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

98–351 PDF 2005

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE 2004 OVERSEAS

CENSUS TEST

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION

POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND

THE CENSUS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 14, 2004

Serial No. 108–266

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

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL

RELATIONS AND THE CENSUS

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida, Chairman

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

DOUG OSE, California

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

BOB DIX, Staff Director

URSULA WOJCIECHOWSKI, Professional Staff Member

JULIANA FRENCH, Clerk

DAVID MCMILLEN, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on September 14, 2004 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Gribble, Leigh, vice chair, American Business Council of the Gulf Countries, on behalf of Census 2010 Coalition; Lucy Stensland Laederich,

U.S. liaison, Federation of American Women’s Club Overseas, Inc.;

and Clark H. Bensen, consultant and publisher, Polidata Co. ................. 41

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

Dalton, U.S. Government Accountability Office ......................................... 7

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

Bensen, Clark H., consultant and publisher, Polidata Co., prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 59

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

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 35

Dalton, Patricia, U.S. Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 16

Gribble, Leigh, vice chair, American Business Council of the Gulf Countries, on behalf of Census 2010 Coalition, prepared statement of ............ 46

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

Laederich, Lucy Stensland, U.S. liaison, Federation of American Women’s

Club Overseas, Inc., prepared statement of ................................................ 53

Putnam, Hon. Adam H., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Florida, prepared statement of ................................................................ 4

(1)

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE 2004

OVERSEAS CENSUS TEST

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND THE CENSUS, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Putnam (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Putnam and Clay.

Also present: Representative Maloney.

Staff present: Bob Dix, staff director; John Hambel, senior counsel; Ursula Wojciechowski, professional staff member; Colleen

Smith, fellow; Juliana French, clerk; David McMillen, minority professional staff member; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.

Mr. PUTNAM. Quorum being present, this hearing of the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental

Relations and the Census will come to order. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the subcommittee’s hearing entitled, ‘‘Lessons Learned from the 2004 Overseas Census Test.’’ We are here

today to examine the results of that test and to review the GAO’s

report entitled, ‘‘2010 Census: Counting Americans Overseas as

Part of the Decennial Census Would Not Be Cost-Effective.’’

Having oversight of all census matters, this subcommittee recognizes the importance of the lessons learned in the preliminary findings from the ongoing evaluation by the Census Bureau regarding

this test. We also recognize the importance of hearing the concerns

from stakeholders with relevant perspectives on the test and its

challenges.

The U.S. Constitution requires a count of its population every 10

years. The count determines the number of apportioned seats that

a State gets in the House of Representatives and is used to update

and revise voting districts, and the data is used to determine eligibility distribution of Federal grant dollars to State and local governments.

Since the first decennial census in 1790, the concept of usual residence has been used. Usual residence generally means that people

are counted where they live most of the time and not necessarily

the same as voting residence or legal residence.

Historically, the Census Bureau has focused its efforts on counting everyone in every household living in the United States regardless of age or citizenship status. They have developed processes,

2

such as the Nonresponse Followup, and tools, including the MAF/

TIGER, over time that have continued to improve the accuracy of

the decennial census. The Bureau has counted those Americans

who are deployed or assigned overseas in serving this Nation in recent censuses for purposes of apportionment. They have included

members of the military, Federal civilian employees and their dependents by using administrative records, but they have never included all American citizens residing abroad in a decennial census

for purposes of apportionment or redistricting. The magnitude of

known obstacles has been a determinant factor of the feasibility of

such an effort.

Many private American citizens living abroad have long recognized the importance of participating in the census as part of their

civic duty. Some pay taxes, vote, may have families back home,

while others may be overseas for only a short period of time or, I

might add, are overseas for a reason and don’t want to be found.

Although it is estimated that up to 4 million American citizens may

reside abroad, the precise number is unknown. There are currently

no administrative records, processes or any acceptable tested methodology for providing an independent measure for the coverage of

this population. Estimations from the U.S. State Department’s

1999 records and the U.S. Department of Defense’s 2000 records

suggest there are approximately 4.1 million, but there is no calculation as to how many households the Census Bureau would

have to count.

Congress and the Census Bureau have been responsive to the

stakeholder groups of American citizens living abroad overall. Congress has held hearings in the past to hear from stakeholders on

this issue. Through its role on oversight and appropriations, Congress has worked with the Census Bureau to help facilitate and

fund the 2004 overseas census test. This subcommittee enlisted the

help of the Government Accountability Office in monitoring the

work of the Census Bureau as it undertook this unprecedented effort to determine if it was feasible to include overseas Americans

in the decennial census.

Census Bureau estimates it will have spent $7.8 million over 3

years for this test. It involved enumerating the unknown universe

of American citizens living in France, Mexico and Kuwait from

February to July 2004. The test was carried out on schedule and

consistent with its research design. However, the response rate in

this test was very poor. Just over 5,000 questionnaires were returned, most via the Internet. Because of this low response level,

the cost for obtaining these questionnaires was extremely high.

GAO estimates it cost approximately $1,500 per response.

In this hearing we will receive testimony as to the results of the

tests and the challenges that exist in enumerating the overseas

population. We have two distinguished panels of witnesses today.

The first panel, we welcome the Director of the Census Bureau and

the Director of Strategic Issues at the Government Accountability

Office. I am eager to hear their expert insight into the 2004 overseas census test.

Our second panel is comprised of three census stakeholders. I

would like to thank the first two for traveling so far to be with us

today from Kuwait and France respectively. They represent AmerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:26 Feb 23, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\98351.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
3

ican citizens living abroad who have worked to make the test happen. I look forward to hearing their viewpoint. Our final witness

represents the data user community. As a redistricting analyst, he

brings a valuable perspective into the discussion of the feasibility

of the issue.

I eagerly look forward to the expert testimony these distinguished panel of leaders will provide today. At this time we would

like to remind everyone that today’s hearing can be viewed for

those living abroad—can be viewed live via WebCast by going to

reform.house.gov and clicking on the link under live committee

broadcasts.

We will await the arrival of other committee members for their

opening statements and move right into witnesses’ testimony. Our

first panel are experienced witnesses. You understand the light

system. You will be recognized to summarize your written remarks

in 5 minutes, and we will then proceed to questions and answers.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Adam H. Putnam follows:]

4

5

6

7

Mr. PUTNAM. At this time, I would ask you to rise, please, for the

administration of the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. PUTNAM. All the witnesses have responded in the affirmative, and we will begin with our Census Bureau Director. We are

honored to have with us today the Director of the Census Bureau,

Mr. Charles Louis Kincannon. Mr. Kincannon began his career as

a statistician at the U.S. Census Bureau in 1963. He held positions

of increasing responsibility in the economic, demographic and administrative areas of the Bureau. He left during the Ford administration to join the staff of the Office of Management and Budget

where he worked on statistical and regulatory policy.

Throughout his time with the Federal Government, Mr.

Kincannon received a number of awards recognizing his work, including the Presidential-Rank Award of Meritorious Service and

the Department of Commerce Gold Medal.

In 1992, Mr. Kincannon was appointed as the first chief statistician in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. He returned to the United States in 2000, was nominated by

President Bush and confirmed by the Senate unanimously in

March 2002 to direct the Census Bureau. That may have been the

last unanimous vote the Senate cast.

We welcome you to the subcommittee and recognize you for your

testimony.

STATEMENTS OF CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON, DIRECTOR,

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU; AND PATRICIA DALTON, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Mr. KINCANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. And

on behalf of the Census Bureau, I want to thank you and the subcommittee for giving us the opportunity to share our experience

and perspectives from the 2004 overseas enumeration test. The

Census Bureau’s objectives for the 2004 overseas test were to learn

whether we could locate Americans living in the three test countries, France, Kuwait and Mexico, and whether Americans would

participate and return the forms via Internet or direct mail. These

objectives may seem simple, but they are important. The success

of the decennial census stateside depends on the Census Bureau’s

ability to obtain these objectives with high standards of measurable

quality.

In conducting the decennial census, the Census Bureau faces the

task of finding every person living in America every 10 years. This

task is daunting, but inspires at the same time our best hopes, our

best ideas and our best efforts. The civic ritual of the census is almost as old as our Nation itself, and its fundamental purpose is

one of the few specific government responsibilities mentioned in the

Constitution. This mandate gives life to the promise of fair representation, and it is an affirmation of the great promise made on

behalf of this Nation to all generations speaking of ‘‘We the people.’’

It’s easy to lose sight of the real goals of the census as difficulties

and controversies arise. The stakes are quite high. And with each

generation and each succeeding census, we find ourselves again

asking the critical question, who counts in the census?

8

The 2004 overseas test was designed to determine the feasibility

of conducting a census overseas. The Census Bureau conducted this

test at a cost of approximately $7.8 million over 3 years. We chose

to conduct this test in France, Kuwait and Mexico because these

countries are in different parts of the world, and each has a significant population of U.S. citizens and residents.

The Census Bureau finished data collection on July 2, 2004.

Since that point, we have been engaged in data processing and tabulation, including quality assurance tests preparatory to evaluation

efforts. While we will not have formal results and evaluations until

next spring, I’m here to share some of the early indications of the

2004 overseas test.

One of the most important criteria of the decennial census is the

response rate. We cannot accurately calculate a response rate for

this test because we do not have accurate estimates of the number

of Americans living in the three test countries. However, we believe

the response is low by any standard one might choose. From

France we received approximately 3,100 questionnaires. From Kuwait we received approximately 300. And from Mexico we received

approximately 2,000, 35 of which were in Spanish. The initial reaction to the anecdotal evidence supplied by stakeholder groups indicates that many Americans living abroad in those countries either

did not know about the test or understand its purpose.

We had printed over 600,000 questionnaires to make sure we

had enough for those tests, and this number was partly based on

estimates from a number of sources. In France, for instance, we

have estimates ranging from about 29,000 to over 112,000 Americans in residence. These results suggest that the Census Bureau

cannot conduct a decennial census abroad as done stateside with

any degree of measurable certainty.

There are several key distinctions between the decennial census

as collected in America and counting Americans overseas. The first

distinction is that the decennial census collected in the United

States is mandatory, and the purpose can be clearly communicated.

It is much easier to achieve participation stateside and persuade

households to answer because we can communicate the benefits of

the census data for every neighborhood and community.

The second distinction is the existence of the Master Address and

mapping system. We talk about it at the Census Bureau as MAF/

TIGER. It is literally the road map of the United States and every

community in it. We have no such resource, maps or address lists,

that explain how to reach every American living abroad. In short,

we don’t know where to look for every American living abroad by

the method we use in the States.

Another related distinction is the lack of a field infrastructure to

do nonresponse followup. In the United States we hired over

800,000 field workers to do the field work in the 2000 census. To

complement this infrastructure, we had a massive campaign of

public relations, and we would have difficulty in repeating these

characteristics and strengths overseas.

We have reliable estimates of the U.S. population and its demographic composition. These enable us to evaluate the quality and

coverage accuracy of the decennial census. We don’t have these

9

data for other countries. These distinctions are very important to

the success of the decennial census.

In closing, the Census Bureau has determined that taking a census overseas would present unique difficulties, difficulties that cannot be resolved by the methods and tools that the Census Bureau

uses to conduct the census stateside. This indicates that without

the capabilities to meet high standards of measurable quality, we

would be unable to provide data likely to fulfill the purpose for

which the decennial census is collected; that is, apportionment, redistricting and distribution of Federal funds. The preliminary results of the test indicate that we cannot meet the same standards

of measurable quality as the data that we collect in the United

States.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity and hope this information is informative. I have a full written statement that I request be included in the record if it so please you.

Mr. PUTNAM. It will be, and we appreciate it. And thank you very

much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kincannon follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

Mr. PUTNAM. For our next witness, we are going to hear Ms. Dalton’s testimony, and then we will go to Mr. Clay’s opening statement. Our next witness is Ms. Patricia Dalton, who is Director For

Strategic Issues at the Government Accountability Office. In this

position she directs GAO’s work related to the decennial census

and the Census Bureau. She is responsible for GAO’s work related

to government management issues, particularly performance management and the Government Performance and Results Act, organizational structure and design, intergovernmental relations and

tools of government.

Before joining the GAO in 2001, she was the Deputy Inspector

General for the U.S. Department of Labor for 7 years. She received

her appointment to the Senior Executive Service in 1993 from the

U.S. Department of the Army, where she served as Director of

Audit Policy, Planning and Resources of the Army Audit Agency.

Ms. Dalton is a certified public accountant and holds an M.B.A.

from U.Mass and a BA from the College of the Holy Cross. Welcome to the subcommittee.

Ms. DALTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. At the subcommittee’s request we have evaluated the

overseas enumeration test, its design and execution and have published two reports on the subject, the latest of which is being released this afternoon by the subcommittee. Although the complete

results of the test will not be available until next year when the

Census Bureau expects to finalize its evaluations, two important

findings have already emerged in GAO’s work.

First, the 2004 overseas test was an extremely valuable exercise

in that it revealed the numerous obstacles both in logistics and design to counting Americans abroad through the decennial census.

The tools and resources the Bureau has available to enumerate this

group, largely for reasons of practicality, cannot cost-effectively surmount these obstacles.

Second, to the extent that better data on overseas Americans

might be useful for various policymaking and other nonapportionment purposes that do not need as much precision, such information does not need to be collected as part of the decennial census.

It will be important for Congress, the Bureau and stakeholders to

work together to explore the feasibility of counting overseas Americans using alternatives to the decennial census. The initial results

of the overseas census test suggest that counting Americans abroad

on a global basis would require enormous resources and still not

yield data that are comparable in quality to the stateside count.

The response to the overseas census test was disappointing, and

you can see that on the posterboard to your left. The 5,390 responses that the Bureau received in the three test countries was

far below what the Bureau planned for when it printed out the

questionnaires. While the Bureau ordered 520,000 paper forms for

the three test sites, less than 2,000 forms were returned. Approximately 3,000 responses were received by the Internet.

Not surprisingly, as with any operation as complex as the overseas enumeration test, various unforeseen problems arose. While

the Bureau was able to address them, it is doubtful that the Bureau would have the ability to do so in 2010 should there be a full

overseas enumeration. The difficulties included grappling with

15

country-specific issues and overseeing the contractor responsible for

raising public awareness of the census at the three test sites.

The Bureau’s long-standing experience in counting the Nation’s

stateside population has shown that specific operations and procedures together form the building blocks of a successful census, and,

again, this is illustrated in one of the posterboards to your left. The

design of the overseas test, a voluntary survey that relies heavily

on marketing to secure complete counts, lacks these basic building

blocks largely because they are impractical to perform in other

countries. The disappointing test results are not surprising. Refining this basic design or adding more resources would probably not

produce substantial better outcomes. Key elements for success are

absent.

In addition to the logistical hurdles, there are a series of policy

and conceptual questions that need to be addressed as well. They

include who should be counted, what determines residency in another country, how should overseas Americans be assigned to individual States, how should the population data be used.

Congress will need to decide whether or not to count overseas

Americans and how the results should be used. These decisions in

turn will drive the methodology for counting the population group.

Possibilities include counting Americans via a separate survey; administrative records such as passports or voter registration forms;

records maintained by other countries, such as published census

records and work permits. However, far more extensive research

would be needed to determine the feasibility of these or other potential approaches.

The report we released today suggests that Congress should continue to fund the evaluations of the 2004 test, but eliminate funding for any additional tests related to counting Americans abroad

as part of the decennial census. However, this is not to say that

overseas citizens should not be counted. Such information does not

necessarily need to be collected as part of the decennial census and

could be acquired through a separate survey or other means. Our

report recommends that the Bureau, in consultation with the Congress, would research such options.

Successfully counting the Nation’s population is a daunting task.

As the countdown to the next census approaches the 5-year mark,

the question of enumerating Americans overseas is just one of a

number of issues that the Bureau needs to resolve. As you know,

last year we identified the 2010 census as a major management

challenge. On behalf of the subcommittee, we will continue to assess the Bureau’s progress in planning and implementing the 2010

census and identifying opportunities to increase its cost-effectiveness.

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:]

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

Mr. PUTNAM. At this time I would like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Missouri Mr. Clay for his opening statement.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and especially for calling

this hearing.

A great deal of energy has been expended on the issue of counting Americans overseas both by Congress and the Census Bureau,

and I hope this hearing will move us toward a conclusion on this

issue. It is clear from the reports that the GAO has prepared that

they believe that Congress needs to provide direction on this issue.

At the same time, GAO indicates that the Census Bureau has not

given Congress much useful information for developing that guidance.

Before we get too far in this discussion of counting Americans

overseas, I want to raise an issue that has come before me. Two

groups, one representing Puerto Ricans and one representing

American Indians, have raised concerns about the way in which a

member of the Census Information Center Steering Committee was

forced to resign from the committee after publicly disagreeing with

a senior Census Bureau official. The gentleman dismissed from the

committee is a well-respected researcher at the Joint Center For

Political and Economic Studies. For those of you who are not familiar with the Joint Center, it is one of Washington’s premier think

tanks and was formed in the 1970’s to provide policy analysis for

African American Congressmen. Both groups have represented this

action as demonstrating a lack of sensitivity on the part of Census

Bureau officials toward people of color.

This has not been a good summer for the Census Bureau. Last

month it was criticized of trying to bury the bad news about the

increase in poverty by releasing the numbers in the dead of August

when everyone was out of town. And it came out only because the

Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a Freedom of Information request that the Census Bureau had produced tabulations that

showed where Arab Americans live. Those tabulations were made

from the 2000 census data on ancestry. Now we find out that a senior African American scholar has been summarily dismissed from

a steering committee because he openly disagreed with the Census

Bureau on the measurement of race. I’m not surprised that these

groups believe that the Census Bureau is insensitive to their concerns.

Today we will hear testimony from GAO and the Census Bureau

that suggest that we should end the count of Americans overseas.

We will also hear from the advocates who are Americans overseas

that the 2004 test was not a very good test, and that much more

can be done. I hope both the GAO and the Census Bureau will address the issues raised by the second panel.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. If I could go to the

questions.

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

35

36

37

Mr. PUTNAM. You are on a roll and recognized for 5 minutes for

your questions. Before you begin, I would like to recognize and note

for the record our distinguished gentlelady from New York who is

joining our subcommittee, Mrs. Maloney.

Mr. Clay, you are recognized.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, and I thank the gentlelady from New York

for being here.

Mr. Kincannon, maybe you want to address what I said. I know

it is a personnel issue, but it certainly raises red flags for me, and

we’ll start there.

Mr. KINCANNON. Mr. Clay, I appreciate your consistent and longrunning support for the activities of the Census Bureau, and I’ll

certainly answer in that context.

I’m not aware that someone was removed from the panel or fired

from his job because he disagreed with someone at the Census Bureau. I don’t think there’s any evidence that the Census Bureau

had any role in that. We have never in my memory objected to a

body choosing someone to serve on an advisory committee where

there are bodies represented. And as for people disagreeing, if we

try to remove all the people on our advisory committees that disagreed with us in public, we would have a very empty room. Disagreement and dialog about disagreement is the nature of those advisory committees.

I wasn’t at that particular meeting, but I’m quite confident, as

much as I can be of facts in this world, that we made no effort to

have someone removed on that basis. The only thing that makes

me try to remove a member of an advisory committee is that they

don’t come to the meetings. If they don’t come to the meetings, they

are not adding anything to our knowledge.

Mr. CLAY. I appreciate your response, and perhaps we can get

the two parties together and figure out what actually happened,

and I thank you for that response.

Mr. Kincannon, I can understand the drive to include military

personnel serving overseas in the census particularly at times like

this when men and women are dying every day in service to their

country. And it is more difficult to understand the drive to include

civilian personnel serving overseas. The military overseas are not

there by choice, particularly in war zones. Many of the civilian jobs

overseas, however, are actually plums. Your job in Paris is one example where I doubt they have ever had to force someone to take

that job. Has the Census Bureau ever considered counting only the

military personnel overseas and State Department employees serving at our embassies overseas?

Mr. KINCANNON. I’m sure the Census Bureau would follow the

direction of Congress on that particular matter.

Let me say even though I enjoyed very much being in Paris, and

I never regarded it as a plum assignment, and my wife enjoyed it

very much indeed because she was able to enjoy Paris and life

there, but I’ll tell you the fact of the matter is I would not have

been included or was not included in the census because I wasn’t

an employee of the U.S. Government. I was counted in the French

census.

My experience was that it was very difficult to recruit Americans

to posts even though you enjoyed many privileges, with high-rankVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:26 Feb 23, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\98351.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
38

ing staff being accorded diplomatic status, the pay being considerably higher than Civil Service pay, even at the highest levels, even

for political appointees. So yes, I would think it was very attractive.

It was difficult for Americans to come out of concern for language

and out of concern for integration of their family, particularly for

professional-level people who would fill jobs in an organization like

the OECD. Often both members of the family, the husband as well

as the wife, are employed outside the home in well-paying professional jobs, and when they move from the United States to France,

they were not eligible automatically for employment. Unless you

were a citizen of an EU member country, you’re not automatically

eligible to work there. Yet it is possible to find jobs, but it is a barrier. But if you teach school, that may be a particular problem. If

you have children that are already partly along in school and not

at the beginning of their school life, then they are going to face

enormous barriers and have extensive dislocation in their life. I

was not successful in recruiting a single professional-level staff

member to join my staff from the United States in the 8 years that

I tried to do so.

Mr. CLAY. I can probably recommend you a few staffers that I

know around here that would love to take the position.

But what about counting the overseas employees, Federal employees, that work in the embassy and the military? Have you considered that?

Mr. KINCANNON. It would be feasible to do, and if that is the

opinion that the Congress had, I’m sure that we could make that

distinction, because that count is based on administrative records.

Mr. CLAY. All those employees at the military and embassy, I

mean, there are pretty low numbers.

Mr. KINCANNON. Pretty low numbers, and I’m not sure all of the

military responded in the census. That will be part of our evaluation.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Mr. PUTNAM. We have a vote pending, and we are going to continue on with questions. The round of votes we have, it will take

approximately an hour. I apologize to you in advance for that.

Both of you mentioned in your testimony that in the past there

have been past efforts by the Census Bureau to count Americans

abroad. What lessons were learned from those attempts that were

applied to this test? Ms. Dalton or Mr. Kincannon.

Mr. KINCANNON. Mr. Chairman, I think the basic lesson from

past experience in counting American servicemembers and civilian

government employees stationed overseas is that if you have complete administrative records, it’s not a difficult task to count people. We counted them. I’m sure those numbers are pretty close to

accurate, and they do not have the characteristics data that would

be associated with a conventional census, but I’m sure in total

number they are fairly complete.

Mr. PUTNAM. You have heard GAO’s recommendation which was

it was the test was not successful. What then is the conclusion or

the action on the part of the Census Bureau? Will all efforts to beyond evaluating these results end? Have we closed the book on

enumerating Americans abroad?

39

Mr. KINCANNON. It would be difficult for me to argue strongly

that this test was a success, but, in fact, we succeeded in learning

quite a bit about difficulties, including the different cultural and

legal situations in other countries. That also would make it difficult

to do a worldwide effort. On the other hand, the fact that so few

people responded was much below our expectation. If you look at

the example of France, the lowest estimate that we have for the

number of American citizens living in France is over 29,000, and

that is an underestimate because that excludes any American who

has dual citizenship, and there are quite a number that have dual

citizenship. If you look at the 2,000responses in France, assume

that the household size is the same as stateside and multiply by

2.4, you come up with under 5,000 or less than 1 in 6 of the smallest and known to be understated estimates of Americans in France.

That is not anywhere close, and so it is not encouraging to proceed.

As to further activities, we at present do not have the prospect

of appropriated funds to continue this work, so we don’t have anything else planned.

Ms. DALTON. I would add that in 1960 and 1970, the Census Bureau did attempt to enumerate private citizens, that were overseas,

and similarly they had serious difficulties in response to the response rate. So this is a continuing pattern.

Mr. PUTNAM. What other data bases exist, Ms. Dalton, that suggest to us that a more accurate number of citizens abroad in terms

of the number of private IRS filings from overseas or absentee voters from overseas—what other information or data bases are out

there that would give us some clue?

Ms. DALTON. There are a lot of data bases. However, the reliability of the information is really unknown. There is information that

the State Department has in terms of passports, registration at embassies. We have voter records, though that is of questionable reliability; tax records to some extent, as you mentioned; Social Security files are also a possibility. But, none of these have really been

seriously evaluated for their use or how they could be improved to

use as part of the census or a count of some form.

Mr. PUTNAM. When you did your interviews at the test sites, did

you get any hint of why the response rate was so low?

Ms. DALTON. Not specifically, other than that some people just

did not want to be counted. When you look at what happened stateside in the 2000 census, the response rate was—I think after all

of the followup that was done by the Census Bureau, it was only

72 percent. So I think we’re seeing similar patterns overseas. Plus

you have the issue of were people aware that the test was being

conducted.

Mr. PUTNAM. And how many countries, because of State Department warnings and security issues, would it be virtually impossible

for us to have people on the ground conducting these enumerations

if we were to proceed with it?

Ms. DALTON. I don’t know the number. I know at any given time

the State Department has numerous countries under warnings of

various types, but I don’t have an accurate count of that.

Mr. PUTNAM. In France you had an unusually low response.

There were privacy laws that were part of the challenge you faced

in this test. I assume that there would be a number of other counVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:26 Feb 23, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\98351.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
40

tries where we could expect those same problems. Is that what you

found, Ms. Dalton?

Ms. DALTON. Yes, it is. In the three test sites, the Census Bureau

encountered problems of various natures. You point out the issue

of France and the privacy laws. In Mexico there were issues with

the mail system. In Kuwait there were issues of trying to deliver

the census forms to the appropriate parties, and the embassy had

to take custody of the forms and then move them.

What I think you pointed out is that each country would in all

likelihood be unique, so we wouldn’t be running one census, but we

would be running 100 censuses in dealing with those countries’

specific issues.

Mr. PUTNAM. And just to refresh—let me go back to the basic

language in the Constitution. Do we have any guidance from a constitutional scholar on what the language, actual enumeration of the

population, what that means as it relates to overseas counting?

Mr. KINCANNON. I’m not aware that there is any determination

that says there is a prohibition against counting Americans overseas, and the counting of servicemen and Federal civilian employees overseas has been reviewed and upheld by the Supreme Court.

But I’m not going to give a legal opinion. That’s not my preparation. That’s my understanding.

Mr. PUTNAM. Knowing the Court’s direction and the legal interpretation of what efforts you must make to make an actual enumeration stateside, would that same equal protection requirement

exist overseas where, if we are going to make this effort to count

overseas, if we were to pursue it, it would not be enough just to

count the ones that are easy to count? We would have presumably

to put the same types of efforts and resources on the ground overseas as stateside to be in compliance with the interpretation? I’m

asking you. I don’t know that.

Mr. KINCANNON. Mr. Chairman, I think it depends on the purpose for which were the data collected and the way they were used.

If they were used for descriptive information, then you don’t create

rights for certain people that way, it seems to me. If it could be

used for apportionment or redistricting or fund allocation, then you

are beginning to create rights, and that might be a concern.

Mr. PUTNAM. My time has expired. We have 6 minutes remaining before the vote, so the committee will stand in recess, and we

will be back. But please drink all the orange juice you can, and we

will be back in approximately 1 hour.

The subcommittee will reconvene. I apologize for the delay with

votes. I am informed we have another round of votes shortly. So

I would ask the ranking member if he has any additional questions

for the first panel. He has indicated he does not. We will defer to

the written record.

We want to be sure and get to the second panel. So we will dismiss panel one and seat panel two. We will stand in recess momentarily until we can get panel two seated.

[Brief recess.]

Mr. PUTNAM. The subcommittee will reconvene. I would like to

ask panel two to rise and raise your right hands for the administering of the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

41

Mr. PUTNAM. Note for the record that all witnesses responded in

the affirmative.

We will move directly to testimony, beginning with Mr. Leigh

Gribble. Mr. Gribble is the managing director at New Bridges

Strategies in Kuwait. Prior to joining, he founded and managed

Blackthorn Rhino, a firm dedicated to providing technical consulting liaison and management services to multinational companies

pursuing business opportunities in the defense, industrial, financial

and commercial sectors in the Middle East. He has resided in Kuwait since 1992, and has been working in Iraq over the past year.

Welcome to the subcommittee, sir. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENTS OF LEIGH GRIBBLE, VICE CHAIR, AMERICAN

BUSINESS COUNCIL OF THE GULF COUNTRIES, ON BEHALF

OF CENSUS 2010 COALITION; LUCY STENSLAND LAEDERICH,

U.S. LIAISON, FEDERATION OF AMERICAN WOMEN’S CLUB

OVERSEAS, INC.; AND CLARK H. BENSEN, CONSULTANT AND

PUBLISHER, POLIDATA CO.

Mr. GRIBBLE. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, distinguished chairman and committee members. I may go over 5 minutes, but I would ask your indulgence, because I left my plum job

in Baghdad and drove 8 hours last week and it took about 23 hours

to fly over here. So if I go a couple of minutes over, I would beg

your indulgence.

Mr. PUTNAM. Fair enough.

Mr. GRIBBLE. Again, as noted, I am a retired naval officer and

the owner of a consulting firm that is incorporated in the State of

Florida. I have lived in Kuwait in connection with my military

service and my consulting business for over 12 years. However, I

pay taxes and vote in Florida’s 7th Congressional District, which

is where my company is registered and where I hope to return to

live full time within the next few years.

Among the various civic activities I am involved in overseas and

within the United States, I serve as the vice chairman of the American Business Council of the Gulf Countries, and am on the executive committees of the American Business Council of Kuwait, and

the American Chamber of Commerce of Iraq.

Additionally, I am honored to represent overseas American citizens for the Census 2010 Coalition on the Secretary of Commerce’s

Decennial Census Advisory Committee.

Today I am testifying on behalf of the Census 2010 Coalition, a

coalition which represents diverse interests of such overseas American citizens groups as the 98 U.S. Chamber of Commerce-affiliated

American chambers abroad; the Association of American Citizens

Abroad; the Association of American Residents Overseas; Republicans Abroad; and the Federation of American Women’s Clubs

Overseas, FAWCO.

FAWCO is also represented here today by my dear friend and

one of the very few reasons I can think of to visit France, Lucy

Laederich. I am as humbled today as I was in June 1999 and July

2001, when I was privileged to appear before this august subcommittee to give voice to the concerns of thousands of my fellow

private American citizens around the world.

42

Rather than take up your valuable time rereading points that I

made in those two previous appearances, I would respectfully request, Mr. Chairman, that you accept my testimony from June 9,

1999, and the July 26, 2001 hearings, as attached to my written

testimony today, for inclusion in the record of this hearing.

Lucy Laederich of FAWCO has allowed me to review her upcoming testimony and her presentation of lessons learned in the 2004

overseas census test. It is quite extensive and accurately reflects

what I saw in Kuwait during the conduct of the test. So with your

indulgence, I will not spend a lot of time discussing lessons learned

today except to emphasize two important points:

First, we all know that extensive media outreach is crucial to

conducting a successful census. We also know that media campaigns are extremely expensive in the United States. This is because there are literally thousands and thousands of print and

broadcast media outlets for U.S. residents to choose from. In the

United States, the Census Bureau has to spend large amounts of

money to cover the broadest possible spectrum of media to reach

the maximum number of individuals in cities, towns, and rural

areas where people may have access to 5 newspapers, 20 radio stations and hundreds of TV channels to read or tune into.

Overseas American citizens do not have so much choices of what

to read, listen to, or watch in the English language media. But,

they generally have access and pay attention, regular attention, to

five almost global outlets and media streams. These worldwide outlets and streams are the International Herald Tribune, the Voice

of America, and the U.S.-based international news channels, CNN,

Fox News and MSNBC.

Media buys in just these five outlets and streams should reach

the vast majority of American citizens around the world, and would

not break the Census Bureau’s advertising budget. The Census Bureau did not advertise in those outlets or streams during the 2004

test census, except for a very limited ad buy in the International

Herald Tribune in France and Mexico toward the end of the test

period. Any overseas census is bound to see low response rates if

it is not well advertised.

Second, mandatory participation in the U.S. census is required

by statute for all U.S. residents. Obviously the force of law is used

to compel participation in the census and thereby increase response

rates. What would U.S. response rates be if the threat of a penalty

for nonparticipation was not a factor to be considered by potential

respondents? I daresay it would drop off steeply.

There was obviously no such penalty provision hanging over the

American citizens in the three test countries. Many here in Washington scoff at the idea of making participation in an overseas census mandatory. They say it would be an unenforceable requirement, yet the IRS requires overseas American citizens to file U.S.

income tax returns and pay required taxes, again under penalty of

law. Human nature being what it is, even the slight possibility of

running afoul of the Federal Government would be a prime

motivator for many overseas American citizens to complete census

forms and would raise response rates. Any overseas census should

require mandatory participation, just as the U.S. census does.

43

I would like to now offer some thoughts on why the utmost effort

should be made to bring the census process into the 21st century

and why it is mortally imperative that Congress act to include

overseas American citizens in the census.

When I started drafting this testimony, I was in the middle of

a month of travel that included business meetings and events in

Kuwait, Bahrain, Kurdistan, and Northern Iraq and Baghdad. On

the first of September, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, John

Negraponte, and I had the privilege of addressing the inaugural reception to the American Chamber of Commerce in Iraq in Baghdad.

It was a diverse gathering of more than 80 American business people, ranging from individual lawyers and consultants to representatives of major contractors involved in reconstruction and consumer

products companies. Our remarks that evening were punctuated by

the sounds of nearby mortar fire, but the noisy explosions did not

drown out the conversations or dampen the spirit of the American

business community in Iraq as it gathered to celebrate the founding of the newest U.S. Chamber of Commerce overseas, and the

fact that we were entering and building yet another market for

American goods and services in the global economy.

I certainly never imagined when I was growing up that I would

find myself in such a place in Baghdad at such a historic time, nor

do I suppose the founders of our country ever imagined that American voters would be living overseas in significant numbers when

the Census Act of 1790 was passed and laid down the foundation

for one of the principal, if not primary purposes of conducting the

census, the determination of the voting population of each State.

In fact, it was not even until the mid-1970’s that American citizens resident overseas were even allowed to vote by absentee methods. If the census is to be successfully conducted and true to its primary mission of determining the voting population of each State,

then it must take into account the 21st century realities of an

America that has a global economy and a substantial population

resident overseas, whose votes are recorded in every State of the

Union.

The census should no longer be conducting their Rules of Usual

Residence that were devised and appropriate in the 1700’s. The

Rules of Usual Residence must be updated to reflect the existence

of a global American population that votes while far away from

home.

Equal protection is not just a good idea, it is the law and it is

constitutionally mandated by the 14th amendment. Equal protection under the law means that all American citizens and residents

enjoy the same rights and privileges. Simply, the government is not

allowed to offer rights and privileges to some citizens and residents

and deny these same rights and privileges to others, yet by not including private American citizens resident overseas, the Federal

Government does just that. The Census Bureau does count overseas federally affiliated Americans and U.S. military personnel in

the census, but they do not count me and equal protection is denied. Even though I pay Federal income tax, those portions of the

Federal budget that are allocated to Florida and my home place of

Ormond Beach based on census population data do not include

money that should rightfully be expended there on my behalf, beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:26 Feb 23, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\98351.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
44

cause do I not exist, according to the census, and equal protection

is denied.

The strength of my vote is diminished because the census does

not count me, and so the current system fails to include and apportion me in and to the voting population of the State of Florida and

its 7th Congressional District, and again equal protection is denied.

Many argue that if American citizens resident overseas are

counted in the census and the resulting data is used for the purposes of apportionment and redistricting, that biases will be introduced that may cause perturbations in the current apportionment

and redistricting processes and unfair advantages to some States

or districts. But with judicious modification of the Rules of Usual

Residence and acceptable statistical remedies, this should be avoidable. Equal protection under the law must be enforced for all

American citizens, including those residing overseas, by counting

them in the census.

Now, to the question of cost effectiveness of counting American

citizens resident overseas in the census, is it necessary and costeffective to break down the population of the individual States into

14 separate racial and ethnic categories and then tabulate and analyze reams of data about these categories? Certainly it is not under

the original Census Act of 1790. But Congress has been sage

enough over the years to mandate the modifications to the census

process to reflect the changes and requirementsin and of a constantly evolving American population. Now that the American population includes an uncounted but significant number of citizens

resident overseas, the census process needs modification again to

properly reflect this.

The GAO concludes in their review of the 2004 overseas census

test that it would not be cost effective to count Americans resident

overseas in the census. As best I can tell from the report, this conclusion is based in very large measure upon an overseas census

test response rate that is perceived as low. This response rate appears to be solely based on comparing the number of forms printed

before the test for the Census Bureau and the actual number of responses received—520,000 versus about 3,700. If they printed 6,000

forms, would 3,700 look like a good number? I may be mistaken,

but I believe that the number of forms printed reflected the Census

Bureau’s best estimate of how many printed forms might be needed

to conduct the test, and was certainly not intended to be used as

a measurable response.

Comparing a pretest number of required forms to the actual responses received by printed form Internet input hardly seems to be

statistically significant or cost effective itself. We all understand

that there are huge obstacles to be overcome in order to count

American citizens resident overseas in the census and then to put

that resulting data to fair and meaningful use. But Congress

should not allow the debate over whether to do so to continue to

focus on the logistical and the statistical; rather, the focus should

be on deciding whether it is moral and right to continue to deny

equal protection under the law to American citizens resident overseas.

I have to believe that the answer to that question is no. I also

believe that Congress can come up with the necessary statutory

45

changes, funding, and mandates to the Census Bureau to rectify

this injustice, and I urge you to do so.

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Gribble.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gribble follows:]

46

47

48

49

50

Mr. PUTNAM. I will let all of you know that we are expecting

votes again at 4 or somewhere thereabouts. So I would ask all of

you—and I appreciate the distances that you have traveled—but I

would ask you to summarize your written remarks, knowing that

your full text will be in the record.

Our next witness is Ms. Lucy Stensland Laederich. She is the

U.S. liaison for the Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas, a nonpartisan network which comprises 72 independent organizations in 33 countries around the world. FAWCO has been actively involved in advocating the inclusion in the U.S. census of private American citizens residing temporarily or permanently

abroad. Its members, especially, Ms. Laederich, are considered invaluable overseas Ambassadors for America.

Welcome to the subcommittee. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. LAEDERICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am extremely honored to have been invited to testify here and to address

you, even though I am equally daunted to be speaking for a population that is equal in size to the 25th State in the Union.

Thank you for saying some things about me. I don’t need to say

those, but I can add to what you said, that I was privileged to have

a front-row seat to the 2004 census test from my home in Paris,

where I did not choose to live—but we can go into that at another

time if you want.

You have asked me to testify about the lessons learned in the

2004 test, but I want to explain why those lessons and the recommendations of this committee are so important to those I represent.

My remarks here and in the written record have been approved

by FAWCO—which you have mentioned, but it is also the oldest

and largest organization representing private-sector Americans

abroad—as well as the Association of Americans Resident Overseas

based in Paris, and American Citizens Abroad based in Geneva.

Alongside the American Business Council of the Gulf Countries,

we have all devoted a great deal of energy to this cause over the

past decade. Using only the figures that were available to us,

which were State Department estimates, we produced a map that

I believe you have in front of you there, which I think very dramatically shows the size and scope of the population we are talking

about.

We want to congratulate the Census Bureau for taking on a huge

challenge. Under two directors, that both Leigh and I have had the

pleasure of knowing, it has moved this cause forward in good faith

and to the best of its ability with the resources available to it.

As we heard earlier from you, Mr. Chairman, the Constitution

mandates a count of every person physically present in the United

States, legal citizen or not. We know that counting U.S. citizens

abroad is not constitutionally mandated, but in today’s global

world—and Leigh has said—it is as logical as a count of people

physically present on American soil called for in the 18th century.

It is the only thing that can provide a picture of the real American

population in the 21st century, present and active throughout the

world.

Our organizations don’t all agree on the purposes for which statistics should be used, but there is one on which we all do agree;

51

that is apportionment. We are not so naive as to believe that this

will be easy. But we are American enough to believe that it is important. Until the statistics used to apportion seats include the corresponding overseas population, State representation will be

skewed, and the House of Representatives will not be representative of the real global American population.

We regret the fact that the total number of respondents was far

below what we hoped, but we remember that the Census Bureau

did not set out in the 2004 experiment to test for response rate or

coverage. The aim was to test the questionnaire itself and the way

in which Americans were reached and encouraged to respond.

My written testimony goes into more detail on both of those aspects. But I would like to mention just a couple of things with regard to each. For the questionnaire, we know that the objective

was to make the overseas questionnaire as similar to the domestic

short form as possible, but we still recommend changes to make it

more appropriate for the overseas population.

We feel it should be one, mandatory for U.S. citizens, two, clearly

and obviously protected under Title 13 of the U.S. Code. In other

words, when I say ‘‘obviously,’’ that should be obvious to the respondents. It was not. And three, clearly a civic action. The Bureau

chose a very good slogan: ‘‘easy, Important, Confidential.’’ ‘‘important’’ and ‘‘confidential’’ need to be made abundantly clear to the

respondents.

As regard to outreach, my written testimony goes considerably

more into detail there, but we would recommend adopting the

equivalent of the U.S. system with regional and local offices around

the world staffed by one person from the Census Bureau and one

local American familiar with the country and its American population; other forms of outreach, like the domestic census-in-schools

program; paid advertising in a wide range of media, not concentrated in one American newspaper; congressional funding for

U.S. Embassies and consulates abroad, by far the best equipped

today to help coordinate and contribute to an effort like this; and

some funding for upline planning involving those familiar with the

population in question, both organizations like ours and consular

officials.

We should remember that in 1781 no one knew yet how to count

persons physically present in the new United States either. Despite

procedures refined over time, the domestic population still is not

fully counted. We do not at all want to distract from the domestic

effort. On the contrary, we want to see them complemented by statistics that would show the global reality of the modern America.

We all realize that if we knew how to count overseas Americans,

the overseas census test would not be needed. But unknown territory and the unknown universe that you mentioned yourself, Mr.

Chairman, earlier, unknown territory must not deter us any more

than it deters the child who falls the first time he or she tries to

walk. One day that child will walk right into university.

Other countries like France count their citizens abroad, and the

United States can do it too. The time has come as we enter the

21st century for a real sea change in mentalities about America’s

place in the world; an understanding that the overseas American

52

population is a vital and integral part of the global American community.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Laederich follows:]

53

54

55

56

57

Mr. PUTNAM. Our next witness is Mr. Clark Bensen. Mr. Bensen

is a consultant and the publisher of Polidata Demographic and Political Guide, which produces reference tools for demographic and

political research. An attorney by training and a data analyst by

practice, Mr. Bensen has been analyzing data related to the art of

politics for over 25 years. He has been involved in redistricting and

census issues throughout the past three redistricting cycles, and

has developed political and census data sets for every State in the

Union.

In addition, on several projects he has been responsible for the

establishment of a nationwide data base of demographic and political information. His participation has included service at every

level of politics, moving to Washington following the 1980 elections.

Welcome to the subcommittee. And you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.

Mr. BENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Much of what I had in

here, of course, will be summarized for two reasons. One is the

time; and two is that much of what actually I wrote here as problems with the test has actually been covered by the GAO report.

So let me just highlight a few things here that have come up and

I believe are issues that need to be addressed.

Again, I basically am a redistricting consultant. And what I do

is I assist people around the country who actually draw the lines

in which you Members get the wonderful chance to run for office.

And one of the paramount concerns that redistricting people have

is that the data that they are provided by the Bureau is in fact the

most accurate, the best data available that can be gathered. And

this means that it is gathered from an exhausting and objective

physical counting of the American public.

Now, redistricting people are also one of the very few data users

in the country that actually use the census block level data. And

I might add that if in fact anything is done with the count of overseas Americans, I believe the first important distinction is, it

should not be used for redistricting, if in fact it is used for apportionment. And I say that advisably, because I believe the data at

the census block level would be very suspect with the overseas

Americans added in, largely because we really don’t know what

physical address many of them have and whether you can verify

them, validate them, whatever. I just think even considering it for

redistricting is beyond the pale.

Now, apportionment at the State level has its own problems, one

of which is—and I believe, Mr. Chairman, you brought this up before about what the Constitution says, and are there limitations. I

believe the major limitation is actually the language of counting

people in each State, which goes back to the physical residence

rule.

It is fairly clear to say that members of the military and Federal

employees and their dependents have an enduring tie to the United

States. Most of them are over there temporarily and involuntarily.

They will return. There is what we call a logical nexus for them.

It is much more difficult to say what the nexus is for many overseas Americans, although obviously my patriots here have a very

strong logical nexus to the United States. But I believe that is a

constitutional problem from the standpoint of who gets counted in

58

the overseas count. And I shouldn’t even say count, because it

would obviously be, as the GAO person said, hundreds of counts.

Each country would have its own separate problem. However, I

don’t think that means you have to just say you can’t do it. I think

it is an open constitutional question. But I think the touchstone is

again to have an annual enumeration and to have the logical

nexus.

Let me summarize another area of problem, which is basically

again going to how good a job can we make to count these people?

And this goes to what Mr. Gribble was saying, too, about the bias.

The bias here is, basically, could be two levels. One is from the nation-by-nation count, and two is by the State-by-State count. I use

as an example in my written report about the counting in Mexico

versus counting in Canada. It may be easier to count in Canada

the overseas Americans—well, probably more people from Canada

come from the northern States. It may be difficult to count in Mexico, and many Americans in Mexico may come from the southern

States. So there is a bias as to which States you go to, which are

the easier to count, and then, likewise, in the results as they come

back. And this bias again goes back to the constitutional problem

with the census itself, which is the actual numeration. We all know

that, in fact, there have been millions of Americans that have not

been counted over time, but the point is the Bureau is supposed to

count as many people as it can, house by house, without any possibility of manipulation.

Bias is not necessarily intentional manipulation, but it could be.

That is part of the problem and one of the concerns with counting

the overseas. I think from the standpoint of including them in the

census, I just don’t know see that is going to be a real probability,

certainly not by 2010, possibly by 2020, I wouldn’t rule it out for

that.

But I think one of the biggest problems here from the standpoint

of 2010 is the Bureau does a very good count at counting people.

That is their mission, that is why they go there to work every day;

they want to count people, they want to find people, they have an

address list, they have a concept of how many people there are.

They can claim success and give a coverage rate and assess the efforts they have done.

That is not going to be possible with this. And in that sense, we

are really setting the Bureau up for a failure. And as one who actually uses the data from the Bureau very clearly, I mean, this to me

is a problem.

So that is one of the problems I see with this. And I believe the

GAO report goes over the feasibility problems and stuff. I think the

only logical thing to do is to work on an overseas survey over time

so we can all assess the degree to which overseas Americans exist

nation by nation, and then possibly for the 2020 census we consider

how to implement that. Thank you.

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bensen follows:]

59

60

61

62

63

Mr. PUTNAM. Ms. Laederich, do I read your testimony correctly

that you have been in France since 1970?

Ms. LAEDERICH. Yes. That is right.

Mr. PUTNAM. So if we were to have an actual enumeration, what

State would you want to be apportioned to?

Ms. LAEDERICH. I vote in the State of Connecticut. That is my

last State of residence. And under the UOCAVA, which covers our

voting from overseas, I vote there. So I would assume that it would

be there.

Mr. PUTNAM. Is that something of a model that we would adopt,

that people would get to select what State they wanted to be identified with? I mean, what if they choose not to vote, or haven’t voted

in years?

Ms. LAEDERICH. I would think, with all due respect, that would

be up to Congress to decide, but that there is a model right now,

which is the law that governs our voting. So that might be the first

thing to take into consideration. And once Congress had made that

decision, I would assume that individuals would not be able to decide whether they liked it or not.

Mr. PUTNAM. Who would be determined to be eligible for the

count? Would it be everyone who is eligible to be an American citizen? In other words, if a British family, on vacation in Disney

World, and gave birth to a baby, and then went back home, and

that baby—technically has some citizenship rights—but would we

have an obligation to seek out that person, even if they had no interest in exercising their American citizenship?

Mr. Bensen, you are the attorney. Would you like to take a crack

at that?

Mr. BENSEN. Well, that goes back to what I was saying before

about the logical nexus aspect of any overseas American. I think

one of the aspects, an advantage of actually doing a survey over

time, would be to assess the degree to which every person that does

respond does have a logical nexus. I would say in that case, the

person probably does not have any logical nexus to the United

States, and then that ties into the whole voting aspect too.

There are people who can vote overseas, but voting does not necessarily mean they should be counted for the census. And, likewise,

there are other people in the census that should probably be allowed to vote, too. It is a good starting place. But I think the key

there really is what is the logical nexus. What is the tie that binds

that person, as a citizen, to the United States?

I read a while ago, a couple of months ago, I guess, some of the

campaigns were down in Mexico trying to register voters, and there

was an example of a woman who had not lived in the United States

for 65 years, but they were going to register her to vote. That is

another problem, too, because that ties into the State laws and how

they allow people to vote.

I believe 10 States do not now have some sort of overseas vote,

for people to vote in Federal elections, even if they have never lived

here. And that is part of the problem. Many overseas residents,

overseas Americans, have never lived in the States, any State. And

that is a problem from a redistricting standpoint again, too. Where

do we put this person?

64

Mr. PUTNAM. For our two visitors from afar, I am looking at

these numbers. There is an estimated million Americans living in

Mexico; France, over 100,000. Do you attribute this abysmally low

response rate solely to lack of advertising? What factors led to this

response rate problem?

Ms. LAEDERICH. Well, in my written testimony I do mention

some other things. I am afraid that we don’t have time for all of

that. And Leigh would certainly have other answers.

I do believe that—I am sorry to say that a certain amount of responsibility must fall on the outreach organization that was responsible for reaching out, not that they were incompetent, by any

stroke of the imagination, but that decisions were made that could

have been made better.

I think to a great degree one of the big mistakes—how can I say

this nicely? One of the problems was that people familiar with the

populations in question were not involved enough. Now, the Census

Bureau did involve all of our organizations tremendously, but perhaps not sufficiently.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Gribble, would you like to add anything to

that?

Mr. GRIBBLE. I would have to agree with Lucy, that I don’t think

that the outreach by the contractor was as good as it could have

been. Again, in Kuwait we had no advertising. We had a couple of

posters that were put up in areas where Americans congregated.

And I am sure that caused some responses. At the end of the day,

how many folks in America, if they didn’t think that somebody was

going to come knocking on the door, would have answered their response—or made their response? It is hard to say.

But, again you know, as we understood it, this test wasn’t to

measure the response rates. And the numbers on that chart are

kind of a scientific wild guess as well. We simply don’t know.

When Clark talks about the biases that may be coming in, assuming that folks in Canada are from the northern States, until we

start to do this and get into an iterative process of refining the

data and how the census is done, we are never going to know. We

assume. We are assuming a lot of things. But until we start doing

it, we are not going to really get a handle on it. Again, we have

said it before, nobody expects a perfect census the first time

around. The census in 1790 was not perfect.

Mr. PUTNAM. I suspect Mr. Clay and Mrs. Maloney—even I

would concede that the census in 2000 was imperfect as well. I said

it before, I believe you said it, Mr. Gribble—that you want to be

counted for apportionment purposes. That is the primary reason.

Why do you want to be counted?

Mr. GRIBBLE. I want to be counted for everything. I want equal

protection. I pay tax dollars. My tax dollars come to Washington,

and those tax dollars are allocated out of the Federal budget based

on population data and do not reflect me back in Ormond Beach.

Now, a lot of my friends overseas are not coming back to the

States. In the Gulf region, where there are about 55,000 of us, the

vast majority are coming back and coming back soon. Why should

I come back to Ormond Beach, having sent all of my tax dollars

up here, and not have as good a school system as I could possibly

have? It is not fair. It is not right.

65

Mr. PUTNAM. Ms. Laederich, in your testimony you said that the

groups disagree on the why. Please elaborate.

Ms. LAEDERICH. No. Excuse me. I didn’t say that we disagreed

on why. I said that we don’t all agree. There is a difference. I think

that there is a difference, because there are some of us who feel

now, now we want this, and are working toward that. There are

others who feel we must try for everything right away.

We don’t all agree about the hows and the wherefores. We agree

about the whys. I think a little bit like Congress, you don’t necessarily know the answers to things you study. We are here today

to study. And I think that we would agree that what we would like

to see is a continuing studying process so that 1 day we can have

all of those wonderful things.

All I wanted to say was that apportionment seems to me to be

the absolute bottom line that almost has a constitutional basis, because, again, we vote and should be counted here for that reason.

Mr. PUTNAM. My time has expired. Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start with Mr.

Bensen, please.

Mr. Bensen, in his testimony, Mr. Gribble says that counting

some Americans overseas and not making an effort to count all

Americans overseas violates the concept of equal protection. Do you

agree with that assessment?

Mr. BENSEN. Well, first off, I think from a legal perspective,

when attorneys think of equal protection, they think of State action

and not Federal action, but that is kind of a nicety.

I think there is a problem with the concept of, in essence, a selective enumeration instead of an actual enumeration. And that is

part of the problem; that if we just count the easy ones, it is not

going to be fair to the ones where it could be harder to count. I

mean, why should someone who lives in a country that has a harder situation to count not be counted? Why should the Bureau not

try as much as it can to count that person, versus a country where

it is very easy to count them?

Mr. CLAY. I couldn’t agree more with you. We undercount African

American males every 10 years with our Census Bureau. And they

still haven’t gotten it right over a 100-year period. So I don’t know

how they would ever get it right for overseas Americans.

Let me ask the other two panelists. Even if the Census Bureau

were to cut the costs of enumerating Americans overseas in half,

and they counted the 6 to 10 million people some estimate to be

the population, the cost would be enormous, between $4 and $7 billion. The cost would rival what was spent to count the 284 million

people in the 2000 census.

If you were in our shoes, how would you explain to the American

public the justification for doubling the cost of the census? Either

one can take a stab.

Mr. GRIBBLE. I don’t know where those numbers come from, and

I certainly wouldn’t try to dispute them. But, again, I do not worry

about logistics and statistics. I am worried about you doing what

is right, what is morally right.

Mr. CLAY. You don’t worry about the tax dollars we have to

spend?

66

Mr. GRIBBLE. My tax dollars come here and don’t go home. I

don’t have as much of a strong tie to my tax dollars right now as

I would like to have.

Mr. CLAY. OK, Mr. Gribble. How about you?

Ms. LAEDERICH. I say in my written testimony that it seems to

me very, very clear that costs would go dramatically down as we

moved forward. It is obvious that at the beginning of this test it

is going to cost a lot of money. As more and more people respond

on line, costs could be cut. As we make better and better use of the

State Department’s registration of American citizens abroad, costs

will go down.

The present cost per respondent is not a fair picture of what it

would be as we move forward.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Thank you for that response.

Let me go back to Mr. Bensen. You indicate that you questioned

the constitutionality of including Americans overseas in the census.

The Census Bureau director seems to believe that the Courts have

given him the authority to continue including them. Can you clarify this disagreement for us?

Mr. BENSEN. Yes. In fact, that was one of the few things that I

did disagree with in the GAO report where basically they said that

the Census Bureau has broad discretion to count these people.

Rephrasing that to say the Census Bureau does have wide discretion to count them, once it is clear that they can count them,

is very correct. The Secretary of Commerce and the Bureau have

wide discretion once they are doing something that is constitutionally sound.

I don’t think the question of constitutionality really refers so

much to the military overseas, as long as they are actually counted

in something that is close to annual enumeration, because, as I

said, they have a very clear nexus, they are in each State from the

standpoint of the principal residences rules.

The problem really goes back to the other overseas Americans

where the question is really, what is their nexus, and can you in

fact include them? I think from my personal perspective, I think it

is clear you can include some of them. It is really just a question

of where you draw the line, which goes back to the residency rules.

Mr. CLAY. It also makes it very difficult to determine, like the

chairman brought up, the fact that the one woman had not been

in this country for 65 years. Where you would you determine their

residency to be here?

Mr. BENSEN. Well, I think that is pretty much the crux of the

problem. It is difficult enough to get the forms. Once you get the

forms, then you have to figure out where they are supposed to go.

Then you have to figure out what their actual connection is. Those

are all things that the Bureau is not geared up to do, doesn’t have

the tools for it.

And going back to your previous question about the cost, it is

really a substantial problem from my perspective, because as we all

know, counting the census stateside is an enormous problem. Anything that distracts the Bureau from doing that I think is just

going to be a problem. And this from a practitioner standpoint, if

we were in fact to add 4 million people, let’s just use that a number, we added them to the apportionment formula now State by

67

State, the odds are not very great it is going to change more than

a couple of seats in the whole thing.

So the point is, if you want to say to your constituents that, yes,

we did spend these billions of dollars and it did in fact shift one,

two, or three seats from Iowa to Florida, or something like that,

OK, but the net effect is not likely to be very huge, because in fact

it takes so many extra people to shift over a seat.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you. Since we have no one else on our side,

I recognize Mrs. Maloney for 5 minutes.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And first

I would like to request permission to place my opening statement

in the record. And I regret I was not able to get back—I had a conflict—to question Ms. Dalton and Mr. Kincannon, and I would like

to place and have the committee send them my questions and have

them respond in writing, if you could; because I think this is a very

important issue, particularly as we are in a global economy, and

over and over again we are dispatching Americans abroad.

I think it is absolutely fundamental that our men and women in

the military who are protecting us abroad have the right to vote,

have the right to be counted, and have all of the protections. The

same for our Federal employees. And I would say it is the same

for American business that is now involved the global economy.

They tell us over and over that you can’t go backward. We are

in a global economy. We must be part of that global economy. You

visit the State Department and they talk about economic strategies

to make sure that our businesses are able to compete and win in

the world economy, and that we have to work toward counting our

Americans citizens. That is part of our Constitution. It is one of the

first directives that they give in the Constitution, is that we will

have a census every 10 years. And what I don’t understand is this

throwing our hands up in the air and saying we don’t know how

to do it and we are going to give up. And we still have another 6

more years that we can work on this.

So I disagree very much with the GAO report. I accept it. But

I feel that is not the American way. We go forward and try to figure it out. Do we have all of the answers? No, we don’t. And we

have to be fair and we have to be balanced. And it has to be accurate and not have any room for any type of manipulation.

But it is not fair to the American citizens, some of whom are our

best Ambassadors for our country as they live in other countries.

And I feel that we should make every effort to count them. And I

feel that we should go forward.

And my question is really to the two representatives of the

American Business Council and the Federation of American Women’s Clubs: Why can’t we go forward with the 2006 test? Have we

gotten our census in our own country completely right? No. We

work every year to make it better. And the professionals dedicate

their time to making it better.

We should begin to count Americans abroad. And I am getting

tired of this. We had one director who was committed to it, then

we had the second director who was committed to it. Everybody

says they want to do it. Everybody says it is the fair thing to do.

68

And then they say, We can’t do it. And I just don’t understand

that. I don’t see why we cannot go forward with the 2006 test.

So I would like to ask Ms. Lucy Stensland Laederich, and then

Mr. Leigh Gribble, why we can’t go forward with the 2006 test and

your comments on it.

Ms. LAEDERICH. Mrs. Maloney, I think that we both think we can

if Congress will make it possible. We certainly hope we can. That

is why we came here from Kuwait and from France. And as I think

you know, we have been working on it for a long time. We certainly

hope that it will be possible to go with the 2006 test.

Mr. GRIBBLE. I really don’t have anything to add to that. I

couldn’t agree with you more.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Bensen, why can’t we go on with the 2006

test?

Mr. BENSEN. I think I covered a lot of that initially in my responses, which is I just don’t think it’s an attainable goal within

the concept of the 2010 census, given the requirements. I’m not

against doing continued research. And I can tell you that the 2006

test and the 2004 size and scope—obviously, other things would be

considered, but I don’t think it’s possible to do that in time for the

2010 census, given the inherent problems with running census

counts or summaries for 100 plus nations.

Mrs. MALONEY. If we don’t start going forward, we won’t be there

for the 2010 and we won’t be there for the 2020. I would suggest—

and I have been a strong advocate for the funding for the census.

I’m down on the floor fighting to make sure they get their funding,

because I believe the research that they conduct is an incredibly

important to conduct policy. We can’t make policy if we don’t know

how many poor we have, how many well we have, how well educated are people.

It is the blueprint of our Nation. As we move into a global economy, we are in it whether we like it or not. We have to make an

effort to understand where our citizens are, how many businesses

are abroad, employing how many Americans. And they are citizens,

they are paying taxes, and they have every right to be counted as

any other American.

I would suggest we have to go forward. Possibly what we find is

we cannot use it in the 2010 census. But the fact remains that we

are not going to be ready for the 2020 census if we don’t go forward, make mistakes and try to tackle this difficult task. I feel it

is not responsible if we do not fund and go forward. Maybe we find

the problems, but how do you correct the problems if you don’t go

forward and find them? So I strongly feel that we should go forward with the test and see where it is.

Maybe it is that we cannot decide the fundamental question that

you are concerned about in reapportionment, but maybe we can address some of the concerns about where do we find out citizens,

what are they doing, how are they involved in other countries. It

just finding who they are and how many they are. This is just a

guess that it is 4 million. I bet it is a lot more than that. But we

have to have a sense of who they are.

We are in a global economy. The trend is going to be more and

more and more Americans are going to be living abroad.

69

I want to share with Mr. Putnam—I know we have to go vote—

but every time I lift up a business directory of businesses in the

district that I represent, they are all in the global economy, every

single one of them. All of them have stations abroad and are growing abroad, and I think that the only responsible thing is to do the

impossible task. I mean, this is America. We put people on the

moon. We can’t count people abroad. I can’t understand that. I feel

there is the lack of the political will to do this, and we cannot run

away from this responsibility—and we are going to miss a vote.

Mr. PUTNAM. I apologize. We have less than 6 minutes.

Mrs. MALONEY. Send it to my office.

Mr. PUTNAM. I want to thank you particularly for traveling the

distance that you have come and the passion that you bring to this.

Your testimony sheds light on a very important issue that we are

obviously continuing to try to resolve, and we appreciate your willingness to be with us. We collectively believe in a solid 2010 census

and recognize the challenge of counting citizens around the world.

Today, we have heard the obstacles but want to continue the dialog

to address this issue.

In the event there may be additional questions, the record will

remain open for 2 weeks for submitted questions and answers.

Thank you all very much. This subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ