s Office, our community lost approximately 142 million in Federal and State funds over

16

a 10-year period as a result of the 1990 undercount. And, yes, I

could figure out how to spend the 142 million as well.

To boost response rates, the efforts of the Census Bureau’s Publicity Office should be enhanced. For the 2000 count, this office provided paid advertising, a census in school programs, a Partnership

Program engaging businesses and community groups, and special

events to promote outreach and response.

San Antonio partnered with Bexar County to participate financially to support the promotion efforts. The Census Bureau’s Publicity Office coordinated with our local complement, the San Antonio-Bexar County Complete Count Committee, to spearhead a fourpoint program.

One, a public awareness program that focused on media, special

events, newsletters of existing organizations, speaker pool, posters,

flyers, and mail outs.

Two, a targeted outreach program that identified targeted areas,

recruited outreach volunteers in existing organizations and volunteer centers, and promoted block walks to improve response rates.

Three, a shelter program that inventoried shelters and participated in surveys.

Four, resource development to identify specific resources needed

to target the census efforts to improve response rates and solicit resources from subcommittees and affiliated organizations.

Community partnerships were critical in the developments of

these programs. A mailing and contact list had contacts ranging

from professional organizations, schools, colleges, universities, public utilities, media, military bases, elected and appointed officials,

neighborhood and community groups, to faith-based organizations.

Of special note, the city recently initiated the Haven for Hope,

a 10-year plan to end homelessness. This plan includes a multifunctional campus near downtown that will deliver comprehensive

human services to address homelessness, in partnership with

health and human service providers, local charities, and the private

sector. This should provide an opportunity to obtain a more accurate count of our homeless citizens and assess their needs.

For the 2010 census, the Complete Count Committee would continue its role in conducting promotional, educational, and outreach

activities to persuade people to be counted. Of particular concern

will be increased outreach among the city’s diverse population, lowincome areas, and non-English speakers, where the potential for an

undercount exists.

Second, the Census Bureau should continue its move toward an

electronic format to help ensure the accurate—and my time is

dinging.

In closing, the U.S. Census Bureau should provide the most efficient and effective counting program for the 2010 census. It should

strive to improve coverage of the population and reduce the differential undercount; improve the accuracy of responses and locating people geographically; increase mail response rates; maintain

and refine an open process with all stakeholders; use the most effective modes for responding to the census; increase the use and effectiveness of language assistance guides and non-English language

questionnaires; and ensure a diverse work force and improve the

17

effectiveness of recruiting, training, and pay strategies in obtaining

the work force needed to conduct the field operations.

I believe that’s exactly what the Honorable Kincannon has said

before. So, again, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to come and testify, and certainly I’ll be here for any question that you may have.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Councilman Wolff.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolff follows:]

18

19

20

21

Mr. CLAY. And you would make an excellent witness on Capitol

Hill. You understand keeping within those time lines, and you’re

a speed reader. I appreciate it. I am going to defer first to my

host—my gracious host, Congressman Gonzalez and to Congressman Rodriguez. Congressman Gonzalez, you have 5 minutes.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Did you notice the chairman gave me 5 minutes?

But I’m—a little bit of slack. Thank you very much.

This is to the Director. And I guess what I want to get to right

away is to acknowledge some of the issues that are out there that

confront us and then may make this particular census a lot more

difficult than the last one, if you can imagine. And the reason I say

that is obviously we’re just coming off a very intense immigration

debate. And we have to acknowledge, first of all, that everyone residing in our country is counted, whether they are citizens or not.

And we have individuals, you know, Mr. Director, that would disagree with that proposition. But other than the Constitution of the

United States, which mandates that be the order, there’s not much

arguing about that particular principle, and that is, everyone is

going to be counted, regardless of legal status, citizenship, and so

on. And it is important, and there are a lot of reasons for that,

which we could go into.

On top of all that, we also have had data breaches at the Federal

level; people losing information and such that should have been

confidential. We’ve got that problem. We have large segments of society that believe that government is more intrusive now than ever

since 9–11. So we have all those factors working in—what I think

actually mitigate against our best efforts—success anyway. And so

I’m trying to ascertain how you view those factors, what you think

the impact would be, and how you would address it?

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, that’s a tall order for some of the topics

that you raised. I agree that the continuing public dialog and relative discord about immigration will make our job harder in 2010,

but I don’t know, even if a bill had been passed, it might not have

resolved all of that either. But we have to work again very closely

with partners in the community.

The census law is very clear. We cannot disclose information

about individuals to any law enforcement agency or indeed to anybody who’s not working for the Census Bureau, and that is observed very strictly. Yes, there are flaws sometimes where opportunity exists for risk of disclosure, but we’re continually plugging

those kind of holes.

It is important that respondents who fear the government for

whatever reason, or whether they just don’t think it’s the government’s business, understand that law. And I could talk about that

law until I’m blue in the face in every major city in the country,

and it will not be nearly as effective as a clergymen in South San

Antonio talking to his congregation about that law and saying, ‘‘I’ve

looked at this. I know it can be trusted and accepted.’’ Or local

community leaders in civil society or even in business, they convey

with much more persuasiveness a sense of trust. So we’re going to

be more dependent than ever on partners in the community to conveying that guarantee.

On other areas, I think that we have made important progress.

The fact that we will have a short-form-only census in 2010 is very

22

important, I think, to increasing the mail response rate and the

general cooperation of people. We’re only going to be asking about

eight questions, and they’re not controversial questions.

Although, some people in this country are frustrated when they

get a race question that is historically based rather than maybe

their vision of what group should be identified. But realists understand that this plays a role in guaranteeing the security of five

identified groups who have been legally discriminated against in

voting in the history of our country. So we will get much better cooperation, I believe, in a short-form-only census.

A small effect of that—maybe not so small—is that the more controversial questions on the long form now are asked in small

monthly samples that are carried on throughout the country and

provide information through the American Community Survey to

communities such as San Antonio every year, and not just once

every decade. That means that a lot of fodder for public complaint

and discussion about the census is set aside. There are questions

on the long form that are more sensitive, like income. There are

questions that people don’t understand why the government needs

to know, like your journey to work, what time you leave the home,

and how you—how far you travel, and what means you do. Obviously, that’s very important to transportation planning in San Antonio and throughout Texas, but it’s not immediately obvious to the

person who gets the questionnaire at home. That all is set aside

from national controversy in the course of that census.

The fact that we can have a short-form-only means that we can

send in areas where the American Community Survey tells us

there is a concentration of households where Spanish is spoken at

home and English is not spoken well or very well. That means that

we can target those areas with the bilingual questionnaire for the

first time and not have to followup through a more clumsy process

of offering a questionnaire in Spanish if someone requests it. I

think that will be a big help in Hispanic coverage particularly.

The fact that we will use a hand-held computing device in order

to do the nonresponse followup and other activities in the census

is going to be very helpful because it means if someone mails their

questionnaire late, we know that and can tell the next day the enumerator who’s going around to knock on the door, ‘‘You don’t have

to go to 129 East Vanderbilt Street. You can switch that, because

we’ve got their questionnaire.’’ They know exactly the location of

where they’re going and spotted with GPS technology and so on.

All of these tools help us to make sure that we can do a good job

in countering overall frustrating trends in our society.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Director. Do I still have

time? OK. Because I don’t want Councilman Wolff—the same question in many ways. And thank you for your service and your kind

words. Because of the political climate—and you’re a very sensitive

political person, appreciating the impact and the consequences to

the efforts of the city in forming that partnership and what we will

be asking you as a partner to do. How do you see it impacting

what—you and the City Council and city staff and others?

Mr. WOLFF. Thank you, Congressman. It will impact us. As you

know—I’ve shared this story with you. My family and I lived in

Manhattan during 9–11 and worked in the city. And so, you know,

23

all of those things have served to sort of change our country. Some

in not so good ways. Some in perhaps some good ways.

But the fact is that it has changed, and it’s brought issues about

how we deal with immigration, how we deal with border security.

You know, certainly in my mind I see those as two very different

issues. And I think—well, quite frankly, I think we’ve made a mistake in Washington by sort of combining those two. I think we need

to address them separately. That’s my personal opinion. But that

personal opinion affects the decisions I make here in San Antonio

and how we can help support this effort.

You know, I thought about saying this at the beginning of my

testimony. I can’t think of a more important, I guess, counting exercise we do than this one. You know, you mentioned some things

about either private sector—we know about the government sector.

I mean, it is amazing how these numbers flow through our entire

country and how many decisions we make on that. And so, while

I acknowledge that it’s going to possibly be tougher than it was before, just acknowledging that and getting ready for it as we’re coming up to it is going to make us so much stronger than perhaps

we’ve been in the past. And it will really point to—and I think we

can talk about this all the time. How important it is to do this correctly.

And so I don’t know that we have all those answers yet, but I

think just being cognizant that it is going to be a tough job better

prepares us to do it.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Wolff.

Mr. CLAY. Congressman Rodriguez.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me—I sit on the

appropriations, so I know that without the resources, you can’t

make happen what you want to make happen. And if you can’t respond now, I’d like to get it later on.

No. 1, maybe how much resources were expended the last time.

Because my understanding is that we did put some money—additional money last time to try to get to the undercount, and I’d like

get a full picture of that budget for last time, and then a projected

budget for this time that will be comparable and/or—in terms of

how to address that gap of that 3 million that occurred last time

so it’s not 3 million and it might—and it won’t be worse. So I

think—you know, and if you could maybe respond on that.

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, Congressman. I can’t respond fully about

the life cycle—cost cycle in—cost estimate for the 2000 census. I do

know that first of all planning and testing was not carried out as

thoroughly and systematically as it has been this decade. And then

there were last-minute decisions, including one by the Supreme

Court, about a year before census day that required an extensive

revision of the procedures to be used in the field. Congress responded to those unusual circumstances by a significant infusion of

money in the last two fiscal years which made a big difference in

the success of that census.

This time we began with recommendations from the Government

Accountability Office and from the Inspector General at the Commerce Department that we begin earlier in our planning, that we

test the options that we were planning, that we revised our plans

24

based on the test results, and we have done that. We started testing earlier than ever before. This census will cost, in life cycle, about $12 billion. That’s significantly more in nominal terms than the life cycle cost in 2000.

But it is about $1 billion overall less than repeating the kind of

census that we had for 2000. That census only gave us information

for small areas one time in the decade. The plan for the 2010 census will give us observations every year for small areas, have a

short-form-only census in 2010, and have all the extensive automation that saves money and improves quality for about $1 billion

less than repeating the old fashioned census.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And my understanding also that your—that

your data is only as good as what you’re able to obtain, for example, from the postal office. And the post office, I know, is having

a real difficulty with their resources. You know, we didn’t give

them sufficient resources after the anthrax stuff that they had to

go through, and they had to swallow that cost. Were there any expenditures that went into some of those other—like the postal and

maybe other—in order to help out with the census that you’re

aware of the last decade?

Mr. KINCANNON. I’m not aware that we transferred any money

to pay the postal service——

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I’m sure you didn’t, but do you know if we provided any resources to the postal——

Mr. KINCANNON. No, sir, I don’t know that. I know the postal

service has continued good cooperation with us, sharing with us

their delivery sequence file which we use twice a year to review the

address lists and improve them. They go through a number of exercises to make sure that we have the knowledge that they have, and

that’s very helpful.

Congress changed the law in—before the 2000 census to permit

us to share our address list with local governments; with mayors,

with county commissioners, and with State governments, as a part

of fact, so that they could point out to us where we might have

missed housing units. After all, local knowledge is really—has to

be better than our knowledge in many instances. I spent part of

yesterday, about 3 hours, going around Frio County with Judge

Garcia, and he had excellent maps pinpointing housing units and,

of course, an extensive personal knowledge of the situation. I hope

he’ll come work on the census with us, and we’re going to enlist

what knowledge he has.

Now, we will go to city governments, county governments, and

State governments formally in August. We’ve already announced

this program in the Local Update of Census Addresses [LUCA],

and we will be formally beginning it in August. They can submit

their—their information—their list of addresses to us in an automated form, and—we will then be able to check all of the additions

that we make, the postal service makes, or local government

makes, when we do the address canvas, going around every street

and every block and every road in the country. So that’s an important improvement in the address list.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. That was the exact question I was

going to ask the Councilman, the Mayor Pro Tem Wolff, in terms

of the 3 million undercount, in terms of how political subdivisions

25

or cities, communities, and school districts can help in that process

in terms of the undercount?

Mr. WOLFF. Well, certainly, you know, my answer is going to be

very similar. You know, sitting here, I was thinking about something specific you had also asked in regards to the post office and

funding and those types of things. And as I look toward, you know,

certainly our limited means here at the city, those types of dollars

and how we spend those, you know, I look at this quite frankly

from a business decision model. If I can spend $100,000 to make

$142 million, that’s a pretty good investment, isn’t it? Yeah.

And so, when—when we’re looking at opportunities to partner—

whether it’s with the, you know, local grassroots level, which you

absolutely need—and really that’s going to bring out the numbers—the honest numbers more than anything else. When you’re

looking at those opportunities, you know, if the question specifically is is the city going to be able to sort of step up to that plate

and help participate, I think yes. And, you know, it will certainly

have my support. Again, because of that simple business analogy,

if I can spend some dollars today to make a lot more tomorrow,

then it makes a whole lot of sense to do that.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think that’s a great recommendation when you

talk to elected officials, you know, Director Kincannon—what the

Councilman just said. You know, no better argument then that.

Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Congressman. Director Kincannon, you

have outlined what appear to be very important and promising

steps for the reengineered 2010 census. It is good to hear that the

Bureau is attempting to be proactive in its planning. My concerns

mainly involve a followup to what Congressman Rodriguez was

saying, and that mainly involves securing funding for the Partnership Program and ensuring effective execution of the plan.

What is the Bureau’s plan for addressing those factors to reduce

the undercount in the 2010 census, including in the colonias where

the challenges may be greater?

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, we—we are planning an extensive communications campaign nationally, focused on particular—you don’t

conduct a communications campaign just at the national level with

a single message. You have to tailor your message to localities and

specific problems like the colonias. You have to respect a different

language media and different communication channels that reach

those areas.

Language is an obstacle in the colonias, and that’s where being

able to mail a Spanish language questionnaire will help us a great

deal. And employing local enumerators to followup for households

that haven’t returned the questionnaires who will be able to speak

Spanish and will know the neighborhoods is very important.

Colonias do not always have regular addresses, paved roads, all

the identifying things that you’re accustomed to in the center of a

great city. In Frio County yesterday I learned that they have had

the E–911 program carried out. They do have street addresses,

house numbers, but I did not see house numbers on every house.

And in some colonias in that county, the mail is not delivered to

the house, but delivered to a central point. And those—those are

26

complicating factors that make it difficult for us to find households

and make sure that they’re reported.

So that means we’ll have to take special steps to know that

neighborhood and to be able to identify the household and perhaps

use techniques such as update/enumerate or—in which case we actually update our addresses and drop off a questionnaire at the

same time.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that. What modifications has the Bureau made to improve your reporting for detailed race and Hispanic

origin questions? How will the modifications improve response

rates?

Mr. KINCANNON. We tested, Mr. Chairman, a significant number

of refinements, I would say. Not major modifications, but refinements in wording and examples. We tested different ordering of the

questions to see which resulted not only in overall response, but in

more accurate response about race and ethnicity. We were very

careful with this.

Last spring we presented the results of that research to all of our

advisory committees. We have ten census advisory committees, five

of them—six of them targeting the decennial census itself, and four

other professional advisory committees, such as statistics, marketing, economics, and so on. They endorsed, based on the evidence we

had gathered, the wording that we planned to use on the final census form in 2010. And that’s what has been permitted—will be presented to the Congress next year for its review.

We continue to get suggestions for change. We are very reluctant

to make changes when we have not got research to understand the

effect. We made a rather late change on the wording of the Hispanic questionnaire, the examples given, for 2000, without additional testing.

Congress was informed of this. Maybe only one or two Congressmen actually focused on that. But we went through the process of

notification. The outcome was good and bad. It was a silver—it was

a cloudless sky, but there was one little dark cloud. It improved the

overall count of Hispanics, but for Dominicans, because the example had changed, the count of that community was not clear and

not as accurate as it had been. We’ve taken a lot of justifiable grief

about that result. So we’re going to stand, God willing, with the

tested proven results that we got in this time.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response. Councilman Wolff, the

four-point program of the San Antonio, Bexar County—Complete

County Committee is commendable. It appeared to be a model outreach program. What do you believe will be the biggest challenge—

challenges facing the Bureau during the 2010 census?

Mr. WOLFF. Oh, I think it—I think probably the biggest challenge is something that Congressman Gonzalez pointed to earlier,

and that is, you know, a level of fear, a level of distrust, and sort

of breaking through those lines. And I think we’ve heard a number

of times that the best way to attack that problem is really at that

grassroots level, and why I think the model that we’ve utilized before is a good one, because it really does help us contact those local

institutions; whether it’s your church, whether it’s your schools,

whether it’s your community centers, those types of areas, and

really sort of dig in to the grassroots neighborhood. That’s where

27

we’re going to get the work done, but that is also the biggest challenge.

Mr. CLAY. The Bureau is planning to mail bilingual Spanish/

English census forms to neighborhoods with people who might need

language assistance in Spanish. What impact do you believe that

this effort will have on reducing the undercount in the Hispanic

community?

Mr. WOLFF. I think it will help in that you’re leading with the

language that is most important to the individual that’s going to

be receiving it. However, I think that has to be coupled with the

notice in the community from the community leaders within that

particular area the, you know, this is something they need to respond to. This is very important. And so it’s—and I’ll say again,

that’s why this grassroots level is very important. You have to—

you have to reach those individual community leaders at the same

time that you’re doing this. That way, you know, when it’s in the

mail and you get it in the mail, you’ve already heard from your

priest. You’ve already heard from your local community leader

that, ‘‘Hey, this is coming. You need to pay attention to it, and you

need to respond to it.’’

Mr. CLAY. So it needs to be a multipronged approach.

Mr. WOLFF. Absolutely.

Mr. CLAY. We need to be involved in it. You note in your testimony that the city of San Antonio and Bexar County partnered on

promotion efforts in 2000 and worked with the Census Bureau’s

Publicity Office in that effort. Based on your experience, what improvements in the Partnership Program might you recommend?

Mr. WOLFF. Wow. Let’s see. It’s—because I was not here when

we did that initial one, it would be difficult for me to say specifically what sort of improvements. I can tell you that especially here

recently we have seen a partnership between the county of Bexar

and the city of San Antonio, quite frankly, like we have never had

before, which I think bodes very, very well. [Laughter.]

Mr. GONZALEZ. I understand family affairs and so does Congressman Clay, whose father was in Congress before for over 30 years.

So we’re glad that you and your dad are able to get the county and

the city on the same page.

Mr. WOLFF. I was—I was actually referring to that County Judge

who I might be related to, and the mayor. I’ll tell you, the friendship and partnership between those two individuals has, I think,

done tremendous—for this city and really paved a path in citycounty relationships that I quite frankly think will go forward.

That being said, in direct answer to your question, we have the

model. It’s being able to make sure that we can sort of, you know,

cross our own little bridges and blockades between governmental

entities. That’s probably going to be the biggest challenge, and it

always is, as you gentlemen know as well.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your response. Mr. Gonzalez, do you

have any more.

Mr. GONZALEZ. I just wanted—and only the Director can actually

address this one. And it was a question that one of the reporters

that was interviewing me this morning so that it would be reported—and in San Antonio, we do have a large Spanish language

media, obviously, and that’s the way many of the households that

28

would be identified as undercounted are probably going to be receiving that information. And we know there’s going to be distrust.

We know there’s a lot of anxiety right now in the communities that

generally would be undercounted.

But addressing that, when that census—when the person actually is in that neighborhood—because we’re assuming the

undercount is taking place because individuals have not mailed

back forms and so on. So we have more personnel on the ground

that are trying to gain the information one on one. The concern is

always are you going to answer the door?

That individual is going to introduce themselves, and they’re

going to have to have some sort of—you know, whether it’s their

identification and such. If you can just—as basic as this sounds, it

is really important that individual that is at that door is, first of

all, associated, an employee with the census. What is the official

documentation or proof that they have? Any standard operating

procedure? And again, if you would remind individuals that the information that is gathered at that moment is not shared with any

law enforcement, immigration, any agency or department of that

nature?

Mr. KINCANNON. The followup enumerator who comes to the door

when a household has not returned its questionnaire will have a

standard credential identifying them as an employee of the Census

Bureau and, therefore, they will have taken the oath of office which

binds them for the rest of their life to hold secret the information

that they collect. They will be trained in that. They should be able

to articulate that. There will be a lot of advertising in English, in

Spanish, in other languages as well, communicating that confidentiality pledge that the Congress has made by passing the law that

set it up. And we—we conform to that.

But it must—it is a message that—although it needs to be said

on the doorstep by a person who knows the language of the area,

who knows the makeup and the culture of the neighborhood, but

it must be reinforced by community leaders; the priest, the rabbi,

the minister, the imam, whatever—the union leaders, club leaders,

so on. That has to reinforce that, ‘‘Yes, I know about it, and I can

endorse it.’’

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much.

Mr. CLAY. Congressman Rodriguez.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yeah, one real quick one. I want to followup on

what Congressman Gonzalez—his initial question. To your knowledge, has there been any lawsuits or any requests by the administration or anyone regarding the number of illegals or anything like

that of the Census Bureau, or lawsuits?

Mr. KINCANNON. I don’t think there’s been any lawsuits, to my

knowledge, against the Census Bureau or the administration.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No cases pending.

Mr. KINCANNON. We don’t have any cases pending on the issue

of identifying illegals. I’m aware of proposed legislation that’s been

introduced but not acted on in the House, and I don’t know that—

it hasn’t been acted on for some time. So that’s encouraging.

There’s a long legal precedent of—dating back to 1790, of counting

everybody who is really living here, eating and sleeping here most

of the time, and not just visiting on business or as a tourist, is a

29

very substantial accumulation of precedent. It could be changed by

legal—by a new law being passed. I don’t know that it could be

challenged successfully. I’m not a lawyer myself. But it would seem

to be hard to challenge a precedent set in law in the Census Act

of 1790 when so many participants in the Constitutional Convention were Members of that Congress and knew what they intended

for sure.

So that has been no—certainly no request of people within the

current administration, to my knowledge of the Census Bureau,

that we change our practice of counting everybody. A lot—a lot of

folks in this administration are from Texas——

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Where does the figure that we use now of 12 or

14 million that Ron documented come from?

Mr. KINCANNON. I think the most often quoted figure comes from

estimates made by the Pew Trust, Jeffrey Pacell, who worked

many years at the Census Bureau, does work for them. It’s credible

work. It goes farther out on a limb with assumption than the Census Bureau does. We don’t try to measure whether an immigrant

is here illegally. We do not ask in the census short form about citizenship, let alone legal status. We do ask about citizenship in the

American Community Survey, but we don’t ask about illegal status.

I’m not sure that if the Congress directed us to do that by law we

would be successful. Can you manage asking somebody, ‘‘Are you

here legally or illegally?’’ Well, you know, who is going to answer

that?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much for that interesting question. Director Kincannon, in your testimony, you state that the Bureau is

now integrating planned improvements into the 2008 dress rehearsal. What are some of the improvements, and how will they

help to reduce the undercount in the Hispanic community?

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, I think the improvements I’ve mentioned

already in terms of use of automation, the hand-held computers,

will enable the nonresponse followup interview to toggle between

English and Spanish; the use of the short-form census, which is

much easier for people to complete, not as demanding or complex

in the case of a large family; work on address list improvement and

the maps that we use for the census, which has been ongoing from

the—from 2001—it began in 2001—to improve the maps, to centerline the roads in the TIGER map system; and the work now reaching—just about to reach fruition on updating the address list,

which is a multi-phase exercise.

You know, the census is built basically around a list of housing

units where people live. We can’t just ask people standing in the

street, you know, ‘‘What’s your name, and we’ll count you.’’ We

need to pin them down to where they live, because for the constitutional purpose of the census, redistricting—reapportionment and

redistricting, there is a desire—a requirement for geographic exactitude. So we’re dependent on having a good list of addresses.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response. As we have heard in previous hearings, there is some concern that the Bureau will not

have sufficient time to implement the changes required after the

2008 dress rehearsal. Does the Bureau have an implementation

30

plan that will enable it to make the necessary adjustments from

the dress rehearsal in a timely manner?

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, yes, sir, we think so. We are already reacting to what we’re learning from the early phase of address canvas in the dress rehearsal, where we found that there were some

shortcomings in the software on the hand-held computers. The

hardware itself was fine, which is good because we’d otherwise

have a difficult problem to deal with. The software changes can be

made one time in one way in order to correct those difficulties.

Some of the changes were simple and just a matter of unsuccessful communication between the Census Bureau and the contractor

about the way certain aspects of the work would come. Others a

little more difficult but are going to be solved. And I think we’re

finding that helpful and that we’re going to be able to deal with

those kinds of problems as they’re identified during the dress rehearsal.

Mr. CLAY. Both of you, how important is it for the Congress to

appropriate the necessary funds in 2008—in the fiscal year 2008

for the 2010 census?

Mr. KINCANNON. In the 2000 cycle of the census, only about 6

percent of the funds for partnership were appropriated in 1998.

The rest of it—the bulk of it was in fiscal 1999 and fiscal 2000. It’s

useful if we have some money on partnership in 2008, but it did

not seem to us to be a sword on which we wanted to fall for 2008.

It’s essential we have the funding in 2009 and 2010, because that’s

when everything roles out into workers in the field.

We already had money in 2007 and in the proposal for 2008 for

the planning of partnership. It’s the extra funds for rolling it out

and hiring people in the regions that has to be done. And if the

House mark of adding $13 million comes—comes to pass—the Senate has not matched that so far—then I think that would be very

helpful in getting the head start that we need to ensure that those

connections that we have with many national and local organizations are solidified. We have continuing work throughout the decade on partnerships, but it’s at a very low level, and that’s not inappropriate. But it’s—the time is scaling up. The sooner you start,

perhaps the stronger your position.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. Mr. Wolff.

Mr. WOLFF. Without knowing the specifics of the budgetary cycle

for the department, it’s hard for me to say specifically. But let

me—let me give another business analogy. You know, do it right

the first time. You know, if you know that you’re going to need X

and it’s going to take Y to get X, then why mess around with anything else? You know, if it’s going—and I’m—I feel quite confident

that he will be able to give you a budget that says, ‘‘This is X. This

is what we need.’’ And, you know, getting out in front of this saves

you a heck of a lot more money on the back side. I mean, and

that’s—and that’s my business analogy. In other words, do it right

the first time. Otherwise, what you’re going to find as you get down

toward the end, he’s going to be coming back to the table and saying, ‘‘I need twice as much as I needed before because we started

so late.’’ So do it right the first time.

Mr. KINCANNON. I’m getting to be a bit long in the tooth, but I

do have some interesting experience to speak from.

31

In 1980, I was working at OMB, not at the Census Bureau, and

the Census Bureau requested, during fiscal 1980, some extra emergency cushion funds in case of unforeseen events. I don’t know

whether—I don’t remember whether it was OMB or the Congress

that didn’t provide that money, but in fact exigencies occurred, and

we ran out of money in fiscal year 1980, and we had to shut down

local census offices, processing centers, and so forth, for a period

of a number of weeks before we got an emergency appropriation

through, which was difficult enough in 1980. And it’s just about impossible now. We never recovered from that loss of weeks. The census products were not weeks, but years late in coming out as a consequence.

In 2000, we were given an ample cushion of money. As it turned

out, few emergencies occurred, and the mail response rate was

higher than we had experienced in three previous censuses. Therefore, we were able to return to the Congress $300 million that we

did not spend. In that one little brief period of time, it made the

appropriation staff in the House and the Senate very irritable because they had to work hard to get that $300 million. But I still

think it was better to have it and not use it. And I hope that lesson

is—we all remember for 2010.

Mr. CLAY. You covered a 30-year period there, from 1980 to 2010.

You have a depth of experience. Gentlemen, any other questions for

this panel.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If I could just briefly followup on what you’ve indicated. We’ve been having floods, fires, disasters. You know, I

would just, you know, ask you that you get to us as quickly as possible if something occurs that’s going to create a difficulty. Because

I know that if you have a major flood in a community or a State

that gets impacted during the time of the census, that’s going to—

I mean, nobody is going to be thinking about the census. So you

really need to come to us as quickly as possible, and/or even look

at the supplemental as an emergency response as early as possible

to—if you can foresee some of that occur—not foresee some of that,

but in terms of the areas where they have already occurred, that

you foresee some difficulty in getting access to those addresses and

those households, you know, I would appreciate it. OK? Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. That concludes the testimony of panel 1. Let me again

thank you both for being here, and we will—this panel is excused.

And we will now set up for panel 2. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. CLAY. The subcommittee will come back to order to hear

from our second panel. Our second panel will include Steven

Saldana, president of the Catholic Charities Archdiocese of San Antonio—thank you for being here—and Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed

Officials Educational Fund—so good to see you, sir—and L. Diana

Bennett, president and CEO of Kineta Corp. in Charlotte, NC. Welcome, Ms. Bennett. Thank you for being here—and Lydia

Camarillo, vice president of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project based here in San Antonio, TX. Welcome, and welcome to all of you. Thank you for being with us here today. Ms.

Bennett and Mr. Vargas, I know you had to travel long distances

to be here, and we appreciate it.

32

It is the policy of the subcommittee to swear in all witnesses before they testify. Would you all please stand and raise your right

hands?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CLAY. Let the record reflect that they have all answered in

the affirmative. Each of you will have 5 minutes to make an opening statement. Your complete written testimony will be included in

the hearing record. We will indicate when you’re getting close to

your 5 minutes. We will begin with Mr. Saldana. Please proceed.

STATEMENTS OF STEVEN SALDANA, PRESIDENT, CATHOLIC

CHARITIES ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN ANTONIO; ARTURO

VARGAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF LATINO ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION; L. DIANE BENNETT, PRESIDENT

AND CEO, KINETA CORP., CHARLOTTE, NC; AND LYDIA

CAMARILLO, VICE PRESIDENT, SOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION EDUCATION PROJECT

STATEMENT OF STEVE SALDANA

Mr. SALDANA. Thank you Chairman Clay. It’s a pleasure to be

here to be able to speak in front of you, especially in front of Congressman Gonzalez and Congressman Rodriguez. Thank you for allowing me to say a few words on what is a very important process

to U.S. census. There is a great concern as to the nature of the

process and whether there is a real desire to locate and register everyone in the country.

I would like to separate for a moment the political issue of documented and undocumented peoples. It is widely understood that

people come from all over the world to the United States looking

for a better way of life. Regardless of how they get here, they eventually marry U.S. citizens and have children who are U.S. citizens.

These spouses and children are guaranteed under the law the access to benefits approved by the government.

The census is critical to the Federal distribution of funds for allowed benefits. What may not be widely recognized is that not only

does the undocumented individual fear governmental processes, but

the whole family fears them as well. Naturalized citizens are put

in a state of fear to protect loved ones who are not documented.

This fear affects their participation in processes, such as the census, to which they are entitled. This fear then leads to an

undercount of the peoples in an area such as Texas. This

undercount leads to less Federal funds and to a general deteriorating of the well-being of the community.

How, then, to help overcome this distrust and get an accurate

count? Practice has shown than there are institutions that the families of mixed legalities do trust. One of these institutions is the

church of their belief. Statistically the church that represents the

largest block of Hispanics is the Catholic church, but my remarks

can be general to all churches. It is vital that faith-based systems

be heavily used in the outreach for the census process. This use

must be active and not passive. Priest and ministers must be encouraged to actively state that the census process must be participated in. Posters and bulletin inserts must be used over and over

33

to convince individuals that the census participation will not put

them at risk.

I urge one more thing. During the last census, the government

sent mixed signals. While publicly proclaiming that all people were

hoped for during this census process, the immigration service was

conducting widespread raids and roundups. This had the obvious

effect of depressing participation. The natural fear and distrust of

the government, coupled with raids, tells the Hispanic community

that you do not really want them to register. I urge you to demand

a moratorium on such raids during the census process. Only by an

open and fair process, one completed without fear, can the census

truly have meaning. Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Saldana follows:]

34

35

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Vargas, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF ARTURO VARGAS

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Arturo Vargas, executive director of the NALEO Educational Fund. We’re a nonprofit,

nonpartisan organization that facilitates the full participation of

Latinos in the American political process. As such, our mission includes the census as a core element. And I should acknowledge was

a contemporary of your father, Mr. Chairman, and your father, Mr.

Gonzalez, the late Congressman Edward Roybal founded this organization with the vision that an organization promote the full participation of Latinos in the American political processes, and the

census is an element of that.

I’d also like to applaud the nomination of Dr. Steven Murdock to

be Director of the Census Bureau. We have endorsed this nomination. And we also thank Dr. Kincannon for the work that he has

provided in his leadership. We urge a speedy confirmation by the

Senate of Dr. Murdock because time is of the essence.

Since 2000, we have served on the Secretary of Commerce’s 2010

Advisory Committee, or its predecessor, and we have enjoyed a

long working relationship with the Census Bureau. So my recommendations here are based on our more than 20 years of experience working with the Census Bureau.

But let me just say at the beginning that to ensure an accurate

count of our Nation’s population, an accurate count of the 44.3 million Latinos who are now the Nation’s second largest population

group, and the fastest growing, is imperative. An undercount of

such a large segment of the U.S. population will mean a failed census. You cannot have a good census if you don’t have a good enumeration of the Latino population. So we offer the following recommendations.

One, is Census Bureau must develop effective outreach and education partnerships with community based organizations that the

Latino community trusts, building on the successes and experiences of census 2000. I think this issue has already been developed

in the testimony presented by Dr. Kincannon; however, I would

add that we were deeply concerned that the administration did not

include funding in its budget request for the Partnership Program

in fiscal year 2008. And we congratulate the leadership of the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies subcommittee of the

House Appropriations Committee to allocate $13 million for this effort in 2008. This effort must begin now.

No. 2, the Census Bureau must implement a communications

and outreach plan that uses culturally appropriate outreach materials that takes into account the special challenges in reaching certain Latino subgroups and other hard-to-reach populations. Again,

Director Kincannon has worked—described this, but I would mention to the committee is that in the fall, the Census Advisory Committee will have a meeting where the focus of the agenda will be

on the communications plan. So I would encourage your offices to

attend that meeting so that we can all be together briefed on the

Census Bureau’s plan for its communication strategy in 2008.

Third, special strategies and preparations will be required to

enumerate the Nation’s immigrant population, regardless of their

36

status. And I’m glad that this issue already has been raised, but

I believe that the Census Bureau and the subcommittee should not

underestimate the challenge that we will have. The current debate

and its tenor has already complicated the situation in the United

States.

Many States and localities are considering measures intended to

target immigrants. Some of these measures require local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration laws. Others require

apartment owners to check the immigration status of potential

renters. This has created a climate which will exacerbate immigrants’ distrust of contact with government, including the Census

Bureau. Undocumented immigrants, legal permanent residents,

and even U.S. citizens who live in households where family members have varied status of immigration will be discouraged from

answering the census. The anti-immigrant climate today will harm

confidence in the confidentiality of the Census Bureau and promote

the belief among many residents that the Bureau will use the information in a way that will harm them.

Now, we have seen local governments and even private citizens

take the law into their own hands. We have seen efforts by the

Minutemen to enforce border laws. We have seen efforts by cities

to enforce Federal immigration laws. I do not believe it’s unimaginable that we will see perhaps private citizens try to take the law

into their own hands and prevent the Census Bureau from enumerating all persons and all immigrants. I will call upon this committee to review what is now on the books in terms of prohibiting interference with the actions of the Census Bureau to ensure that the

Census Bureau can carry out its constitutional duties without the

interference of private citizens, or even local localities who may not

want to see all immigrants counted in the census.

We call upon the Census Bureau to begin working with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency [ICE], to limit its enforcement activity during the descending enumeration. This happened during census 2000 with the predecessor agency, the Immigration Naturalization Service.

With the failure of the U.S. Senate to enact comprehensive immigration reform, we already have heard from Secretary Chertoff, the

Director of Homeland Security, that we will see an increase in the

enforcement activities and raids that have separated parents from

their children. This will only make the situation worse and contribute to distrust in the census come 2010.

Fourth, the Census Bureau must ensure that its census 2010

work force reflects the diversity of its population. And it’s not just

about making sure that enumerators reflect the people that they’re

counting, but managers of the district offices, people in decisionmaking roles at the Census Bureau need to reflect that population

as well. Many local offices are now opening or preparing to open.

Office directors must reflect the local community as well.

It is one thing to ensure that we have Spanish-speaking enumerators in San Antonio or the Valley. It’s another thing to ensure

that we have Spanish-speaking enumerators in North Carolina, in

Tennessee, and in Arkansas. This will be the areas of real challenge for the Census Bureau to ensure that work force in those

37

communities have the cultural competency to actually enumerate

those on populations.

So one of the things that the Bureau should work on is securing

a waiver in its hiring practice that would allow work-authorized

noncitizens to take on enumerator positions. Right now U.S. citizenship is required to have a Federal job, and being an enumerator

is a Federal job. But in many local communities, there will not be

sufficient U.S. citizens with the language skills necessary to conduct the work of the Census Bureau. So we believe the Census Bureau should act now to secure a waiver of that requirement.

And finally, the Census Bureau must be able to act quickly to adjust its plans based on the outcomes of the 2008 dress rehearsal.

The dress rehearsal will occur in the San Joaquin County, CA and

certain counties in North Carolina. This will be the first time that

in an actual census setting we see new features such as the mailing of bilingual questionnaires, targeted replacement mailing, and

new technologies, including hand-held computers and global positioning software.

The Bureau must be able to be nimble and act on changes that

will be required based on the outcomes of the dress rehearsal. We

have already heard that the Bureau is reluctant to make any

changes to the census form without sufficient testing because they

don’t want to make previous mistakes. We hope that kind of consciousness doesn’t carry over into the results of the 2008 dress rehearsal. That will be our final opportunity to act on changes needed based on what worked and did not work in the field.

Finally, I will call upon this committee to continue to—its vigilance, not just with this annual census, but also with the implementation of the American Community Survey. Many of the same

issues that affect the annual census, affect the American Community Survey, and that is conducted every single year, where 3 million households are sent what is now the equivalent of the long

form. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Vargas. Appreciate that testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vargas follows:]

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Mr. CLAY. Ms. Bennett, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF L. DIANE BENNETT

Ms. BENNETT. Thank you, Chairman Clay, Mr. Gonzalez, and

Mr. Rodriguez. I am here today—and I’m not going to prolong this

hearing talking about the importance of the community Partnerships Program or the significance of doing just something extra to

make sure that the differential undercount is reduced. I am going

to talk today and share some observations and also some recommendations based upon past experience, lessons learned.

For census 2000, I acted as the special assistant to the Director

of the Census Bureau and also as special assistant to the Associate

Director for field operations. My primary responsibility was the

Partnership Program. For a brief moment, I was acting partnership

coordinator. I selected the then current chief of partnerships and

her deputy, who is now the chief of partnerships. So what I wanted

to share today is some very practical—I believe some very practical

observations and recommendations consistent with what many of

my distinguished panelists have already mentioned, but I wanted

to talk about it from the other side. Because as I said, in 2000, I

was a part of that team. Every partnership decision that was made

in 2000, I was at the table. I can tell why they were made, and

I can tell you under what circumstances they were made. I’m not

guessing. I’m talking about my experience, and that’s what I want

to share with you today.

One of the clear things that kind of distinguishes this census and

the preplanning that leads up to it from census 2000 was—and Dr.

Kincannon alluded to—the dual tract census planning that was

going on. The great thing about that—although we were overworked, the great thing about that was the Congress, as you know,

Mr. Gonzalez, gave us a robust budget to do that. We were doing

dual track censuses, and we had dual-track planning going on, and

we had the money, the resources to do that. And that’s one of the

things that I want to talk about today.

The other piece that the Congress said to us was when you talk

about all the challenges that these organizations are going to face

and the undercounted communities are going to face, the mandate

that they gave us was very clear. Be innovative and be aggressive,

and it takes money to do that.

So, if I may, everything that people are going to talk about at

this hearing is going to be very clear, is going to be very important.

But these realities are very different, depending upon where you

go. In San Antonio, where the predominant population here is Hispanic—you go to some other areas of the country, it is not that

way. But from where I come from—I’m from North Carolina—we

are a predominantly rural State. And some of the—some of where

our largest growth has been experienced with the Latino population has been in rural areas, where that population has blown to

300 percent in some areas. Those communities don’t have the infrastructure of Catholic charities or some of the—MALDEF, some of

the other organizations that are in place in larger cities. So what

you need is an effective Partnership Program that can do the kinds

of things that need to be done at the local level.

46

Now, when we talk about partnerships, to say we’re going to engage partners, that’s pretty easy to say, but it’s a difficult process

and it’s a long process. It takes a lot of time, a lot of preparation

to do that. So some of the things that I’m going to talk about today

are centered around three points, No. 1, resources; No. 2, timing,

timing. No. 3 is engagement, effective engagement. It’s just not

enough to say, ‘‘We’re going to go out there and do partnerships.’’

Anybody that’s worked in the community knows that is real different. And there’s a greater challenge now with the immigrant—

the immigrant debate that’s going on all over the country. With the

challenges in the black community, with the challenges in the Arab

community, with all of these challenges that are taking place

across the board, we cannot afford as an agency—and I sometimes

slip back and forth between my census life and my real life now—

but we can’t afford to make those kinds of errors in judgment.

The Director talked about great planning, and the Census Bureau is the best in the world at that. But no plan, no strategy, no

initiative is as good as the assumptions that they’re based upon.

And to say that the communications strategy is come in and all is

right—no, it is not. The communication strategy is a national initiative. It’s a national strategy. They’re going to set the message,

set the tone. But then it has to filter down to these organizations.

They’re the ones that are going to have to make it work, and that’s

what I want to talk about today.

First, the funding issue. I believe that the Partnership Program

needs to be funded now. We talked about 2008, putting the Partnership Program in the budget for 2008, but let me give you a scenario. If the Partnership Program is only funded in 2008, meaning

October 2007, what happens to those regional offices—there are 12

regional offices. It will take them several months to ramp up, to

identify the right staff—because we hire indigenously. We hire people from the Latino community. We hire people that have the language skills and the cultural connections and the networks in those

communities to be effective. We’ve got to find them. We’ve got to

advertise. We’ve got to recruit. It takes time to do that. We’ve got

to train them. So, if the Bureau is forced to wait until October

2008—just for the sake of argument, say it takes them 6 months

to hire and train. That’s 6 months we’ve lost. Then we have to deal

with community-based organizations. We have to engage them and

bring them along.

To dovetail back into my comment about the communication

strategy. The communication strategy, they’re talking about an integrated focus. We did integrated strategy in 2000. But the key element of an integrated strategy is the Partnership Program. How do

we just dump a communications strategy on a community and they

don’t know anything about it? We have to bring them along. This

is the most important element of the census 2000 outreach campaign is the Partnership Program. It is these organizations being

engaged early enough in the process with the right resources to do

it their way. Everywhere you go you’re going to have similar challenges expressed to you. If you’re to take this tour all over the

country, you’re going to hear basically the same kind of challenges.

Local problems require local solutions. No matter how well meaning headquarters is—and I used to be a headquarters person, but

47

I was also a regional person. I was a regional partnership specialist

and a regional partnership coordinator.

So I would beg you to fund the Partnership Program. And I’ll

throw a number out there. I’m a numbers person. Give the Partnership Program—give the Census Bureau $3 million now to start

hiring. We have to identify the right people. Then in 2008, make

sure that we’re in the budget—a robust budget.

Moving on to Item No. 3 is to provide in 2009 funding for special

initiatives. In census 2000, the Congress gave us approximately

$14 million that we used for what we call in-kind programs and

also for special initiatives. That was critically important for areas

like the colonias because Alfonso Meribal down in Dallas—I know

you know Al. Al did a very comprehensive campaign for the

colonias, in getting those folks educated, getting them motivated to

complete the census questionnaire. But that was all as a result of

the special initiatives that we got. And I know my time is running

out quickly. OK.

Mr. CLAY. Let’s conclude.

Ms. BENNETT. OK. In conclusion, all partners and stakeholders

depend upon the Census Bureau and this Congress for honesty.

Partners and stakeholders representing our hard-to-enumerate

communities need the Bureau and this Congress to remember

them, their contributions and their impact. The Bureau’s success as

the premier statistical agency in the world is tied to its ability to

count everyone, no exceptions. Decennial enumeration and operations are difficult. Politics are complicated. Accountability and

civic responsibility are not. And you owe it to these communities.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Ms. Bennett. We appreciate that.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bennett follows:]

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

Mr. CLAY. Ms. Camarillo.

STATEMENT OF LYDIA CAMARILLO

Ms. CAMARILLO. Good morning. How much time do I really have?

Buenos dias, Chairman Clay and Members Gonzalez and

Rodriguez, distinguished panelists, and members of the audience.

I am Lydia Camarillo, vice president of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, the Nation’s largest nonprofit/nonpartisan

organization of its kind. Since its inception, we have registered 2.3

million Latinos. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you.

Southwest Voter urges Congress to utilize the full congressional

oversight authority to ensure that the Federal Government meet

its constitutional mandate to count every person in the United

States. We urge Congress to protect and uphold the constitutional

obligation. Therefore Southwest Voter urges the Census Bureau

count—that the Census Bureau count every person in the United

States, regardless of their legal status, that the necessary resources

be provided to the Bureau so they can meet this constitutional responsibility.

Article 1, Section 2, and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution require that every person be counted every 10 years

through the Bureau, regardless of whether they’re legal or not.

This responsibility falls on the U.S. census.

An accurate count is essential for three reasons. First, it provides

Congress with the necessary population data from which to determine how to apportion Congress representatives among the States.

Second, it provides State and local government population data to

assist in the redistricting of State and local government representation districts. Third, it allows the Congress and the Federal Government to allocate financial assistance among the States. In addition, the census data provides a wealth of information on population growth patterns, demographic information, and statistical

data to assist government, opinion leaders, and policymakers, in

the shaping of public policy and legislation.

Historically, an incomplete, inaccurate census count denies

Latinos and other communities of color their constitutional right to

fair representation at all levels of the government. An inaccurate

count also deprives Latinos of the proper allocation of Federal resources which are needed to assist such communities to form some

public policy to solve or alleviate such issues facing the Federal,

State, and local government, including county, State, school boards,

water boards, and so forth. An undercount of the Latino and other

ethnic communities must be prevented, cannot be justified or excused in this, the wealthiest country in the Nation. And if the IRS

knows how much we owe them, we should be able to count everybody.

In the last census enumeration, over 3.3 million individuals were

left uncounted. The Census Bureau estimated that at least 1 million Latinos were not counted in 2000, in spite of the numerous

partnerships with the Latino community. Bureau efforts to count

every person and the statistical adjustment of the census count, the

undercount resulted in the loss of at least three congressional seats

during the redistricting process in States like Texas, California,

62

and Florida. Moreover, Latinos also came up short during the redistricting process of States and local municipalities including

school districts and other political subdivisions. Thus, undercounts

are unacceptable and must not be tolerated.

Southwest Voter urges Congress, through its oversight function,

to ensure that undercounts are not repeated in the 2010 count. It

violates the U.S. Constitution.

The 2000 undercount of Latinos resulted in the loss of our communities of thousands of Federal dollars that should have been

used at the State and local levels. The loss is unconstitutional and

should not be accepted as common practice by the Federal administration. Moreover, the U.S. Congress should be diligent to prevent

this type of behavior as common practice. It is up to Congress to

make sure that the U.S. Constitution is upheld.

Over the decades, the Census Bureau has made an important

commitment to work with National, State, and local nonprofit organizations in an accurate count of all persons in the Latino community, including citizens and noncitizens and those without legal status. Southwest Voter urges Congress to continue this practice and

hold the Census Bureau accountable for a full and accurate count

of all persons in the United States.

The Latino community and its leadership can be helpful partners

in promoting the census among the community. Latino leaders and

organizations stand ready and committed to inform Latinos about

the importance of participating in the census to ensure a full and

accurate count. But this does not mean that the Census Bureau or

Congress can skirt its constitutional duty or shift the burden of inaccurate count on Latino communities and local communities.

Latino national organizations are prepared to advise and promote

the importance of the accurate count; however, Latino leaders will

hold the Bureau and Congress to its constitutional obligation and

mandates so that every Latino living in the United States at the

time of the count is counted.

Furthermore, the Latino elected leadership will hold Congress responsible for its oversight on the census—on the count. An accurate

and full count will depend on the Federal Government’s ongoing actions over the next years. Should the Federal Government’s actions

contradict its assurance of a full and fair count such that Latinos

in our community feel they cannot trust the Federal Government

gathering information, the results, I assure you, will be the communities of color not willing to participate in the census count.

The Federal Government must honor its mandate to count every

person with absolute discretion, confidentiality, and privacy. The

information obtained during the count must be devoid of the current anti-immigrant sentiment that exists in our political climate.

When our Federal agency—in this case, the Census Bureau—wants

the Latino community to trust it and provide it confidential information, and other agencies such as ICE are conducting immigration raids.

These acts and actions only serve to relay the message that the

Federal Government cannot be trusted to honor its work to maintain confidentiality. These actions will result in hundreds, if not

thousands, of Latinos not taking part in completing their census

forms, a repeat of what took place within the Latino community in

63

the 1980’s, not trusting the Federal Government, not taking part

in the census enumeration. Therefore, the Federal Government, all

its agencies must create an environment of trust and confidence

within the Latino community and other ethnic communities.

Southwest Voter makes the following recommendations based on

the lessons learned over the last three census enumerations and

applauds those efforts if they are incorporated or once again use.

We encourage the U.S. Census Bureau to fulfill its constitutional

requirement according to the U.S. Constitution.

Southwest Voter respectfully recommends the following steps to

ensure a more complete and accurate count, but should not be limited to: Provide legal assurances to Congress, the President of the

United States, the Bureau leaders and staff, the communities can

be confident that their information will be held in complete privacy,

confidentiality, and that it will not be shared with other agencies,

in particular ICE. Allocate the necessary resources to count every

person residing in the United States, regardless of legal status.

Provide local hearings on what the Latino community expects and

participates from the U.S. Census Bureau. Partner with Latino national, statewide, and other organizations. Hire and train sufficient

bilingual Latino staff members early who come from those communities that face historical undercounts. I believe the Bureau calls

them indigenous hirings.

Cultural awareness must be part of the training when conducting count. Use long-cuts, not shortcuts only using the short form—

it should not only resort to statistical sampling after the count is

completed, incomplete, and accurate, but it should resort to making

sure that persons are counted from the get-go.

During the cleanup period of the count, if necessary, hire more

individuals to help communities complete the form, and, if necessary, should provide more resources to ensure a complete and accurate count. Provide enough time to have the cleanup period that

is realistic and practical to ensure a full and accurate count. And

finally, call for and ask the President to maintain a moratorium on

immigration raids.

Mr. Chairman, Members Rodriguez and Gonzalez, thank you

once again. And I thank the three of you for being champions in

making sure that every person of color is counted. Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Ms. Camarillo.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Camarillo follows:]

64

65

66

67

68

69

Mr. CLAY. And thank the entire panel for their testimony. I appreciate that. We will go in the same order as before with my host,

Mr. Gonzalez starting.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. And I’ll try and see if I can hit everybody with—an observation first is—you may not know—of course you would not know

this, Mr. Chairman, but Mr. Saldana, the fine work that he does,

is equally matched by his wife who works for United Way. It’s just

a wonderful family, and what they do for this community is amazing. I don’t know if they ever see each other, but they truly work

in unison in many other ways.

But, Steve, I think you were pointing out—and even the Director

pointed out—that people aren’t going to be forthcoming unless

someone they trust in their community—and now we’re really getting out in the grassroots. It’s not necessarily Charlie Gonzalez,

Member of Congress—and sometimes not even a city councilman or

whatever, but it’s going to be someone in their social or their civic

life or the church. So you’ve indicated different ways that—let’s say

Catholic charities—and not just limited to Catholic institutions and

such, but the other churches, different denominations here.

What specifically—I mean, I know what y’all did last year. Are

y’all planning anything already this—because we think this is

early, but this will be on us before we know it. Is there anything

that y’all are currently doing so that y’all will be prepared when

the census comes and solicits you as a partner?

Mr. SALDANA. Thank you, Congressman. And thank you for the

kind words on my wife. She’ll be glad to hear them.

Yeah, absolutely in our immigration program we’re already starting to talk to people about the need to participate in this. I did

mention some specific things. A church bulletin, for instance, has

specific requirements as to its insertion. So, if the documents by

the Census Bureau are created for that process, then it will be

truly efficient. And Ms. Bennett mentioned the rural communities.

The church of any faith in a rural community is the center point

of that community. And by working with them, that will garner the

support of that whole community and the confidence of those people who attend that church.

But it’s very important that all of our organizations right now

start to get the details—we don’t have any documentation—if the

census—you heard about early on things of 2008 and 2009. If the

Census Bureau can get us posters and things, we can get these up

and have them posted and use those as reminders to individuals

to start this process.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. Mr. Vargas, also I want

to point out that you are a member—and I’m trying to remember

the exact title—on the Census Advisory Commission and such.

What exactly is your service with the Census Bureau?

Mr. VARGAS. There are—as Dr. Kincannon mentioned, there are

ten advisory committees to the Census Bureau. One of those committees is the Decennial Census Advisory Committee for the 2010

census. It’s made up of about 20 national organizations. Some represent stakeholder communities. Some represent professional associations. We are the only Latino stakeholder in that committee.

70

And it is that committee that has been working with the Census

Bureau to vet different changes and plans for the 2010 census.

Mr. GONZALEZ. And quickly—because you’ve been in this for so

many years with MALDEF and NALEO and such, and you know

that there’s political sensitivities and such. All of you have pretty

well pointed out that there should be some sort of a timeout—and

I don’t want to mischaracterize it. I think we have to be very, very

careful how we describe this—to allay any fears to individuals that

may not be documented, that it’s not going to lead to an arrest, an

apprehension, or deportation. So the census, obviously, is not Immigration Customs Enforcement.

But politically how do you address that particular sensitive subject when there are so many individuals in this country that currently believe that there’s not enough enforcement, that we would

be asking in the next couple of years that either a timeout or a relaxing of enforcement be undertaken? Because I see that as very

problematic as far as a message for the census to be going out

there and engaging ICE, Immigration Customs Enforcement, or

anyone else.

Mr. SALDANA. Congressman, you’re raising perhaps one of the

biggest challenges the Census Bureau will have. And there is

precedent for this, and I think that’s something that this Congress

should look to, that there was precedent for this in 2000 and in

1990. What there is not precedent for, though, is the taking of the

law into their own hands by private citizens, such as the Minutemen who have taken it upon themselves to enforce the border, because they see a failure of this by the Federal Government. Again,

I don’t think it’s unimaginable that we will see private citizens taking it upon themselves to prevent the Census Bureau from counting all immigrants.

So I would call upon the Congress to review now what are the

penalties for interfering with the actions of a census enumerator,

and what protections do we have to make sure that all enumerators themselves accurately count everybody in the household. We

know of instances in the past where Federal employees have taken

it upon themselves to make decisions that would keep immigrants

out of certain activities, or even the enumeration. So this is something that I think the Congress should take a very close look at.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you again just for your observations, because I think we do need people that have been on the ground for

many years, which leads me right into Ms. Bennett, who I’ve

known for a very long time. And thank you for all your fine work.

But I think what you pointed out—and I had someone in the audience come up during the break, and they said, ‘‘You know, Charlie.

We’ve got a bunch of materials that we put together in concert with

the City Council on our partnership effort of 10 years ago—or 8

years ago.’’

And so I was thinking what utilization should there be of all the

information that all these different partners—it’s all out there, and

I don’t think we have to reinvent the wheel. But what it was was

their own observations, what were areas that they thought they fell

short and what they could improve. Isn’t there a fast, you know,

I’d say availability of already performance-based evaluations? And

what can we do to assure that the Census Bureau is going to—in

71

gathering that information and using that? Is it going to have to

be the partnerships themselves to say, ‘‘Look. We’ve got this information. We want to share it with you,’’ and such?

Ms. BENNETT. That’s a perfect segue. I believe that—first of all,

the answer is yes to the question. There is just a plethora of information that is out there, as well as innovative strategies, lessons

learned. And I’d like to just kind of refer everybody back to the

GAO report on census 2000 and community partnerships. I think

it was GAO report ‘‘2000 Census Review of Partnership Program

Highlights Best Practices for Future.’’

One of the key things that they talked about was consistency, is

maintaining a connection in communities down through years, so

that we don’t have to go in and reinvent the wheel. That falls back

on my initial point about resources.

Yes, some of our partners still have things that work. They’ve got

lessons learned. They’ve got connections. They know what they

need to do. But I think that it is unfair to this Congress to say to

communities, ‘‘Well, go on out there and count your people,’’ when

it’s the Census Bureau’s responsibility in concert with communities.

So, in order for us to take advantage of the lessons learned, the

brochures, the materials, the public service announcements that

these community organizations some of them already have and

more need, they need the resources. And the reason the Partnership Program is so critical is because these organizations have to

be trained in what the new procedures are. The census has been

re-engineered. And in order for us to educate the public, we also—

they need to know what to expect for certain operations. They need

to know when the operations are coming. It’s not enough to put an

ad on the television and think everybody is going to say, ‘‘Oh, I

need to be aware there’s an enumerator in my neighborhood.’’ No.

We need to start working now, because we also have to—even

though these organizations have material that they can use, that

material then needs to be integrated into the communications

strategy, because the communications, whenever that contract is

let, the contractor is responsible for setting the message—the census message so everyone is saying the same thing. So what we

need to be able to do with resources—these community organizations can be trained in what that message is, how that message is

to be implemented, and how their implementation strategy is consistent and aligned with what the Census Bureau is going to do.

You don’t want to confuse the public.

Mr. GONZALEZ. And thank you very much. I think that’s one real

clear message is the timeliness of the budget and getting the resources to the census. And I know the chairman is going back with

that message, and, of course, I will join him on the floor, as Ciro

will, when we advocate.

Ms. Camarillo, last but not least, Southwest Voter—I mean, I

just assume—and maybe this is an assumption and I’m wrong. But

you already work those particular areas that generally would be

identified as the undercount areas. Are—is there a place for you—

and I’m thinking is there any conflict—is there any reason that you

wouldn’t be one of those partners? And in the past, have you been

able to lend any assistance to the census?

72

Because I just think, one, you already know the neighborhoods,

you know the families, and you’ve identified individuals that actually have gone to those homes, knocked on the door, have conversations—have had meetings, and so—regarding voter registration.

How does that lend itself to be in a partner, if at all possible?

Ms. CAMARILLO. I don’t think we’ve had—thank you for the question. I don’t think we’ve ever had a formal partnership in any way,

shape, or form with the Bureau. I know that Southwest Voter is

committed to partner with other nonprofit—MALDEF, NALEO,

and the other organizations around the country to make sure that

every Latino is counted. It is a natural process for us to—because

we are in the neighborhoods working across inner cities and rural

communities to have conversations and partnerships. And as we

know for the Latino community, the messenger is also very important. And so Southwest Voter is already a staple, if you will, for

this community. We can say that by the way that if we register a

Latino and it’s—or individual register by Southwest Voter and then

we later ask them to turn out and vote, they know who we are.

They know that we stood there and fought for them day in and day

out. So I think that there is an opportunity for us to figure out how

to work that.

But I do want to reemphasize my point. In the 2000—and I must

say I wasn’t as actively involved around that time as I was in the

1990’s with Arturo Vargas and MALDEF, because I actually

worked for Arturo, I believe. So the point—the point, though, is

that—it seemed to me then—and I hope we don’t do this again—

that the burden was shifted to communities of color for the

undercount. And so I think if I can stress the point is it’s a constitutional obligation of the administration of the Federal Government to make that count, and we want to be partners to make sure

there is no undercount for the obvious reasons. It has implications

in terms of representation, and it has implications in terms of resources for our community.

But I don’t want the Bureau to turn around and say, ‘‘Well, we

didn’t do the count right because we didn’t do this right.’’ We want

to be there. We want to be partners. And we’re happy to see how

we, Southwest Voter, might be able to do that in the various neighborhoods that we work in across almost 20 States, including North

Carolina and Georgia and places where you would think we’re not

there. It’s not just the Southwest.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, thank you very much. And I want to emphasize that Southwest Voter is nonpartisan, so we have to make

sure that people understand that. Again, thank you very much.

Ms. CAMARILLO. The voters decide.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much for those questions. Mr.

Rodriguez.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me once again

thank you. I think you’ve done a beautiful job with the panelists

that we have before us. I know, Ms. Camarillo, the work you’ve

done throughout on voter education, voter registration, as well as

Ms. Bennett.

I was glad you mentioned the rural communities. I represent one

of the—probably one of the largest districts in the country, expanding some—through the—if you go through the border, it’s more

73

than 700, 750 miles. A straight shot on the road is 650 miles long.

Mr. Vargas, I know your impact with—with the elected officials

from throughout—you know, has a direct, you know, contacting

throughout. And, of course, Mr. Saldana, thank you, also. You’re

definitely in all our communities.

And I want to ask I guess just an open-ended question to all of

you. I’ve got—it’s been very good to me. I’ve gotten good feedback

in terms of the—and, Ms. Bennett, your request for us to get on

the forefront. Ms. Camarillo, your request to make sure at the tailend we don’t forget that closing or cleanup period and how important that is.

Taking into consideration my rural community—and I’m going to

be very selfish here—how would you look in terms of going after—

since we had 3 million undercount the last time, how do we go in

those rural communities and/or—you know, maybe identifying

those problematic areas that you might already foresee? And I

know you’ve mentioned some of those areas. How do we address

those this time around? And I’ll leave it open to any of the ones,

you know, from the church down to, you know——

Ms. BENNETT. Thank you. Just to give you an example of what’s

happening in South Carolina; South Carolina is predominantly a

rural State. It has the lowest mail response rate of any State in

the union. And my grandparents on my mother’s side came from

South Carolina, so a special place in my heart for South Carolina.

We’ve been working with—and me, as a private citizen, also as

a contractor, have been working with partners and local governments that we worked with in 2000 because they knew that they

undercounted a substantial number of folks—African-Americans in

those very rural communities and Latinos, now, in those very rural

communities.

One of the things that they’re doing in the State of South Carolina, Bobby Bowers, he has petitioned the legislature to give him

resources. They’ve got $1 million a year from now until 2010 to

count the undercounted. So he has engaged the churches, he has

engaged local community-based organizations that work directly

with the Latino population there, saying to them, ‘‘Look. We know

there’s a problem, but we need to address it head on.’’

And I have been working with African-American organizations

who also have partnered with the Latino community. It’s not a battle between us in terms of who’s No. 1 and who’s No. 2. Because

if you’re a minority, we’re all in the same boat, you know. If our

end has a hole in it, you’re going down, too. So we don’t look at

it that way, and so—and us country folk, you know, we look at it

as we’re all in this together.

So—the NAACP, some of the national Panhellenic organizations

like the Omegas, the Kappas, and the Deltas, they’ve been working

with service providers saying, ‘‘Look. We’ve got a significant part

of our population that has not been counted, and it does all of us

good if they are counted.’’ So we’re not driving them underground.

We’re encouraging them. We’re holding meetings with them. And

we’re using those resources. And that—$1 million is really not a lot

of money when you look at the kind of percentage—the growth percentage in South Carolina.

74

So that’s what we’ve done. We’ve started up front. We talked to

elected officials and said, ‘‘Look. We’ve got this situation. It is our

situation. These are people in our community. They’re living here.

They’re working here, for however—whatever their legal status is,

and we need to make sure that they’re counted.’’

The State has also sent a letter out to all of these—the elected

officials, because you’re right. People are looking at this—this issue

and taking some matters into their own hands. So the local elected

officials are saying to them, ‘‘Look. We need to count everybody because we need these resources back into our community.’’ And what

they’ve done is they’ve sent letters to the cities and the counties

saying how much money they lost in 2000. So there’s a very—a

very graphic explanation.

Mr. VARGAS. Congressman, in addition to everything that’s been

mentioned about how to reach rural communities, I think this is

an important role that the media will have to play in reaching

these communities; not just television, but radio. And we should

not underestimate the power of the radio to reach our community

and the mobilizing impact that it can have.

We saw the impact of radio in mobilizing millions of immigrants

and their supporters to take to the streets last year. It is that kind

of mobilization, that kind of call to action that we will need from

our friends in the media. And it’s not just going to be the large,

you know, conglomerates of media, but the small radio stations

that are emerging in these rural communities that residents of

rural communities listen to day in and day out. And, actually,

that’s where they get their information. They trust the local anchor

or DJ, and I think it’s those people that need to be the effective

messengers.

Mr. SALDANA. Congressman Rodriguez, I think it’s important to

realize, as we were talking about the raids here, that’s where they

took place in this area. They took place in the rural communities,

and that’s because we have the undocumented and Hispanic populations on farms and ranches out—out in the community. So this

becomes a prime attack on your specific congressional district.

Also, I would like—again talking about the churches, not just in

writing material, but enlisting the heads of these churches. Getting

the face of the archbishop, for instance, and his name attached to

promoting the census would be a very powerful weapon out in the

church communities, especially in your district areas.

And the faith communities, again, are very powerful in the

small—in the small, rural communities because nonprofit agencies

such as Catholic Charities—that start to expand the very far

reaches of where they can service, and so it’s important to work

with those kind of systems that are inherent in those small communities and not just depend on agencies, and that’s where churches are most powerful.

Ms. CAMARILLO. The difficult part about working with the rural

community is that because it’s so spread out—and also, there is

less people in larger numbers of geography—it’s important that in

addition to what has already been discussed by—by the panelists

about the press and the media and nontraditional ways of communication—and certainly a relationship and a partnership through

75

the churches—that you really do spend extra resources to go find

the individuals.

There will be, I think, lots of ranchos where you won’t know that

there are several families there, that you have to make sure that

you have folks out there working also with the communities and

trusting.

So it’s going to be a lot of word of mouth, lots of trust, and lots

of resources. It costs more—if we do an analysis at Southwest

Voter, it costs us more to be in a rural community than it does in

an inner city, by as much as, sometimes, 100 percent. So that’s

what you have to sort of think about.

But the communities are there, and we need to make sure that

they’re counted.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman,

I’m—with that, I’m going to have to personally leave. Thank you.

Congratulations, and I’ll see you tomorrow in Washington.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much for being here, Mr. Rodriguez. We

appreciate your participation in this hearing, and I will see you tomorrow. Take care.

Let me start with Mr. Saldana. Many churches and other religious institutions were actively involved in the 2000 census. You

supplied the Bureau with enumerators, with volunteers, and we

appreciate your efforts in that past census.

Which actions taken by the Archdiocese were most successful in

reaching the Latino community?

Mr. SALDANA. Well, in the Archdiocese of San Antonio, we’re very

fortunate to have a Catholic television station and a Catholic newspaper. And so these were very instrumental in repetitively being

able to get the word out. We ran PSAs, and we ran printed ads repeatedly in this media.

We are now fortunate to have Catholic radio as well in this area,

just recently has come on board, and I think the use of this media,

also with the confidence that the church brings, will be very strong

in working with the census this coming year.

Mr. CLAY. So those are additional steps that you would recommend to the Bureau as far as the outreach——

Mr. KINCANNON. Yeah, absolutely. The—the census in 2000 was

very good at using Spanish language media here in this community. And so, using alternative media processes, I think, is going

to be very important.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much for that. Mr. Vargas, in your testimony, you pointed out that you were concerned about the interference of enumerators. For the record, it is a Federal offense to

interfere with a census enumerator, and the FBI would take that

issue up with whoever interfered with that enumerator.

You also suggested some very intriguing—and what I think to be

helpful—recommendations, such as review laws that prohibit the

interference—a moratorium should be implemented on raids by the

INS. I think that’s very interesting. You also recommended that

the Bureau get a waiver for non-citizens. I find all three of those

recommendations to be helpful.

Let me ask you about your involvement with the Secretary of

Commerce’s advisory committee. As a member of this committee,

NALEO has made recommendations for improving outreach to the

76

Latino community. In the past, how effective has the Bureau’s implementation of your recommendations been, and what recommendations have you made to the Bureau for the 2010 census?

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The most recent recommendations we made had to do with the actual composition of

the short form and the race and Hispanic origin question.

And this is an example where perhaps the Census Bureau has

not been as nimble and quick to change as we had hoped, which

is why I think responses to the 2008 dress rehearsal be very important.

We were presented with the Bureau’s recommendation of how

the short form—the Hispanic race and Hispanic origin question

should be worded in—in the 2010 census. And at that meeting, we

did have some recommendations of how we could tweak it, but the

Census Bureau again expressed its reluctance to make any changes

because it—these changes would not have been tested in time, even

though we thought that the improvements that we were recommending would actually improve the composition of the question.

So sometimes our recommendations are taken into consideration

and we see action upon them. Sometimes the Bureau just simply

does not have the time or is reluctant to make changes because

they don’t believe they have the time to do that, which is why I

think the nimbleness needed by the Bureau is something that we

hope that Dr. Murdock will introduce.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response. Ms. Bennett, you recommend outsourcing parts of the Partnership Program, in part because you believe it will be a more efficient use of capital and

human resources and increase external accountability in monitoring. Which elements of the Partnership Program do you believe

should be outsourced? How would outsourcing those elements benefit the Bureau and taxpayers?

Ms. BENNETT. First of all, the recommendation is consistent with

how the Bureau is doing business during—for 2010. This is the

most contractor-driven census ever. Our field data collection has

been outsourced. Communications has been outsourced, and the

communications contract encompasses almost everything that was

previously under the census—under the Partnership Program’s umbrella.

One of the things that I’m looking at when I make that recommendation—and this is after having talked to three regional directors, past regional directors, and some other folks that are still

very much interested in what’s going on with the Bureau. The reason we make that recommendation is because there’s a lack of

nimbleness, as Mr. Vargas has alluded to.

The Bureau has a plan, and the Bureau is going to be very diligent with that plan. Given the timing, just for the sake of argument, if there is not budget for partnerships in 2008, an outsourced

contractor will be able to do things faster. They don’t have the restrictions on hiring. They don’t have the restrictions on being able

to implement programs and to be able to move throughout communities as effectively.

Also, when it comes to the quantitative aspect of this census, one

of the—one of my biggest disappointments in 2000 was the—was

77

the way the Partnership Program was measured. Because of the

timing of things and because of the amount of money that we were

given, Congress said, ‘‘You will be judged based upon the number

of partnership agreements that you engage.’’ OK?

So then our specialists were running around—they had a quota.

They were running around trying to get these agreements signed

without really dealing with the qualitative aspect of our partners.

And so, by outsourcing, you can better define the quantitative aspect of the census and better manage the resources. Because you—

with a contractor, you don’t have all of the overhead and those

kinds of——

Mr. CLAY. But, now tell me, in 2000, there was quite a bit of dissension within the Bureau about the Partnership Program, is my

understanding. That there were some inside the department, in the

decisionmaking positions, that really did not appreciate the Partnership Program. Is that accurate?

Ms. BENNETT. It’s somewhat accurate, just as—just as—just as

there is right now. I heard the Director say that they decided not

to fall on their sword for the Partnership Program for 2008. OK.

So what does that mean for partners? What are we saying to our

partners? That just as soon as we get ready for you, you’re just

going to drop out of the sky, and the infrastructure is going to be

there. The infrastructure has to be in place, and the Census Bureau has not done that. So I guess my question is how serious are

they about counting those that are undercounted.

And one other point, please. When we talk about ‘‘This is not

early,’’ this is early. Six percent of the budget was spent before

2008. Six percent of $125 or $126 million is a lot of money.

Mr. CLAY. And that leads me into the next question. What specifically do you see as shortcomings of the Bureau, leading to the

dress rehearsal as well as to the 2010——

Ms. BENNETT. I’m sorry.

Mr. CLAY. What do you think are shortcomings that you are—

just as an outside observer, what do you see as shortcomings

that——

Ms. BENNETT. OK. OK. One, I definitely believe that the commitment to the Partnership Program early on is a definite miscalculation. Because these partners and all of the other thousands of partners out there need us to be—need to be engaged with the Bureau

right now.

These agencies have changed. The leadership has changed. Yeah,

there are some things that we won’t have to reinvent the wheel on,

but what about their issues? We can’t just come in and say, ‘‘Well,

we’re from the Census Bureau, and you need to count your people,’’

and just go about doing it.

Their—they have issues. They have an agenda of their own. So

what the Bureau needs to do is to be able to integrate with them

early. That’s No. 1.

The second thing is—the other assumption is that the communication strategy is just going to—that’s the magic bullet. That’s

the second miscalculation.

The communications contract, if it is—just for the sake of argument, if it is let in September, it will take them at least a year to

develop the campaign. They’re not going to come in with a camVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:56 Jul 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\42899.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
78

paign. They have to develop the campaign. Then we’re looking at

1999, early 2000. What are partners doing in the meantime? What

are the communities doing in the meantime? That’s the second

thing.

And the third thing, again, goes back to—to resources, to say

that, ‘‘The Partnership Program has ongoing efforts now, and so we

don’t need any until 1999,’’ I think is a—is a big miscalculation.

In 2000—I came on in 1996. All regions had their partnership coordinators on in 1997. We had partnership specialists working with

local governments on LUCA in 1997. None of that has taken place

this time around.

Third, by the time 2008 rolled around, we had our first wave of

partnership specialists in place with that 6 percent of the budget.

It’s a small amount in contract, but when you look at 6 percent and

you’ve got people on the ground working, it—they laid the groundwork for the folks that came on in 1999.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that. Ms. Camarillo, please know that

the laws of representation due to the undercount is a major concern of this subcommittee, and thank you for highlighting that in

your testimony.

In addition to Texas, California, and Florida, what other States

do you think lost——

Ms. CAMARILLO. Well, there were 3 million people—that’s so

many more seats that we lost. So I’m not sure exactly what the

losses were, but if it—I would assume that if 3 million voters—3

million folks were not counted, that means that one-third of that

was Latino. I wouldn’t be surprised if one-third or more is AfricanAmerican. That means the African-American community lost a

seat.

I’m not sure where, what city, what State—I mean what State,

but clearly—and then I’m sure—there were the other communities

where communities also of color and Native Americans, and then

there’s a combination. But I don’t have an absolute sense—I’m not

an expert on the census. In 2000, I was busy running the—the

2000 Democratic Convention, so I didn’t follow it as closely as youall did.

But—but for Southwest Voter, counting every person is a constitutional mandate, as I mentioned in my testimony. But I find

the irony that this country, being the richest country in the world,

can make sure that we pay all our taxes to the IRS, but we can’t

count voters when we vote, and we can’t count every person when

the—the Constitution calls for us being counted.

So I think that it’s—it’s important that if I say one thing that

is not in my testimony is that the administration currently in place

today will set in motion lots of the—the plan that will be executed

in the next administration, whether it sits with the current GOP

leaders or whether it sits with the Democrats.

If this current plan isn’t a plan that looks to include all communities of color, then as much as the communities want whoever is

in charge the next time, even if they’re 100 percent committed by

money, resources, and soul, it will be very hard to move that quickly. So it’s imperative that we are diligent in making sure that the

administration is honest and clear and committed to making sure

that every person is counted.

79

Mr. CLAY. What is the best way to communicate—and I’ll ask

you and Mr. Vargas to answer this. What’s the best way to communicate to communities the importance of representation and the importance of being counted accurately so that—accurately so that

you don’t lose your representation in Congress or you are not

cheated out of your representation? What is the best way that we

can communicate through the Bureau and through organizations

like yours?

Ms. CAMARILLO. I think it has to be a partnership that is multifaceted. It’s going to have to be the government at all levels, the

Federal, the State, the local, because everybody loses. It has to be

the—the nonprofit organizations, the churches, labor.

But it also has to be, now, some money sent out to do some campaigns that people listen. I mean, one thing that we can say—those

of us who are involved in getting out the vote, whether it’s for the

Latinos or other communities, if you hear—if you put it out once,

it’s as if you didn’t hear it. So it has to be repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated until people get it that, No. 1, it has implication

on services for them, as well as representation.

When people think about bread-and-butter issues, maybe your

child might have better books or a computer that they don’t have.

If it—if we send a message that resonates to people about what

they’re losing—sometimes, when you say you’re losing $1 million or

$1 billion or whatever it is your community is losing, it doesn’t

make sense to them unless they hear that it might mean, you

know, the street corner pothole is fixed, no more floods, better

schools—it has to resonate, and everybody, including from the

President to Congress, has to start sending out that message and

spending the money telling the communities that it’s almost time

again to get ready to be counted.

The importance—and more importantly, that we have a commitment that confidentiality is going to be kept and that agencies are

not going to be getting information that we, by the Constitution,

are mandated to keep confidential.

Mr. CLAY. It sounds like you should be part of the communications team also. Mr. Vargas.

Mr. VARGAS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. With regard to reapportionment, let’s not forget that it’s a zero-sum game. There are only 435

Members of Congress that have to be reapportioned among the

States. So not only did California and Texas and Florida not gain

a seat because of the undercount, but it’s also quite possible that

the State of New York may have lost a seat because not everybody

was counted in New York.

So this is a key issue not just for gains, but for losers in the reapportionment. There’s been a lot of focus on Utah in the last reapportionment, because Utah just narrowly missed that extra seat.

Ms. BENNETT. It went to North Carolina.

Mr. VARGAS. It went to North Carolina instead. [Laughter.]

Utah has experienced, also, a significant increase in its immigrant population. So it would be in Utah’s interest to make sure

that all immigrants are counted in that State, given 2010’s reapportionment—or 2011’s reapportionment.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response. Mr. Gonzalez.

80

Mr. GONZALEZ. Just real quick. Ms. Bennett, I know we’ve gone

on—all to the different partnerships. Something that we haven’t

discussed that just occurred to me, how do we utilize the schools;

to what extent and, of course, are there any obstacles? Because, I

mean, that is, you know, a gold mine. You know, you have the child

there who takes the information home, I mean—as an assignment.

You know, there are different ways of doing this.

Ms. BENNETT. That is an excellent question. The Census in

Schools program that we utilized in 2000 was a phenomenal program, and I think everyone knows the reasons.

Many times, when you’re dealing with households that are of immigrant standing, they don’t necessarily read English well. So the

children go back and take the message. Many times, the children

are the ones that complete the questionnaire.

The same thing holds true for communities that have literacy

challenges, whether they be Appalachia, KY, or West Virginia, or

rural North Carolina where you’ve got parents that—black families

that don’t read well, the children are actually doing the questionnaire. And as a part of the Census in Schools campaign in 2000,

that was a key. And that was where we spent a lot of—a lot of resources, and it was extremely important.

Now, that goes back to my original—I’m just kind of beating this.

When it comes to the Census in Schools campaign, they need resources now. Now, let me—let me say—let me say this to you. And

you guys know—I’m sorry. You-all know this better than I do. I’m

sorry. If the Census in Schools campaign is not started now, it will

be a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Given the No Child Left Behind mandates on local school districts, they began doing their curriculum planning two and 3 years

out. So, if the Census in Schools campaign is rolled out in 1999,

it’s just information that’s going to be sitting in a corner.

Because teachers are saying, ‘‘Hey, look. I’ve got to get these kids

ready for end of—end of grade tests. I’ve got the State requirements, and I’ve got the Federal requirements. Oh, and by the way,

I want to get that bonus. And you want me to do the census on

top of that?’’

So, if the Census Bureau—to hear people say that this is too

early is ludicrous. This should have started a long time ago with

the right resources with Census in Schools so that we could have

engaged the right partners, we could have been before the right

curriculum committees, the right education associations to have

them engaged, and have this incorporated into the strategy. To

drop this on schools in 1999, as I said, will be a waste of taxpayer

dollars.

Mr. GONZALEZ. And, Mr. Chairman, probably—since—I mean,

I’m not on the committee, but maybe we need to establish where

are we with the Census in Schools program, if at all, if we’re anywhere—I’m just looking here. March 2010, census—census questionnaires are mailed or delivered to households. We’re obviously at

that point, you know.

And then the timing of everything, too. Because—because of No

Child Left Behind and the mandated test, I think they’re probably

taking place right around the same time.

81

One last observation—and we haven’t touched on it—and some

people are going to say that it doesn’t—it’s not as relative to minority communities because of the digital divide. I don’t exactly believe

that. I mean, I think there is a digital divide. Don’t get me wrong.

But the use of the Internet—and I know we have individuals here,

I think, from the regional office. And again, I think when we leave

here today, I would like to inquire—and I may formally do that

through you, Mr. Chairman, as to what is the intended use of the

Internet.

And I’m not just talking about a Web site for the Census Bureau

where people get information. I’m talking about proactive, affirmative use of the Internet. It is the most incred—it has revolutionized

society. And where we were in 2000 and where we will be in 2010,

it’s light years of change. And I haven’t heard anyone allude—and

maybe it was because of the topic, minority communities, and people sort of write us off and don’t think that, you know, the

cyberworld really applies to us, but I think that it does.

Again, availability of the information—and Steve is talking about

maybe the centers where they have the immigration information

and the workers that do have access to a PC. Is it just having the

Web site? Is it going to be more than that? Obviously, I just assume all that is out there, but really being proactive in the use—

because what you have are different services that are being provided by different entities that I think would be happy to partner

up with the Census Bureau.

And I am talking about the huge search engine Google or Yahoo

and so on. This would be incredible. So—and this does filter down

to our communities. Maybe not to the degree or extent of other

communities, but, nevertheless, I think it’s a resource that we may

have overlooked and has some implication to the topic at hand

today.

And so, with that last observation, if anyone has any other observations regarding either the schools or the Internet, I’m happy to

entertain that now.

Mr. VARGAS. You’re absolutely right, Congressman. Those are the

new media that we need to utilize. Also cell phones.

One of the biggest mobilizing tools used in the marches of 2006

were young people text messaging each other and advising each

other of the marches and using it to really to mobilize. These are

the kind of media that the Bureau needs to employ in 2010.

Mr. SALDANA. Please. Ladies first.

Ms. BENNETT. I was just going to say, I do believe that the Internet and the Web site and all those kinds of things are a part of

the communications contract, but I totally agree with Mr. Vargas.

When you look at the capability of texting now and how our children get their messages—many times we’re looking at households

that have—everybody in the house has a cell phone, and they may

not have Internet connection, but they’ve got a cell phone, because

everybody is all over the place. So that’s a—that’s a valuable resource.

And also, when it comes to the Internet and also to the Web

sites, in 2000, members of organizations such as the Panhellenic

organizations, the Delta Sigma Theta organizations, Alpha Kappa

Alphas, the Kappas, the Omegas, those organizations—nine major

82

organizations connected their Web sites to the Census Bureau’s

Web site. That was how they got information to their ministers, to

their local elected officials.

So it is going to be critical for us—and I think, you’re right, that

anyone—the Bureau, any agency makes—makes a strong miscalculation when they assume that the digital divide has left us all

behind. We are very well connected, and I think that’s an asset

that they need to take advantage of.

Mr. SALDANA. Two things. The—schools were very instrumental

in our success at outreaching to the CHIP program, another Federal/State program. And when we were able to see the receptivity

working through the schools of being able to get children enrolled

on CHIP and being able to take that information to their families,

I would certainly encourage the Census in Schools program, and I

agree it needs to be done now so that we can get to those parents

on a repetitive basis.

The other thing, the State of Texas has gone to an integrated eligibility process in which computers are used for the outreach of all

social service systems in the State. And all of that has been problematic in its implementation. Most agencies are set up for the use

of computerization systems for working with families in the State

of Texas.

And so I would encourage, then, the outreach to the State system

in saying, ‘‘We need this integration with the census, because all

these agencies are going to be using that system to working with

families.’’

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much. And—oh, I’m sorry. Go ahead.

Ms. CAMARILLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I know we’re out of

time, but I am not going to suggest that I know what works better,

but I will caution us that we don’t allow the Census Bureau to go

technology high in spending all their moneys.

What I do is I work with grassroots communities. That’s how our

communities turn out to register and turn out to vote. And I would

argue that would be the same way. It should be a partner component, but it should not be the solution to—to the problem—to the

issue. Remember, our communities don’t trust that.

On the computer question, most of the schools in Texas do not

have one computer, menos everybody else. So I’m not going to suggest it’s a good good idea. I’m not going to suggest it’s a bad idea.

I know it’s a new form of technology that we have to invest and

figure out how we use it, but it should not be exclusive or the

only—or the star flagship.

Mr. CLAY. I appreciate the point that has been made here by

Congressman Gonzalez to get a timetable from the Bureau on their

outreach to—to schools throughout this country. We will make the

request from this committee—and I will share that with you and

your caucus—so that we have a clear indication of timetables and

what is to be expected throughout this country by the Bureau.

That’s a very valid point.

And as Ms. Bennett said, it may require a reshaping of that—

of that contract or—or the—the entire Bureau’s plan. So we will assess that once we get a response back.

Let me just quickly ask Mr. Vargas on another issue—in recent

memory, there have been a number of well-publicized data

83

breaches at various Federal agencies, including the Census Bureau,

as well as in the private sector. Are you concerned that these

breaches of personal privacy might undermine the public’s confidence in the Bureau’s ability to protect their information? Is this

further compounded by the tone of the information policy debate?

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. Absolutely. Shortly after 9–11, the Census Bureau actually compiled a

list on Americans—or census tracts with large number of Americans for use by DHS, and that was very problematic.

We raised this through the Census Advisory Committee directly

with the Bureau, and as a result, they established a new office, the

Chief Privacy Office within the Census Bureau.

Now, I am not aware of what the role of the Chief Privacy Officer

will be in implementing the 2010 census. And I think that would

be an appropriate question from the committee to the Census Bureau about the role of the Chief Privacy Office in the—in the enumeration.

Also, new revelations have come forward about what the true

role of the Census Bureau was in World War II and the identification of Japanese Americans. All of this is not helpful now.

So, to the extent that the Bureau can assure us that it’s going

to be on the up and up, will enforce Title 13 of the Privacy Act,

is going to be key, because all of us are going to be on the line telling our communities, ‘‘Trust the Bureau.’’ You know, if the Bureau,

you know, undermines that, then we all have egg on our face.

Mr. CLAY. What steps do you think the Bureau must take to cultivate confidence in the Latino community regarding the Bureau—

2010 census without divulging personal information?

Mr. VARGAS. Well, I think this is—this gets to the point that’s

been made to this committee, that the partnerships are exceedingly

important, and they need to start now. Because in order for anybody to stand up to the Bureau, they need to have that trust themselves with the Census Bureau. They need to know who the Census

Bureau employees are going to be. They need to trust them, that

they know exactly who the community is.

It is unreasonable to expect that—a few months out, that people

from the community will stand up and defend the Census Bureau

if they have not developed that relationship with the Census Bureau over time. Which is why the fact that we didn’t have the Partnership Program continue from 2000 to 2010 means we lost some

ground. The Bureau probably lost some of those relationships and

has to rebuild bridges and rebuild trust, because the Bureau needs

to have the trust of the local priest, of—of the school teacher, of the

community organizer, who is going to be telling the community,

‘‘Trust the Census Bureau.’’ Because, ultimately, it’s the Census

Bureau doing enumeration, not us.

Mr. CLAY. Ms. Camarillo, you recommend that the Bureau use

the long form, which has been replaced with the ACS to make sure

everyone is counted. What role can an organization such as SVEP

play in increasing awareness of the ACS?

Ms. CAMARILLO. Well, again, we’d be happy to talk to our communities and share the communities, and as you know, that takes

resources. We have yet to take—and I don’t believe we ever will—

government money, because we want to continue to be nonpartisan,

84

so that always continues to be an issue. But—but for us, we

think—and again, not being experts on the census, but understanding that it’s our responsibility to understand and figure out how

each community is counted and respected, that by having more information allows us to understand better our communities; and,

therefore, the public policymakers can better form policies and legislation that can take care of their issues.

That is why I think the long form is necessary, but if I am

wrong, then I will be told that and—on occasion, I change my

mind, but I’m very stubborn, so——

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response. I’ll recognize my

colleague——

Mr. GONZALEZ. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. Just,

again, to thank you and your staff for the wonderful work, the fact

that you picked San Antonio. To all our witnesses that had so

much—it was really substantive in nature, and obviously we—the

chairman has said we’re going to followup on some of your own

questions, and such.

And to everyone that attend—I know that some of you are just

private citizens that are here in that capacity. Others are representatives of a different agency or an entity or a governmental

unit. Thank you for your interest. And, of course, we look forward

to forming those partnerships with each and every one of you.

Thank you again.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much. And let me again thank my—my

host, Charlie Gonzalez, for showing us around this beautiful city

and the Southwest. I have appreciated my first visit here. It will

probably not be my last.

I think that this first field hearing of the subcommittee on the

census was a success, and it will be part of an ongoing process of

listening to the people throughout this country to find out what

their reaction is to the census and what their impression is of the

Census Bureau.

From testimony today, it’s certainly obvious that the climate in

this country must change as far as the whole immigration issue is

concerned, and that’s imperative among Members of Congress to

help change that debate, and refocus it on what’s really important

to this country.

Diversity is essential in and outside of this Bureau, and it should

be reflected within the Bureau and in the way they conduct business. That point was hammered home today. The undercount must

be eliminated. That should be their No. 1 goal, and this committee

will certainly keep them focused on that objective of how we eliminate the undercount throughout America’s communities.

The Bureau must instill public confidence, also, in its ability to

collect data and keep it private. We must—they must do a better

job, and governmentwide—we must all do a better job in that.

So let me again thank this panel for your testimony today and

for participating in this. I appreciate it, and I appreciate the city

of San Antonio.

Let me also recognize Congressman Gonzalez’s staff for all of

their help, especially Angela Manson, Theresa Rangle, and Stephanie Smith. Thank you all.

85

And thank you all for being here. That concludes this hearing.

[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

86

87

Æ