U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

75–115 2012

S. HRG. 112–516 

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ENDING OR REDUCING FUNDING FOR THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY 

SURVEY AND OTHER GOVERNMENT STATISTICS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 19, 2012 

Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee 

( 
(II) 

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

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

SENATE 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania, 

Chairman 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

PAT TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas, Vice Chairman 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, M.D., Texas 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

WILLIAM E. HANSEN, Executive Director 

ROBERT P. O’QUINN, Republican Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS

Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, a U.S. Representative from New York ...................... 1 

Hon. Kevin Brady, Vice Chairman, a U.S. Representative from Texas .............. 3 

WITNESSES

Kenneth D. Simonson, Chief Economist, Associated General Contractors of 

America, Vice President, National Association for Business Economics, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 6 

Andrew Reamer, Research Professor, George Washington University Institute 

of Public Policy, Washington, DC ....................................................................... 8 

Hon. Keith Hall, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason 

University, Former Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Arlington, 

VA .......................................................................................................................... 10

Hon. Grant D. Aldonas, Principal Managing Director, Split Rock International, Washington, DC ................................................................................... 12 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney ................................................. 28 

Prepared statement of Vice Chairman Kevin Brady ............................................ 29 

Prepared statement of Mr. Kenneth D. Simonson ................................................ 31 

Prepared statement of Dr. Andrew Reamer .......................................................... 38 

Prepared statement of Hon. Keith Hall ................................................................. 52 

Prepared statement of Hon. Grant D. Aldonas ..................................................... 56 

Prepared statement of Hon. Vincent P. Barabba .................................................. 67 

Letter dated October 27, 2011, to Hon. Frank Wolf ...................................... 70 

(1) 

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ENDING OR REDUCING FUNDING FOR THE AMERICAN 

COMMUNITY SURVEY AND OTHER GOVERNMENT STATISTICS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2012 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in Room 210, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney presiding. 

Representatives present: Maloney, Brady, Burgess, Campbell, 

Duffy, Mulvaney, and Cummings. 

Staff present: Conor Carroll, Gail Cohen, Colleen Healy, Patrick 

Miller, Robert O’Quinn, and Christina Forsberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK 

Representative Maloney. The meeting will come to order. 

I am Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, and I want to thank 

Chairman Casey for working with me to hold today’s hearing. I 

wish we were having a hearing on job creation. Instead, we are 

having one on why the House voted to strip job creators of the tools 

they need to grow the Nation’s economy, expand exports, and hold 

us in the government accountable for how well the country is 

doing. 

Right now there is a concerted effort to cut funds for the Census 

Bureau and eliminate several of the vital surveys they conduct, or 

weaken them, by telling our nation that certain crucially important 

surveys should not be required for all of its citizens. 

In studying this issue, I remember reading about what Representative James Madison said when he served in this House. He 

wrote, and I quote, ‘‘This kind of information all legislators and legislatures had wished for, but this kind of information had never 

been obtained in any country. If the plan were pursued in taking 

every future census, it would give Congress an opportunity of 

marking the progress of the society and distinguishing the growth 

of every interest,’’ end quote. 

This is not a fight about the funds for these surveys or the best 

return on the taxpayer investment—because I think we will hear 

today that it is. It is a fight over ideology. This is a slippery slope 

where ideological bullies threaten the trust, confidence, and independence of our nation’s most critical statistics. 
2 

As we continue to compete in a world economy, it is imperative 

that we know how we are doing relative to other global economies. 

In our current economic times, it makes no sense to stop collecting 

such invaluable information that guides economic recovery and 

growth. 

Let me be clear. The surveys that the House voted to eliminate 

are the best measurement of our nation’s progress. The information 

from the American Community Survey and the Economic Census 

allow both the private and public sectors of our economy to be more 

efficient. And because we are more efficient, they allow us to be 

better able to compete globally and maintain our standard of living. 

It is that simple. Doing away with these surveys or weakening 

some by making them voluntary hurts the Nation and takes away 

a competitive advantage. 

The American Community Survey is unique for its ability to 

produce annual economic and social data for the Nation down to 

the smallest geographic areas. Policymakers and Federal agencies 

use census information to distribute more than $450 billion in Federal funds to State and local governments based in whole or in part 

on ACS data. Local governments use ACS information to decide 

where to build new roads, schools, and hospitals. But it is not just 

government that uses this information. The private sector, the 

business community, the job creators use it to make assessments 

about local labor force, new markets, and customer needs. 

The Economic Census also is under threat with funding cuts, 

meaning the 2012 effort would be halted even as the Bureau is 

ramping up to distribute the survey to thousands of businesses in 

the coming months. The Economic Census is the fundamental 

building block of the gross domestic product and national income 

and product accounts and is essential to accurately measuring industrial productivity, changes in price indexes, and annual and 

quarterly indicators of business activity. 

In a letter this fall to the House and Senate appropriators, six 

former bipartisan Census Bureau directors noted that absent the 

2012 Economic Census, public and private decision-makers would 

have to use a 2007 model of our country’s economy until 2022. The 

former directors, who collectively led the Bureau for four decades, 

serving six Presidents from both political parties, stated, and I 

quote, ‘‘Going without a 2012 Economic Census in the midst of the 

worst recession in half a century is akin to turning off the country’s 

economic GPS at the very moment that it is critically needed,’’ end 

quote. 

This is deja vu all over again. We had this debate when we were 

a new nation, and Madison and Jefferson strongly urged Congresses to put questions about age, gender, citizenship, occupation, 

manufacturing, and industry on census forms over 2 centuries ago. 

We had it again during the Eisenhower administration when Congress failed to fund the Economic Census, and the outcry gave us 

the 1954 act that mandated an Economic Census every 5 years. We 

had it again on the eve of the 1970 census, when Senator Ervin 

held 3 days of hearings about the long form. 

Each time, Congresses came to their senses and turned to the 

census experts to professionally design the surveys and questions 

needed by the Nation in a manner that put the least burden on the 
3 

public. This time it is different, as the House has effectively 

defunded both the American Community Survey and the Economic 

Census without so much as a witness, let alone a hearing or a 

meaningful debate. This Congress should not be the first in history 

to deny itself the executive State and local governments and the 

Nation’s business communities information that the Founders and 

every Congress since have judged essential for a growing, prosperous nation. 

Today, we are trying to remedy that by hearing from some experts on the impacts of this stunning negative decision. My hope 

is that this hearing causes the Congress to reconsider its impulsive 

decision and that we act quickly to fully restore funding to these 

programs and give the job creators the tools we promised them and 

that we have provided as a nation for two centuries. 

I yield back. And it is now my pleasure to recognize my good 

friend and colleague, Vice Chairman Brady, for up to 5 minutes or 

as much time as he may need. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Maloney appears in 

the Submissions for the Record on page 28.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN BRADY, VICE 

CHAIRMAN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS 

Representative Brady. Great. 

And I join with Chairwoman Maloney in welcoming and thanking our witnesses for appearing today. 

The Joint Economic Committee has a long history of interest in 

the accuracy, the relevance, and the timeliness of U.S. economic 

statistics. Washington relies upon these statistics to make policy 

decisions, and American job creators use these statistics to make 

employment and investment decisions. 

I wish this hearing had been called to make a broader inquiry 

into the accuracy, relevance, and timeliness of all U.S. economic 

statistics instead of focusing merely on the American Community 

Survey. But since this committee is unlikely to have another opportunity during this Congress to explore how to rectify the deficiencies in U.S. economic statistics, Republican members of this 

committee will not confine our inquiry to solely the American Community Survey. Instead, the witnesses invited by our side of the 

aisle—Mr. Grant Aldonas, Dr. Keith Hall—will broadly explore 

how Congress and U.S. statistical agencies can work together to 

improve the quality of economic statistics for the benefit of the 

American people. 

Frankly, this hearing is being held, as Carolyn Maloney pointed 

out, because the House of Representatives agreed to two amendments in the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2013 that cover the 

Census Bureau. One would prevent the Census Bureau from using 

funds to compel Americans to fill out the American Community 

Survey; the other would defund it altogether. 

Compulsory participation in the American Community Survey is 

the number-one objection that lawmakers, and my constituents 

frankly, hear. In my opinion, this objection swayed the majority of 

the House on these two amendments concerning the Census Bureau. 
4 

Recognizing the importance of the statistics generated by the 

American Community Survey to economic decision-making by both 

governmental and private entities, I believe that there is a way forward. As former Commissioner Hall will testify, participation in 

the monthly Current Population Survey that generates the unemployment rate and other unemployment statistics is voluntary. The 

Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau jointly designed 

the Current Population Survey in such a way as to generate accurate statistics on a voluntary basis. 

If the Census Bureau were to make participation in the American Community Survey voluntary as well, rather than compulsory, 

I think most public opposition would disappear. The Bureau of 

Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau can jointly use a voluntary 

survey to obtain the necessary data from the Current Population 

Survey to generate accurate employment statistics, so why can’t 

the able statisticians at the Census Bureau design a voluntary survey for the American Community Survey that would do the same? 

Now, let me turn to other issues. I have long been concerned 

about the quality of our statistics measuring international trade 

and investment flows in the output of the services sector. For example, we cannot accurately count the number of jobs created by 

exports by sales for American goods and services. Moreover, we 

rely on outdated rules of origin that ignore the global supply chains 

of today, and we attribute, for example, all the value of an iPhone 

assembled in China as a Chinese export even though final assembly accounts for only 8 percent of that iPhone’s total value. 

From his experience as both Under Secretary for International 

Trade at the Department of Commerce and chief international 

trade counsel at the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Aldonas will 

outline what steps Congress and the statistical agencies should 

take together to improve the quality of U.S. international trade and 

investment statistics. 

Many statistical issues involve the price indices that are used to 

deflate gross service revenues into real services output. As a former 

commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dr. Hall will offer 

his suggestions on how to improve not only the quality of labor statistics but also the quality of price indices affecting the measurement of international trade and the real output of the services sector as well. 

U.S. statistical agencies have a proud tradition of reporting economic data objectively regardless of the political ramifications for 

the incumbent administration. In the Green Jobs Act, however, 

Democrat leadership in Congress inserted an ill-defined and ill-conceived mandate for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to count green 

jobs. 

This green jobs mandate, which I believe is a thinly disguised attempt to create a metric to support a policy agenda, reeks of politics. Something is not quite right when, as I understand it, green 

jobs include EPA bureaucrats and attorneys that are suing to block 

the construction of Keystone pipeline, a project that would create 

up to 20,000 jobs here in America and reduce our nation’s dependence on unfriendly oil sources in the Middle East and Venezuela. 
5 

Is there any economically meaningful definition of a green job? 

As the official formerly charged with executing this mandate, Dr. 

Hall, I am eager to hear your opinion. 

With that, Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to the testimony 

of today’s witnesses. 

Representative Maloney. I thank the gentleman for his statement. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Brady appears in the 

Submissions for the Record on page 29.] 

Representative Maloney. And I want to thank all the panelists 

for being here. And I would like to introduce them. 

Mr. Kenneth Simonson is the chief economist for the Associated 

General Contractors of America. He is responsible for analyzing 

economic data and trends to advise the AGC’s member companies 

about possible future effects on the nonresidential construction 

market. In addition, he is currently serving as vice president of the 

National Association for Business Economists. Prior to joining 

AGC, Mr. Simonson worked for 3 years as the senior economic advisor in the Office of Advocacy for the U.S. Small Business Administration and earlier as vice president and chief economist of the 

American Trucking Association. He is also cofounder of the Tax 

Economist Forum and has served on the board of the National Tax 

Association. 

Dr. Andrew Reamer is research professor at George Washington 

University Institute of Public Policy. He focuses on policies that 

promote U.S. competitiveness, including economic statistics. He 

was previously a fellow at the Brookings Institute Metropolitan 

Policy Program and deputy director of its Urban Markets Initiative. 

He founded the Federal Data Project, which sought to improve the 

availability and accessibility of Federal socio and economic data for 

States, metropolitan areas, and cities. He also co-authored the policy brief that served as the basis for the Regional Innovation Program authorized by Congress in 2010. He currently is a nonresident senior fellow at Brookings. 

The Honorable Keith Hall—and it is very good to see him again; 

I have sat through many presentations from Dr. Hall—he is a senior research fellow now at the George Mason University. He was 

previously the commissioner of labor statistics for the U.S. Department of Labor and was a frequent witness before this committee. 

Dr. Hall also served as chief economist for the White House Council of Economic Advisors for 2 years under President George W. 

Bush. Prior to that, he was chief economist for the U.S. Department of Commerce. Dr. Hall also spent 10 years at the U.S. International Trade Commission. 

And the Honorable Grant Aldonas is the principal managing director of Split Rock International, a Washington-based consulting 

and investment advisory firm that he founded in 2006. He also 

serves as a senior advisor in international relations at the Center 

for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan nonprofit organization that conducts research and analysis and develops policy 

initiatives. Before founding Split Rock, Dr. Aldonas worked for the 

government, serving as the U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for 

International Trade and as the chief international trade counsel for 

the Senate Finance Committee. 
6 

I welcome all of the panelists. And I look forward to the testimony, starting with Mr. Simonson. 

STATEMENT OF MR. KENNETH D. SIMONSON, CHIEF ECONOMIST, ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, 

VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BUSINESS 

ECONOMICS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. Simonson. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Vice 

Chair Brady. I commend you for holding this hearing on a very important topic that is not very glamorous but affects all of our lives 

and businesses. 

I am Ken Simonson. I am the chief economist for the Associated 

General Contractors of America, the leading construction trade association. And our members perform every kind of construction 

other than single-family-home building. So they are intensely interested in the state of local and national economic conditions, demand from different sectors for different types of construction. 

I am going to be testifying today principally in my other role as 

vice president of the National Association for Business Economics. 

That is a 2,500-member professional organization not just for people with ‘‘economist’’ in their title or their degree but anyone who 

is using economic information in the workplace. And I would like 

to illustrate the breadth of users of the American Community Survey and the Economic Census and speak a little bit about the effect 

that has already occurred from cuts in other census programs. 

I also serve as a member of the Data Users Advisory Committee 

for the Bureau of Labor Statistics and have seen many presentations and discussions, sometimes quite vigorous, over what is the 

proper role of the statistical agencies, how can they best use their 

resources in order to achieve timely, useful information without 

undue cost or intrusiveness. 

And I think that the Census Bureau is achieving those goals in 

large part in the way that it conducts the American Community 

Survey. As you know, that replaced the long form on the census, 

which asked many of the same questions but only once a decade 

to a much larger number of people. And by having a continuous, 

small but scientifically chosen random sample—and those words do 

go together; they are not in conflict—the American Community 

Survey does deliver very timely information that is used by an extremely wide variety of users. 

In the case of my association, for instance, we use information 

from both the ACS and the Economic Census, either directly or filtered through other government statistical products, to identify the 

role of construction in each State’s economy and the impact that a 

billion dollars invested in nonresidential construction would have 

in terms of generating construction jobs, indirect jobs from supplier 

industries, such as mining, manufacturing, and a variety of services, and then induce jobs throughout the economy as the workers 

and the owners in the construction and supplying businesses spend 

their additional wages and profits. Other trade associations use 

these two data products in a variety of ways to track the role that 

their industries are playing in the economy. 

The ACS is also used by many of the 5,000 economic development agencies and organizations throughout the U.S. to answer in-
7 

quiries from businesses that are considering locating here versus 

other parts of the world. For instance, Patrick Jankowski of the 

Greater Houston Partnership testified to Congress in March that 

Japanese companies looking to open a plant in the Houston area 

want to know the size of the Asian community, in order to have 

assurance that expatriate workers that they assign to Houston will 

be comfortable there. When a European company wants to open a 

research and development facility in Houston, they ask about the 

number of engineers and scientists that live in the region. 

I don’t think there is any other data source that could get into 

that kind of detail and timeliness to help make that sale. And they 

have repeatedly made that sale, not just in the Houston area but 

throughout communities across America. 

The National Association for Business Economics had a conference just 2 weeks ago on the comeback of manufacturing in 

Cleveland, which is seeing a big revival of manufacturing. And having the information that we get from the ACS on a continuous 

basis and what we could garner from an Economic Census if it is 

conducted and processed and reported timely in the next 2 years 

will help that process. 

Consultants also use the ACS for a variety of purposes. I heard 

from John Knox, an independent socioeconomic research consultant 

in Hawaii, about looking at ways of evaluating the success of 

science research programs in recruiting students or other personnel 

from under-represented minority groups in Hawaii. And other researchers and institutes around the country likewise use that kind 

of socio-demographic information for their own communities and for 

identifying the most effective ways to put in place programs of assistance. 

The associations also produce snapshots of their local housing 

markets. The National Association of Home Builders, for instance, 

does that for hundreds of housing markets around the country. And 

the use of the American Community Survey provides really the 

only source of data that can be used to provide housing and demographic data for individual congressional districts, as NAHB and 

other associations, other NABE members pointed out to me. 

In addition to these products, the Census Bureau has had to discontinue a couple of other valuable series. In the case of my industry, the Survey of Residential Alterations and Repairs was something that contributed to a measure of how much construction activity is happening at any one time. In fact, the best guess the Census can make now is that residential improvements, as they call it, 

has been the biggest piece of residential construction and bigger 

than any single nonresidential segment for several years. 

Representative Maloney. If you could please sum up. You are 

already over your 5-minute limit, and we can read it in the record. 

But if you could sum up now quickly. 

Mr. Simonson. Yes, absolutely. 

I believe that the ACS and the Economic Census are indispensable and there is no adequate replacement for them in the private 

sector or by making them voluntary. 

Representative Maloney. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kenneth D. Simonson appears in 

the Submissions for the Record on page 31.] 
8 

Representative Maloney. Dr. Reamer. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW REAMER, RESEARCH PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF 

PUBLIC POLICY, WASHINGTON, DC 

Dr. Reamer. Congresswoman Maloney, Vice Chairman Brady, 

and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

speak to you today about the economic impacts of insufficient funding for Federal economic statistics, including the American Community Survey and the 2012 Economic Census. 

By way of background, in the first 20 years of my professional 

career I founded and managed two regional economic development 

consulting organizations. We worked with public- and private-sector leaders in cities and States across the U.S., including the States 

represented by most members of this committee, to help them understand their region’s economic competitiveness, its strengths and 

weaknesses, and develop collaborative strategies to boost their 

area’s competitive position. It was clear from that work over 2 decades that current accurate statistics are critical to economic development and job creation, because you need to understand what economic performance is, what economic structure is, and what the 

economic resources are that drive that performance and make that 

structure competitive. 

From my experience, I know that the Federal Government is essentially an irreplaceable provider of such statistics. I will tell you 

why, very briefly. 

A month ago, I hosted a 2-day data fair at the George Washington University called Innovative Data Sources for Regional Economic Analysis. We had 50 exhibitors from the Federal sector, the 

private sector, such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft, S&P, Moody’s, 

and academia and nonprofits like Brookings—50 exhibitors, over 

200 participants. Given the incredible recent expansion of information technology capacity and advances in statistical methodologies, 

the idea was to have people get acquainted with the different new 

types of data sets that are available, make connections across sectors, and start a conversation about what the proper allocation of 

roles are between the Federal Government and the private sector 

regarding economic statistics. 

As one result, people were very happy with the fair and a number of collaborative efforts developed between Federal agencies and 

some of the private organizations that I mentioned to pursue 

projects in common. 

In conversations with the non-Federal organizations, they readily 

admit that they could not and do not want to collect the data that 

the Federal Government does. Rather, they see opportunities to 

add value to Federal data, sell their unique data to the Federal 

Government, integrate—and that is actually happening now—and 

enhance access to Federal data through Web-based data platforms. 

The Federal Government has an essential role to play in the production of statistics that lead to better decisions regarding the 

economy and competitiveness because data are a classic, what 

economists call, public good; that they are under produced because 

they are freely available and it is often the case that the private 
9 

sector cannot get the full price that the societal benefits of data access would suggest. 

As full data are necessary for the efficient operation of markets, 

so the Federal Government has a role in addressing information 

market failure. Only the Federal Government has the financial resources, the authority, and the motivation to produce data that are 

objective, reliable, and relevant to policy needs consistent over 

space and time and freely available to multiple users. And they are 

critical for helping the public hold their political elected officials accountable. 

The total cost of the economic statistics budget is less than $2 

billion a year to cover a $14 trillion economy—the cost of about 

four F–22 jets. And so the Federal statistical system is a very effective, adaptable mechanism for addressing information market failure at low cost and with economic and fiscal returns orders of magnitude greater than taxpayer investment. The private sector does 

not have the capability to produce data of similar reliability and 

usefulness. 

Vice Chair Brady, I am pleased to hear your interest in the 

broader array of economic statistics. In my testimony, there are 

two stories about unreliable GDP data and unreliable current employment statistics data at the State level because of the unwillingness of Congress to provide 8 million bucks to the Census Bureau 

to capture regular data on the services industries regarding GDP 

and the flat-lining of Federal Monies going to State partners in 

labor market information, resulting in the diminution of skills at 

the State level and causing problems with the current employment 

statistics system of the like that we just saw in the Wisconsin recall election. You might be familiar with the difference of opinion 

between Wisconsin Republicans and Democrats regarding that 

state’s economic performance in 2011. 

With regard to the American Community Survey, each of you has 

a packet that I put together with data on your district from the 

American Community Survey. As Congresswoman Maloney said, 

the notion of collecting data beyond bare enumeration has been 

with us since James Madison, the father of the Constitution, proposed it in the first Congress, Thomas Jefferson for the second census, and then Presidents and Congresses from there on. President 

Grant complained about 1870 census data being out of date by 

1875. 

More than a century later, the American Community Survey 

came into being to provide annually updated data as proposed by 

President Bush. ACS data, and the long-form data before them, are 

essential ingredients for the functioning of the public and the private sectors in the U.S. economy. They are the building blocks for 

Federal statistical and population estimates, the boundaries of metropolitan areas, State and local per capita income. They are the 

building blocks for State restraints on taxes and spending. Half the 

States have restraints on tax and spending that are based on data 

from the ACS. They are essential for—— 

Representative Maloney. Will the gentleman sum up? He is 2 

minutes over. 
10 

Dr. Reamer. Sure. They are essential for legislative redistricting 

and business decision-making. Medicaid reimbursement, quarter of 

a trillion dollars a year, is dependent on the ACS. 

A voluntary ACS is not viable, it won’t produce reliable data. 

There are ways to address the issues raised by the House without 

making the ACS voluntary; I would be pleased to talk about them. 

Regarding the Economic Census, I would echo Congresswoman 

Maloney’s point that it is essential for developing accurate quarterly and annual economic statistics for the Nation and the States. 

And without the 2012 Economic Census, we would be in the dark 

about the true state of our economy until the beginning of the next 

decade. 

Representative Maloney. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Andrew Reamer appears in the 

Submissions for the Record on page 38.] 

Representative Maloney. Dr. Hall. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEITH HALL, SENIOR RESEARCH 

FELLOW, MERCATUS CENTER, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, 

FORMER COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, 

ARLINGTON, VA 

Dr. Hall. Congresswoman Maloney, Vice Chairman Brady, and 

members of the committee, thank you for the chance to discuss the 

economic statistics produced by the Federal statistical system. In 

my testimony, I will talk briefly about some of the challenges that 

the current system is struggling to meet and then mention a handful of specific inadequacies in data coverage. 

Federal economic statistics are important for both policymakers 

and the public. The reason is simple: Good information allows good 

decisions. Relevant, accurate, and credible economic data plays 

much the same infrastructure role for the economy as physical infrastructure like a highway system. 

The challenges facing Federal statistical agencies are significant 

and many. Like physical infrastructure, statistical systems become 

obsolete over time as the nature and scope of economic activities 

by businesses and households are becoming increasingly complex. 

While this is a great challenge, especially in times of tight budgets, 

it is also a great opportunity. Federal statistical agencies need to 

recognize this opportunity and take advantage of the changes 

brought about by technology. This can not only lead to improved 

economic data but a significant reduction in the burdens that they 

impose upon the survey respondents. 

First, agencies need to modernize their data collection to better 

reflect how households and businesses store and use information. 

This is, to a large degree, simply taking advantage of data that is 

already collected. This can be done in a number of ways. They need 

to continue to find and use existing administrative records whenever possible. For example, the Current Employment Statistics program at the Bureau of Labor Statistics takes advantage of unemployment insurance records that companies are required to maintain. 

Agencies also need to find more ways to use existing electronic 

records already kept by private companies. For example, the Consumer Price Index Program is researching the use of electronic 
11 

price information held by corporations. This could potentially replace the use of data collectors that still today walk into a store, 

pick up an item for sale, and write down its price. 

Agencies need to make a serious effort to match businesses 

across different data surveys so that survey responses can be 

shared. This could significantly reduce redundancy in surveys. 

Agencies need to coordinate the data collection from large corporations. Just two-tenths of 1 percent of firms employ 40 percent 

of the private-sector workers in the United States. Agencies could 

get together, identify a core set of measurable objectives, and negotiate with a relatively small number of firms to get data into a single survey. And agencies could begin to replace personal visits to 

both companies and households with online interviews so we reduce the agency travel costs. 

Second, agencies need to improve their use of technology by sharing computer information systems. Large statistical agencies have 

a number of independent statistical programs, each with its own 

budget and each with its own independent IT system, for data collection and processing. This creates a significant amount of redundancy and raises their overhead costs. Similar redundancy exists 

between smaller agencies that each have their own information 

system and do not share a common IT platform with each other. 

And third, statistical agencies need to modernize the data dissemination. Often, agencies don’t seem to realize that the data they 

collect and analyze belongs to the taxpayers that footed the bill. 

They need to make sure that their information is available to everyone and that that information is in an understandable and usable form. In general, they need to improve their Web sites and pool 

data with other agencies at online data warehouses. Agencies also 

need to encourage and coordinate more with the private sector in 

the creation of tools like Google’s Public Data Explorer. 

In addition to the challenges faced by most statistical agencies, 

there remain a great many inadequacies in the coverage and quality of statistical data. I discussed a few in my written testimony, 

and I will mention just two here. 

First, there is a significant gap in the level of detail available in 

data-owning services. For decades, the statistical system focused 

primarily on goods, yet the service sector is now responsible for 

over 80 percent of total U.S. employment and for the past several 

decades 100 percent of job growth. And for the first time ever, more 

than half of the job loss in the recession, in the great recession, 

was in services. 

Lastly, I want to mention difficulties with the unemployment 

rate. The unemployment rate primarily serves as a measure of 

labor market slack—that is, it should indicate how much current 

employment falls short of the supply of labor. However, the U.S., 

like most other countries, has a very narrow definition of the unemployed. Only those completely without work and actively seeking 

employment are counted. It is often the case during recessions that 

many of the jobless become discouraged and don’t actively look for 

work. Because of this inactivity, they are not considered unemployed, and the accuracy of the unemployment rate as a measure 

of labor market slack declines. 
12 

The problem with the unemployment rate has never been worse 

than it is now. To give you some idea of the problem, a simple calculation can be done. If we had 63 percent of the population in the 

labor force, as before the recession, and all those people were 

counted as part of the labor supply, there would be an additional 

5 million people counted as unemployed. This would raise the unemployment rate a full 3 percentage points to about 11.3 percent, 

and that would be the highest unemployment rate ever recorded by 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Thank you. 

Representative Maloney. Thank you. That is startling. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Keith Hall appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 52.] 

Representative Maloney. Mr. Aldonas. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRANT D. ALDONAS, PRINCIPAL 

MANAGING DIRECTOR, SPLIT ROCK INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. Aldonas. Thank you, Congresswoman Maloney and thank 

you, Vice Chairman Brady. I would ask that my full statement be 

entered into the record. I will summarize it here. 

My mother always said to me when I was a kid that the surest 

way to get the wrong answer was to ask the wrong question. And 

what I feel we have been doing is asking the wrong question. 

Both when I was on the Finance Committee as the chief international trade counsel and when I was Under Secretary of Commerce, what I realized was, although I depended on a lot of the 

great work that Keith did in the Bureau of Economic Analysis, that 

in the part of the world that we were responsible for in terms of 

trade statistics, we had learned how to calculate the static effect 

of a tariff change to four or five decimal points in a world where 

the pace of economic change was accelerating and the dynamics 

were what mattered. In other words, we had perfected the technique right when it was no longer needed. 

The reality is, in the world of international trade we live in 

today, time to market is far more important than the static effect 

of tariff changes, but it is not something we measure. And to give 

you a sense of what that implies is that, while we are discussing 

the two surveys, even accepting what the other witnesses have 

said, it pales by comparison to the idea that we are undercounting 

our services exports by 30 percent. It would offer a totally different 

perspective about trade policy, international income accounts, in 

terms of what drives job creation, if we had that information. 

If you looked hard at how we create value in this country and 

how value is created in the global economy, it would fundamentally 

alter the way you thought about our tax code, the question of tax 

reform, what we would do in terms of trying to encourage job creation, and create the right kind of environment at this point. None 

of those questions are actually answered or addressed by the surveys that we have in hand. But they are far larger in terms of their 

actual implications for whether Americans can create their own 

economic future than anything in the existing surveys at this point. 
13 

What I really would like to focus on is what we should measure. 

And here I just want to come back to the chairwoman’s fundamental question. There are two great values in American society. 

One is individual liberty; the other is equality of opportunity. The 

sad reality is that we don’t have a measure of either. If, in fact, 

you are serious about what you want to do, then I think this is the 

time to use the opportunity that the House bill has created to have 

a serious discussion about how we do measure individual freedom 

and how we do measure our progress toward equality of opportunity. What I would suggest is that knowing the average commuting time of a white male over 55 in a one-ton pickup is not 

going to inform our judgment about either of those two values or 

our progress toward those great American goals. 

Turning to the specifics of the surveys, I just want to make couple of points, which really are, I think, fairly straightforward. The 

census does a great job, in my estimation, of every time they look 

at a survey and, every time they look at the census, they ask themselves hard questions. And I think they need to do that with you, 

with the committee, and with the Congress. You are the representatives of the people; they certainly are trying to carry out your will. 

But in doing that, it is time for a fundamental rethink. And I think 

that is true both because of the questions we need to answer in the 

economic challenges we face, but also because of the cost implicit 

in collecting the data and the cost imposed on individuals who have 

to respond. 

So, what I would suggest is a simple three-part test. First, I 

think both you and the Census should explore whether there are 

alternatives available that would eliminate the need for the surveys in whole or in part. 

Second, where there is no alternative to the government collecting the data, along the lines Keith was suggesting, explore 

whether government could acquire such information by other less 

costly means. 

A good example is that many of the questions in the personal 

survey in the ACS relate to your veterans disability benefits. The 

reality is the Department of Veterans Affairs has that information. 

There is no need to be asking that as a part of the survey. The 

same thing happens with the IRS. There is even a question that 

asks you your opinion about value of your home, rather than actually looking at prices in the market for which they are sold. There 

really is no need for that question, to be honest. It doesn’t actually 

inform either economic policymakers, or, as I certainly can attest 

from my own experience in business, does it actually inform the 

judgment of an economic actor in the marketplace. 

The last point, I would say, is that you should ask the Census 

to reassess the reasons for asking certain information, with a view 

to limiting the cost and burden of reporting in those instances 

where there is no other alternative to a survey either from public 

or private sources. 

So my point is not to suggest that the ACS and the Economic 

Census don’t provide data of considerable value. Rather, it is to 

suggest that there are certain instances where the juice certainly 

isn’t worth the squeeze in terms of the information those surveys 

provide. The fact of the matter is, what we ought to be doing is try-
14 

ing to reduce the impact on the average American citizen in trying 

to cut the budget at the same time as we are trying to accomplish 

the data needs that you have to have as policymakers. 

Thank you. 

Representative Maloney. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Grant D. Aldonas appears in 

the Submissions for the Record on page 56.] 

Representative Maloney. I want to thank all the panelists for 

their statement. 

And before we begin, I would like to ask for unanimous consent 

to include Mr. Barabba’s testimony in the record. Due to a medical 

emergency, he was unable to attend today’s hearing. And also the 

letter from the prior census directors. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Vincent P. Barabba appears in 

the Submissions for the Record on page 67.] 

[Letter dated October 27, 2011, to Hon. Frank Wolf appears in 

the Submissions for the Record on page 70.] 

Representative Maloney. I would first like to question Professor Andrew Reamer of the George Washington Institute of Public Policy. 

In your personal testimony, in your prepared testimony on page 

9, I would like to quote: ‘‘Further and quite importantly, the termination of the ACS would cheer our nation’s economic competitors, 

including China and India, who know full well that without the 

ACS, U.S.-based businesses would be flying blind,’’ end quote. 

Could you elaborate on this? And are you saying that if the Congress did end the ACS or make it voluntary, that we would be helping economic competitors like China and India and others? 

Dr. Reamer. Yes. 

China is in a difficult place because it has basically funded our 

deficit for the last decade, so it doesn’t want us to do too badly because it needs to get paid back. 

U.S. businesses use the American Community Survey to site locations of business operations on the basis of the characteristics of 

the workforce—educational attainment, languages spoken, age, the 

type of degree somebody has—and the commute times, the relationship between where people live and where they work. Businesses 

that compete internationally, whether U.S.-based corporations or 

international corporations, and are looking to build a plant here, 

rely on the ACS data for site location and site comparison. 

So the ability of the U.S. to attract and keep businesses that are 

competitive internationally would be harmed by the absence of the 

ACS. 

Representative Maloney. And when the amendment to defund 

the ACS or make it voluntary was debated, many of my colleagues 

stated that the ACS was unconstitutional. In your opinion, is that 

correct? 

Dr. Reamer. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but it sounds like 

the Members of the House who said they are substituting their 

opinion for that of James Madison, who is known as the father of 

the Constitution. 

Representative Maloney. And Jefferson. 

Dr. Reamer. And Jefferson as the father of the Declaration of 

Independence, who both—from the get-go, you have Congressman 
15 

Madison on the floor of the House in February of 1790 saying, we 

need to go beyond bare enumeration to collect information that can 

help us understand the needs of the population and economic conditions and so guide public policy. 

Representative Maloney. And, also, could you respond to my 

dear friend and colleague’s statement that this should be voluntary? What is your response, Dr. Reamer and Mr. Simonson? 

Dr. Reamer. Regarding voluntary, about 10 years ago Congress, 

I think it was actually the House, asked the Census Bureau to look 

at what the impacts on cost and data reliability would be if the 

ACS went from mandatory to voluntary, and it got back results. 

The results were updated in a memo the Census Bureau published 

last July. In that it said the response rate would fall by 20 percentage points, and as a result, to get the same level of reliability, the 

Census Bureau would have to expand the sample significantly and/ 

or do more household nonresponse follow-up. 

I know one of the complaints of constituents is that they don’t 

like the Census Bureau calling them and knocking on their door. 

Well, with a fall in 20 percentage points in response, there would 

be more of that. And the cost of this extra effort would be millions 

of dollars. 

If nothing is done, then the reliability of the data are destroyed. 

Essentially, they would be useless. So Congress and taxpayers 

would have spent billions of dollars over more than a decade on the 

ACS, and that data would be useless. You could no longer do time 

series. Unlike the long form, which gives neighborhood data for 1 

year, the ACS neighborhood data is 5-year average. If you lose a 

year, you can’t do the averages. 

Representative Maloney. Mr. Simonson, would you like to 

comment? 

Mr. Simonson. I agree with everything Dr. Reamer said about 

that, that making it voluntary would drive up the cost, and even 

then you would not have the same quality of data. And I think the 

additional burden on those who are asked to respond would be 

greater than through the process that we have now. 

Representative Maloney. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Brady. 

Representative Brady. Good points. 

I think the American Community Survey is important. I think it 

can be even more accurate. And with a little work, we could remove 

the objections of compulsory compliance as we do with the Current 

Population Survey, designed where it receives almost a 93 percent 

response rate. It is accurate. We use it to rely upon both national 

and State and from data and the information, as well as critical 

data for our 12 largest metropolitan areas—all done voluntarily. 

So I think, thank goodness the Census Bureau wasn’t listening 

to this advice we hear today, because they actually came together, 

working with Congress and together, to develop a survey that 

works for everybody. 

I want to follow up a point. Dr. Hall made a great point. Good 

information creates good decisions. And Mr. Aldonas followed up 

with that, as well. 

My frustration has been that, in this ever-changing world, as 

hard as they have tried, we have not been able to stay up to date 
16 

in the data of this world. My frustration—and Dr. Hall has heard 

me say before, it is frustrating that we can follow a job created at 

the local pub but not one created through international trade, 

which is a huge part of our economy. And Mr. Aldonas has heard 

me whine that we continue, policymakers continue to get information on whoever shipped the last product to us rather than the 

global supply chain that created that product, which may have 

started in a small town in Iowa, you know, moved through several 

countries, only added value at the last stop, and will come back 

with 80 percent of U.S. content. U.S. lawmakers and policymakers 

are in the dark about that. 

So I want to follow up with that point. You made the point, 30 

percent of our services sector is consistently undercounted. Yet the 

exports from China—the current trade statistics overestimate the 

value of manufactured goods from China. You have made the point 

that the current trade statistics don’t capture the shift to date, the 

global supply chain and the growing share of trade in your immediate goods. 

And so I guess my point to you, a broader one, is it looks like 

we have a lot of work to remedy the outdated and flawed assumptions at the core of some of our economic data. What approach 

would you take in order to correct these assumptions? What approach would you recommend we take to work with these agencies 

to come up with the data that actually inform, as Dr. Hall has said, 

good decisions? 

Mr. Aldonas. Thank you very much for the question. 

One thing I would like to pick up from what Keith said is that 

there is a wealth of information that companies do provide to you— 

tax returns, security filings, and a variety of databases that can be 

used to develop some of the information asked for in the survey. 

But the other thing is to actually look harder at how you measure 

transaction costs, which we don’t do well. We don’t actually do a 

very good job of measuring the information barriers that prevent 

a small business from trying to find a buyer, whether that buyer 

is a company in the United States that is going to pull them 

through into global markets or whether it is through an export sale 

at arm’s length. So trying to get a better grasp on what the real 

barriers are from the perspective of trade would be the most important thing to start out with. 

Second, I am surprised by the comments from some of the other 

folks on the panel, Vice Chairman Brady, about how businesses 

make decisions. I have to say, honestly, I would prefer to see that 

there was more information available about the things that actually drive business decisions. Those things are generally price and 

what the local market is. But, I have advised investors over a lifetime, and the reality is I have never used the ACS, to be honest 

with you, to advise an investor. I have never had an investor actually use the ACS to determine whether they were going to make 

an investment. What that says to me is that we are not actually 

feeding decisions of the economic actors in the market place. 

On the international side, if I said we needed to know more 

about a market, my interest would be to say, what are the points 

of access into that market? That means trying to find out from 

American companies what their approach is in terms of their sales. 
17 

Is it a sale to, at arm’s length? Or is it a sale through—as my great 

friend Jim Zawacki in Grand Rapids said, he would never export 

to Japan; he exports to a country called Toyota Land. If that is the 

route, we need to know more about the barriers to reaching the 

market through Toyota, not simply counting the stuff that is crossing the border when it comes to customs. 

Representative Brady. Good. Thank you. 

And, Dr. Hall, would you comment broadly, advice to us to try 

to more accurately capture the global supply chain in the economic 

activity? 

Dr. Hall. Well, sure. One of the big challenges on services in 

general—certainly it is with trade—is pricing, trying to price services. And services has particular problems with pricing, the BLS 

has particular challenges with it. There has been some progress, 

but there is still a lot of progress that needs to be done. 

I can tell you, for example, that import prices that are collected 

by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the BLS, in fact, has had reductions in budgets, so in fact the coverage of services has now actually declined over the last number of years, and a lot of detail in 

that has been lost. I think that is significant. Just pricing even domestically for services I think is a real challenge. 

Let me point out another thing, too. This focus on services, it is 

sort of an unrelated issue, but we are all used to thinking about 

trade deficits. The U.S. has a trade deficit. In services, the U.S. has 

a surplus and has had a surplus for years. The U.S. is widely recognized as having a comparative advantage in services. And services remain the most protected worldwide—goods and services— 

that is where all the future trade globalization comes, is in services, not in goods. 

Representative Brady. Thank you, sir. 

Madam Chairman. 

Representative Maloney. And, Dr. Burgess, nice to see you 

again. 

Representative Burgess. I want to thank our witnesses for 

being here. 

I just have to share with you, I was home in my district last 

week doing town-halls. Had my obligatory meeting with my county 

medical society. Of course, you might imagine what they were all 

exercised about. But one fellow came up to me, stuck the American 

Community Survey under my nose, and said, how dare you require 

this type of information from me under penalty of, I guess, fine. Is 

that right? Somebody gets fined if they don’t do this? Do we know 

what the fine is for not filling this thing out? I am told by staff it 

is $5,000. 

Dr. Reamer. Yes, up to $5,000. And it has not been enforced for 

half a century. I mean, it has not been—there has not been a case 

brought to court in half a century. 

Mr. Aldonas. Although a misstatement of information on that 

form is a Federal felony. 

Representative Burgess. And a $10,000 fine. 

Mr. Aldonas. Yes. 

Representative Burgess. So that is a pretty hefty load for 

someone to carry. And yet you look at the information, I could see 

why this doctor was upset. I mean, there is a lot of personal infor-
18 

mation. You get name, you got address, you got age, you got birth 

date, all the family members’ or household members’ names, ages, 

and birth dates, telephone number. I mean, a passably good identity thief would be able to construct a fairly good alter ego of this 

person just with the information that is being disclosed on the government form. 

So, I mean, people are nervous about drones looking in their 

backyard on their cattle herd. I can well understand why someone 

is concerned about—at the point of government intrusion, having 

to give up this information. 

So I share with Mr. Brady the observation that there may well 

be a way to get this information, the information may be important. But, certainly, the way we are going about it has got people 

rocked back on their heels, and they are resisting. 

Look, we have an approval rating of 8 percent in the United 

States Congress. No one trusts us to do anything anyway. Why are 

they going to trust us with this type of information? And the whole 

concept of mistrust of government is something that has been obviously generated over some time, but this doesn’t help. 

Dr. Hall, we just had a big hearing in our Oversight Investigations Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce this morning, all 

morning long, on green jobs. Can you tell us what a green job is? 

Dr. Hall. Sure. I can tell you what the Bureau of Labor Statistics did in defining a green job. 

One of the things that BLS encountered is that there are lots 

and lots of definitions of green jobs, and there is not very much 

agreement as to what should be green and what should not be 

green. But the approach that was taken in the Green Goods and 

Services survey, which identifies output that is green and counts 

the number of jobs that are associated with it—let me just say, 

most occupations in those industries are normal occupations. You 

know, there is nothing special about them. Somebody who works 

pouring concrete in a windmill and somebody who works pouring 

concrete in a foundation, that is the same sort of job. There is nothing special about green jobs in that way. 

My concern a little bit with green jobs comes with putting my 

economist hat on. When BLS designed this program, the biggest 

reservation I had personally, as an economist, was how this data 

was going to be used. I don’t think the data should be used as a 

count of green jobs. It doesn’t really mean much to come up with 

a definition of green jobs and just count it. 

In fact, I have problems with the idea that regulation might be 

viewed as a jobs program. What is important about green is the 

output, not the jobs. It is somewhat ridiculous to view it as a jobs 

program. And if it is worth doing, if green regulation is worth 

doing, it is because of the output, you are getting an output that 

is valuable, not because it is a hiring program. 

Representative Burgess. If I could just stop you there, we 

heard testimony this morning from an economist named Dr. Green, 

ironically, that the tradeoff for green jobs in various economies 

looked at across the world—in Italy, two jobs were given up, two 

regular jobs were given up for every green job created—no, I beg 

your pardon, that was Spain. Italy, it was seven jobs lost for every 

green job created. In England, I think it was 31⁄2. So there is actu-
19 

ally a toll on jobs by taking the money from the private sector and 

putting it into these activities. 

I mean, you ended up your testimony—I got to admit, you woke 

me up. You said unemployment is never worse than it is now, but 

if it were accurately reported it would be 3 percentage points higher? Is that what you said? 

Dr. Hall. If we had a better measure of labor supply, I think it 

would probably be up in that range, yes. 

Representative Burgess. I mean, that is pretty startling information. So, part of our activity is killing the very activity that we 

want to enhance. It makes no sense to continue doing it. 

Dr. Hall. Well, that is true. And you have touched upon my 

other problem with counting green jobs, is that it is only counting 

half the story. 

Representative Maloney. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Mulvaney. 

Representative Mulvaney. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to explore two different things, things that have been 

touched on by the previous Members, but I want to explore it a little bit. Because the questions that I wanted to start with have already been asked, which is, why isn’t it voluntary? 

I don’t think anybody is making the argument here today that 

this is part of our constitutional obligation. The American Community Survey goes beyond what is required of Congress in Article I, 

section 2.3, where we have to count everybody for purposes of doing 

representative government. So I think everybody recognizes the 

fact that this is not part of our constitutional obligation but that 

we do it because it has a certain value. 

And I think, Dr. Reamer, it was you who said that the reason 

it can’t be voluntary is that the response rate would drop 20 percent and that the quality of the data might go down, the cost would 

go up. And I think that was the result of a congressional inquiry 

or a congressional study. So, really, what we have it boiled down 

to is it is not voluntary because it would be more expensive if it 

were voluntary. Is that fair? And the data might not be as helpful. 

And I am just wondering, gentlemen, if you are aware of the 

ramifications of taking that particular position. And once you start 

to say, look, we want to make the American people do something 

because it will be cheaper for us to run the government if we make 

them do something, then tell me how we are supposed to run the 

government and have a society like we have had for the last couple 

years, or last couple centuries? I mean, it would be cheaper for 

Medicare if we made everybody exercise. It would. It would be 

cheaper to do national defense if we made everybody serve in the 

Army or the Navy. It might be cheaper for law enforcement if we 

made everybody register their guns and their bullets. But we don’t 

do that. 

So tell me, Dr. Reamer, why is data so much more important 

than health? And why is it a felony to lie on this report but not 

a felony to eat a Big Mac? 

Dr. Reamer. Let’s see. So, several things. One is that the mandatory nature of the American Community Survey you can directly 

trace back to the mandatory nature of the census since 1790. Congressman Webster’s soundbite regarding his pleasure at the House 
20 

vote was that it saved the country $2.4 billion over 10 years. So 

Mr. Webster was making the case that it was about saving money. 

He didn’t really talk about the uses of the ACS. I am glad that you 

are. It—— 

Representative Mulvaney. Well, we will get to that in a second, but I was trying to explore that part of it first. 

Dr. Reamer. Sure, sure. 

It is certainly up to Congress to make a decision—it is Congress 

that passed the law and has kept the law for 2 centuries about the 

mandatory response. Congress can change the law and make it voluntary and be prepared to spend the extra money. 

The amount of money involved in economic statistics is so teeny, 

it is dust on the Federal budget. So we are not talking much money 

here. But Congress is very reluctant to spend, you know, seven figures for data and is willing to tolerate waste in many, many other 

areas. So—— 

Representative Mulvaney. But you are making the argument 

it is actually cheaper to leave it voluntary. And I am just trying 

to—— 

Dr. Reamer. No. No. It is not cheaper—— 

Representative Mulvaney. Excuse me, that it is cheaper to 

leave it as mandatory. 

Dr. Reamer. The point is that the amount of money involved is 

so teeny that we are talking nickels here at a Federal level. So it 

is up to Congress, if it wants to make the survey voluntary and 

spend the extra hundred million bucks a year, to design a survey 

that has the same reliability. 

Now, I will take issue with the vice chairman’s point that because the CPS is voluntary we can make the ACS voluntary. The 

CPS sample is what, 60,000 households? The American Community 

Survey sample is 3.5 million a year, okay? Sixty thousand versus 

3 million. You can have a lot of leeway with a survey where you 

are asking 60,000 households around a nation of 314 million people 

to get data for the Nation and for some big States. 

The purpose of the ACS is to produce data at the neighborhood 

level. And, therefore, to get decent information on the characteristics of the constituents of your district, of your district, you need 

a large enough sample and reliable data to make that happen. 

Representative Mulvaney. I understand how statistics work, 

and I hope we do get a chance to do a second round. But what I 

am hearing is that you have no philosophical objection to voluntary 

participation; it is just a question of cost. But we will return to that 

in a second round. 

Dr. Reamer. Yes. So I am interested in the ends; I am very open 

to the means. I think this is an issue for oversight rather than appropriations, and that there are ways to reduce the public angst 

about the ACS other than making it voluntary. And I am happy 

to discuss those if you want to ask me that question. 

Representative Mulvaney. I can’t because I am out of time. 

Dr. Reamer. Okay. But somebody can. 

Representative Maloney. Thank you for your testimony. 

And, Dr. Hall, if the ACS and the Economic Census were not 

funded, would or could the private sector step in to fill the void? 

What is your opinion? 
21 

Dr. Hall. Yes, I think the private sector would have a difficult 

time stepping in to fill the void. That is true. 

Representative Maloney. And would the private sector provide 

information uniformly across the country, including the rural area 

of the country? Would businesses and policymakers be able to compare the information in different geographic areas? 

Dr. Hall. No, it is certainly true, that is a real value of government statistics, is that you know the government has no agenda—— 

Representative Maloney. Uh-huh. 

Dr. Hall [continuing]. And you know that there is a standard of 

quality in the government data. 

Representative Maloney. I would like to ask all the panel 

members two questions, with a yes-or-no answer. 

Do you think that Congress eliminating the ACS is a good idea? 

Mr. Simonson. No. 

Dr. Reamer. No. 

Dr. Hall. No. 

Mr. Aldonas. Yes and no. 

Representative Maloney. Okay. 

And the second question is, do you believe that the Economic 

Census should be funded? Yes or no. 

Mr. Simonson. Yes. 

Dr. Reamer. Yes. 

Dr. Hall. Yes. 

Mr. Aldonas. Up to a point. 

Representative Maloney. And what happens—I would like to 

ask Dr. Hall, but if anybody else would like to comment, fine— 

what happens when we eliminate a statistical program? If a program is eliminated, can we make up the lost months and years of 

data? Or are the investments we have already made in these programs made useless? 

Dr. Hall. Yes, destruction of data is a real problem because a lot 

of the use of data is not just seeing a data point but seeing how 

it has changed over time. 

Representative Maloney. And we are still in the middle of a 

debate on health care. And do you believe that the data that we 

have at this moment gives the accurate assessment of the number 

of un- and under-insured? 

Again, Dr. Hall, since you have worked in this area for so many 

years, and then anyone else who would like to comment. 

Dr. Hall. Well, I believe probably the most complete data is 

through government provision of health insurance. And that is collected, actually, at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Representative Maloney. And how does the data collection collected by the ACS help medical research? 

Mr. Simonson or Dr. Reamer. 

Dr. Reamer. Help medical research, let me think about that 

one. 

Well, it certainly, back to the issue—so I will think about that 

as I am talking—back to the issue of health insurance, the CPS— 

again, those data are very high levels of geography. And the value 

of the ACS is that we can tell how many people in each of your 

districts do not have health insurance and what kind of health in-
22 

surance they have if they do. So that, I think, is, again, very valuable to understand at a very small geographic level how people are 

doing in terms of health insurance coverage. 

On the question about medical research, there is a question on 

the ACS that has been there since 1850 in various forms about disability. And so there are, I guess, opportunities for clinical trials— 

I am making this up because I have no idea if medical researchers 

do this. But different populations, there are certain concentrations 

of certain kinds of medical problems in certain locations. And they 

may be looking for a community that has a certain kind of problem. 

Representative Maloney. And how does the information collected by the Economic Census affect statistics on how the economy 

is faring? And will we have accurate statistics on output if we can’t 

benchmark the economy every 5 years? 

Mr. Simonson. No. I think that we have seen many examples 

of rapid shifts in the economy that the statistical agencies haven’t 

been able to keep up with because there is isn’t a benchmark survey. Ideally, we would want the level of detail that is gathered 

from the Economic Census more frequently than every 5 years. 

And it would be a big blow to have that go away for a 10-year period or until 2020 or beyond. So I think that is essential. 

In terms of whether the government should do this and should 

it be mandatory, personally I find it much more intrusive to have 

private surveyors calling me up every week, it seems, and putting 

emails in front of me asking for information several times a day 

than a government survey which I know is going out to a fair distribution of the population and will be used objectively and will be 

made publicly available and not just for the benefit of some client 

of the callers taking up my time. 

So, like jury duty, I think it is an obligation of being a citizen 

in a democracy or being a business that operates under a system 

that provides a lot of liberty and protection of property to give 

something back in this nature. 

Representative Maloney. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Brady. 

Representative Brady. Two quick points. And I know a lot of 

constitutional history has been cited today, but just fact-check: 

American Community Survey began in 2005. Unless Thomas Jefferson figured out a way to text us some real key messages, this 

is not a constitutional issue. It is about how best to actually survey 

and acquire accurate, timely, reliable data in a way that the public 

supports. 

I think the vote on the House floor did exactly what I think it 

intended to do, which is jump-start a long-overdue discussion about 

how we modernize the data so that lawmakers can make better, 

not just—both private enterprise and government lawmakers and 

legislative lawmakers have the ability to get the most reliable, accurate data. And I think that is what, frankly, this hearing has 

been helpful in discussing. 

Dr. Hall, from your perspective, what is the most economically 

significant gap in Federal statistical data? In other words, without 

having adequate information in a specific area, obviously decisionmaking suffers. What would that area be, in your view? 
23 

Dr. Hall. Yes, there are a number of gaps. I still think it is probably our lack of detail in services. 

Representative Brady. On services. Because that is what, 80 

percent of our economy, 80 percent of most of the jobs in our congressional districts, average salary these days of almost $60,000 a 

worker, so these are key. And we are very good at it, when compared to the rest of the world. And your point, that major part of 

our economy we are not accurately assessing? 

Dr. Hall. Yes, it is not nearly measured nearly as well as the 

goods sector. And I think there is a real element here of—there is 

an old joke about you lose your contact in the bedroom but you look 

for it in the living room because the light is better there. It is easier to measure goods. It is harder to measure services. And only in 

the last 10 years have we started to close the gap and measure 

services better, but we are not there yet. 

Representative Brady. Don’t you think that is, sort of, a part 

of the helpful discussion we are having today, is to raise the profile 

of the gaps that we need to be closing in our economy and in our 

economic activity? 

Dr. Hall. Absolutely. 

Representative Brady. Mr. Aldonas, you talked a bit again 

about the global supply chain. Can you give some examples of how, 

the way the economy and business work today, where lawmakers 

miss the data as they are discussing or making key decisions on 

trade or other issues? 

Mr. Aldonas. Well, sure. And I think you alluded to the largest 

one, which really is the idea that we don’t know where value is created and that the trade data that you see and is reported in our 

national income accounts doesn’t reflect accurately what is being 

done in the global economy. 

So the best examples are a series of studies at UC–Irvine that 

looked at Apple’s supply chain and where the value was created. 

What those studies reflected, if I pulled out my iPhone, you would 

see that about 65 percent of the value is made in the United 

States. Much of it is through manufacturing of the microprocessors, 

which are the brains behind everything that Apple does, and some 

of the glass finishes. But it is really the high end of what we manufacture and certainly what they do. Another large share of that remaining 35 percent is done variously in Southeast Asia or north 

Asia in Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia. And roughly 8 

percent comes off the final assembly in China. 

And yet, our trade statistics would tell you that my entire phone 

is going to be counted as a product of China, because the rules of 

origin dictate that the point where ‘‘a new article of commerce’’ was 

created is going to be associated with the origin of the country. We 

keep trade statistics based on the customs rules of origin, but the 

customs rules of origin make absolutely no sense in the world we 

live in today. 

If you take it one step further, Vice Chairman Brady, if you 

think about where technology is created today, it doesn’t matter 

whether the engineer is in the United States, or in India. You can’t 

locate where that is being created. So the idea that somehow we 

are going to have a geographic measure of the final good and we 

are going to miss the more fundamental point—because, remember, 
24 

it is the innovation and the step change in technology and the process improvements on the shop floor that flow from that that drive 

productivity and drive economic growth. 

So if you understand what I am saying, it is that we are not 

measuring how value is created, which is the most important thing 

to understand in terms of whether we are gaining productivity. 

And there is nothing about the trade statistics, particularly the 

endless debate about a trade deficit, that actually informs your 

judgment about that. 

Representative Brady. Well, I think one of the key benefits 

would be—most Members of Congress are eager to create jobs. 

Most of them would prefer it happen in their State or district. 

When you don’t know where that value is being added and you 

don’t have a good idea of where your companies are selling and exporting goods or services in a way that can connect it, we are not 

going to make good decisions on economic issues. 

Mr. Aldonas. And, frankly, even the distinction between manufacturing and services in jobs is something of a fiction. You know, 

we were at the high-water mark of vertical integration with the 

Rouge plant in Detroit, where you had coal and iron going in one 

end and a Model T coming out the other end. That has been gone 

since the 1930s. 

The reality is that when, for example, Motorola decides to turn 

to FedEx or UPS to handle all of their logistics, all of their customs 

processing, those jobs that used to be manufacturing jobs when 

they were in Motorola are now services jobs in the rest of the economy. But the reality is, Motorola as an enterprise became more 

competitive as a part of the process. And that is really what we 

need to be measuring. Did they gain their productivity through 

that? Does that make them more competitive globally? 

Representative Brady. Okay. Thank you. 

Representative Maloney. Mr. Mulvaney. 

Representative Mulvaney. Thank you very much. 

Gentlemen, the lady from New York asked you all a question a 

little bit ago about whether or not you thought the private sector 

would provide this if the government stopped doing it. And everybody, I think, said no, or at least I think Dr. Hall and Dr. Reamer 

said no. 

I know we are not famous in Congress for actually listening to 

what you are saying and asking follow-up questions, but I think it 

probably merits the follow-up question, why not? 

Dr. Reamer. 

Dr. Reamer. It depends what kinds of data you are talking 

about. 

Representative Mulvaney. I think you can anticipate why I 

am asking the question. I mean, I used to be in the private sector. 

If I wanted data, I went out to pay for it. I didn’t actually even 

think to call the government up to see if they had the information 

that I had needed. I applaud the company that was going to move 

to Houston that at least knew to call to ask about the number of 

a particular minority within a certain area, but it never occurred 

to me to do that. When we built houses, for example, we actually 

paid a firm to go out and count the number of apartments within 

a certain area or distance from the project that we were looking at. 
25 

Data has value to it. So what is unique about the stuff on the 

American Community Survey that you think that no one would 

want to actually get into this business? 

Dr. Reamer. Okay, so I am going to start a long answer, and 

you can cut me off at any time. 

Representative Mulvaney. I feel like I have to because you 

have 3 minutes and 42 seconds. 

Dr. Reamer. Okay. 

Representative Mulvaney. We are also not famous for asking 

short questions. 

Dr. Reamer. Yeah. So, one thing is that the private sector does 

not have the capacity to collect the breadth of data in a consistent 

way over time and space. 

Representative Mulvaney. Well, tell me how that could possibly be. You just hosted a symposium on new data points and all 

the wonderful new technologies that were available within the 

data-collection business. I know that Apple knows a lot more about 

me, probably, than the government does. I know that Facebook 

probably knows more about my wife than the government ever did. 

Tell me how it could possibly be, in this day and age, that the 

private sector doesn’t have even better information about us than 

the government can glean from a survey like the American Community Survey? 

Dr. Reamer. The private sector collects slices of data. It is actually quite exciting. Mike Horrigan, at BLS, is in charge of all the 

price indices. At my data fair was a group called PriceStats. 

PriceStats scours the globe using the Web to collect price information on everything. I think they have a Big Mac index, you know, 

with the price of a Big Mac in any country of the world. 

BLS has standards of reliability and accountability that the private sector doesn’t. At the same time, BLS recognizes that this new 

spidering technology is allowing the private sector to do things that 

the public sector can learn about. So the folks at BLS are talking 

to the folks at PriceStats about how to join forces. And that is a 

lot of what happened at the—and so I will make one other point. 

Representative Mulvaney. Actually, I am going to cut you off 

because I do want to get to—but the reason you saw that look on 

my face is that now, in just the last couple minutes, a member of 

this panel has said that the government has much higher standards and deals in a higher quality than the private sector, which 

I think is absurd. 

And then earlier somebody said that the nice thing about having 

the government do this, as opposed to the private sector, is that the 

government has no agenda. I can assure you, gentlemen, we have 

an agenda. We had—I think Eric Holder was in front of a committee last week and was talking about a statement he made earlier that he was being pursued in a certain fashion because he was 

pursuing a liberal agenda while at the Department of Justice. I can 

assure you that we have agendas, and it would surprise me if that 

did not filter down into the data. 

You all send out 3 million of these things. Mr. Simonson mentioned that there are literally thousands of entities that use this 

data. I need a good answer, gentlemen, because we have a minute 

before I finish here. Tell me why the private sector is—I am think-
26 

ing about doing this after I am out of Congress. If it is in such 

great demand, it costs us billions of dollars to send out 3 million 

of these things, I think I might be able to do it better than we do. 

Tell me why I am wrong on this. 

Mr. Simonson. Well, let me mention very quickly two examples. 

The Survey of Residential Alterations and Repairs was discontinued. Nothing has replaced it, and the quality of those estimates 

has gone down, the GDP estimates also. 

The construction spending figures for years have been built in 

part on data produced by McGraw-Hill, and there is another firm— 

Reed Construction Data also tries to get information on construction starts. They cover about half of what the government does and 

leave some sectors completely untouched. 

Current Industrial Reports from the Census that have been discontinued have not been replaced by a similar quality from the private sector. 

Representative Mulvaney. Thank you, gentlemen. I am out of 

time. 

Representative Maloney. Our time is up for the use of this 

room, so I would like to thank all of our panelists. 

The American Community Survey is an important annual survey 

which can help us better understand the past and be smart about 

the future. Let’s make sure that policymakers have the information 

we need to do our jobs. But more importantly, today’s panel has 

made it clear that businesses depend on this survey to plan their 

operations and that the loss of this information will put the United 

States at a competitive disadvantage. 

I would like to thank all of my colleagues for participating, and 

the panelists. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
(27) 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 
28 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CAROLYN MALONEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM

NEW YORK

I want to thank Chairman Casey for working with me to hold today’s hearing. 

I wish we were having a hearing on job creation—instead we’re having one on 

why the House voted to strip job creators of the tools they need to grow the nation’s 

economy, expand exports, and hold us in the government accountable for how well 

the country is doing. Right now there is a concerted effort to cut funds for the Census Bureau and eliminate several of the vital surveys they conduct or weaken them 

by telling our nation that certain crucially important surveys should not be required 

of all its citizens. 

In studying this issue, I remember reading about what Representative James 

Madison said when he served in this House, who wrote and I quote: 

‘‘this kind of information all legislatures had wished for, but this kind of information had never been obtained in any country . . . 

if the plan were pursued in taking every future census, it would give [Congress] 

an opportunity of marking the progress of the society, and distinguishing the 

growth of every interest.’’ 

This is not a fight about if the funds for these surveys are the best return on the 

taxpayer’s investment; because I think we will hear today that it is. It’s a fight over 

ideology. This is a slippery slope, where ideological bullies threaten the trust, confidence, and independence of our nation’s most critical statistics. As we continue to 

compete in a world economy, it’s imperative that we know how we’re doing relative 

to other global economies. In our current economic times, it makes no sense to stop 

collecting such invaluable information that guides economic recovery and growth. 

Let me be clear, the surveys that the House voted to eliminate are the best measurement of our nation’s progress. The information from the American Community 

Survey and the Economic Census allow both the private and public sectors of our 

economy to be more efficient, and because we are more efficient they allow us to 

better compete globally and maintain our standard of living. It is that simple. Doing 

away with these surveys or weakening some by making them voluntary hurts the 

nation and takes away a competitive advantage. 

The American Community Survey is unique for its ability to produce annual economic and social data for the nation, down to the smallest geographic areas. Policymakers and federal agencies use census information to distribute more than $450 

billion in federal funds to state and local governments, based, in whole or in part, 

on ACS data. Local governments use ACS information to decide where to build new 

roads, schools, and hospitals. 

But it is not just government that uses this information; the private sector, the 

business community, the ‘‘job creators’’ use it to make assessments about location, 

local labor force, new markets, and customer needs. 

The Economic Census also is under threat, with funding cuts meaning the 2012 

effort would be halted even as the Bureau is ramping up to distribute the survey 

to thousands of businesses in the coming months. The Economic Census is the fundamental building block of Gross Domestic Product and national income and product accounts, and essential to accurately measuring industrial productivity, changes 

in price indices, and annual and quarterly indicators of business activity. 

In a letter last fall to House and Senate Appropriators, six former Census Bureau 

directors noted that absent the 2012 Economic Census, public and private decisionmakers would have to use a 2007 model of our country’s economy until 2022. The 

former directors—who collectively led the Bureau for four decades, serving six Presidents from both political parties—stated that, 

‘‘going without a 2012 Economic Census in the midst of the worst recession in 

half a century is akin to turning off the country’s economic GPS at the very moment it is critically needed.’’ 

This is deja vu all over again. We had this debate when we were a new nation 

and Madison and Jefferson strongly urged Congresses to put questions about age, 

gender, citizenship, occupation, manufacturing, and industry on census forms two 

centuries ago. We had it again during the Eisenhower Administration when Congress failed to fund the Economic Census and the outcry gave us the 1954 act that 

mandated an Economic Census every five years. We had it again on the eve of 1970 

census when Senator Ervin held three days of hearings about the long form. Each 

time Congresses came to their senses and turned to the Census experts to professionally design the surveys and questions needed by the nation in a manner that 

put the least burden on the public. 
29 

This time is different, as the House has effectively defunded both the ACS and 

the Economic Census without so much as a witness, let alone a hearing or meaningful debate. This Congress should not be the first in history to deny itself, the executive, state and local governments, and the nation’s business community information 

that the Founders and every Congress since have judged essential for a growing, 

prosperous nation. Today we are trying to remedy that by hearing from some experts on the impacts of this stunning decision. My hope is that this hearing causes 

the Congress to reconsider its impulsive decision, and that we act quickly to fully 

restore funding to these programs and give the job creators the tools we promised 

them, and that we have provided as a nation for two centuries. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN BRADY, VICE CHAIRMAN, 

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

I thank the witnesses for appearing at today’s hearing. 

The Joint Economic Committee has a long history of interest in the accuracy, relevance, and timeliness of U.S. economic statistics. Washington relies upon these statistics to make policy decisions, and American job creators use these statistics to 

make employment and investment decisions. 

I wish this hearing had been called to make a broad inquiry into the accuracy, 

relevance, and timeliness of all U.S. economic statistics instead of focusing narrowly 

on the American Community Survey. Since this Committee is unlikely to have another opportunity during this Congress to explore how to rectify deficiencies in U.S. 

economic statistics, the Republican Members of this Committee will not confine our 

inquiry to the American Community Survey. Instead, the witnesses invited by the 

Republican side of the aisle, Mr. Grant Aldonas and Dr. Keith Hall, will broadly 

explore how Congress and U.S. statistical agencies can work together to improve the 

quality of economic statistics for the benefit of the American people. 

Frankly, this hearing is being held because the House of Representatives agreed 

to two amendments in the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013 that covers the 

Census Bureau. One would prevent the Census Bureau from using funds to compel 

Americans to fill out the American Community Survey; the other would defund it 

altogether. 

Compulsory participation in the American Community Survey is the number one 

objection that I hear over and over from my constituents. In my opinion, this objection swayed the majority of the House on these two amendments concerning the 

Census Bureau. 

Recognizing the importance of the statistics generated by the American Community Survey to economic decision-making by both governmental and private entities, 

I believe that there is a way forward. As former Commissioner Hall will testify, participation in the monthly Current Population Survey that generates the unemployment rate and other employment statistics is voluntary. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau jointly design the Current Population Survey in such 

a way as to generate accurate statistics on a voluntary basis. 

If the Census Bureau were to make participation in the American Community 

Survey voluntary rather than compulsory, most public opposition would disappear. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau can jointly use a voluntary 

survey to obtain the necessary data from the Current Population Survey to generate 

accurate employment statistics, so why can’t the able statisticians at the Census Bureau design a voluntary survey for the American Community Survey that would 

generate accurate statistics? 

Now, let me turn to other issues. I have long been concerned about the quality 

of our statistics measuring international trade and investment flows and the output 

of the services sectors. For example, we cannot accurately count the number of jobs 

created by exports of American goods and services. Moreover, we rely on outdated 

rules of origin that ignore global supply chains and attribute, for example, all of the 

value of an i-phone assembled in China as a Chinese export even though final assembly accounts for only 8% of an i-phone’s total value. From his experience as both 

Under Secretary for International Trade at the Department of Commerce and Chief 

International Trade Counsel at the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Aldonas will 

outline what steps Congress and the statistical agencies should take together to improve the quality of U.S. international trade and investment statistics. 

Many statistical issues involve the price indices that are used to deflate gross 

service revenues into real services output. As a former Commissioner of the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, Dr. Hall will offer his suggestions on how to improve not only 

the quality of labor statistics, but also the quality of price indices affecting the 
30 

measurement of international trade and the real output of the services sector as 

well. 

U.S. statistical agencies have a proud tradition of reporting economic data objectively regardless of the political ramifications for the incumbent administration. In 

the Green Jobs Act, however, the Democratic leadership in Congress inserted an illdefined and ill-conceived mandate for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to count ‘‘green 

jobs.’’ 

This ‘‘green jobs’’ mandate, which is a thinly disguised attempt to create a metric 

to support a policy agenda, reeks of politics. Something is not quite right when, as 

I understand it, ‘‘green jobs’’ include EPA bureaucrats and attorneys that are suing 

to block the construction of the Keystone pipeline—a project that would create up 

to 20,000 jobs and reduce our nation’s dependence on unfriendly oil sources in the 

Middle East and Venezuela. Is there any economically meaningful definition of a 

‘‘green job?’’ As the official formerly charged with executing this mandate, Dr. Hall, 

I would like to hear your opinion. 

I look forward to the testimony of today’s witnesses. 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

Æ