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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–727 PDF 2001

AMERICANS ABROAD, HOW CAN WE COUNT

THEM?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 26, 2001

Serial No. 107–13

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

DAVE WELDON, Florida

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

——— ———

——— ———

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES C. WILSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS

DAN MILLER, Florida, Chairman

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

BOB BARR, Georgia

——— ———

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

CHIP WALKER, Staff Director

ERIN YEATMAN, Professional Staff Member

DAN WRAY, Clerk

DAVID MCMILLEN, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on July 26, 2001 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Betancourt, Edward A., Director, Office of Policy Review and inter-agency

lIAISON, Overseas Citizens Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State .......................................................................................... 13

Fina, Thomas, executive director, Democrats Abroad; L. Leigh Gribble,

member at large, Executive Committee, Republicans Abroad; T.B.

‘‘Mac’’ McClelland, American Business Council of the Gulf Countries;

and Eugene Marans, attorney, Representing the Association of Americans Resident Overseas [AARO], American Citizens Abroad [ACA], and

Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas [FAWCO] ................... 45

Gilman, Hon. Benjamin A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York ................................................................................................... 25

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

Betancourt, Edward A., Director, Office of Policy Review and inter-agency

lIAISON, Overseas Citizens Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State, prepared statement of .................................................. 17

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

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 37

Fina, Thomas, executive director, Democrats Abroad, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 48

Gilman, Hon. Benjamin A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 27

Gribble, L. Leigh, member at large, Executive Committee, Republicans

Abroad, prepared statement of .................................................................... 58

Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 11

Marans, Eugene, attorney, Representing the Association of Americans

Resident Overseas [AARO], American Citizens Abroad [ACA], and Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas [FAWCO], prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 81

McClelland, T.B. ‘‘Mac’’, American Business Council of the Gulf Countries:

Letter dated July 25, 2001 ....................................................................... 64

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 68

Miller, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 4

(1)

AMERICANS ABROAD, HOW CAN WE COUNT

THEM?

THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Miller (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Miller, Clay, and Maloney.

Staff present: Chip Walker, staff director; Erin Yeatman and Andrew Kavaliunas, professional staff members; Daniel Wray, clerk;

David McMillen, minority professional staff member; and Earley

Green, minority assistant clerk.

Mr. MILLER. Good afternoon. We’ll go ahead and begin. There is

a vote going on on the floor and I know Mrs. Maloney and Mr. Clay

and Mr. Gilman on are their way back over here from the vote. I

went directly to the vote, and so we may shift things around depending on the arrival of individual Members. But let me go ahead

and begin with my opening statement, and then we’ll see who’s

here at that time.

Today we revisit the issue of counting Americans abroad. When

we first held a hearing on this issue in 1999, the Census Bureau

testified to the operational and timing difficulties that they felt

would make it nearly impossible to include these Americans in the

2000 census.

Now, with the 2000 census behind us we have the time, but do

we have the ability to do the job? The reasons behind the desire

to count overseas Americans are clear, reasonable and justified.

Many Americans abroad continue to pay taxes and vote here in the

United States. Many are only overseas temporarily and will soon

return. When they return of course they begin to use the resources

in the States and communities where they will reside. Many overseas Americans recognize the civic importance of participating in

the census and want to do their part.

Many of the groups who will give us testimony today represent

well-defined groups of Americans abroad. However, any effort to

count Americans abroad and include them in the apportionment

count must be equal in its efforts for all groups of Americans, in

all countries, or it will run the risk of being subject to painstaking

litigation. There is just such litigation going on now between the

States of North Carolina and Utah.

2

So the question Congress is faced with is a difficult one. Can we

count Americans abroad legally, accurately and at what price? I

have been an advocate of counting Americans abroad. Just last

week I supported Mrs. Maloney’s amendment to the CommerceJustice-State appropriations bill to provide funding for research to

be conducted by the Census Bureau in this area. And in accordance

with language we placed in last year’s appropriations bill, at the

end of September of this year, the Census Bureau is due to submit

a report to the Congress on how they can count Americans abroad.

I expect that this report will be a thorough and detailed report and

will provide us with something that we can all use as a blueprint.

While I’m an advocate, I’m also a realist. The more I hear about

this endeavor, the more questions I have as to its feasibility. It is

daunting enough to simply say that the Census Bureau must take

a census of Americans that reside in every nation in the world, but

it’s much more than that. Before we undertake such an objective

certain questions must be answered.

We must first decide who’s actually a citizen. While citizenship

is defined in law, how will the Census Bureau verify citizenship

around the globe? Keep in mind that in the domestic census everyone is counted. Citizenship is not an issue.

And what about outright fraud? If non-citizens attempt to fraudulently send in census forms in an attempt to gain an advantage

in immigration or some other issue, some other form of U.S. assistance, how can this possibly be verified?

Some say use administrative records. Well, administrative

records assisted tremendously in counting—in fact, it was the sole

source of counting overseas military government employees and

their dependents. How reliable and accurate would administrative

records be from other organizations? What of Americans overseas

who are not listed on any official register? Is it fair to exclude

them? Would it be legal to exclude them?

Another question is whether participation in overseas enumeration should be voluntary, as some have suggested. Can Congress

support a voluntary census of overseas Americans while it supports

a mandatory domestic census. Could such divergent approaches be

supported legally?

Some have suggested that a data base maintained by the State

Department would simplify things. We cannot and must not forget

the all important privacy issues. It is our government’s policy that

Americans are not forced to register with the State Department

when traveling abroad beyond obtaining a passport. Such a registration system would also put a tremendous burden on individuals.

At a recent subcommittee hearing Census Bureau Acting Director Bill Barron said an enumeration of overseas Americans would

be a daunting task. That is clearly an understatement. Our Nation,

however, has taken on and conquered many a daunting task in our

day. Making the 2000 census more accurate than the 1990 census

was just such a daunting task and one the Bureau accomplished

to its credit.

This Congress must decide whether the task of including overseas Americans in future censuses is feasible and within reasonable fiscal constraints. The witnesses here today have been invited

3

because they have insight into the complexities of this issue and

hopefully can provide us with their expert guidance.

I look forward to everyone’s testimony, and I thank everyone for

coming before the committee today. The question now is not whether we count them, it’s just how do we accomplish the task. It is a

difficult job and I think working together—this is not a partisan

issue—that hopefully we will have some ideas today and can proceed when we get the report from the Bureau in September.

Mrs. Maloney.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Miller follows:]

4

5

6

7

8

9

Mrs. MALONEY. I just would like to begin by thanking the chairman for calling this important hearing to discuss how we can count

Americans living abroad. We have disagreed on many issues regarding the census, but I believe we are ready to come together on

this issue of counting Americans living abroad. I would also like to

thank all the witnesses here today for taking the time to testify

and help us better understand the issue. I am hopeful that we can

work together to get a good count of Americans abroad as quickly

as possible.

However, I’m disappointed that the Census Bureau was not

asked to come and testify. I think all of the witnesses today are in

agreement that something should and must be done to count Americans abroad, and we should not let another census go by without

at least trying to get an accurate count. The problem is with the

Census Bureau.

I understand the concerns and difficulties that the Census Bureau has in this challenge, but it seems that the Census Bureau

would rather continue to list the challenges than come up with the

possible solutions. I don’t want to minimize the hurdles that are

before us. I think that if we can resolve the issues on how the

count of Americans overseas will be used then we can move quickly

to ensure there is a count. Yet these hurdles can only be surmounted by hard work, not bellyaching on the part of the Bureau.

Last year the chairman put report language—and I congratulate

the chairman for having put report language in the Census Bureau

appropriations bill—asking the Census Bureau to report back on

steps that could be taken toward counting Americans abroad. To

the best of my knowledge, very little work has been done by Census. In fact, I look forward to asking the witnesses if any of the

groups have today sat down with the Census Bureau to discuss

these matters since the appropriations bill was enacted nearly a

year ago.

As my colleagues know, I am very concerned that Americans

abroad have not been counted. Two years ago I submitted legislation, H.R. 2444, in the 106th Congress, the Census of Americans

Abroad Act. My bill was the first bill ever to direct the Census Bureau to start to plan and implement counting of Americans abroad

and to allocate money for that purpose.

With Chairman Miller’s support, I recently passed an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill that I believe is the next concrete step to ensuring that we will at least, at

the very least, try to count all of the Americans living abroad. In

the bill, we allocated $2.5 million to begin making the count. I hope

that I will have the chairman’s support to try to ensure that it survives, this important allocation, in the conference committee and in

the final bill that goes to the President.

But what is before us now is the job of pressing the Census, now

that it has the money specifically for this purpose, to move forward

and finally present us with a concrete plan for counting Americans

living abroad as soon as 2004, as called for in my original legislation, so that we don’t have to wait another—to the next census in

2010. And believe me, if we don’t start trying to do something in

this particular census, we will be there in 2010 again throwing our

10

hands up in the air and wringing our hands saying why don’t we

have a plan to count Americans abroad.

The Census Bureau has avoided this issue again and again. We

need to act now to make sure they do not shortchange Americans

abroad once more. We have 9 years before the 2010 census. I ask

for Chairman Miller’s support for my bill, H.R. 680, to press the

Census to start counting Americans residing outside the United

States.

I hope that the chairman will set up a time in the near future,

now that we have heard from the people excluded, so that we can

hear from the Bureau on what needs to be done and what are their

concrete plans to finally count the really patriotic citizens and

Americans living abroad. They pay their taxes. They vote. They are

very proud of being Americans. They’re unofficial Ambassadors for

our country. They do so much good work for our country. We can

at least include them in what is a great civic ceremony, really the

only real civic ceremony that includes every single American. That

is the census. And it is the responsibility that is cited in the Constitution and we should allow our citizens to be counted.

It’s important. Particularly as we move into a global economy, it

becomes even more important as more and more Americans will be

living abroad. I again congratulate the chairman, and I want to

note that I am so glad that he supported this amendment and how

much I’ve enjoyed working with him on this committee. I regret

that he has made a choice to retire after 6 years in Congress, and

I feel that—— Mr. MILLER. It’s our 9th year.

Mrs. MALONEY. 9th year. Oh, he’s going to retire after his 9th

year. And that was some type of pledge that he made. But I think

that’s unfortunate, and we will lose a great leader, great advocate.

But one reason that I’m very sad that he is resigning is that he

will not be here in 2010 to have the papers thrown in his face by

the Americans living abroad who will be saying that, you know,

you promised us, you promised us. You said you’d get it done. It

hasn’t been done.

So he’s retiring. So I’m afraid to let him out of here until we have

this plan in place because he’s worked on this project. He understands it. He cares about it. He can get the job done and we have

to get it done before he leaves office because I don’t know what will

happen after he leaves with the Republican majority. No one has

the expertise and the depth of knowledge and I would say the commitment that the chairman has.

So therefore, we are under a timeframe to get this done before

the chairman leaves Congress. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney follows:]

11

12

13

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. I think we hope to have another hearing

in October once the Census Bureau presents their report, which is

due at the end of September. But today we want to hear from other

groups. Lets start with the second panel initially—and then if Mr.

Gilman or Mr. Clay come in and want to have an opening statement we’ll have those. But if Mr. Betancourt would step forward.

In this subcommittee of the Committee of Government Reform we

do swear in our witnesses, so if you’d remain standing and raise

your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Thank you very much and I appreciate

your being here today, and I have read your statement, but I would

like to have you proceed to give us a report.

Before you start, I have visited many Embassies around the

world and when congressional Members visit an Embassy they

don’t usually ask for the consular office, but I have on a number

of occasions. I don’t know if you have ever known that or not, but

I did so most recently actually in El Salvador, and I’ve learned a

lot about the challenges they are faced with. I know that’s where

a lot of the people in Foreign Service start their careers, but it’s

really one of the toughest jobs to be there to make decisions that

affect the lives of so many individuals in these countries around

the world. So I admire the work the consular office does. It’s where

you find some of the unsung heroes are at the State Department.

So I give you congratulations for the work that you do and the

challenge that you have.

But, Mr. Betancourt, would you like to make a statement please?

STATEMENT OF EDWARD A. BETANCOURT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE

OF POLICY REVIEW AND INTER-AGENCY LIAISON, OVERSEAS

CITIZENS SERVICES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. BETANCOURT. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members

of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the Department of State

regarding the census and the possibility of counting U.S. citizens

overseas.

The Bureau of Consular Affairs is charged with exercising the

Secretary of State’s responsibility to provide consular protection

and services to U.S. citizens abroad. There is no higher priority of

the Department of State than the protection and welfare of Americans overseas. While for workload and crisis planning purposes we

compile internally estimates of U.S. citizens within a country, we

currently have no means or ability to count them. These estimates

are prepared by our Embassies using as a base Embassy registration numbers, information from local immigration authorities, and

informal surveys of employers and institutions in the American

community such as the American Chamber of Commerce. We have,

however, neither the expertise nor the resources at present to conduct an accurate count of U.S. citizens in a given country.

Americans travel, study, work and reside abroad in ever increasing numbers. While we and our colleagues and our U.S. Government agencies do have some statistical information on Americans

overseas, we do not have comprehensive information on how many

14

Americans reside overseas at any given time. The Departments of

Commerce and Transportation travel and tourism statistics reflect

that Americans make more than 60 million trips abroad each year.

According to the Department of Education, the number of U.S. students studying abroad each year has grown to 114,000. The Department issued over 7 million U.S. passports in fiscal year 2000.

The population of Americans abroad is very complex. Americans

abroad include, for example, the more than 44,000 children who

were born abroad to U.S. citizen parents for whom we issue Consular Reports of Birth Abroad. We also issue 6,000 Reports of

Death of U.S. citizens abroad each year. More than 2,500 U.S. citizens are arrested abroad each year and serve sentences in foreign

prisons. There are also some 400,000 recipients of U.S. Federal

benefits such as Social Security and veterans benefits abroad,

which include both citizens and non-citizens. Again, we have some

statistical data, but it is not of the nature sought by the Census.

We recognize the many and important contributions of our overseas citizens and we appreciate their desire to be counted. It is our

understanding that for census 2000 the Census Bureau did count

U.S. military and their dependents assigned overseas as well as

Federal civilian employees and their dependents at their home of

record or other home State designations determined by using employing agency administrative records. The Census Bureau did not

to our knowledge conduct an individual count of U.S. Government

official personnel and their dependents abroad.

Although we have noted that we lack both the staff and resources to conduct a worldwide count, of particular concern is the

fact that we lack within the Department of State any expertise in

conducting or validating the census. We recognize fully that conducting a census is a highly developed exercise utilizing complex

methodologies created by experienced statisticians who validate the

soundness of their programs based on years of sampling. The difficulties inherent in conducting a census within our country increase exponentially when projected to a global scale. We at the

Department of State are simply not equipped to undertake a full

scale census overseas.

It should also be noted that there is no accurate source of information regarding the location of U.S. citizens abroad to which U.S.

census questionnaires might be addressed. U.S. Embassy and consulate registration records are based on purely voluntary self-reporting by citizens and at any given time we estimate that there

are more than 3 million U.S. citizens abroad, figures which include

short-term visitors. Consular registration records cannot be considered complete or accurate, since U.S. citizens are not required by

law to register with the U.S. Embassy or consulate when they travel or reside abroad.

U.S. passports are issued to adults for a 10-year period. Addresses for our mobile population change rapidly, as we find when we

try to use a passport or registration address or telephone information to contact families in emergencies. Experience shows that most

citizens do not register and even for those who do, the registration

information does not remain valid for very long. On an annual

basis we try to update our registration and crisis warden systems.

15

In addition, we find that many citizens leave the foreign country

without notifying the U.S. Embassy or consulate.

We are now exploring new ways to make it easier for Americans

to register with the U.S. Embassy or consulate, including Webbased systems which will enable our citizens to update their location information securely from any laptop, cyber cafe or hotel. Several U.S. Embassies have modest on-line registration capabilities at

the present time. The data is received by e-mail and must then be

keyed into our consular automated registration system. Our intention is to develop a worldwide system that will replicate the data

securely and allow citizens to update their own information frequently. We anticipate that such a system would not be available

for several years. It is our hope that once that kind of process is

made simpler, more citizens will choose to register, but again it is

not mandatory.

Moreover, we note a threshold issue in any discussion necessarily

involves criteria for an enumeration. Counting U.S. citizens is itself

an exercise which involves far more than merely counting. If citizenship must be verified, it would involve an independent and extremely labor intensive process to confirm that the person who declares him or herself a U.S. citizen is in fact entitled as a matter

of U.S. citizenship law to assert that status.

This will not always be obvious. There are hundreds of thousands of persons in Canada and Mexico alone who are U.S. citizens

but may lack documentation such as a U.S. passport to establish

that fact, especially since U.S. citizens are not required to have a

U.S. passport in order to travel to those countries. Moreover, there

are thousands of persons around the globe who are in fact U.S. citizens, but have never chosen to make that fact of record by applying

for documentation as a U.S. citizen. Yet a person’s status as a U.S.

citizen is determined by the laws enacted by Congress regardless

of whether a person has come forward to confirm that status.

Additionally, there are a universe of persons of unknown size,

who while clearly U.S. citizens at birth, lack current evidence that

they remain U.S. citizens. In some instances this involves complex

adjudications, retrieval of records pertaining to past generations,

and other protracted procedures to determine if a person acquired,

has retained or may have lost U.S. citizenship even before one gets

to the question of how to count such persons. Yet the failure to determine or confirm a person’s self-declaration of U.S. citizenship

could undermine the validity of any count of U.S. citizens unless

it is determined that verification of citizenship is not required.

We must again stress the Consular Affairs Bureau lacks the resources personnel and, most significantly, the means to conduct

citizenship adjudication and verifications of hundreds of thousands

or perhaps even millions of persons abroad.

There is also a question as to how the home State determination

would be made. Would it be the self-declared last State where the

citizen lived before going abroad? The State they claim for tax purposes? The State in which they vote or their State of birth?

A large number of U.S. citizens born abroad continue to reside

abroad and may never have been to the United States. Would they

claim a U.S. citizen parent’s or grandparent’s last State of residence as a home State? How would duplication of a count be avoidVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:41 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75727.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
16

ed and what information could be used as an identifier? U.S. passport numbers or Social Security numbers would not suffice, since

U.S. citizens residing in the Western hemisphere are not required

to have U.S. passports and not all U.S. citizens abroad have Social

Security numbers.

The Department of State is not in the position to provide extensive staff support regarding Census Bureau enumeration activities

abroad. Consular sections at U.S. Embassies and consulates provide a variety of essential services to ensure the protection of the

interests of the United States and its citizens on the most fundamental level. We assist Americans abroad in routine and emergency situations, facilitate the travel of immigrants and non-immigrants, and deter the travel of persons likely to remain illegally in

the United States or engage in activities harmful to our country.

Our consular offices must focus primary attention on these key consular services.

We would anticipate that it would be necessary for the Census

Bureau to make arrangements to send or retain trained agents to

act on their behalf in the overseas enumeration. We can of course

coordinate with foreign governments to obtain country clearance, if

possible, for Census Bureau activities abroad and publicize Census

Bureau activities through our overseas consular emergency warden

systems. We can issue public announcements about an overseas

count which would be highlighted in the Bureau of Consular Affairs home page. Our home page has seen as many as 600,000 hits

a day, or 13 million or more hits a month.

Another service we could provide to support Census Bureau enumeration activities abroad would be to include the subject in our

consular outreach program to key stakeholders such as tourism,

travel, education, and other organizations of U.S. citizens overseas.

Similarly, we would be pleased to make available to the Census

Bureau our contact information regarding stakeholder organizations, or a link to our Web page.

We appreciate that it is very important to U.S. citizens overseas

who are called upon to exercise the responsibilities of citizenship,

such as voting and paying taxes, to be counted. We are supportive

of the concept, but believe the subject will require considered study

by demographic experts at the Census Bureau to design and develop procedures, methods and plans to conduct such an operation.

The State Department is willing to work with and advise the Census Bureau, as it does with other Federal agencies, on such a

study.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the

opportunity to speak to the subcommittee today. I will be happy to

answer any questions that you or the Members have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Betancourt follows:]

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. I appreciate your statement and we’re

going to have some questions. But I think what we want to do because we kind of got a little bit out of order, is first allow Mr. Clay

to make an opening statement. Unless—do you have to rush off,

Mr. Gilman?

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Gilman can go ahead.

Mr. MILLER. Why don’t we let Mr. Gilman, if you don’t mind——

Mr. CLAY. That’s fine.

Mr. MILLER. Let Mr. Gilman make a statement because of the

vote confusion. Thank you very much.

You have been obviously a leader on this issue in Congress for

a number of years and you have been pushing it, and so we appreciate your continued interest in and advocacy of the issue. Mr. Gilman.

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, for this opportunity to come before you on this important

issue, the enumeration of Americans living abroad and the bill I

have introduced H.R. 1745, called the Full Equality for Americans

Abroad Act.

As a long time member of our House International Relations

Committee, and this Member served on a former Post Office and

Civil Service Committee where we had a specific Census Committee, and now as a senior member of our Government Reform Committee, I’ve had the opportunity to work on this issue for many

years. And I think American citizens living abroad need some sort

of equality when we discuss the census of our Nation.

Over these years it’s become clear to me that our Americans living abroad place an increasingly important role in our Nation’s

economy and our foreign policy and in our relations with other nations and with their citizens throughout the world.

Moreover, as we move into this new century and increased

globalization, we must continue to recognize the important role

played by the export of overseas goods and services to our Nation’s

economy. Not only are we reliant on those Americans abroad to

carry out our Nation’s exports for the creation of U.S.-based jobs,

but we’re reliant on those citizens to promote and advance U.S. interests around the world. They become virtually our informal diplomats.

Nevertheless, our U.S. Census Bureau currently does not count

private sector Americans residing abroad, this despite the fact that

U.S. Government employees working overseas are included in the

U.S. census. So there really is a discriminatory practice with regard to our Americans living abroad. If we want to make certain

that all Americans are counted, and that our Nation’s decennial

census is going to be the most accurate that we can obtain, we

must change this inconsistent policy.

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I’ve introduced H.R.

1745, the Full Equality for Americans Abroad Act, legislation that

will make certain that all Americans living overseas are going to

be counted for purposes of apportionment in the decennial census

26

beginning in the year 2010. They tell me there are over 3 million

Americans living in that situation.

The issue of counting all American citizens living abroad has the

support of Members on both sides of the aisle. In fact, my good

friend and colleague from New York, Congresswoman Carolyn

Maloney, has introduced legislation expressing the sense of Congress supporting an interim count of American citizens living

abroad by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2004, and I fully support that

proposal. I just hope she will be a cosponsor of mine as I became

a cosponsor of her measure.

Moreover, during consideration of the fiscal year 2001 Commerce,

Justice, and State appropriations bill, report language was included in that measure directing the U.S. Census Bureau to prepare a report to Congress detailing the number of Americans living

and working overseas as well as any methodological, logistical or

other issues associated with the inclusion in future decennial censuses of Americans residing abroad.

So it’s apparent that the enumeration of all Americans abroad is

supported by a wide array of Members throughout the Congress as

well as by those members on our subcommittee here.

Accordingly, I’m hopeful that with the leadership of Chairman

Miller, and with our ranking member, Mr. Clay, whose father used

to be very active in census matters in our former Postal Committee, will draft a piece of legislation to make certain that the enumeration of all Americans abroad for apportionment purposes in

the 2010 census and all decennial censuses thereafter. Such legislation could, as proposed by Congresswoman Maloney, include an interim census, thus providing the Census Bureau with the opportunity to work out all of its bugs prior to that 2010 count.

So I look forward, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Clay and my colleagues,

to working with both Chairman Miller and with all of your members on your committee on this proposal. Together I’m confident

that we can produce a bill to count all American citizens living

abroad beginning in the year 2010.

In closing, I’d like to reiterate the need for the U.S. Census Bureau to count all Americans, including private citizens, no matter

where they live and work. Not only will such a policy provide an

accurate census, but it will allow our Congress and private sector

leaders to realize how best to support our U.S. companies and our

citizenry, and more important, we’ll have a fair estimate for redistricting purposes of all the people in each district.

U.S. citizens abroad vote and pay our taxes, yet they are discriminated against by our government solely because they’re private citizens and not working for the government overseas. Mr.

Chairman, my colleagues, I urge you to please work on changing

this policy and include the private sector Americans residing overseas for the next census.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman follows:]

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Gilman. We appreciate your continued advocacy for this issue and that we all agree on. The problem

is not whether, it’s a question of how, and that’s what we’re in the

process of working on, and we hopefully will be able to move toward a test census within the next few years and then be prepared

for 2010.

Mr. GILMAN. And, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can do it before you

leave this committee, and we’re going to regret your leaving, going

on to other things. Thank you very much.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Thank you. Did anybody else have a

comment or question?

Mrs. MALONEY. I would just like to applaud the Representative

from the great State of New York and thank him for his work on

this issue and his leadership really on this and so many other

areas. He’s done extremely outstanding work, and we all appreciate

it.

Mr. GILMAN. I want to thank Congresswoman Maloney. We’ve

worked together on this issue through the last session, and hopefully we’ll now see it come to fruition.

Mrs. MALONEY. Absolutely.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Gilman.

Mr. Clay, would you like to make an opening statement? We’re

kind of a little bit out of order, but I’ve already done mine.

Mr. CLAY. Do you mind if I share your microphone? Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. Let me also thank Mr. Gilman for his testimony.

We appreciate that. Thank you.

I appreciate you having this hearing today, and I look forward

to the other testimony. There seems to be a groundswell of opinion

in Congress that this should happen. At the same time, the Census

Bureau keeps telling us that this is a task that is almost impossible to carry out. I must admit, seeing the kinds of errors that

occur in trying to count the people in this country, I’m not optimistic that we can do a good job on counting the Americans overseas.

I would like to raise three questions that I would hope that the

panels would consider as they discuss the plans for counting Americans overseas. First, what is the purpose of this count? Is it for

apportionment, redistricting, State and local boundaries?

Second, how do we define the universe of who should be counted?

Should it be all citizens? Should it include the foreign spouses and

dependents of citizens? Should it include anyone who has ever lived

in the United States or only those who vote?

Third, what is the implication of adding this voluntary component to the Census? In the United States people are required by

law to cooperate with the census. There is no way of demanding

or enforcing cooperation overseas and, thus, participation is strictly

voluntary.

The politics of who gets counted in the census is an interesting

one. One of the shameful compromises of our Constitution was the

agreement to count slaves as three-fifths of a person. Part person,

part property. While this was rectified in the 14th amendment the

politics of counting African-Americans did not end there. The 14th

amendment not only abolished the three-fifths clause, it put in

place section two, which says when the right to vote at any election

36

is denied to any male inhabitant or in any way abridged, the basis

of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which

the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number

of male citizens. In other words, if a State denies former slaves the

right to vote, their representation in Congress will be reduced.

The 1870 census was supposed to measure how many male citizens were disenfranchised. According to the census director, the

numbers of disenfranchised males was bad and had not been collected properly. In 1880, the question of disenfranchised males was

dropped from the census and the enforcement of section two of the

14th amendment became moot. It was not until the passage of the

Voting Rights Act of 1965, almost a century later, that Congress

addressed the problems of disenfranchisement in the South. As

Margo Anderson points out, the men who drafted the 14th amendment wanted to remind Americans of their duty to equal suffrage

and civil rights. She goes on to say in that duty the 1870 census

failed. It did not maintain the statistics of suffrage restriction and

civil rights, and later generations of Americans suffered the consequences of that failure.

The state of Americans overseas is not so severe as that faced by

African-Americans between the ratification of the 14th amendment

in 1868 and the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. But they

are a part of the politics of the census nonetheless. My colleague,

Mr. Cannon, awoke to the problem of counting Americans overseas

when Utah lost a seat in the House. In the last Congress, Representative Ryan from Wisconsin introduced legislation on where

prisoners were counted, because it was clear that Wisconsin was in

danger of losing a seat.

Former Census Director Kenneth Pruitt was fond of calling the

census an American celebration. It is understandable that Americans living overseas would want to be a part of that celebration,

particularly those who intend to return. But another part of the

census is fairness. If in the process of including Americans overseas

in this celebration we disrupt the fairness and equity of the census,

we have done the job badly, just as the Census Bureau did in 1870,

when they dropped the ball on suffrage.

I look forward to today’s discussions, and I hope that we can

keep our eyes on fundamental questions of the purpose of this

count, who gets counted and how including this count in the census

affects others.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that opportunity.

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

37

38

39

40

41

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Clay. Mr. Betancourt gave his statement. If you’d come forward, I think we have a few questions and

then we’ll continue and get back to the schedule here.

Let me start with some questions about who the U.S. citizens are

in countries. And I guess it’s quite different from country to country, from a Canada to an El Salvador to an Israel to an India, I

guess.

Mr. BETANCOURT. There’s an enormous diversity of persons who

are long term, short term, sometimes a generation or two. Our citizenship laws are written in such a way that citizenship will not extend indefinitely. It will not extend, for example, beyond the stage

of which a grandparent will have lived in the United States. So

you—those laws preclude successive generations of absentee Americans. But that said, again, there’s quite a mix and it varies from

country to country. In places like Mexico, for example, we know

that we estimate that we have somewhere between 800,000 and a

million American citizens. There are other countries, very small

countries, where we have a very good number in terms of the— there’s a high percentage of people who register because the

country—— Mr. MILLER. What countries would have the best percentage registered would you say?

Mr. BETANCOURT. Well, to generalize, it would be a country, for

example, that might be experiencing instability. We find that the

highest registration levels occur in countries where there is some

threat or need of evacuation or some civil unrest. Very often these

are smaller countries. The other end of the spectrum are countries

in Western Europe. I’ve mentioned Canada and Mexico, where we

have a very small percentage of Americans who register. And then

there are a great number of countries which are in between.

Mr. MILLER. You have to have U.S. citizenship to have a passport, can you generalize, how many people with U.S. passports

have no intent of ever coming to the United States? I mean a U.S.

passport is one of the most valuable commodities probably abroad.

Mr. BETANCOURT. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. And maybe because that person was born in the

United States, I mean how often does that happen and can you

generalize at all about—— Mr. BETANCOURT. It’s very difficult to generalize. The passport is

valid for 10 years. There is no law that requires that a person who

is born a citizen ever return to this country. They can—a person

can remain a citizen and be abroad indefinitely and at least for a

generation or two. They could either have been born abroad as U.S.

citizens and never return to this country. But it is very difficult.

As I mentioned in the testimony, they are too mobile a population

to estimate how many people who get U.S. passports have no intention of coming here. Generally, the reverse is true. Most people who

obtain passports have fairly immediate travel plans. We know that

in many instances people who apply for passports take only one

trip in their life. They live in the United States. We issue 7 million

passports a year and that’s the purpose of getting a passport. So

there’s not even a direct correlation between the number of passports and the number of citizens abroad because most people who

have passports use them for travel.

42

Mr. MILLER. I remember being questioned in Central America

about a child who was born in the United States and then the parents return to their own country. But that child is a U.S. citizen.

Mr. BETANCOURT. Under the 14th amendment, yes.

Mr. MILLER. Right. But would parents normally get a passport

for that child? Because that costs money.

Mr. BETANCOURT. Well, it does and it is not a requirement that

a person have a U.S. passport to travel in the Western hemisphere.

It would be simply discretionary, although there are instances

when our own government does not require the person to apply for

a passport. But, for example, the country of destination in Central

America may require the person enter on a U.S. passport. Such a

child, though, would probably also be a citizen of, say, Costa Rica

or Guatemala.

Mr. MILLER. Explain dual citizenship. How does that work?

Mr. BETANCOURT. Well, dual citizenship occurs in precisely the

circumstance that you just named. That is where the child acquires

one citizenship, for example, through the parents and the other

citizenship by virtue of the place of birth. Or the child has parents,

one of whom is a U.S. citizen, the other of whom is a citizen of another country. Again, that is a fairly common, I have to say increasingly common, circumstance that we see. Now, the U.S. law

does not operate to automatically strip that person of U.S. citizenship. The laws of the other country may or may not do so. But in

many instances we are aware of, and again with the increasing

number of marriages between people from different nations, there

are increasing numbers of dual nationals and that’s simply a fact

of life that we live with.

Mr. MILLER. If someone is a dual citizen, for example say with

Israel, do they pay taxes in both countries?

Mr. BETANCOURT. The laws relating to taxation have to do with

income and residency and factors which include, but go beyond, nationality. We have to occasionally acquaint ourselves with them.

And I have found no simple formula which is applicable in terms

of citizenship and many times there are filing requirements but

there may not be taxes paid.

Mr. MILLER. You mentioned that the estimate in Mexico is

800,000 to a million U.S. citizens. How do you come up with that

estimate?

Mr. BETANCOURT. Our Embassy in Mexico City, using both registration records, immigration records, information from a variety

of sources, has come up with that estimate. It’s—in fact, I checked

on that number yesterday because I myself was a little bit skeptical about it, and because I was familiar with the number 800,000.

I was told that the more recent estimate was that it was more likely closer to a million, but again that just shows you how wide ranging these numbers can be.

Mr. MILLER. Do you have any idea of the state of residence of,

say, the people overseas?

Mr. BETANCOURT. Among the information that is solicited in the

registration process, usually is a U.S. home address, if in fact there

is one.

It is not a category that we routinely keep track of. We may look

at the registration for the purpose of contacting somebody in terms

43

of an emergency. But we don’t, because there is no purpose served

by our, for example, compiling states of residence. They are U.S.

citizens overseas and our services are available to them without regard to their home State of residence.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. I want to thank the gentleman for his service.

And I agree with the chairman that your participation is one of the

most important in our whole foreign affairs. I think that we really

need to know what are we going to use this for.

Now, if it were just to learn something, maybe there wouldn’t be

this great opposition to counting Americans abroad. But are we

going to use it for apportionment, redistricting State and local

boundaries? I guess that is not really a question to ask you, but

I am just saying that sometimes people object to it because they

don’t know what the ramifications are going to mean in terms of

reapportionment, which is highly political and highly powerful, and

is really the root of government.

So we really don’t know what the purpose of it is or what we are

going to use it for, and I think that question needs to be addressed,

probably before we go forward or maybe we just define that we are

not going to do anything with it, we are just going to learn and just

try to get an understanding of what the ramifications are going to

be.

Second, my colleague, Mr. Clay, raised the point, who should the

universe be? And I think that is a fair question to ask you as an

American citizen, not in your own—you have a lot of great experience from this living abroad many years and the positions you have

held.

But should it be all citizens? Should it include foreign spouses,

dependents of citizens? Should it include anyone who has ever lived

in the United States? Do you have a sense of—should it only be

people who vote? Who do you think this universe should be?

See, I think that there are those fundamental questions that people see and don’t go forward because the fundamental questions

haven’t been answered.

I wonder, who do you think the universe should be?

Mr. BETANCOURT. Well, that is a little bit beyond the scope of my

testimony. To the extent—— Mrs. MALONEY. I am asking you as an American citizen. Common sense, who do you think it should be?

Mr. BETANCOURT. Well, that is difficult. I mean, I would—it was

my presumption really that we were talking about U.S. citizens.

We know that for many purposes in terms of our dealing with people, we are dealing with situations in which the U.S. citizen is a

member of a family. The other family members may or may not be

U.S. citizens. You have a circumstance which might be fairly common where one of the spouses is a U.S. citizen, all of the children

are U.S. citizens, but the other spouse is not a U.S. citizen. That

is a family unit.

But it really depends upon the purpose. Those questions come

first. And I would think the purpose would define the universe.

Mrs. MALONEY. And in our census here, of course, here in the

United States we count everybody, citizen and noncitizen. But, the

importance of that is that we need to know demographically what

44

is happening in our own country. Possibly in a foreign country we

don’t need such a universe of information. So maybe defining it

more pointedly might help us get to the solution faster.

Mr. BETANCOURT. And our estimates are just solely for the purpose of deciding how many people we need in a given country, because there is a correlation, although it is a rough correlation, between the number of citizens and the number of services that are

going to be required.

The other reason is for in the event of there being an extreme

emergency, whether there may be a need to evacuate people. So

our estimates are based solely on those very needs.

Mrs. MALONEY. Then there is another point that the chairman

raised, and Mr. Clay also raised it, that in our Nation we call it

the great civic ceremony. It is not voluntary, it is really required

by law. There are very few responsibilities that are defined for the

American citizen, and one that is clearly defined in the Constitution is that we must be counted every 10 years, every American

resident.

That is not in the Constitution for people who decide to live

abroad. It is a voluntary component. Anything that is voluntary

may possibly skew the numbers, and that is another aspect that

raises concerns that we have many questions about.

In any event, I think that with the global economy, which is a

reality, we are living and participating for the American economy

in many cases in foreign countries, and I feel that has raised really

the importance of counting Americans abroad even more.

In any event, I thank you for your service and your testimony.

And if you have any other ideas that could help us with these questions, get back to us, and thank you for being here.

Mr. BETANCOURT. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney. As we go through this

process, I am sure that we will be relying on the State Department

for input, as well as the Census Bureau.

Have you all been meeting with the Census Bureau at all?

Mr. BETANCOURT. Yes, we have. Earlier this summer we did have

a visit from a number of Census Bureau personnel. They inquired

about precisely the estimates that I referred to in my testimony,

the estimates of Americans that are based upon considerations of

workload and evacuation planning purposes.

They asked how we developed those estimates, what the factors

are that are used in compiling them. It is my understanding that

they received country by country reports of our current estimates.

So we have had several meetings with them at my office in the

last 2, 3 months.

Mr. MILLER. Well, that is encouraging. Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here today.

We’ll take a very brief break while the four members of the next

panel would step forward, and we’ll get the name tags changed. If

you all remain standing.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MILLER. Let the record show that, let’s see, Mr. McClelland,

Mr. Fina and Mr. Gribble said I do.

Mr. Fina is the executive director for the Democrats Abroad. Mr.

Gribble is representing Republicans Abroad. Mr. McClelland is tesVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:41 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75727.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
45

tifying today on behalf of American Business Council of Gulf Countries, and Mr. Marans is here on behalf of American Citizens

Abroad, the Association of American Residents Overseas and the

Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas.

Let me thank you all for being here, and we’ll have opening

statements. We are going to try to stick with the 5-minute rule.

There is a little timer here. We have your written statement. If you

want to just not read it, that would be fine, however you all want

to proceed.

And so we’ll begin with Mr. Fina.

STATEMENTS OF THOMAS FINA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

DEMOCRATS ABROAD; L. LEIGH GRIBBLE, MEMBER AT

LARGE, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, REPUBLICANS ABROAD;

T.B. ‘‘MAC’’ McCLELLAND, AMERICAN BUSINESS COUNCIL OF

THE GULF COUNTRIES; AND EUGENE MARANS, ATTORNEY,

REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICANS RESIDENT OVERSEAS [AARO], AMERICAN CITIZENS ABROAD

[ACA], AND FEDERATION OF AMERICAN WOMEN’S CLUBS

OVERSEAS [FAWCO]

Mr. FINA. Mr. Chairman. First of all, let my say that I am disappointed to learn that you are planning to step down from this position. We have been looking forward to your continuing, because

this is a long-range job and you know so much more about it than

any of the rest of us, and we are counting upon you to see it

through. So we hope that—— Mr. MILLER. We are going to get a lot done in the next year and

a half. Thank you.

Mr. FINA. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Maloney, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Tom Fina, and I am the executive director

of Democrats Abroad. I have been doing this now for 16 years. Before that I was a Foreign Service officer. I was Consul General and

I served as general manager of an American corporation in Italy.

Democrats Abroad has about 30 chapters around the world. We

have got about 10,000 adherents. We encourage Americans abroad

to vote. We try to represent their interests here in the United

States. We have been doing that now for about 40 years.

We thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committee. Let me begin by thanking you, the subcommittee, for its very

important support of the House decision on July 18th to allocate

$2.5 million for planning to include overseas Americans in the census in 2010.

This is a milestone in the long process of getting this count, and

it is an objective that my colleagues here and the organizations

which we represent have all been fighting for for many years.

So we are grateful. We hope that you will now move to direct the

Bureau of the Census to conduct a preliminary count in 2004, as

provided in Congressman Maloney’s bill H.R. 680. That would be

a very important step.

Ideally, we should like to see an enumeration of Americans

abroad to be sufficiently accurate that it would rise to the level required for apportionment. We know that no one knows at this particular point how reliable the census data will be, and that is why

we would like very much to see a preliminary count done in 2004

46

to smoke out both the possibilities and the limitations of a count

in 2010.

Only the professionals in the Bureau of the Census are in a position to imagine and to design a meaningful Census for Americans

abroad that will be subjected to a minimum of litigation. They have

the professional skills and the network of professional relations

with foreign governments, statistical agencies to know how to approach this terra incognita.

We know that the design of a meaningful census will take time,

resources and testing. For our part, we are ready to work with the

other overseas citizen organizations and the Bureau of the Census

to help wherever we can.

But it will only be after we have seen the results of the best efforts of the Bureau of Census that you and we will be able to judge

the quality of the data gathered.

Even if it is not up to the standards required for apportionment,

there are other benefits in this exercise that completely justify the

expansion of our statistical x ray of our whole citizen body.

A census will respond to the patriotic desire of the American

community around the world to be counted, to be measured, to be

seen in its proper proportions as a dynamic part of our society. It

will reveal the importance to our economy and to our society of our

overseas citizens. And the conduct of the census will help to dispel

the notion so prevalent among Americans abroad that our government doesn’t care about their interests and values, their contribution to the well-being and the richness of our society.

An enumeration will help the Congress, the executive branch and

the public to measure the adequacy of the resources provided to the

Department of State, to the Department of Commerce, and to other

Federal agencies for the provision of services to Americans abroad.

There has been a sharp decline in the post-war period in the

number of consular posts abroad and therefore in the availability

of government services to American citizens and to American business abroad.

It is in the national interest that these services continue to be

adequate.

In the same way an accurate count showing geographical distribution and demographic composition will be of significant assistance to those Federal agencies responsible for planning emergency

evacuations and assistance to American citizens in times of natural

disaster and political turmoil. This is a major task and a service

on which Americans count upon their government when things get

tough.

One of the sorest points, Mr. Chairman, for overseas American

citizens is the denial to them of Medicare benefits while outside of

the United States. Although they pay their Medicare premiums

with their taxes, overseas Americans must return home to enjoy

the benefits of coverage. The demand for an extension of Medicare

to qualified citizens abroad is a political problem that will not go

away until this need is met.

We need to know the dimensions of the Medicare qualified universe abroad and an actual projection of its dimensions in the outyears.

Mr. MILLER. If you can try to bring it to a conclusion.

47

Mr. FINA. I think there are other benefits. But let me say the

things that we think should be included in the census. We should

like to know of course the numbers. We would like to know the age

of those who are counted, whether they have an additional nationality, the nationality of their spouse, the nationality of their children, their occupation and profession, their income, both foreign

and domestic, their country of residence abroad, their voting residence in the United States, the date of their last vote in the United

States, the nature of their medical insurance and their Social Security coverage.

Mr. Chairman, that is a tall order, but we know that the Bureau

of the Census is likely to be able to figure out a way to do it, and

we believe that it is essential that be done.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fina follows:]

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

Mr. Gribble.

Mr. GRIBBLE. Yes. Good afternoon, distinguished chairman and

committee members. My name is Leigh Gribble. I am a retired

naval officer and the owner of a consulting firm that is incorporated and registered in the State of Florida.

My family and I have lived in Kuwait in connection with my

military service and now my business for the past 9 years. However, we pay taxes and vote in Florida’s Fourth Congressional District, which is where we hope to return to live full-time within the

next few years.

Among the various civic activities that I am involved with overseas and within the United States, I am honored to serve as vice

chairman of the American Business Council of the Gulf Countries,

and as a member of the Executive Committee of Republicans

Abroad.

Today I am testifying on behalf of Republicans Abroad, the international arm of the Republican Party, which has over 13,000 members in approximately 60 countries.

I am humbled today as I was on June 9, 1999, when I was privileged to appear before this august committee prior to the 2000 census to give voice to the concern of thousands of my follow Republicans around the world.

I am also saddened today that my appearance here is warranted

by the fact that there is still an ongoing debate in Washington as

to whether American citizens overseas should be treated on an

equal basis with their fellow citizens resident in the United States

with regard to being included in the decennial census.

Rather than take up your valuable time reiterating the points

that I made in my previous testimony, I would respectfully request,

Mr. Chairman, that you accept my testimony from your June 9,

1999 hearing as attached to my written testimony today for inclusion in the record of this hearing.

Mr. MILLER. Without objection we’ll include it.

Mr. GRIBBLE. Thank you. I would like to offer some additional

thoughts on why it is imperative from the standpoints of accuracy

and fairness to include overseas Americans in the census process.

The mission of the Census Bureau is to accurately enumerate our

growing population through the decennial census process. However,

this mission has never been completely fulfilled due to the simple

fact that private Americans living overseas are not included in the

census.

The population of Americans living and working abroad is estimated to be at least 6 million U.S. citizens, a population larger

than that of 24 individual States in America. Imagine if 1 of those

24 States was excluded from the census.

The residents of that State would conclude that the government

views them as invisible U.S. citizens. This is the status which

American citizens in the private sector abroad currently find themselves in because they are not included in the census.

Americans living abroad are vital to the competitiveness of the

United States on the global economic stage. Overseas Americans

directly represent U.S. business and trade interests, market our

56

goods and services, and are truly Ambassadors of our culture and

the American way of life.

Indeed, they are anything but invisible, because they are actively

promoting our Nation’s beliefs, values and trade. Their pro bono

work in promoting U.S. products and services is of critical importance to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s efforts to enhance

overseas trade, and yet Commerce’s own Census Bureau does not

consider it critical to enumerate them. Private Americans overseas

certainly matter to the U.S. economy and they should matter to the

Census Bureau, too.

Over the past few years Republicans Abroad has conducted town

hall style events in more than 47 nations. Many of these events included Members of Congress. During these forums, overseas Americans consistently expressed a strong desire to be counted in the decennial census.

They do so for several reasons. First, they believe it is the duty

of the Census Bureau to be as accurate as possible in detailing the

current population of the United States. It is impossible for the

Census Bureau to conduct a truly accurate census while knowingly

excluding a large population of Americans simply because they are

overseas. By not counting Americans abroad, the Census Bureau

cannot credibly state that the census is accurate.

Second, Americans overseas can and do vote. They must pay U.S.

income taxes and they are inextricably linked to their home communities in America. By excluding them from the census the U.S.

Government denies these American citizens equal protection under

the law. They are not considered in apportionment for representation in Congress, nor in the allocation and distribution of Federal

funds and benefits that are determined by population figures.

The U.S. Government collects overseas Americans’ tax dollars

willingly enough, but they are not willing to count these overseas

citizens and provide them with the same funding and benefits that

they rovide to all other American citizens. This is just plain wrong,

and certainly violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for all Americans.

Third, the Census Bureau enumerates Federal employees working abroad in the census, but they discriminate against private

Americans, those who do not work for the government by not

counting them. All overseas Americans deserve to be included in

the census regardless of their employment status or who their employer is. Again, why should private American citizens overseas be

denied equal protection?

Fourth, the Census Bureau has routinely argued that counting

overseas Americans would be too complex, too expensive, and nearly impossible to do. They claim that overseas Americans would be

difficult to locate. However, when income taxes are due, the Internal Revenue Service seems to know the location of virtually every

American abroad.

How come the IRS can find overseas Americans but the Census

Bureau says they cannot? Americans abroad can be found. Their

are eager to participate in the decennial census and it is their right

to be counted.

Republicans Abroad hopes that in the interests of fairness and

accuracy, our elected officials in Congress and the administration

57

will on a bipartisan basis ensure that the Census Bureau enumerates our citizens overseas in the 2010 census and in every decennial census to come.

To that end we ask that you take whatever steps are necessary

to accomplish this, including giving your full and careful consideration to supporting H. Res. 1745, the Full Equality for Americans

Abroad Act, which has been offered by Representatives Ben Gilman

and James Moran.

Thank you for allowing me to testify today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gribble follows:]

58

59

60

61

62

63

Mr. MILLER. That was almost exactly 5 minutes. Thank you very

much.

Mr. McClelland.

Mr. MCCLELLAND. Sir, I have come from Dubai. If I run over a

little bit, please excuse me. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member

Clay and members of the House Subcommittee on the Census,

thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I know that I speak for all Americans abroad when I tell you how

grateful we are to make our case this afternoon before this subcommittee. My name is Mac McClelland. I am here today on behalf

of the American Business Council of the Gulf Countries, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization representing the nine American

Chambers of Commerce, or AmChams in the Gulf.

In addition to my ABCBG role, I am here today in three other

capacities, as President of the American Business Council of Dubai

and the Northern Emirates, as a retired Marine Corps officer and,

most importantly to me, as a husband and a father of three American children, all of whom are residing with me in the United Arab

Emirates.

A decade ago as part of Desert Shield and Desert Storm, I participated in reconnaissance operations inside Kuwait before the air

campaign started. I was able to evade the entire Iraqi military.

However, I was not able to evade being counted in the decennial

census. The Census Bureau found me along with more than

500,000 other American men and woman serving in the Gulf war.

By the time census 2000 rolled around, I had become invisible in

the eyes of the Census Bureau, which refused to include me in its

enumeration simply because I had retired. I vote and pay taxes in

the United States. Yet I was one of the estimated 3 to 10 million

private Americans living overseas who are not counted in the decennial census, despite the Census Bureau’s claim that everyone

counts. And I have a larger one, Everyone Counts. I did get this

neat pencil, but I didn’t get the census form to go with it.

So why are overseas Americans important to the United States

and why do we deserve to be counted, Mrs. Maloney? Willard

Workman, vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce states

that ‘‘in this era of growing globalization Americans working overseas play an essential role in strengthening the U.S. economy, creating U.S.-based jobs, and serving as the world’s most effective promoters of U.S. goods and services.’’

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter the

complete text of this letter for inclusion in today’s hearing.

Mr. MILLER. Without objection, we will include it in the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

64

65

66

Mr. MCCLELLAND. The AmChams represent much more than just

business, however. We often serve as the backbone of the American

communities worldwide. We build, invest in, and send our children

to American schools abroad. We play a leading role in helping to

get out the vote during national and State elections. We serve as

a resource for families who have just moved overseas, kind of a

‘‘welcome wagon.’’ We are deeply involved in security measures taken to protect

Americans abroad, and more often than not we serve as a vital

linchpin on a wide variety of issues between U.S. diplomatic missions and our overseas communities.

My family’s story as Americans abroad is not unusual. I retired

honorably from the U.S. Marine Corp in 1996 and continued working and residing abroad. I am now a private consultant involved

specifically in developing business for U.S. companies and promoting U.S. trade abroad.

My wife, Rhonda, is a member of the American Women’s Association, Dubai, a philanthropic organization of 600 American women.

Our children, Jonathan, Caroline and Emily either are or soon will

be attending the American School of Dubai.

American institutions and the American way of life remain very

important to me and my family. The same can be said for every

overseas American I know. In encouraging such institutions as

Junior Achievement, Little League, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the

Scouting Movement, and even the U.S. Chess Federation, we are

building people-to-people relationships between the United States

and friendly nations all over the world.

Mr. Chairman, if I were the Census Bureau with a mandate from

the U.S. Congress to count overseas Americans, I would concentrate my energies on reaching out through the U.S. Diplomatic

Missions abroad, American Chambers of Commerce abroad, American citizens groups abroad, and they are all represented here, Republicans Abroad, Democrats Abroad, the American and International Schools, USO, the U.S. military installations abroad, global media in the English language, local overseas media in the

English language, U.S.-based organizations with international affiliates, alumni associations at U.S. universities and colleges, major

corporations that employ a large number of Americans overseas

and U.S.-based food establishments in overseas markets like

McDonald’s and Burger King.

The Census Bureau worked with more than 25,000 partners here

in the United States to get the word out and make Census 2000

a success. There is every reason to believe that if the Bureau forms

partnerships with some of the groups that I have just mentioned

the Census Bureau’s same basic methodology will work for us

Americans overseas.

Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you for your leadership and for

requiring the Census Bureau to prepare a report this year on what

it will take to count Americans abroad.

We would also like to thank Congresswoman Maloney and Congressman Cannon for their respective Census bills. However, the

bill that goes to the heart of what our AmChams want is the Full

Equality for Americans Abroad Act, H. Res. 1745, promoted on a

bipartisan basis by Congressmen Gilman and Moran.

67

The Gilman-Moran bill is the only legislation introduced to date

that requires the Department of Commerce to accomplish two

things; that is, to include all Americans abroad in the decennial

census and to ensure that the data collected by the Census Bureau

are used meaningfully, for apportionment and other purposes.

Without these two elements, any overseas census count is hollow

and meaningless, and quite frankly it would be a waste of my tax

dollars. Over the years Americans abroad have had to earn the

U.S. Government’s recognition and respect one battle at a time. In

each of our victories the U.S. Congress has played an instrumental

role in helping overseas Americans to gain full equality with our

fellow Americans living back home here in the United States.

And as Democrats Abroad and others have argued, the Census

Bureau counts aliens, convicted felons, persons committed to mental institutions who do not have the right to vote. Shouldn’t the Bureau count the millions of Americans abroad who do have that

right to vote? And I am not suggesting that there are some overseas who should not be in mental institutions.

But these are just some of the examples of how Americans

abroad overcame odds with the active support of Congress to do

away with the wrong-headed policies that were long overdue for reform. With help from this subcommittee, we hope to chalk up another victory for common sense because Americans abroad count

too.

A year ago, Mr. Chairman, you and Mrs. Maloney directed the

Census Bureau to figure out how to count overseas Americans. We

will find out very soon how the Bureau intends to do that, on how

they have spent the last year.

We sincerely hope that they come up with more answers than

they do questions. Last week on the House floor, Mrs. Maloney expressed concern that like Moses, we could be in the desert for 40

years if we do not receive a concrete plan from the Bureau.

We couldn’t agree more. And, Mr. Chairman, you hit the nail on

the head when you said, it is not fair that Americans abroad are

left out of the decennial census just because it is a difficult job to

count them. As one overseas American put it, by excluding me from

the decennial census my government is telling me that my vote

counts and my taxes count, but that I as a U.S. citizen do not.

There is broad bipartisan support for counting all Americans

abroad. Let us work together in the weeks ahead to ensure that

this count becomes one of the most important and most durable

legacies of this subcommittee.

Thank you again for the opportunity, and I will answer any questions that you have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClelland follows:]

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much. We have a vote going on, and

I think rather than rushing you, Mr. Marans, let’s go ahead and

take a recess and then come back. I did read all of your statements.

I especially enjoyed yours, Mr. Marans, because you had some very

concrete suggestions. I appreciate that. So I think it would be easier to take a recess right now. There may be two votes, so it may

be 20 minutes. So we’ll be in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. MILLER. The hearing will resume.

Mr. MARANS. I understand that you had requested the witnesses

be sworn previously.

Mr. MILLER. If you would go ahead and stand and raise your

right hands.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. MILLER. As I said before, I did read your statement. I appreciated it. I would like to ask you to proceed with your opening

statement, observing the 5-minute rule. Then we’ll have time to

question.

Mr. MARANS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Clay, my name is Eugene

Marans. I am a lawyer with the international law firm of Cleary,

Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton. Our firm has for 40 years served as

pro bono counsel to a number of organizations in the overseas citizen community. I was heavily involved as pro bono counsel in the

bipartisan effort that led to the passage of the Overseas Citizens

Voting Rights Act of 1975. So I have a strong vested interest in

what comes after that in this hearing today.

I am privileged to be able to appear today in support of the overseas private citizens census on behalf of three leading organizations of overseas American citizens, American Citizen Abroad

[ACA], the Association of Americans Resident Overseas [AARO],

and the Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas

[FAWCO].

And I ask the chairman’s permission also to submit the brief separate statements of those organizations into the record.

Mr. MILLER. Without objection.

Mr. MARANS. Also, I would like to take this occasion to acknowledge my indebtedness to David Hamod of Intercom, who has played

a significant role in focusing this subcommittee’s attention on the

census and working closely with Mr. McClelland’s organization, the

American Business Council of the Gulf Countries. He has been a

tremendous help in making sure that we focus on the realities of

this important issue.

ACA, AARO and FAWCO have asked me to stress three main

points to you today. First, they want to be counted. And I won’t

have to go over all of the reasons why, because you have heard

those from other people.

Second, they want to help in the count, and they are willing to

devote whatever resources are necessary to do that.

Third, they applaud your efforts to start planning now.

AARO, ACA, FAWCO and other leading organizations of overseas private Americans applaud the subcommittee’s desire to start

early to develop a plan with the Census Bureau to count overseas

private Americans in the 2010 census, including for purposes of apportionment, and we urge the Congress to direct the Census BuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:41 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75727.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
78

reau to devise a preliminary plan by September 30, 2002 for the

inclusion of overseas private citizens in the 2010 census and to appropriate sufficient funds for this purpose.

We thank Congresswoman Maloney for her proposed appropria- tion of $2.5 million to start this process. It is a good step in the

right direction.

We also support the concept of an interim census to get ready for

2010. But I would say at the start that these organizations believe

that the requirement in the Gilman-Moran bill that the 2010 census count overseas private American citizens is a good provision,

because with that provision we believe the Congress will be able

to encourage the Census Bureau to come up with a plan for an

overseas census that will meet the standard necessary to count

overseas citizens for purposes of apportionment. It if turns out that

it is a complete failure after an interim census, Congress can always back down.

But if we don’t start now, we are concerned that just as you said,

Mr. Chairman, we’ll end up back here in about 2008, and it will

be too late then to develop a plan that will really work for purposes

of apportionment.

Now, the overseas organizations believe this comes down to really two issues for purposes of need. One is just a plain matter of

civics. Twenty-five years ago the Congress assured overseas citizens the right to register and vote absentee in Federal elections in

their State of last residence in the United States, even though that

State may not be their current State for purposes other than voting

in Federal elections.

Second, it is a matter of economics, as the other witnesses have

indicated.

Now, how can the overseas organizations help? We know the

Congress must rely on the Census Bureau to design the appropriate mechanism, but we also know how important it is for the

Census Bureau to be able to have the support of Congress in this

effort.

Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the importance of

congressional support and direction in turning away a challenge to

the 1990 census.

Now, we recognize that it is vital that any kind of overseas private Americans census achieve a high level of distributive accuracy.

That is what the courts have said it has to have, a high level of

distributive accuracy. We understand that technologies for counting

overseas private Americans must be designed to avoid, to the extent reasonably possible, favoring overseas citizens from one country over another or from one State over another or one line of employment over another.

Now, what are some of our ideas? I will be very brief, because

I see the red light is already on.

First, we think that the Census Bureau could consider designing

a census reply form along the lines of our Uniform Draft Overseas

Citizen Census Card that we provided to the staff and the subcommittee.

Second, we think that the Census Bureau could consider developing an integrated master control list of private American citizens

believed to be living abroad.

79

Third, the Census Bureau could consider what should be the

most appropriate techniques to get an OCCC to overseas private

Americans. For example, would it be appropriate to send the OCCC

by foreign equivalent of certified mail to specific individuals whose

names and addresses are shown on a reasonably correct master list

of private American citizens believed to be living abroad? This

might help also in following up with nonrespondents and help assess uncounted ones.

Now, we talk about this being a voluntary census overseas. It

does not have to be considered completely voluntary. If overseas

citizens are properly identified and they get a form that says, this

is a form that you need to fill out, I think there is a question, even

under the present statute, whether they could be completely exempt from filling in that form and sending it in.

Now, that is just a quick take. I’ll look at a couple of other

issues. We have already heard from the State Department about

some of the resources they could offer in this effort and their offer

should be given further consideration.

But they had a good idea which was, in effect, to have the Census Bureau consider making a kind of preliminary profile through

its own personnel of the composition of the private American community in each foreign country using the resources of the consular

services to the extent useful, but, also taking into account the

knowledge and experience of the local businesses and other private

organizations.

Now, we recognize that there is a question of potential fraud. We

have heard reference to that issue, and, as I mentioned, I was

heavily involved in overseas voting rights for nearly a quarter of

a century. Overseas American citizens have used the FPCA, the

Federal Post Card Application form, to vote by absentee ballot. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, which administers the

Federal voting program, there has never been a pattern of abuse

or fraud by Americans living abroad during this period. Any allegation of fraud concerning overseas absentee ballots in the last Presidential election concerned the counting side, not the voting side.

Moreover, information submitted on an overseas citizens census

card like that submitted on the FPCA would be subject to Federal

false statement criminal penalties, which are contained already in

the census legislation itself. It would not be such an easy thing for

an overseas citizen to consider intentionally filling out a false card.

Now, another issue that comes up besides the question of fraud—

is whether the inclusion of overseas private citizens would be inconsistent with the prevailing concept of usual residence for overseas Americans. The answer is no.

We have already crossed that bridge. The Census Bureau has already departed from the so-called traditional usual domestic residence standard in counting federally affiliated Americans abroad

for purposes of apportionment. And indeed the U.S. Supreme Court

in 1992 expressly validated inclusion of federally affiliated overseas

Americans for purposes of apportionment in the 1990 census, noting that the term ‘‘usual residence’’ can mean more than physical

presence for overseas private Americans. We believe that the congressionally mandated right to register and vote absentee in Federal elections is a significant part of that.

80

In closing, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Clay, we recognize that counting

private Americans overseas will be a major challenge, but we also

know that the U.S. Census Bureau is the preeminent population

data collection agency in the world, and we have full confidence

that the Census Bureau, with appropriate congressional direction,

guidance and funding, can design and meet a reasonable standard

for counting the citizens abroad and that standard and the results

of that count will meet the standards of Congress and the Federal

courts.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Clay, for the opportunity to appear before you today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marans follows:]

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Thank you for continuing to be an advocate for this purpose.

Let me start off with a couple of questions. As we were talking

with the gentleman from the State Department, we discussed

whether we count all U.S. citizens, what about a non-U.S. citizen,

a spouse of a U.S. citizen living overseas? It gets down to this defining the universe. This is going to be the problem. Do we only

count them if they plan to move back to the United States? What

about the child that just happens to be born in the United States

and moves back to their native country and hasn’t been back to the

United States for 30 years?

How do you define the universe, Mr. Gribble, first of all on the

child that is born in America and, you know, to foreign parents,

and it goes back to their home country with maybe no expectation

of ever coming back to United States?

Mr. GRIBBLE. Mr. Betancourt failed to point out that children’s

passports have to be renewed every 5, not every 10 years. So at

least every 5 years that foreign resident child with an American

passport is going to have to go down to the U.S. Embassy and declare their citizenship again.

Mr. MILLER. With a passport. What if they have a birth certificate, if they are in—— Mr. GRIBBLE. If they would have—I guess the concept as far as

an American passport being there, and they obviously have some

intention of maintaining their affiliation with America, they are

going to have to renew that affiliation on a 5-year basis while they

are minor children.

As far as the foreign spouse goes, I am not totally conversant

with what the census forms here in the United States require as

far as how various members of the household are counted.

Mr. MILLER. See, we count illegals, but we don’t count you.

Mr. GRIBBLE. Not only illegals in the United States, but you

counted 450-some thousand in American Samoa and 108,000 in the

U.S. Virgin Islands.

Mr. MILLER. They are U.S. citizens.

Mr. GRIBBLE. Well, but they don’t pay Federal income tax, and

I do.

Mr. MILLER. Right. Good point.

Mr. GRIBBLE. I guess we keep running on there, I know—how do

the folks on this side of the panel fix these problems? What procedures do we come up to give the Census Bureau to make this all

right and make sure it is 100 percent fair for everybody. It certainly is unfair that we are not counted now. But I don’t want

things to be fair for me and unfair for everybody else.

But my good friend Congresswoman Maloney has offered up

some things that we have already brought before the committee in

1999. But I don’t think the onus should be on us any more than

the Department of Defense puts the onus on the standard American citizen to come up with a strategic integrated operating plan

or national defense policy.

Mr. MILLER. Right.

Mr. GRIBBLE. Nobody calls Mr. Gribble from the DOD and says,

how do you think we ought to do that? That is what we are going

to the Census Bureau for.

95

Mr. MILLER. Does anyone else want to comment?

Mr. FINA. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that a reasonable way

of approaching the question of the universe is to say that it is anyone who is an American citizen.

We can’t determine, and most citizens don’t know, what their intentions are, whether they are going to return or not going to return, when they are going to return. But there is a body of legal

opinion that will enable us to determine who is and who is not a

citizen. And all of our discussions thus far in our advocacy of inclusion of Americans abroad has been based upon a request that we

should count American citizens, whether big citizens, little citizens,

old, young citizens, whether they have been there for a while or not

for a while. We would think that would be the appropriate criterion.

Mr. MILLER. You brought up the legal issue. There are going to

be some legal questions about apportionment purposes. Is it for apportionment purposes? I can see this in courts. You brought up the

issue of distributive accuracy, and I can see where—in fact, Mr.

Clay and I were just chatting on the way over to vote.

Florida, for example, has no State income tax, and a lot of people

like to claim Florida as their State of residence for that purpose.

Well, Florida may be a winner in this.

Texas shares a big border with Mexico, and the State Department thinks there are 800,000 to a million U.S. citizens in Mexico.

Well, that would be a benefit to Texas.

In the same way you could say New York would have benefited

because it is in close proximity to Canada. Then a State like Missouri may not have as much benefit. So one of the things you could

find out is it is going to be not a partisan issue, but geographically,

because you are going to have a winner and loser.

So there are potential legal problems, to make sure it is accurate

and all countries are counted fairly and this and that. And being

a lawyer—and that is another question. There are some of them

that are easy to count, U.S. people that pay taxes, you know, registered voters, people that receive Federal payments, Social Security checks. Those are easy.

But then once you get beyond that, where do you go? You have

800,000 or a million in Mexico. How do you find them? If we are

talking about over in the Gulf States, is it fairly well defined who

is in the Gulf States, as far as, you know, in the American Emirates?

Mr. GRIBBLE. I would say that probably the American community

in Kuwait, because we do live under threat conditions on a predominant basis, probably 95 percent of the American citizens over

there are registered. It is a small enough community, 6,500 folks.

If you wandered through the American food court that Mac talked

about, you know who your friends and neighbors are. We certainly

are recognized within the Gulf. Using State Department registration records would probably get about 90 percent accuracy.

Mr. MILLER. What do you do when you go to Mexico and you’ve

got a million to count, or El Salvador where there’s a very large

number? To be fair about this, maybe we can get 99 percent count

in Kuwait and that’s great, but you only get 50 percent count in

Mexico. That’s where the potential legal challenge could come.

96

Mr. FINA. Mr. Chairman, one reason that I mentioned the importance of the relationship which the Bureau of the Census has with

foreign statistical agencies is that some governments do conduct, do

include the question of foreign citizenship in their census. Canada,

for example, does have some sort of a count of people who claim

to be or whom they have identified in some way as being American

citizens. That is also the case, I gather, in the case of Ireland. I

don’t know how many other countries do the same.

I do know from my own experience, when I was trying to count

American citizens in Italy for the purposes of the Department of

State’s data base, that it was largely a matter of looking out of the

window and saying to a colleague: ‘‘You know, looks like there are

a few more people here this year than last year. Don’t you think

so? Yeah. Well, maybe we’d better increase it by 5 percent.’’ I would

think most of the large industrial countries in Western Europe

probably don’t have a very good count. But there may be some that

do and that’s a place where the Bureau of the Census can at least

go to make some judgment about who’s there and how to verify

their qualification for being counted.

Mr. GRIBBLE. A lot of those other countries do have restrictive

immigration as to who they’re allowing into their country and they

keep very, very accurate tabs on who’s there and where they live.

And again, you know, if our Census Bureau and the State Department started talking to the immigration departments in some of

these other countries, they might be able to glean that data from

their records.

Mr. MILLER. I think that, you come from the easier countries to

count. The countries in the Western hemisphere where you don’t

even need a passport to go are going to be the greatest challenge

to count and probably where the greatest numbers are going to be.

I remember, the Census Bureau has an international division that

does consulting. One time I was in Ankara, Turkey and was meeting with them. And of course in Turkey they have a mandated census day and everyone is required to stay inside for the day. That

would not work certainly in this country, let alone trying to say we

are going to make them do it and count U.S. citizens over there.

But there are some legal challenges. But it may be worth doing

even if it doesn’t meet the legal standard of apportionment.

Now, you know, we can try to shoot for that as a goal. But the

question is, if you can only count 30 percent of the U.S. citizens in

Mexico but you can get 100 percent in Kuwait and then I can see

the political fighting, that Mr. Clay would say Missouri’s hurt,

Florida’s helped, that’s not fair. I mean it’s not a race or anything

else. It’s just a geography thing that would be in there.

So, you know, I’m looking forward to hearing, seeing the Census

Bureau’s proposal come September, and I look forward to hearing

it in October.

Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first question for Mr.

Gribble, one of the main arguments you make is that persons who

vote and pay taxes in the United States should be counted in the

census. Would it be acceptable to count only those persons and

their dependents in the census?

97

Mr. GRIBBLE. No, No. I just use that as an example of why

should I pay taxes and vote in this country if the country doesn’t

count me? My Federal taxes come up here, my Federal income

taxes that I pay come up here and never go back to the Fourth District because I don’t count there. You know, I don’t have to pay income tax in the State of Florida, but I pay corporate tax in the

State of Florida.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Let’s take that—— Mr. GRIBBLE. So I use that as a jumping off point.

Mr. CLAY. Sure. But let’s take it a step further. If the enumeration is completely voluntary and if there’s no documentation needed

to prove State ties, could imaginary people be created?

Mr. GRIBBLE. To what reason? To what purpose?

Mr. CLAY. Well, we hear a lot about concerns about the manipulation of data, maybe to create more people to vote. You know.

Mr. GRIBBLE. I certainly understand that can be a concern. But

again, you started your question off with saying if it’s voluntary.

Why would we want to make it voluntary? It’s mandatory for everybody in the States. It’s mandatory for overseas citizens to file

U.S. income tax returns. Why would we make it voluntary for them

to participate in the census?

Mr. CLAY. Let me ask you, obviously, you represent a group of

individuals that are very interested in being counted. Do you think

that you are a representative of the entire Americans overseas population? The Bureau has indicated that. Private citizens abroad are

not willing to be enumerated. Is this true?

Mr. MILLER. It’s time to let someone else share.

Mr. MCCLELLAND. I’ll speak to that if I may.

Mr. CLAY. OK.

Mr. MCCLELLAND. If you don’t mind. What do they base that on?

Have they gone overseas? Have they talked to people? Have they

done some type of poll?

Mr. CLAY. This is what the Bureau tells us. I mean, I’m going

off of what they tell me.

Mr. MCCLELLAND. Sir, Mrs. Maloney called it Census’s bellyaching. Census’s bellyaching, sir, will stop if you enact legislation

requiring them to count Americans abroad and give them the

money to do so in a census that will provide appropriate and unbiased data for apportionment and other purposes. All the bellyaching will stop. And I can tell you that American citizens groups

abroad, those represented at this table and others who aren’t here,

are better organized and have better communications tools today

than they ever have in order to put the word out to collect Americans, if it’s collect them at a central location, the American school,

consulate or wherever, and to help in that effort.

We’re here to help. We’re not fighting this. We’re fighting for it

to help every State.

Mr. CLAY. Let me hear your opinion about who should be counted.

Mr. MCCLELLAND. American citizens.

Mr. CLAY. People having United States and second nation citizenship? Should they be included?

Mr. MCCLELLAND. If they are an American citizen, regardless of

whether they have a second, third or fifth passport. If they’re an

98

American citizen they should be counted. They would be here in

the States.

Mr. CLAY. OK. All persons born in the United States? Even

though some of these persons may have become citizens of the

country in which they currently reside?

Mr. MCCLELLAND. That’s a personal opinion that I would have

to express and not that of the American Business Council of the

Gulf Countries. In talking about American citizens abroad, every

American abroad should be counted.

Mr. CLAY. OK.

Mr. GRIBBLE. If they give up their citizenship, if they’re not holding a dual citizenship but they give up their U.S. citizenship to

take that of another country, they’re no longer American citizens

and they should not be counted.

Mr. CLAY. Let me ask Mr. Marans. Should the Americans overseas have to have documentation to prove ties to a certain address

or State?

Mr. MARANS. Well, that’s a good question, Mr. Clay. The OCCC

we have here would require the overseas citizen to list a State, and

the OCCC also says that refusal to answer questions on the form

to the best of your knowledge or providing willfully false statements may subject you to criminal penalties. So the overseas citizen would have to know that if he or she puts a particular State

on this form, that person has to be able to validate that residence.

Now, the question is, should the form contain something more?

Should it, for example, contain an address, the so-called last residence address in the State immediately prior to departure of this

citizen from the United States? That’s a possibility. That’s something that the Census Bureau could investigate, and then the question would be whether the Census Bureau should seek to validate

that address through some other records for all of the replies, for

some of the replies; how are they going to determine whether these

replies are false or not? But the Census Bureau has that problem

already today in trying to consider whether information that’s provided on census forms is valid. It is a validation issue, just as overseas citizen listing of U.S. citizenship on their form is a validation

question.

Mr. CLAY. Should the form also include what city and country

overseas these people are living in?

Mr. MARANS. The present form would.

Mr. CLAY. It would? OK.

Mr. MARANS. It also has optional entries for e-mail address, telephone, fax. That’s already in this form. But this, I should emphasize, is just a draft form. The idea is to stoke discussion in a constructive fashion between the Census Bureau and the stakeholder

constituencies and this committee to move the process forward.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Mr. Fina, should they have a last domicile in the United States?

Should they have an address in the United States?

Mr. FINA. I would think it would be reasonable to ask people to

provide a last domicile in the United States, even if they no longer

live there, because in our present system of overseas voting we do

require that people show where they last lived and presumably

99

those addresses are verified by local election officials. So I don’t

think it’s unreasonable to ask that there be a previous domicile.

Now, what you do with the people who are born in the United

States and were promptly taken back to a foreign country before

they had a domicile here I think is a question you have to solve

by some sort of an administrative regulation. Maybe you would say

the last domicile of baby Smith was Presbyterian hospital or something like that.

Mr. CLAY. In your opinion, do most Americans overseas want to

be enumerated?

Mr. FINA. I think there is very widespread support for the idea.

I don’t think that all Americans overseas want to be enumerated

any more than I think that all Americans in the United States

want to be enumerated. There are a certain number of people who

absolutely oppose the idea for all sorts of good and bad reasons.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. Let me follow this. Again, I’ve gone to some countries, and you run into people—I remember being in a country in

South America actually earlier this year and a lady that was a

translator was born in the United States—no, had come to the

United States in the early 1970’s and married a U.S. citizen. She

became a U.S. citizen and she moved back to this country in the

1970’s and it just came out that she has a U.S. passport. Now she

has never been back to the United States and she has no intent

of coming back to the United States. She’s a citizen of that country

as far as she’s concerned, but she’s got a U.S. passport. So I guess

what you’re saying is she should be counted.

Mr. GRIBBLE. Absolutely.

Mr. MCCLELLAND. She’s still a U.S. citizen.

Mr. MILLER. Then she gets counted twice. She gets counted in

that country.

Mr. MCCLELLAND. They don’t do apportionment for the U.S. Congress in that country though, Congressman. She’s an American citizen. She should be counted.

Mr. MILLER. But she has no intent to ever come back here.

Mr. GRIBBLE. We don’t have classes of citizenship in this country.

If you have a U.S. passport, you’re an American citizen.

Mr. MILLER. What happens if you have a birth certificate from

the United States. You don’t get a passport and so you’re a U.S.

citizen just because you have a birth certificate.

Mr. GRIBBLE. If you have a U.S. birth certificate you’re a U.S. citizen.

Mr. MILLER. And you haven’t been in the United States for 40

years.

Mr. MCCLELLAND. Those are the immigration laws in the United

States, Congressman.

Mr. MILLER. I’m just asking the questions how you feel.

Mr. MCCLELLAND. Yes, sir. We have cases just like that in

Dubai, where, for instance, a Jamaican man is married to a Sri

Lankan woman and they intentionally traveled to the United

States for both of their children to be born here and then went

back overseas. Now the children carry American passports. They

have no clue what the United States is about, yet they’re American

citizens.

100

Mr. MILLER. All right. Using that as an illustration for apportionment purposes, which is the only thing that the Constitution

requires in the first article that we address the Census for apportionment purposes. Why should those two children be assigned to

whatever State the hospital was in where those children were born

to affect apportionment which is, you know, distributing the representation? I mean I can see counting them and getting that information. I’m not opposed to collecting information, but getting an

apportionment. I mean why should they affect how our States get

apportioned? Was the hospital in St. Louis versus the hospital in

Florida?

Mr. MCCLELLAND. OK. Let’s bring it closer to my home. My

mother’s father, a German citizen, traveled through the United

States, came through Ellis Island, gained his citizenship, went on

to China; this was at the turn of the century. My mother was born

in China to a naturalized American father, raised in China. Her

mother was Japanese. OK? Now—— Mr. MILLER. I need a flow chart here.

Mr. MCCLELLAND. Do you want me to draw a diagram? She was

born an American citizen because her father had an American

passport. The Japanese went into China, destroyed the consulate

and all the records. The only thing that she had that proved that

she was an American citizen was a passport. She has no birth certificate, no record of anything other than an American passport,

OK? So should she not have been counted? You know, were this the

question in 1929, when my mother was born, of course she should

have been counted. She’s an American citizen. She ultimately came

to the States. But I’m sure at 16 years old she wasn’t thinking I’m

going to the States next year so I can be included in the census.

So, yes, the answer to the question is if they’re American citizens

they should be counted.

Mr. MILLER. The question is—maybe not in this case, but say

they’re living in Ecuador and the children are born there and the

mother has returned, and they don’t have a passport. How do we

find them to count them? I mean, you know, they may not even

speak English. Which is, you can still get the form but we have no

record of it, besides they have a birth certificate and we have no

idea where they are. How do we locate them or how do we locate

this lady translator? I’m saying she doesn’t want to be counted, so

we don’t have any record. Well, she does have a passport.

Mr. MCCLELLAND. We won’t get everybody obviously. But I think

the statistics are correct when we hit 66 percent in the national

census, the domestic census, the Census Bureau had a party celebrating the fact that they’d hit 66 percent. You know, when do you

say it’s a success and when do you say it’s a failure? I think if we

make an honest effort to count all Americans abroad by giving the

Census Bureau the power and the money to do it and mandating

that they count Americans abroad, with the definitions that we

have, that an American citizen in the different, the passport and

the birth certificate, the birth right, and I think that’s what it

comes down to is a birth right, then count them.

Mr. MARANS. Two quick points. One, I think we do have to keep

in mind that we do have a difference between just counting overseas citizens and counting them for purposes of apportionment.

101

And the form that we gave out, the draft form, makes clear that

persons may be listed without a State or other U.S. jurisdiction of

last residence in the United States and may still be counted in the

census. But they would not be allocated to a particular State for

apportionment purposes.

So that’s a foundation for one principle of how to deal with it.

How you deal with the baby who was resident in Sibley Hospital

for 3 days, it’s a different question. That would have to be worked

out in detail by the Census Bureau in consultation with the various

stakeholders.

And that reminds me of one other thing. We know the Census

Bureau is going to have a report coming up soon. In past years

we’ve had some opportunity to meet with the Census Bureau. We

think it could be very helpful maybe if this subcommittee or its

staff could help facilitate some further meetings with some of the

stakeholders.

Mr. MILLER. Well, have your organizations, or are you aware of,

been asked to meet with the Bureau? I mean, I think they were

trying to meet with the outside groups. You have been asked?

Mr. FINA. I haven’t been asked, but I did speak with them prior

to your hearing because I wanted to get a—— Mr. MILLER. My understanding is they’re going to try to reach

out to the groups, you know, before they come up with their report

to get the input.

Mr. MARANS. We’ll look forward to that.

Mr. HAMOD. We initiated a meeting that came on the heels of a

congressional meeting.

Mr. MILLER. Just a second. I’m sorry. You need to identify yourself and be sworn in.

Mr. HAMOD. David Hamod on behalf of the American Business

Council of the Gulf Countries. We did, at the urging of the subcommittee, initiate a meeting with the Census Bureau. It lasted for

about a half an hour. It was not very substantive.

Mr. MILLER. How long ago was this?

Mr. HAMOD. That was about 2 weeks ago. The Census Bureau

said they do not intend to consult with stakeholders before the

issuance of the report; rather they plan to consult with the stakeholders next year.

Mr. MARANS. So maybe the point I should make is some of us

stakeholders think maybe it’s useful to be consulted as part of the

preparation of this report.

Mr. MILLER. I was glad to hear that they have been meeting with

the State Department anyway. But I thought my impressions were

really mistaken. Mr. Clay, do you have any more questions?

Mr. CLAY. I’m fine.

Mr. MILLER. Do any of you all want a concluding comment before

we adjourn?

Mr. GRIBBLE. Yes. I just repeat our position, sir, and that is that

we hope that whatever enumeration is done by the Bureau of the

Census and we hope that they will work on something by 2004. We

would like it to meet the requirements, the constitutional requirements for apportionment. But that is not an essential qualification.

What we want is a count of the best information that we can acquire, doing their very best, and we hope that it will be good

102

enough for apportionment. But if it can’t reach that level, we still

think it would be enormously valuable to us to have the data.

Mr. MILLER. One comment, Mr. Fina, you made. There’s a lot of

things you’d like to find out on a form, and there’s a lot of privacy

concerns in the census, and so it gets down to the question, and

you raised the issue of what are we trying to accomplish. And when

you start getting into income questions and all that, you’re starting

to get invasion of privacy and it affects response rates. But that’s

something we can proceed on. And I’m hoping we can do one, say,

2004 to see what—you know, we don’t know what we have until

we try it and we want to be prepared for 2010.

So let me thank you again for coming today, moving the process

along, and looking forward to another hearing with the Bureau,

and then we’ll, you know, get further input and hopefully we’ll be

ready in a few years to do the test and then be prepared for 2010.

I ask unanimous consent all members and witnesses who have

opening statements to be included in the record, and without objections, so ordered. Mr. Marans has asked to have a statement also.

In case there are additional questions that Members may have for

witnesses, I ask unanimous consent for the record to remain open

for 2 weeks for Members to submit questions for the record and let

witnesses submit written answers as soon as practicable. Without

objection, so ordered.

The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

103

104

105

106

107

Æ