U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

45–174 CC 1998

FEDERAL MEASURES OF RACE AND ETHNICITY

AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE 2000 CENSUS

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT REFORM 

AND OVERSIGHT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 23; MAY 22; AND JULY 25, 1997

Serial No. 105–57

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

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT 

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

STEPHEN HORN, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia 

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South 

Carolina 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey 

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

TOM LANTOS, California 

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia 

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

GARY A. CONDIT, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, 

DC 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

(Independent) 

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director 

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director 

JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk 

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida 

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South 

Carolina 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

J. RUSSELL GEORGE, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOHN HYNES, Professional Staff Member 

JOAN MCENERY, Professional Staff Member 

ANDREA MILLER, Clerk 

DAVID MCMILLEN, Minority Professional Staff Member 

MARK STEPHENSON, Minority Professional Staff Member 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

April 23, 1997 ................................................................................................... 1

May 22, 1997 ..................................................................................................... 247

July 25, 1997 ..................................................................................................... 507

Statement of: 

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., a U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii ............... 261

Cantu, Norma, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department 

of Education; Edward J. Sondik, National Center for Health Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and Bernard L. 

Ungar, Associate Director, Federal Management and Work Force 

Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office ....................................................... 135

Douglass, Ramona, president, Association for Multiethnic Americans; 

Helen Hatab Samhan, executive vice president, Arab-American Institute; Jacinta Ma, legal fellow, National Asian Pacific American Legal 

Consortium; Joann Chase, executive director, National Congress of 

American Indians; and Nathan Douglas, Interracial Family Circle ........ 382

Farnsworth Riche, Martha, Director, Bureau of the Census, accompanied 

by Nancy M. Gordon, Associate Director for Demographic Programs ...... 115

Graham, Susan, president, Project RACE; Carlos Fernandez, coordinator 

for law and civil rights, Association of Multiethnic Americans; Harold 

McDougall, director, Washington bureau, NAACP; and Mary Waters, 

department of sociology, Harvard University ............................................. 546

Graham, Susan, president, Project RACE; Ryan Graham, Project RACE; 

Harold McDougall, director, Washington bureau, NAACP; and Eric 

Rodriguez, policy analyst, National Council of La Raza ............................ 282

Katzen, Sally, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, accompanied by Katherine 

Wallman, Chief Statistician of the United States ...................................... 45

Katzen, Sally, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget; Isabelle Katz Pinzler, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Department of Justice; and 

Nancy Gordon, Associate Director for Demographic Programs, Bureau 

of the Census ................................................................................................. 590

Sawyer, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Ohio; Hon. Thomas Petri, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Wisconsin; and Hon. Carrie P. Meek, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Florida .............................................................................. 215

Sawyer, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Ohio; Hon. Thomas Petri, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Wisconsin; Hon. Maxine Waters, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of California; and Hon. John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan ..................................................... 517

Waters, Mary C., Department of Sociology, Harvard University; Harold 

Hodgkinson, Center for Demographic Policy, Institute for Educational 

Leadership; and Balint Vazsonyi, director, Center for the American 

Founding ........................................................................................................ 439

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

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., a U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii: 

CRS study .................................................................................................. 270

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 264

Cantu, Norma, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department 

of Education, prepared statement of ........................................................... 138

Chase, Joann, executive director, National Congress of American Indians, 

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 422

Page

IV

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by—Continued

Conyers, Hon. John, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Michigan, prepared statement of ............................................................. 535

Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, prepared statements of ............................................................. 41, 253

Douglas, Nathan, Interracial Family Circle, prepared statement of ........... 430

Douglass, Ramona, president, Association for Multiethnic Americans, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 385

Farnsworth Riche, Martha, Director, Bureau of the Census: 

Information concerning ignored 1990 census questions ......................... 116

Information concerning penalties ............................................................. 115

Fernandez, Carlos, coordinator for law and civil rights, Association of 

Multiethnic Americans: 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 571

Prepared statement of June 30, 1993, hearing ....................................... 558

Forgione, Dr., Commissioner of NCES, prepared statement of .................... 141

Gingrich, Hon. Newt, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, prepared 

statement of ................................................................................................... 661

Gordon, Nancy M., Associate Director for Demographic Programs: 

Information concerning ancestry .............................................................. 130

Information concerning classifying data on the Hawaiian population . 131

Information concerning followup interviews ........................................... 608

Information concerning industrial countries censuses ........................... 128

Information concerning the degree to which census data collection 

policies apply to State data collection on relevant Federal programs ...................................................................................................... 129

Prepared statements of ......................................................................... 119, 632 

Graham, Susan, president, Project RACE: 

Information concerning followup comments ............................................ 332

Prepared statements of ......................................................................... 286, 553

Short comments from Project RACE members ....................................... 548

Written statements from legal experts .................................................... 342

Graham, Ryan, Project RACE, prepared statement of .................................. 299

Hodgkinson, Harold, Center for Demographic Policy, Institute for Educational Leadership, prepared statement of ............................................... 464

Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California: 

Background information on Directive 15 ................................................ 6

California list based on public policy ....................................................... 112

Chart, ‘‘Modernizing the U.S. Census’’ .................................................... 133

Dissent ....................................................................................................... 487

Information concerning the effect of Directive 15 on States and localities ......................................................................................................... 116

Prepared statements of ..................................................................... 4, 250, 510

Katzen, Sally, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget: 

Information concerning legislative and judicial determinations ........... 84

Prepared statements of ........................................................................... 49, 596

Ma, Jacinta, legal fellow, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 414

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

of New York: 

Letter dated October 1994 ........................................................................ 377

Prepared statements of ........................................................................... 36, 257

McDougall, Harold, director, Washington bureau, NAACP: 

Article dated May 17th entitled, ‘‘Danish Mother Free to Take Child 

Home’’ ..................................................................................................... 305

May 17th Washington Post article .......................................................... 303

Prepared statements of ......................................................................... 307, 582

Meek, Hon. Carrie P., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Florida, prepared statements of ............................................................... 233, 537

Petri, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Wisconsin, prepared statements of .......................................................... 225, 524

Pinzler, Isabelle Katz, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Department of Justice, prepared statement of ................................................ 619

Rodriguez, Eric, policy analyst, National Council of La Raza, prepared 

statement of ................................................................................................... 320

Page

V

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by—Continued

Samhan, Helen Hatab, executive vice president, Arab-American Institute: 

List of members of working group ........................................................... 398

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 406

Sawyer, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Ohio, prepared statements of ................................................................... 218, 519

Sondik, Edward J., National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, prepared statement of ................... 156

Ungar, Bernard L., Associate Director, Federal Management and Work 

Force Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared statement of ..... 176

Vazsonyi, Balint, director, Center for the American Founding, prepared 

statement of ................................................................................................... 478

Waters, Hon. Maxine, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, prepared statements of .......................................................... 228, 527

Waters, Mary C., Department of Sociology, Harvard University, prepared 

statements of ............................................................................................. 442, 644 

(1)

FEDERAL MEASURES OF RACE AND ETHNICITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE 

2000 CENSUS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1997 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Horn, Maloney, and Davis of Illinois. 

Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director; Joan McEnery 

and John Hynes, professional staff members; Andrea Miller, clerk; 

David McMillen and Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff 

members; and Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk. 

Mr. HORN. The Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology will come to order. 

Since the founding of the Republic and the first census in 1790, 

every decennial census has included a question about race and, beginning in 1970, about ethnicity. The 1790 census classified individuals according to three categories: free white male, free white female, and slave. 

Two hundred years later, the 1990 census offered six possible 

categories, five racial, and one ethnic: black, white, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, and ‘‘Other’’ with 

a write-in response, as well as Hispanic ethnicity. 

High rates of immigration and intermarriage between people of 

diverse racial backgrounds are rapidly changing the composition of 

our Nation’s population. An increasing number of individuals feel 

uncomfortable putting themselves or their children into one of the 

current categories. Some people feel they fall outside these categories. 

Other people fall between the current categories. An individual 

with parents from two different categories may not wish to choose 

one parental identity over the other. The children of two such individuals could conceivably belong to all of the current categories and 

feel that to choose just one is meaningless or offensive. It is difficult to resist pointing out the example of Tiger Woods here. 

The questions on race and ethnicity currently in use have been 

designed in compliance with the provisions of the Office of Management and Budget’s ‘‘Directive No. 15: Race and Ethnic Standards 

2

for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting.’’ This directive 

provides standard classifications for recordkeeping, collection, and 

presentation of data on race and ethnicity in Federal programs, administrative reporting, and statistical activities. 

The race and ethnic classifications under Directive 15 are vital 

to the implementation of numerous Federal laws and regulations. 

Data on race and ethnicity are required by Federal statutes covering issues such as voting rights, lending practices, provision of 

health services, employment practices, and funding programs at 

historically black colleges. The data are also utilized by State and 

local governments for legislative redistricting and compliance with 

the Voting Rights Act, as amended. 

The purpose of this hearing is to provide an informational overview of the measurement of race and ethnicity in the Federal Government and to review the proposed changes to Directive 15. This 

is the first of a series of hearings to examine this issue prior to the 

finalization of the use of race and ethnic questions on the 2000 census. 

We want an overview of the issues, historical information, and 

actions taken in the current review process. We want to hear about 

the use of race and ethnic data by Federal agencies and the potential impact of proposed changes. 

This is a difficult issue. It can be very personal and emotional 

at the same time that it has far-reaching implications for Federal 

law and for important statistical measures in our society. If one 

thing is clear, it is that this issue needs careful consideration. No 

changes should be made in the current categories, nor should the 

status quo be reaffirmed, without a full and open public debate 

about what is at stake. 

We welcome our distinguished witnesses. Sally Katzen will represent the Office of Management and Budget. She is Administrator 

of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Martha 

Farnsworth Riche, Director of the Bureau of the Census, will testify on the second panel. She is accompanied by Nancy Gordon, the 

Associate Director for Demographic Programs. 

The third panel will give us more detail on the collection of race 

and ethnicity data at the State and local levels. Norma Cantu, Assistant Secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education, 

and Edward Sondik, Director of the National Center for Health 

Statistics at the Department of Health and Human Services, will 

each testify, providing a departmental perspective. 

Some of the most important statistics organized by race and ethnicity are on education and health. Furthermore, along with the 

Bureau of the Census, these two departments are at the front lines 

of gathering the data. Perhaps the two most critical points for 

gathering data at the local level are when a child is born and when 

he or she is enrolled in school. 

Also on the third panel is Bernard Ungar, Associate Director for 

Federal Management and Work Force Issues at the General Accounting Office. He will complement Norma Cantu and Edward 

Sondik by focusing on compiling data at the State and local level. 

Our fourth panel will feature several distinguished Members of 

the House of Representatives: Thomas Petri, Republican of WisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
3

consin; Thomas Sawyer, Democrat of Ohio; Carrie P. Meek, Democrat of Florida; and Maxine Waters, Democrat of California. 

We welcome all of our witnesses and look forward to their testimony. 

Without objection, I will include, after my opening remarks, a 

memorandum that was sent by me to members of the subcommittee, which provides background information and detail on 

Directive 15 and some of the categories since 1790. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn and the background memorandum follow:]

4


g:\graphics\45174.001
5


g:\graphics\45174.002
6


g:\graphics\45174.003
7


g:\graphics\45174.004
8


g:\graphics\45174.005
9


g:\graphics\45174.006
10


g:\graphics\45174.007
11


g:\graphics\45174.008
12


g:\graphics\45174.009
13


g:\graphics\45174.010
14


g:\graphics\45174.011
15


g:\graphics\45174.012
16


g:\graphics\45174.013
17


g:\graphics\45174.014
18


g:\graphics\45174.015
19


g:\graphics\45174.016
20


g:\graphics\45174.017
21


g:\graphics\45174.018
22


g:\graphics\45174.019
23


g:\graphics\45174.020
24


g:\graphics\45174.021
25


g:\graphics\45174.022
26


g:\graphics\45174.023
27


g:\graphics\45174.024
28


g:\graphics\45174.025
29


g:\graphics\45174.026
30


g:\graphics\45174.027
31


g:\graphics\45174.028
32


g:\graphics\45174.029
33


g:\graphics\45174.030
34

Mr. HORN. We are delighted to now welcome the ranking minority member for an opening statement. A quorum is present, and as 

others come in, we will ask them to make their statements before 

swearing in the witnesses. 

Mrs. Maloney of New York. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing on the census and how we measure race in the year 

2000, the next century. 

Today’s Washington Post, in describing Tiger Woods, who made 

history winning the Master’s, puts a personal identity on the issue 

before us today. He has been described as the first African-American to win the Master’s. He, on the other hand, describes himself 

as having a mixed race identity. It is very difficult to ask a biracial 

couple to choose one race over another, but that is what is happening when we have to fill out the race question for their child. 

At the same time, we live in a country where discrimination is 

a very real part of our world. We cannot do anything that makes 

it more difficult for our laws against discrimination to be enforced. 

I fully understand the difficulty facing the biracial couple when 

asked to choose ‘‘white’’ or ‘‘black’’ to identify their child. Such a 

choice flies in the face of the racial harmony their marriage symbolizes. 

Today we will hear from many Members and experts on the 

issue. I particularly want to comment that Representatives Sawyer 

and Petri will be testifying, who worked very hard on this issue in 

the last Congress, and also Carrie Meek and Maxine Waters. 

OMB Directive 15 provides the standards for the collection and 

presentation of data on race and ethnicity in all Federal programs 

and statistical activities. These categories are used for civil rights 

compliance, administrative reporting, and personal recordkeeping. 

The categories are also used in statistical reporting and surveys, 

like the current population survey, which provides employment and 

unemployment statistics. 

If we look back to the record created by Representative Sawyer, 

it is clear that there are many people who are not happy with the 

race and ethnic categories we use today. Some question why ‘‘Hispanic’’ is not one of the race categories. Others question and want 

ethnicity left as a separate question, but want changes to the race 

category. The Hawaiian delegation wants Native Hawaiians counted as Native Americans and not as Asians. Some would have us 

drop the questions completely. 

The record from the 103d Congress also shows that many people 

would prefer that the categories in Directive 15 be left unchanged. 

Some argue that the historical continuity is necessary for tracking 

progress in remedying discrimination. Others contend that all categories are arbitrary, and changing the categories would not solve 

anything. Others point out that the categories we use today are designed to be used in the enforcement of laws, like the civil rights 

law, the voting rights law, and that the proposed changes would 

make enforcing those laws impossible. 

Whatever decision OMB makes, some people will be very unhappy with them. Part of the problem we are faced with is a riddle 

identified by Justice Harry Blackmon when he said, and I quote, 

‘‘In order to get beyond racism, we must first take a count of race.’’

35

We must measure race in order to determine where and when discrimination exists. 

We must measure race because discrimination still exists today. 

There are banks that continue to redline, insurance companies that 

continue to redline, and employers who refuse to hire or promote 

minorities. We read about it every day in the papers. 

The task is made more difficult because there is no scientific 

basis for defining racial groups. Recent studies in genetics show 

that there is more variation within race groups than between them. 

If you pick two people at random within one of these groups, their 

genetic structure is more likely to be similar to someone in another 

racial group than to be like each other. 

However as lawmakers, we are faced with the responsibility of 

making sure that our laws are enforced. Without clear, accurate, 

and consistent race categories, it is difficult, if not impossible, to 

prove that discrimination exists. Without data, it is impossible to 

provide a remedy. 

I look forward to the panels today, and I thank the chairman for 

holding this hearing. 

[The prepared statements of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney and Hon. 

Danny K. Davis follow:]

36


g:\graphics\45174.031
37


g:\graphics\45174.032
38


g:\graphics\45174.033
39


g:\graphics\45174.034
40


g:\graphics\45174.035
41


g:\graphics\45174.036
42


g:\graphics\45174.037
43


g:\graphics\45174.038
44


g:\graphics\45174.039
45

Mr. HORN. As you know, we have a tradition on the Government 

Reform and Oversight Committee of swearing in all witnesses. I 

understand you are accompanied by Katherine Wallman. If you 

will identify her title, we will swear you both in. What is her title? 

Ms. KATZEN. Chief Statistician of the United States. 

Mr. HORN. Very good. If you would raise your right hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HORN. The clerk will note that both witnesses have affirmed. 

The usual routine, as you know, Dr. Katzen, is to file your statement and then summarize it. Now, we’re conscious of your time 

and that you have to leave at 10:30, so other opening statements 

of Members will be put in the record as if read, because we want 

to get to your testimony. So if you would summarize your statement in about 10 minutes or so, 15, then let’s get to the questions. 

STATEMENT OF SALLY KATZEN, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF 

INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, ACCOMPANIED BY KATHERINE 

WALLMAN, CHIEF STATISTICIAN OF THE UNITED STATES 

Ms. KATZEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members 

of the subcommittee. 

I, too, would like to thank you for holding this hearing on what 

I think is a very important and sensitive issue. I appreciate very 

much your inviting me to testify today about our review of OMB’s 

Directive 15 on race and ethnic standards for Federal statistics and 

administrative reporting. 

As you mentioned, accompanying me is Katherine Wallman, who 

serves as our Chief Statistician at OMB. And, again, I would like 

to thank you for accommodating my schedule so that I can appear 

at another hearing in this building later this morning. 

As has been mentioned this morning, the standard in Directive 

15 sets forth a minimum set of categories that are used across the 

Federal agencies for recordkeeping, collection, and presentation of 

data on race and ethnicity. As I outlined in my testimony to the 

House of Representatives in 1993, OMB adopted these categories 

in 1977, to facilitate, in some consistent fashion, the compilation of 

population data for statistical purposes, as well as for program administrative purposes. 

The development of the categories at that time was largely influenced by legislative priorities of the 1960’s and 1970’s. In particular, the standard was designed to reflect the major population 

groups in this country that had historically experienced discrimination because of their race or ethnicity. The categories are thus a 

product of this Nation’s political and social history, and they should 

not be viewed as having any anthropologic or scientific origin. 

There are, as you mentioned, four categories for the collection of 

data on race: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific 

Islander, black, and white. There are two categories for the collection of data on ethnicity: ‘‘Hispanic origin’’ and ‘‘Not of Hispanic origin.’’

While these categories represent the broad major population 

groups, the directive does not preclude the collection of more detailed data, as long as the additional information can be aggregated 

into the basic set of categories. 

46

During the past 20 years, the common language provided by the 

categories has served the Federal agencies well, in terms of meeting their statistical, program, and more specialized needs for data 

on race and ethnicity in such areas as medical research. Yet, during the past 20 years, our country’s population has become more 

racially and ethnically diverse, largely as a result of the growth in 

immigration and interracial marriages. 

Consequently, the question has been raised as to whether the 

categories continue to produce useful information about our population. To answer that question, OMB committed, in 1993, to carrying out a comprehensive review of the categories, in cooperation 

with the Federal agencies that are the users and producers of data 

on race and ethnicity. 

The review process has had two major parallel tracks: First, reflecting your view as well, the importance of public comment, we 

have had a process for obtaining public comment on the present 

standards, which has produced numerous suggestions for changing 

the standards; and second, research and testing related to assessing the possible effects of suggested changes on the quality and 

usefulness of the resulting data. 

Our focus on research and testing should not obscure or detract 

from our clear understanding that this is a very sensitive subject. 

For some people, our directive does not simply represent a set of 

data categories for classifying characteristics of the population. The 

meaning and importance of the categories become very personal 

matters, when people provide data about their own or their family 

members’ race and ethnicity on the decennial census or when registering their children for school. 

Now, with respect to the first track, OMB has solicited public 

participation and comment by means of two Federal Register notices and four public hearings across the country, as well as many 

meetings and conferences. We also include in that category the 

hearings held by Congressman Sawyer in 1993 and would like to 

include these, as well, as contributing to our enlightenment. 

This process, to date, has been very helpful in identifying more 

clearly several categories of concerns. The first, and the one that 

has received the most media attention, is the issue on how multiracial persons should be classified. 

Currently, persons who are of mixed race and or racial origin are 

asked to select the category that most closely reflects the individual’s recognition in his or her community. The one exception to this 

is, for the last decennial census, there was also the inclusion of the 

term ‘‘Other’’ for this purpose. That was designed to enable us to 

better understand those who previously had been nonresponsive on 

the question. 

Public comment has included a request for a specific category 

called ‘‘Multiracial.’’ Some want to specify the races and some do 

not, while others have requested an opportunity to identify one or 

more races, but not using a category called ‘‘Multiracial’’. In other 

words, an option to check several boxes but not have a separate 

‘‘Multiracial’’ box. 

Second, we have received a number of requests to expand the 

minimum set of categories by adding categories for population 

47

groups such as Arabs or Middle Easterners, Cape Verdans, Creoles, 

European-Americans, and German-Americans. 

Third, as you mentioned, the Native Hawaiians have indicated 

that they no longer want to be included in the Asian or Pacific Islander category. Some are asking that they be included in the same 

category as American Indians and Alaskan Natives, so that all indigenous peoples would be in the same category. Others have requested a separate category for Native Hawaiians alone. Based on 

the comments we have received, the American Indian and Alaskan 

Native organizations are opposed to the inclusion of Native Hawaiians in their category. 

Fourth, we have received requests to eliminate the racial and 

ethnic categories from those who believe that the collection of such 

data serves to perpetuate an overemphasis on race in America and 

contributes to the fragmentation of our society. 

The variety and range of suggestions for changing Directive 15 

underscored to us the importance of having a set of general principles to govern the review process and to guide final decisions. The 

general principles that we are following are attached to my written 

testimony and include such items as emphasis on self-identification 

and respect for a person’s dignity in the collection process; having 

concepts and terminology that are generally understood and accepted by the American people; having categories that are comprehensive in their coverage of the population; recognizing that there are 

burdens imposed on respondents and implementation costs, not 

only to the Federal agencies but also to State and local entities and 

to the private sector, from changes in the standards; and having a 

standard that is usable, not only for the decennial census, which 

is where we hear about this most frequently, but also for surveys 

and administrative records, including those data collections using 

observer identification. 

With respect to the second track, several major national tests 

were developed, in cooperation with the Interagency Committee, to 

research and test a number of the suggested changes. Some of that 

research has been completed, and the highlights are discussed in 

my written testimony. You will be hearing from others testifying 

today about the issues that were addressed and what the results 

indicate about the possible impact on the population counts for the 

current categories. 

We are awaiting a very important piece of research, the results 

of the Census Bureau’s Race and Ethnic Targeted Test. When those 

findings become available, in early May, the research phase of the 

review will be completed. It will then be the task of the members 

of the Interagency Committee to take into account the substantial 

amount of public comment, evaluate that research results, and 

make recommendations to OMB that reflect their best professional 

and technical advice. 

There will be one more opportunity for public input, because 

OMB will publish, for public comment, in the Federal Register the 

Interagency Committee’s report and recommendations. This is targeted for early July 1997. We will then consider this round of public comment and announce our decision in mid-October 1997, so 

that changes, if any, in the racial and ethnic categories can be inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
48

cluded in the spring 1998 dress rehearsal for the year 2000 decennial census. 

I would like to emphasize that we have made no interim decisions with respect to any of the requests or suggestions for changing how the Federal Government meets its needs for data on race 

and ethnicity. Further, the option remains open to retain the current minimum set of data categories, given that they have produced useful and consistent information for 20 years. 

During the final phase of the review process, OMB, together with 

the Interagency Committee, will have to consider and assess how 

much of an improvement in the accuracy and relevance of the data 

may result from changes versus the impact of the changes on the 

historical comparability of data, the burden imposed on respondents, and the possible implementation cost to the Federal agencies, 

as well as to those at the State and local level, in the business community, and private sector organizations. 

Finally, it is important to make clear what OMB is doing and not 

doing in carrying out our responsibilities under the Paperwork Reduction Act for standards and guidelines for classifying statistical 

data. OMB’s role is not to define how an individual should identify 

himself or herself when providing data on race or ethnicity. Rather, 

we are trying to determine what categories for aggregating data on 

race and ethnicity facilitate the measuring and reporting of information on the social and economic conditions of our Nation’s population groups, for use in formulating public policy. 

In arriving at a decision, OMB will need to balance statistical 

issues that relate to the quality and utility of data, the Federal 

needs for data on race and ethnicity, including statutory requirements, and social concerns. 

We truly welcome your interest in the review of the current set 

of categories. We appreciate having an opportunity to brief you on 

the events of the past 4 years, and we hope that we can count on 

your continuing interest and support as we arrive at a decision. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Katzen follows:]

49


g:\graphics\45174.040
50


g:\graphics\45174.041
51


g:\graphics\45174.042
52


g:\graphics\45174.043
53


g:\graphics\45174.044
54


g:\graphics\45174.045
55


g:\graphics\45174.046
56


g:\graphics\45174.047
57


g:\graphics\45174.048
58


g:\graphics\45174.049
59


g:\graphics\45174.050
60


g:\graphics\45174.051
61


g:\graphics\45174.052
62


g:\graphics\45174.053
63


g:\graphics\45174.054
64


g:\graphics\45174.055
65


g:\graphics\45174.056
66


g:\graphics\45174.057
67


g:\graphics\45174.058
68


g:\graphics\45174.059
69


g:\graphics\45174.060
70


g:\graphics\45174.061
71


g:\graphics\45174.062
72


g:\graphics\45174.063
73


g:\graphics\45174.064
74


g:\graphics\45174.065
75


g:\graphics\45174.066
76

Mr. HORN. We thank you for that summary. We are going to 

have 10 minutes per Member here on questions, and then, if we 

have time for a second round, we will do that, too. 

In your written testimony, you noted that additional categories 

of race and ethnicity, which could provide a more complete picture 

of the Nation’s population, might also be burdensome and costly. 

Do you have any estimates as to the possible costs and burden? In 

addition, let me just go with the next question, because I think it 

relates to the first one: Is there a rule of thumb that you would 

care to articulate as to the size of a group in the population before 

an additional category would provide useful information? 

I note that in your written testimony you stated the studies conducted, presumably by OMB or the Census Bureau, have led you 

to conclude that approximately 1 to 1.5 percent of the persons surveyed would identify themselves as ‘‘Multiracial,’’ if given the 

chance. Is a total of less than 2 percent large enough to justify the 

costs associated with the new category? We think it’s important to 

remember that adding new categories does not only impact the 

Federal Government but the States, localities, and individuals, too. 

So I would just like to have a feel. I realize you don’t know where 

you are yet; you have got more surveys to do but as far as a rule 

of thumb, statistically, perhaps your Chief Statistician would like 

to answer that also, as to when are we hitting pay dirt that’s relevant, and thinking of the various laws that have triggers based 

on certain racial categories, whether it be historically black colleges, enrollment, and all the rest? 

Ms. KATZEN. Well, I think that’s a very important question, and 

I may seem to be rambling, but I will try to be responsive. 

On costs and burdens, we know that there will be some additional direct and some indirect costs as a result of any changes that 

might be made. I’m speaking now, not only from the point of view 

of adding a question to a form, which is a cost to the respondents, 

but also the implementation costs that may be involved, not only 

for the Federal agencies, but for all who maintain records. 

There are a number of partnerships between Federal agencies 

and State and local agencies. There are also private sector businesses and organizations which maintain records now. For them to 

change their current record system is not simply to add something; 

it’s normally to retrain and refocus, and there are those costs. 

There are also what I was referring to as indirect costs, which 

is a diminishment in the historical comparability of the data. This 

turns out to be something which, in some instances, may be easily 

accommodated through crosswalks, but we have a lot of different 

uses for this information, for very legitimate purposes of study, research, et cetera. 

The ability to use existing data in the face of changed categories 

will require additional effort, that translates into time and resources for those who are using it. Many of the individual agencies 

from which you will have representatives testifying after me have 

actually looked at this for their particular programs and will be in 

a better position to comment on those kinds of costs. 

The Interagency Committee will be pulling this material together 

in their report and recommendations. At this point, we do not have 

77

a dollar figure or even a range of dollar figures, but we are aware 

that there are, indeed, costs. 

With respect to the second part of that question, which is the 

threshold, we are not approaching this as if there is any magic 

number that will trigger one response different from another response. Part of that is, I think, a result of the perpetual balancing 

act that we always have under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

We are looking at the utility of the information in light of the 

burden, and obviously, one of the factors in the utility of the information is the size of the population that will be, in effect, enrolled 

or identified under that. 

At the same time, as Mrs. Maloney noted, we’re not talking 

about just now or even the year 2000. I would expect that decisions 

that we make will last at least for the two decades that our last 

set of standards survived. So it would be a matter of considering 

trends that are developing, and looking to see how we can best accommodate the American people in the next century. 

Mr. HORN. What is the difficulty that OMB and the Bureau of 

the Census have really had with the current racial categories? Is 

there a lot of confusion when people self-identify here, based on, 

say, grandparents and parents? Some of them I find don’t even 

know the particular race of their grandparents. It’s just sort of a 

blur; no one ever talked about it. A lot of them can be part Native 

American and not realize it. 

How do you handle that? 

Ms. KATZEN. Well, you’ve touched on something which is a much 

broader question, and that’s the whole issue of self-identification. 

It’s actually easier, I think, for somebody on the census to put 

down what he or she thinks he or she is. They don’t have to go 

back and trace for the objective is not to reflect if there is one drop 

of something. It’s to identify what you believe you are. 

The problem comes not from a lack of understanding or confusion. The problem—and I think this is most acute in the multiracial area—is for those who do not identify with a single category. 

As you said in your opening remarks, if a child is the child of two 

people of different racial backgrounds, to choose one box may be 

perceived by that child as denying the other parent. And that is 

asking them to choose between their parents. 

One of the very first pieces of correspondence that I saw after I 

took office in 1993 was a letter from a woman that was very simple 

and straightforward: ‘‘Enclosed is a picture of my child. Why does 

she have to choose?’’ The picture was of a beautiful young girl who 

was very dark-skinned and had Asian features. And I remember 

looking at the picture and being affected by that. So it is not a matter of confusion, but rather the more personal aspect of the amount 

of choice that may be available to you in responding to these questions. 

Now, it is compounded where it is not self-identification. For 

where you have a situation of someone else designating—and this 

happens most frequently in enrollment in schools, and I believe 

also on death certificates, et cetera—somebody else is saying what 

they think you are. 

That is more complicated if there are multiracial characteristics 

or features and somebody else is designating a category for you. 

78

That is why one of our principles was to elevate dignity, because 

for somebody to tell me what I am is, I think, very different from 

my saying who I think I am. 

So those issues all get involved in this. 

Mr. HORN. I noticed in your presentation that you listed several, 

Creole and so forth, that wanted their own identification. One of 

them happened to be German-Americans. Since I’m half German 

and half Irish, I always said I’ve got German humor and Irish efficiency, so there might be a subcategory under that. But I was curious, where were the Irish-Americans here? They are usually active 

in politics. 

Ms. KATZEN. And we had a public hearing in Boston, too. 

Mr. HORN. Are these simply categories you picked up in public 

hearings? 

Ms. KATZEN. Most of these suggestions came out of either the 

first round of public comments or in the public hearings. Some of 

them, I believe, were motivated by perhaps a misunderstanding of 

either the basis for or significance of having categories, because in 

some of the public testimony the comments were made that, ‘‘We 

would like to be included so that we have our identity confirmed, 

validated.’’ But some also said, ‘‘We might be able to qualify for 

benefits or protections,’’ as though the inclusion of a category would 

drive the public policy consideration to either accord benefits or afford protection against discrimination. 

In fact, it was sort of the reverse, in that OMB originally developed the categories to reflect legislative determinations of what 

groups warranted special protections or special benefits. We were 

simply using categories to track those groups to discern whether or 

not agencies were carrying out their responsibilities and citizens 

were carrying out their responsibilities. 

Mr. HORN. What’s the penalty if a person doesn’t fill in the category? Are we compelled to fill in that category? 

Ms. KATZEN. It depends on what kind of form and for what purposes. Again, some of the representatives from the agencies may be 

in a better position to respond, but my understanding is that, for 

example, in the field of education, the principal or some administrative person at the school will fill in the forms. 

With respect to the census, as you know, when a respondent does 

not fill in the census and return the questionnaire, there is a followup which is quite costly and burdensome for the Census Bureau. I do not know whether, in some instances, for some programs, a benefit would be denied if the application included this 

and it did not have it, or on a monitoring form, this information 

was not included. 

Mr. HORN. Well, if we just say it’s none of the Census’ business 

and it’s none of Big Brother’s business, is there a penalty? 

Ms. KATZEN. I would direct that question to Marty Riche from 

the Census Bureau. 

Mr. HORN. All right. Fine. 

Ms. KATZEN. Because each of these surveys, each of these questionnaires is based on the laws and the regulations of the individual agency. Our directive is to ensure comparability across agencies so that they are all using the same categories. We do not set 

79

the requirements, the sanctions, or any privileges that attach 

thereto. 

Mr. HORN. The reason I ask is, at one point in our recent history—in the sense of my lifetime—we’ve had a President that was 

dead wrong and a general that was dead wrong, when Franklin 

Roosevelt and General Dewitt rounded up Japanese-Americans 

who were citizens and put them in relocation camps. 

Now, they thought about rounding up German-Americans, in 

which case I would have joined Norm Manetta in a relocation 

camp, and also Italian-Americans. But there were just too many of 

us, so they decided that wasn’t a good idea. In Hawaii, they never 

rounded up anybody. Japanese-Americans stayed in Hawaii all 

during the Second World War. Yet, in California, 2,500 miles further east, they round up people. 

Now, I can see why some people would say, ‘‘Why should I give 

Big Brother any indication of what my ancestry is, should somebody go a little nutty next time.’’ Got any feelings on that? 

Ms. KATZEN. Well, as I think I mentioned earlier, there are a lot 

of different motivations, and certainly there is concern. People of 

different ancestry that have experienced oppression or harassment 

in their past—I’m in this country because my grandfather fled from 

Russia in the pogroms that were there. 

Mr. HORN. Sure. 

Ms. KATZEN. We all are, I think, quite nervous about revealing 

too much of ourselves under any circumstances. And I think that 

those are very legitimate concerns. One of the objectives that we 

have in undertaking this review is hopefully to reflect those concerns and dispel the sense that this is to define somebody or categorize someone. I keep emphasizing over and over again, this is 

for statistical purposes; this is for program administrative purposes; this is for enforcement of laws. But I am sure that there are 

many who listen to me and say, ‘‘Yeah. Been there; done that.’’ Mr. HORN. Sure; 11 minutes to Mrs. Maloney, since we ran over 

a little. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to yield my time to Mr. Davis, because he has a conflict and has to leave the subcommittee. But I would like to ask one 

brief question that follows up on the point that you were raising. 

I have been discussing with Mr. Davis, members of the subcommittee staff, and others—we’ve been looking at the possibility 

of using the census long form for further investigation into the 

interplay between race, ethnicity, and ancestry. I would like to note 

that Connie Morella has introduced a resolution, Resolution 38, 

which talks about the importance of collecting ancestry data on the 

census, and I certainly support that resolution and hope that other 

members of the committee will, likewise, support it. 

Perhaps, in the context of asking ancestry on the long form, we 

could ask a series of questions that help us understand the mix of 

race, ethnicity, and ancestry that really make up the self-identity 

of many of us. I would just simply like to ask if OMB would be willing to work with us on a set of questions that would focus on the 

interplay of race, ethnicity, and ancestry—for the long form. 

Ms. KATZEN. Mrs. Maloney, a lot of what we have learned in the 

past came from the long form. There’s a lot of debate about what’s 

80

on the long form, what’s on the short form. But a lot of what we 

have learned in the past has come from analysis of census data. We 

would be, I think, very willing, with our colleagues at the Census 

Bureau, to explore alternatives with you and the subcommittee on 

additions to the long form. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. I yield to Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. Let me, first of all, 

thank the ranking member, Mrs. Maloney, for yielding. I also want 

to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it’s certainly good to have the 

panel. 

I have listened intently to your testimony, and I appreciate it. 

I’m trying to determine, does OMB have a position relative to the 

proposed change? 

Ms. KATZEN. No. Our objective was to conduct an open, comprehensive review and to receive as much information as possible. 

I’ve learned that it’s better to withhold judgment until you have all 

the information, and have a chance to analyze it and think it 

through, rather than reach a preliminary conclusion, only to be 

presented with different information. So we have assiduously 

avoided any predeterminations on these questions, notwithstanding 

a lot of people trying to convince us otherwise. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So this is strictly being viewed by OMB 

as a management tool where one just sort of takes a position. It’s 

time to review where we are and how we’re doing certain things, 

so let’s just take a look at it to see whether or not any changes or 

additions or directions might be beneficial? 

Ms. KATZEN. I may have misunderstood your first question. Our 

decision to conduct the review, in the first instance, was the result 

of a number of questions that were raised, and we thought that 20 

years after the setting of the first directive, it was timely to review 

it. But we went into it with the very clear conviction that it was 

a review and that one possible outcome of that review was that 

there would not be any changes, there would be no revisions, there 

would simply be a review and, in effect, a confirmation that these 

categories serve our needs. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Were any of the questions based upon individuals’ desires to be able to more directly pinpoint their heritage, individuals who wanted to say, ‘‘Well, let me just be as explicit 

as I can possibly be, in terms of the category in which I fit’’? 

Ms. KATZEN. Among the questions that were raised, there was 

sufficient concern that the data sets that we had are not truly representative and an accurate reflection of the American population 

and the broad population groups. That is a question that we hoped 

to explore. 

There was no one that I’m aware of, in the White House, OMB, 

or in any of the agencies, who came into this with a hidden or notso-hidden agenda to fix a problem. It was much more a matter of 

exploring the situation. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. No, I really meant public questions, not 

internal, but an expression from individuals in the public who may 

have made inquiries. 

Ms. KATZEN. There are a number of individuals who have pursued a number of these areas. For example, there are several orgaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
81

nized groups on the multiracial question that we have heard from 

with some frequency. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Just in terms of that, the multiracial 

question, are there terms we are familiar with that could be used 

synonymously to describe the heritage of a group of individuals in 

a multiracial group, more than one term, that there might be three 

or four terms that could be used to describe those individuals pretty accurately? 

Ms. KATZEN. I’m not sure I’m understanding your question, in 

terms of suggestions that have been made for additions or terms 

that are used in slang or in jargon? 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, I don’t know if I’d say jargon perhaps, not so much slang, but a group that may be identified by 

more than one term. 

Ms. KATZEN. I think what the test results have shown, from the 

two tests that have been conducted, is that there are various combinations of multiracial. You will hear more about this, I believe, 

from some of the other witnesses. 

But one of the tests showed that if you added a multiracial category, there was no discernable change in the number of blacks or 

whites. There was a statistically significant change with respect to 

Native Americans and Alaskan Natives, and I believe, it also affected the incidence of people checking the ‘‘of Hispanic origin’’ box. 

This led me to believe that the multiracial people are of a large 

number of combinations. You will have combinations of different 

components, and as the chairman said in his opening remarks, it 

is possible that a child today could qualify for all four of our racial 

categories, if he or she could choose to so identify with their heritage. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And that would not alter our ability to 

know who they were, or where they fit, or where they came from? 

Would that be correct? 

Ms. WALLMAN. Mr. Davis, I just would like to go back to the 

point that was made earlier. In some cases, we are talking about 

a category that might bring together all persons of multiple races 

in something called a single ‘‘multiracial’’ category. In other cases, 

we’re talking about the ability to report one’s multiple racial heritages. 

I think, when we get to the second alternative, if you will, that 

there would be much more opportunity to have better historical 

comparability, and so on, in terms of the question that you raise. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Do we find, sociologically, that there is 

any significant correlation between individuals of mixed heritage, 

notwithstanding who they are? 

Ms. WALLMAN. Not to my personal knowledge. And I’m not sure 

if any of our colleagues from the agencies will have more light to 

shed on that question at this hearing this morning. If they have 

additional research that pertains to that, I’m sure they would be 

happy to share it with you. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. That’s a question that just cropped up in 

my mind. I’m thinking that, if we had this one category, there may 

be some real differences in terms of the experiences of individuals, 

the needs of individuals, how the rest of society perceives those individuals, and what their experiences are in this country. I think 

82

that, too, becomes one of the things that I think we would want to 

make sure that we were using the information for. 

The other question—you mentioned the gathering of information 

for the purpose of having and the purpose of knowing, and also for 

management utilization. Now, we know that information is generated for lots of other reasons. Would one suspect that some of 

those reasons—for example, States use the information to review 

redistricting approaches and plans, or to evaluate affirmative action in some places and in some instances, or to monitor access to 

certain kinds of resources for certain groups, or to determine 

whether or not certain groups are being, let’s say, redlined still in 

some areas and some communities. 

Would this—and I know you may not be able to place a value 

judgment, in terms of where it might fit—but would this kind of 

information or this kind of utilization be as important as the management awareness or the management tool? 

Ms. KATZEN. I think it is very important. In both my written and 

my oral statements I tried to emphasize that the Federal needs for 

data are what we are primarily focusing on. The directive, as I 

mentioned, came in 1977 on the heels of the civil rights legislation 

of the 1960’s and early 1970’s, and it is very important to be able 

to continue to monitor compliance with the law. That is a Federal 

need for data which is statutorily imposed and is something which 

drives much of this discussion and those needs are very real. 

There are other kinds of needs that are less in the news, if you 

will. HHS and CDC do a lot of research, medical research, which 

is beneficial to identify certain racial or ethnic susceptibility to particular types of diseases, or responsiveness to certain types of treatments for different types of illnesses. That’s also a very legitimate 

and current need. 

It is for that reason that our process is being conducted through 

an Interagency Committee, which consists of many of the people 

you will hear after me this morning. Indeed, 30 Federal agencies 

are represented on the Interagency Committee, and they are asked 

to bring to the table their unique needs, their program needs, 

whether it be enforcement, monitoring, or research. 

Federal needs take various forms, and all of these are to be part 

of the interagency discussion. That kind of information informs 

public policy in the broadest sense and is also of use, I believe, to 

the Congress in determining its priorities and its legislative preferences. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, let me thank you very much. I don’t 

want to jump the gun. I think it’s going to be very interesting as 

we continue to try and flesh this out. But I may as well be up 

front, I’ve got some real concerns and reservations about what appear to be sort of the direction or the implications of possible 

changes and what those could, in fact, mean. 

It appears to me that the discussions that I’ve been hearing sort 

of relate to the development of microscopic or micro groupings that 

may very well take away some of the changes that we’ve generated 

over the years. For example, I still find it difficult to find AfricanAmericans who are elected to public office in political subdivisions 

that are not designated majority African-American, or to find large 

83

numbers of Hispanic Americans or individuals of Spanish origin 

elected, again, in subdivisions. 

We are making some breakthroughs, and I think we’ve come a 

long way, but I certainly don’t think that we’ve come far enough 

to start toying too seriously with the way in which we’ve been designated in these categories over the years. So I thank you for your 

testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit, for the record, a statement, and I’m sure that we’ll be talking with you later. 

Ms. KATZEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HORN. The gentleman’s opening statement will be put in the 

record following Mrs. Maloney’s, at the beginning of the hearing, 

as if read, without objection. 

We have about 10 more minutes. Let me just ask you, in testimony, you stated that the current standards issued by OMB do 

allow for the collection of more detailed information by population 

groups, which was part of that exchange. Does that mean the agencies could include questions about the person’s multiracial, multiethnic background? For example, national origin is protected in 

some laws passed by Congress. The Civil Rights Commission, on 

which I served for 13 years, has that jurisdiction, among others, including women, race, and so forth. I remember the time we got a 

tongue-lashing from many national origin groups, particularly East 

European, Polish-Americans, Hungarian-Americans, and so forth, 

that we were doing all these things about everybody else in America, why weren’t we paying attention to the discrimination that still 

exists against them? 

So that leads me to the question as to, do we possess the ability 

to collect information on our citizens or noncitizens of multiethnic 

background, and to what laws is that still relevant? Is it either 

OMB or Census? 

I would like one of you to get in the record a display that is up 

to date as to the various categories Congress has enacted, or some 

are constitutionally based, by which you look at discrimination, and 

put those in, and then ask ourselves the question, to what extent 

and to what generation do we need to know that information in 

order to enforce the law? 

Ms. KATZEN. We would be happy to work with Census to provide 

the information for the record, in terms of legislative determinations already on the books. 

Mr. HORN. And judicial. See, Lau v. Nichols; a judicial decision 

that was then followed by legislation. That’s L-a-u, N-i-c-h-o-l-s, I 

believe. And that ought to be in the record at this point. Without 

objection, it will be. 

[The information referred to follows:]

84


g:\graphics\45174.067
85


g:\graphics\45174.068
86


g:\graphics\45174.069
87


g:\graphics\45174.070
88


g:\graphics\45174.071
89


g:\graphics\45174.072
90


g:\graphics\45174.073
91


g:\graphics\45174.074
92


g:\graphics\45174.075
93


g:\graphics\45174.076
94


g:\graphics\45174.077
95


g:\graphics\45174.078
96


g:\graphics\45174.079
97


g:\graphics\45174.080
98


g:\graphics\45174.081
99


g:\graphics\45174.082
100


g:\graphics\45174.083
101


g:\graphics\45174.084
102


g:\graphics\45174.085
103


g:\graphics\45174.086
104


g:\graphics\45174.087
105


g:\graphics\45174.088
106


g:\graphics\45174.089
107


g:\graphics\45174.090
108

Mr. HORN. So if you could do that, I would appreciate it. I think 

we need to narrow this down. 

Ms. KATZEN. In response to the first part of the question, agencies can, on their surveys or forms, et cetera, assuming a legitimate 

purpose and a minimum burden on respondents, they can use 

disaggregated groups under the racial and ethnic categories, so 

long as they can be aggregated to the categories set forth in the 

directive. 

With respect to national ancestry, that can be added as something which the agencies can do—again, if they can otherwise justify it—there would be no prohibition on that additional information being obtained. 

Mr. HORN. Well, let’s get in the record, at this point, then, an exhibit between OMB and Census as to how many of those questionnaires exist, what information are they asking of a racial, national 

origin, ancestral, however put, origin, to carry out some aspect of 

their program. Just so we know the extent of this, I think we need 

to get it in one place. 

We also need to know the basis for the question. Let’s not go 

back beyond the 1990 census. What questions in the 1990 census 

can you take and figure out the person’s multiracial background, 

if any? Do we ask where their parents came from? Do we ask 

where their grandfathers and grandmothers came from? And so 

forth. 

On the delay, due to, as I remember, the experiments you were 

having as to how people answered some of these categories, what 

is our time line? Is it May? I think I heard May is when some of 

these will be given? 

Ms. KATZEN. Yes, we expect to have the results in early May. I 

think it’s targeted for the end of the first week or the beginning 

of the second week. As with the other tests that have been conducted, the results will be made publicly available. At that point, 

then, our research phase will be completed and the very hard work 

of rolling up our sleeves and sifting through it all will begin. We 

hope to have the interagency report and recommendation to us in 

time for its publication in the Federal Register in early July. 

Mr. HORN. Then that will wait for what, 60 days’ comment? 

Ms. KATZEN. Sixty-day public comment period. 

Mr. HORN. And then what? 

Ms. KATZEN. And then the final decision will be made at OMB, 

and will be publicly announced. Hopefully, if there are any 

changes, they will be able to be used in the dress rehearsal for the 

year 2000 census, which will be taking place in the spring of 1998. 

Mr. HORN. If Congress doesn’t like it, they can add a prohibition 

in your appropriations bill, I assume? 

Ms. KATZEN. Congress has a variety of ways of making known 

its clear intent. 

Mr. HORN. Thank you. 

Ms. KATZEN. To which we are always respectful. 

Mr. HORN. Mrs. Maloney, 5 minutes or so. We’re trying to get 

Ms. Katzen over to Mr. McIntosh’s subcommittee, where she has a 

lot of fun. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

109

First of all, you have repeatedly emphasized that the current categories are derived from the need to provide information for enforcing laws against discrimination; specifically, the Voting Rights Act 

of 1973, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I believe. 

Would the addition of another category, such as a multiracial 

category, require changes to any of these laws; and if so, could you 

provide for the record, in writing, the kinds of changes that would 

be needed, if we added that category to the antidiscrimination 

laws? 

Ms. KATZEN. I would be happy to work to try to provide that information. The answers reside in the agencies who have the responsibility for monitoring or enforcing those laws, rather than in 

OMB. Several of the witnesses that you will hear from after me 

may be able to more readily give you answers to those questions. 

Not surprisingly, the laws are written with different words and 

different phrases, and have different intent. Therefore, there is no 

single answer that I could give you here. It would be program by 

program, law by law. We will be happy to try to work to get that 

information for you. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I think that, as you mentioned, it’s very fragmented. You have an interagency task force involving many agencies. You are the one that is pulling this together. I think it would 

be good if someone, specifically OMB, since you are spearheading 

this, could pull together that information of what the impact would 

be on existing laws. 

Second, you have reported today and said many times through 

your testimony how it has evolved and changed over history, the 

categories on the forms. How do you balance the need for reflecting 

the changes in our society with the need for consistency, so that we 

can enforce our laws and track our success of lack thereof in our 

antidiscrimination laws? 

Ms. KATZEN. That is a difficult process; again, unique to each of 

the inquiries that we may be presented with. It’s inherent in almost every data collection request that we receive from an agency, 

whether it involves race and ethnicity questions or other questions. 

It is a balance to be achieved between the utility of the information—the importance of that information or the use of that information, both within the Federal Government and in a more expanded area—and the burdens that are imposed. In effect, here it 

would be a potential detriment to the ability to carry out Federal 

responsibilities. 

Again, this is one in which we have asked the agencies to explore 

their own programs and report back to us. I think it’s comparable 

to the issue you mentioned earlier and one that we hope to get at 

in the interagency process. 

Mrs. MALONEY. If we add a multiracial category, what do I say 

to my constituents who say to me, ‘‘You have made it impossible 

to enforce the laws against discrimination’’? 

Ms. KATZEN. As we explore the alternatives—and as we mentioned earlier, there are a variety of ways of addressing the multiracial question, some of which may have little, if any, effect on our 

ability to enforce—certainly we would not want to take any step 

that would preclude a Federal agency from being able to enforce 

the law. 

110

Our objective here is to facilitate enforcement of the law, facilitate the implementation of programs, not to make either more difficult. Therefore, as we think about the ways of approaching this 

issue, I hope that we will provide you with an answer, so that you 

can say, ‘‘There will not be any diminution in our ability to do what 

we have to do.’’ Mrs. MALONEY. Likewise, if we do not add a multiracial category, 

what would you suggest that we say to our constituents, to a mother who says to me, ‘‘Please do not make my child choose between 

one race and another’’? 

Ms. KATZEN. That is the issue that I was presented with, that 

I found so compelling, and the reason why we are exploring the different ways of framing or asking the multiracial question. 

Again, it is possible to consider a variety of approaches. One 

would be a simple multiracial line or box. Another is to ask respondents or enable respondents to check a series of boxes, so that 

no one would have to deny any part of his or her heritage. A third 

is a totally open-ended question in which people could identify 

themselves as they choose to, without restrictions. 

Now, these all have tradeoffs. For some, agencies can more easily 

administer the collection of the data, and more easily—going back 

to your first point—enforce the law; others are more difficult in 

that context. And that is what it is that we will be struggling with. 

I don’t have the answers now. I’m not sure I even know all the 

questions right now, but I know for sure I don’t have the answers. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, helping us to get those answers are probably some of the target tests that you are doing? 

Ms. KATZEN. Yes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. How important will the race and ethnicity target 

test be in determining the final categories proposed by OMB, and 

when do you propose to finish with this target test? 

Ms. KATZEN. Well, we think the target test is very important, because, unlike some of the other tests which used nationwide bases, 

this is specifically targeted to areas where we expect to see a large 

number of the different population groups and a large number of 

multiracial groups. 

Those results are expected in the early part of May and will be 

made publicly available at that time. I think they will be very important. At this point, I have no idea how they are going to come 

out, so I can’t tell you which way they will tip the scales, if at all. 

But we are awaiting the results of those tests so that we can have 

the benefit of them. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, my time is up. Thank you very much, and 

I wish you luck. You’re going to need it. You have a difficult task 

before you. 

Ms. KATZEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HORN. One last question just for the record: Under what circumstances do State and local governments have to follow OMB’s 

Directive 15? Does that apply to State government collection at all? 

Ms. KATZEN. Yes and no. There are some instances where the 

State governments can do their own thing, so to speak. But in 

areas where there is Federal-State partnership and cooperation, 

then the information would ordinarily be aggregated into the five 

categories before it is transmitted to the Federal Government. 

111

In some instances, that’s required; in some instances, it’s simply 

encouraged, depending, again, upon the particular program involved, the particular statutory requirements that guide that program, and the regulations that implement it. Some of the witnesses 

who follow me actually work in these programs and can give you 

more precise information. 

Mr. HORN. California has some more detailed categories than 

OMB. I want in the record, at this point, the California list on 

which they base public policy. Without objection, that will be put 

in, and we will pursue it with Census on the other. 

[The information referred to follows:]

112


g:\graphics\45174.091
113


g:\graphics\45174.092
114


g:\graphics\45174.093
115

Mr. HORN. Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate your 

testimony and wish you well in the next panel. 

Ms. KATZEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. 

Maloney. 

Mr. HORN. If you would stand and raise your right hands, Ms. 

Riche, Ms. Gordon. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HORN. Both witnesses have affirmed, the clerk will note. 

We are conscious of your time situation, Ms. Riche, and we would 

appreciate it, if you could summarize your statement, and then we 

will have a chance for questions. 

STATEMENT OF MARTHA FARNSWORTH RICHE, DIRECTOR, 

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, ACCOMPANIED BY NANCY M. GORDON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR DEMOGRAPHIC PROGRAMS 

Ms. RICHE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting the 

Census Bureau to testify on this important initiative of the Office 

of Management and Budget. 

The Office of Management and Budget developed the schedule 

for this initiative to coincide with Census 2000. As you may know, 

our procedures for collecting data on race and ethnicity have been 

in compliance with the OMB directive since it was issued in 1977. 

We plan to continue this compliance with Census 2000. We believe 

it is essential that Federal agencies observe such standards to keep 

our data consistent and comparable across the Government. 

I would like to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for their interest in and support of Census 2000. Today, however, we are here in a secondary role, and that is to share with you 

the research that we have done and continue to conduct for OMB, 

in relation to OMB Directive 15. 

So, to that end, I would like to turn over the next part of the 

summarizing of our testimony to Dr. Nancy Gordon. She is the Associate Director for Demographic Programs in the Census Bureau. 

Dr. Gordon and her staff are responsible for our contribution to 

this important effort. 

So we thank you very much, again, for the opportunity to testify. 

I’m sorry I have a prior commitment, but I’m going to put you in 

the hands of the expert. 

Mr. HORN. Well, let me ask you, before you leave, then, what are 

the penalties if one does not answer the racial or ethnic questions? 

Ms. RICHE. I would have to check into that to give you a definitive answer, but it is my belief that there are no penalties. 

[The information referred to follows:]

Section 221 of Title 13 United States Code provides for a penalty of up to $100 

for refusing to respond to questions in the decennial census.

Mr. HORN. Yes. Because I can see a lot of people saying, ‘‘I’m not 

going to tell Big Brother, looking down my shoulder, what I am.’’

Ms. RICHE. Yes. People don’t always fill in all of the questionnaires, and some questions are more sensitive than others. This is 

probably one of them. 

Mr. HORN. Do we know by analyzing the data from the 1990 census whether this question is ignored more than most? And if so, 

what accuracy do we have left with the census? 

116

Ms. RICHE. The question actually that is ignored most is the 

question on income, and that stands out by far. I don’t know if research has been done on how much this question was ignored, but 

if there is some, we would be happy to provide it for you. 

Mr. HORN. I would like in the record, at this point, without objection, the data that is within the Census Bureau that shows the degree to which any question in the 1990 census was ignored. Income, you say, is No. 1. What is No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4? 

Ms. RICHE. Very good. Thank you very much. 

[The information referred to follows:]

During data collection operations for the 1990 census, questionnaires were reviewed by census clerks for omissions and inconsistencies. A telephone or personal 

visit followup was made to try to obtain missing information. After these field operations were completed, remaining incomplete or inconsistent information on the 

questionnaires was imputed using allocation procedures during the final automated 

edit of the collected data. Reports from the 1990 census include statistical tables 

that show data before allocation (i.e., after field followup) and after allocation in 

considerable detail. The highest allocation rates were for the following:

Income in 1989 for households—18.9

Weeks worked in 1989 for persons 16 years and over—14.9

Income in 1989 for persons 15 years and over—14.2

Origin (whether or not of Hispanic origin)—10.0

Occupation for employed persons 16 years and over—7.1

Industry for employed persons 16 years and over—5.9

Mr. HORN. What I’m interested in now is the question I last 

asked to Dr. Katzen on the degree to which the law that applies 

to the census also applies to the States, and how do you work that 

out in their data collection? She mentioned the joint partnership 

legislation. I just wondered, is this a problem? 

Ms. RICHE. That’s not something that I’m aware of. We basically 

follow the OMB’s directive in our data collection, and I’m not sure 

how much leeway States have. I know they have some leeway. 

Mr. HORN. OK. We will get an exhibit in the record, at this point, 

between counsel at OMB and counsel in Commerce and Census, as 

to what effect, if any, Directive 15 has on States and localities in 

data collection related to Federal programs or federally subsidized 

programs through State action. 

[The information referred to follows:]

The Census Bureau/Commerce Department defers to the OMB on matters regarding interpretation of Directive 15.

Mr. HORN. Very good. We thank you, and we will count, then, on 

Ms. Gordon to explain the testimony. 

Ms. RICHE. Thank you very much. 

Ms. GORDON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

It has been mentioned before that the Census Bureau is undertaking two tests of alternative versions of questions relating to reporting race and Hispanic origin. The one that has been completed 

is a portion of the National Content Survey. There were four panels 

of that survey, each with approximately 6,000 households participating, that were focused particularly on analyzing options for reporting data on race and Hispanic origin. 

That test was not designed to collect data for relatively small 

population groups such as American Indians and Alaskan Natives, 

or detailed Asian and Pacific Islander categories such as Chinese 

117

and Vietnamese, or detailed Hispanic origin groups such as Puerto 

Ricans and Cubans. 

Instead, the survey tested questions on race and Hispanic origin 

in order to examine two areas that some have proposed be changed: 

first, the addition of an option for multiracial classification; and 

second, the sequencing of the questions on race and Hispanic origin. The test also enabled us to look at the effects of combining 

both those changes. 

There has been a considerable amount of discussion of the underlying reasons for raising the option of a multiracial classification. 

Let me just note why there is interest in reversing the sequencing 

of the race and Hispanic origin questions. 

There have been two persistent problems identified in decennial 

census evaluations. First, some people see those two questions as 

asking for the same information, and thus they do not answer one 

of them. And second, research from the 1990 census has shown 

that some Hispanics view themselves racially as Hispanic and do 

not identify with one of the specific racial categories identified in 

Directive 15, or that they find the question about race to be confusing. 

I would like to concentrate on the findings of the National Content Survey, looking first at the option for adding a category for 

people who view themselves as multiracial or biracial. First, about 

1 percent of persons reported themselves as multiracial when given 

that opportunity. Second, the presence of the multiracial response 

category did not have statistically significant effects on the percentages of people who reported as white, as black, or as Asian and Pacific Islander. 

But that last statement needs to be taken with some caution. Although the apparent decline in the proportion of persons who reported as Asian or Pacific Islander was not statistically significant, 

a substantial proportion of the write-in responses to the multiracial 

category included detailed categories of the Asian and Pacific Islander population. Consequently, we cannot rule out the possibility 

that adding a multiracial category would affect how this population 

reports race. 

Finally, including a multiracial category reduced the percentage 

of people reporting in the ‘‘Other’’ race category of the race question. 

The major findings on reversing the sequencing of the questions 

on race and Hispanic origin are two: first, placing the Hispanic origin question before the race question significantly reduced nonresponse to the Hispanic origin question. In other words, more people answered that question. Second, placing the Hispanic origin 

question first reduced the percentage of people reporting in the 

‘‘Other’’ race category. 

The second major test that we are conducting of questions on 

race and ethnicity is referred to as the Race and Ethnic Targeted 

Test. That test has a sample of about 112,000 housing units, drawn 

from census tracts with high concentrations of racial and ethnic 

populations, including American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Asian 

and Pacific Islanders, blacks, and Hispanics. 

Because of the targeted design, this test is not representative of 

the total population. Instead, it is designed to detect differences in 

118

responding to questionnaire variations among particular populations, including the American Indian and Alaskan Native populations, that could not be addressed by the National Content Survey. 

Results from this test are currently being evaluated in order to 

address a number of issues: adding a multiracial or biracial category, using a ‘‘check one or more category’’ approach to reporting 

race, placing the Hispanic origin question before the race question, 

combining the questions on race and Hispanic origin and then asking about ancestry in the second part of that same question, and 

several variations in terminology and placement of some of the categories. 

As has been noted a number of times, we plan to release the results from that study early in May. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy 

to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gordon follows:]

119


g:\graphics\45174.094
120


g:\graphics\45174.095
121


g:\graphics\45174.096
122


g:\graphics\45174.097
123


g:\graphics\45174.098
124


g:\graphics\45174.099
125


g:\graphics\45174.100
126


g:\graphics\45174.101
127


g:\graphics\45174.102
128

Mr. HORN. Thank you very much. 

Let me ask you about the Cambodian population. I happen to 

come from a city that has the largest number of Cambodians outside of Cambodia. Now, one of the problems here is, many of them 

came over along in their years, those that survived the murderous 

1 million deaths of Pol Pot, who unfortunately is still alive. Some 

of them probably went to Cambodia in the 1890’s, and were overseas Chinese and moved into Cambodia, but are now Cambodians. 

We face the problem, with a lot of these who came here as refugees and or immigrants, as to how well they are served by some 

Federal programs. Now, how do we deal with a population like 

that, on the census? Do we ask for refugee status? Do we ask for 

country of origin, if they are immigrants to the United States? We 

did at one time; I don’t know what your plans are for the year 

2000. 

I would like to hear a little elaboration on how we pinpoint that 

type of a population to see the degree to which they are served by 

relevant Federal programs. 

Ms. GORDON. The general approach the Census Bureau is taking 

to designing the questionnaire for Census 2000 is to ask questions 

that are required by law or by judicial decisions. That includes 

questions on ancestry, race, and Hispanic origin, as we have discussed before. 

I think the question, in terms of the data that will be collected, 

really gets back to how those people view themselves. If they view 

themselves as Cambodian, that would determine how they would 

respond to the questionnaire. If they viewed themselves as Chinese, then they would answer in that way. 

One of the alternatives that is being tested, namely to add a multiracial category, then recognizes the need for additional detailed 

information in a number of circumstances. The respondent is asked 

to write in the categories that the respondent identifies with. 

That’s a somewhat different approach from the other alternative 

that is being tested, which is to mark one or more boxes. 

Mr. HORN. How many industrial countries, such as we, Japan, 

Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain, use similar racial and ethnic questions in any census they might make? 

Ms. GORDON. I must confess, I really am not informed on that 

topic, but I could get you some information for the record. 

Mr. HORN. Could we put an exhibit in the record? I remember, 

when I was in the Department of Labor many years ago, our International Labor Bureau used to know all this, as to what labor laws 

were in other countries, and I assume somewhere in the Census 

Bureau there’s an expert on that buried. 

Ms. GORDON. I must confess, that although those experts are actually in my portion of the Census Bureau, they know so much 

more than I do. 

Mr. HORN. Fine. Let’s get a little exhibit that notes these categories for the United States, and what are the categories of both 

race and ethnicity advanced industrial countries ask, and how 

often do they ask them? 

[The information referred to follows:]

Based on a few censuses taken around 1990, industrialized countries outside the 

United States have not included a question on race, but sometimes have included 

129

a question on ethnicity. Japan, Germany, France, and Italy did not include either 

item. 

Great Britain included a question on ethnic group. The categories included BlackCaribbean, Black-African, and Black-Other, and the instruction mentions ethnic or 

racial group; in other words, the question on ethnic group includes a racial component. 

Canada included a question on ethnic origin. In addition, the following question 

was asked: ‘‘Is this person a registered Indian as defined by the Indian Act of Canada?’’

Mr. HORN. This question was asked earlier, but I want to ask 

you, since you are here on behalf of the director: Is there a rule 

of thumb that you would care to articulate as to the size of a group 

in the population before an additional category would provide useful information? 

I note that, in your written testimony, you stated that studies 

conducted, presumably by OMB or the Census Bureau, have led 

you to conclude that approximately 1 percent to 1.5 percent of persons surveyed would identify themselves as multiracial if given a 

chance. Is a total of less than 2 percent large enough to justify the 

costs associated with imposing a new category? 

Ms. GORDON. To the best of my knowledge, there is no rule of 

thumb to answer your question. That is one of the issues that the 

Interagency Committee and the OMB will have to wrestle with. 

Mr. HORN. Then, of course, the question was the degree to which 

census data collection policies, presumably reflected in OMB Directive 15 or vice-versa, the degree to which they apply to State data 

collection on relevant Federal programs, where there is a partnership between State and Federal Governments. What is your reaction on that? 

Ms. GORDON. We will be happy to work with your staff, and probably a number of other agencies within the Government, to try to 

identify that information for you. 

[The information referred to follows:]

The Census Bureau, being a federal statistical agency, is not directly involved in 

data collection by states. The data that the Census Bureau collects on race and ethnicity in censuses and surveys, which are used by state and local governments as 

well as by the federal government, are consistent with the guidelines in Directive 

No. 15 from OMB.

Mr. HORN. In a footnote to your written testimony, you noted, as 

Sally Katzen did, in response to an earlier question, that Directive 

15 already allows data on race to be collected in more detail than 

the five categories. Why has not the Census used this ability to address the issue of adding a multiracial category? 

Ms. GORDON. Under the current version of Directive 15, one is 

required to be able to aggregate the answers to more detailed categories into the categories that are specified by OMB. For example, 

in the Asian and Pacific Islander population, we have a very large 

list of different possibilities, but those can be aggregated back. 

If someone were to check a multiracial box, that might not be 

possible. For example, suppose that the person checked ‘‘multiracial’’ and wrote-in two categories, both of which were on the list of 

the four major categories from OMB. We would not know which 

category into which to place the data about that person, so, in that 

sense, we would not be able to aggregate to the OMB categories. 

Mr. HORN. On country of origin, I assume that’s a separate question somewhere in the census; is that checked? 

130

Ms. GORDON. Yes, that’s correct. 

Mr. HORN. Is that checked against what they have checked in 

these categories? 

Ms. GORDON. I would have to check to see if we currently are 

planning to ask country of origin. I know that ancestry is being 

asked. That’s a closely related concept but not quite identical. 

Mr. HORN. Well, we have, for example, a large Samoan population in California. If there is a question on where were they born, 

Samoa would show up. And if there’s a question on various categories, you could list Micronesian, Macronesian, Hawaiian, whatever. There are all sorts of different groups in the Pacific that want 

to be identified one way or the other. Filipinos do not want to be 

called Pacific Islanders. Under California law, I believe there is a 

separate collection for Filipinos. 

So what is your thinking on that? 

Ms. GORDON. Again, I think I will have to supplement my answer for the record. When we are asking about ancestry, I believe 

that it is the person who is responding who gets to make the decisions about what information to provide. There is an opportunity 

for that person to write in an answer. 

[The information referred to follows:]

In addition to the question on ancestry, there is a question on place of birth in 

which the respondent is asked to report U.S. state of birth or foreign country of 

birth.

Mr. HORN. The last question I have is, how will the delay in 

OMB’s decision on Directive 15 impact the Census Bureau’s dress 

rehearsal in 1998? Is there a gap as a result of the late decision 

in OMB? 

Ms. GORDON. I must confess that it would be difficult for me to 

say that OMB is late, considering that it’s our analysis of the Race 

and Ethnic Targeted Test that is an integral part of their decisionmaking process, and we have not yet completed it. But to the best 

of my knowledge, assuming we stay on the timetable that we have 

worked out with the people doing the dress rehearsal, the OMB, 

and the Interagency Committee, there will not be a problem. 

Mr. HORN. OK. 

Mrs. Maloney, 10 minutes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much. 

There appears to be some confusion about what the Census Bureau can do or cannot do in adding categories before they run afoul 

of OMB directives. I would just like to specifically and just clearly 

ask, could the Census Bureau add a multiracial category? Could 

the Census Bureau, on your own, change the way that the Bureau 

classifies Native Hawaiians? 

Ms. GORDON. I believe those are two separate questions. To the 

former, I believe not; to follow Directive 15, we could not. 

Mrs. MALONEY. You could not add multiracial on your own? 

Ms. GORDON. I believe that to be true. Again, I do want to check 

all of these answers for the record, to make sure that they are correct. I am not clear on whether we are directed, in terms of the 

phrasing of the question on Hawaiians. I know we are testing it, 

and it may be that those decisions are ones that are to be made 

by the Director of the Census Bureau. 

[The information referred to follows:]

131

The answer given during the hearing is correct. 

With regard to classifying data on the Hawaiian (or Native Hawaiian) population 

into one of the OMB racial categories, the Census Bureau follows Directive No. 15, 

which includes persons ‘‘having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far 

East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands’’ in the Asian 

or Pacific Islander category.

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, as you mentioned, you are conducting several tests. Have you tested a question similar to the one that is 

done in Canada, where race, ethnicity, and ancestry are intermixed? Have you tested that? 

Ms. GORDON. Yes. In the Racial and Ethnic Targeted Test, there 

is a question which has two parts to it. In the first part, race and 

Hispanic origin are asked together, so that one can choose to mark, 

for example, only Hispanic, or one can choose to mark Hispanic 

and black. One has a multitude of options there, but Hispanic is 

in the list of races that are given in the first part of the question. 

In the second part of the question, we ask for information about 

ancestry, and that is provided by the respondent as a write-in. So 

it’s not a list where they check it off, but they write in what their 

choices are. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Could a question like that be included on the 

long form? 

Ms. GORDON. I think that if the Office of Management and Budget were to direct that that was the way that racial and ethnic data 

were to be collected, we would have to use it on the short form. At 

the moment, race and Hispanic origin are asked on the short form, 

and ancestry is asked only on the long form. 

Mrs. MALONEY. In some of your earlier testing, the inclusion of 

a multiracial category, your results showed that only about 1 percent chose that category. So I would just like to know, if we include, based on your research, if we include a multiracial category 

in our surveys, will it provide data that we can use, since the response was only 1 percent in your test? 

Ms. GORDON. If the OMB were to make that decision, there 

would be information provided in the larger of the surveys. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics tested this option using the 

Current Population Survey. But, the Federal Government does conduct a number of different surveys, and in some of them, the sample size would probably be quite small, just because the survey 

itself is so small. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Some people have suggested that the controversy 

over the race question will increase the undercount of minorities. 

Is there any evidence to support this position? 

Ms. GORDON. I’m not aware of any evidence to support that position. I know that the Census Bureau is putting a great deal of effort into devising a variety of approaches to encourage everyone to 

participate in the census. I’m sure you’ve heard many times about 

the importance of getting people to mail back their questionnaires, 

in terms of keeping costs down. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I have a number of other technical questions, Mr. 

Chairman. I would like to present them to Ms. Gordon in writing 

so that she could get back to us in writing. In the interest of time—

I see Congressman Sawyer here and other Members of Congress 

who wish to testify, and I know their time is valuable—I would like 

132

to really yield back the balance of my time and submit the remainder of my questions in writing. 

Mr. HORN. Without objection, they will be submitted by staff to 

the director for the answer and to coordinate within census. 

Two last questions: Discussion has focused a lot on OMB Directive 15 and the 1980 and 1990 census. As the directive is only 20 

years old, the subcommittee is curious: How did the Census Bureau 

measure race and ethnicity prior to 1980? Do we have any data? 

I think one of the earlier questions suggested by members of the 

panel was the degree to which you can get consistency in a series 

when the question is changed, and how does the census adapt for 

that? 

Ms. GORDON. My own personal expertise is not as a historian, 

but I had some advance notice of the subcommittee’s interest in 

this topic. Your staff has a table that was prepared by the National 

Research Council that goes back only to 1850, but that gives you 

a flavor of some of the different ways that the question on race has 

been asked. 

Mr. HORN. Because we were interested, and we will put these in 

the record. If you could make sure that it relates to that chart. 

How were the categories decided? Were the questions consistent 

with those posed today, for example, in terms of the census language? 

Then, notwithstanding the current debate about Directive 15, 

what changes do you foresee the Census Bureau to the form it will 

use in the 2000 census? Are we going to change these questions 

substantially, do we know that yet, or do we all have everything 

up in the air until these field hearings and all the rest are over? 

Ms. GORDON. The specific questions will be submitted to the Congress by April 1 of next year, and those questions will track with 

the directives that we have from OMB. 

Mr. HORN. Very good. Without objection, we are going to put in 

the chart, ‘‘Modernizing the U.S. Census,’’ and this is Table 7.1, 

Census Race Categories, 1850 to 1990. 

[The information referred to follows:]

133


g:\graphics\45174.103
134


g:\graphics\45174.104
135

Mr. HORN. Well, we thank you very much for coming, Ms. Gordon. You’ve got a tough job, and you’ve handled the questions very 

well. 

Ms. GORDON. Thank you very much for including us. 

Mr. HORN. Now I would like to ask the gentleman from Ohio, 

Mr. Sawyer, do you wish to testify now, or would you like to wait 

till your other colleagues arrive—what is your pleasure? 

Mr. SAWYER. I’m happy to do whatever serves the subcommittee. 

Mr. HORN. It’s whatever you would like. 

Mr. SAWYER. Why don’t we hang here for a few minutes. 

Mr. HORN. Fine. OK. 

We now have the next panel, which is panel III: Norma Cantu, 

Edward Sondik, Bernard Ungar. Please come forward. 

Ms. Cantu and gentlemen, if you would stand and raise your 

right hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HORN. All three witnesses have affirmed, the clerk will note. 

We will begin with you. Norma Cantu is the Assistant Secretary 

for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education. We are glad to 

have you here, Ms. Cantu. 

STATEMENTS OF NORMA CANTU, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 

CIVIL RIGHTS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; EDWARD 

J. SONDIK, NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; AND 

BERNARD L. UNGAR, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL MANAGEMENT AND WORK FORCE ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

Ms. CANTU. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members 

of the subcommittee. 

I am pleased to be with you today representing the Secretary of 

Education. I welcome this opportunity to be with you today because 

we all realize the timeliness of the OMB responsibility to review 

the status of racial and ethnic categories used throughout Government. Certainly, the shape and configuration of our country is different from 20 years ago, when the last changes were made to racial and ethnic categories for use across the breadth of our Government. 

Today you have heard from the Office of Management and Budget regarding the work during the last 4 years in studying the many 

complex and interrelated issues regarding racial and ethnic categories, and you understand the administrative process OMB is 

using to develop recommendations for revising these categories. Accordingly, the Department of Education feels it is premature to 

comment one way or the other until definitive recommendations 

are released by OMB for public comment. 

While reconsideration of racial and ethnic categories is certainly 

appropriate in 1997, it is necessary to consider carefully how specific changes may affect accuracy of reporting, facilitate implementation of any changes that may be adopted by OMB, and preserve 

the reliability of longitudinal trend data. 

Careful consideration of these three factors, accuracy, implementation, and trends, is critical, not only for Federal agencies, but for 

our local and State partners who work with the Department of 

136

Education to collect these data and use the data to evaluate the 

condition of their communities and their programs. While, in this 

context, I am talking about education matters, I know that many 

other Federal agencies and programs have very well developed 

partnerships with a wide range of local government and State government programs and services. 

In this testimony, I would like to briefly discuss with you the 

three factors I identified above and to discuss with you the results 

of a study conducted in 1995 by the National Center for Education 

Statistics, in consultation with our Office for Civil Rights. 

So let me begin with the three factors: first, accuracy. In the Office for Civil Rights, we need the most accurate data possible on 

race and ethnicity, so that our continuing evaluations of past discriminatory practices are appropriate, our current and future investigations of alleged discriminatory practices are focused, and our 

ongoing work to identify emerging civil rights concerns and issues 

is relevant. 

Of course, we need to provide parents and guardians appropriate 

racial and ethnic categories, so, when requested, they may make 

appropriate decisions, decisions which may be regarding multiracial children. It is of interest to note that census data tells us that 

the number of children in interracial families grew from less than 

one-half million in 1970 to about 2 million children in this country 

in 1990. Even if there are questions about the accuracy of these 

numbers, no one can contest the significant growth of interracial 

families as we reach the end of the 20th century. 

Second, implementation. First, careful consideration should be 

given to the possible effect that revisions will have to racial and 

ethnic categories across a variety of programs in the Department 

of Education. For example, a thorough review should be made in 

all department programs regarding the possible effect of revised 

categories where the result might be that the number of students 

in one or more present categories might decrease. 

Second, we need to carefully consider the effects of any revisions 

to racial and ethnic categories on existing civil rights settlement 

agreements and on our ongoing monitoring of those agreements. 

Third, we need to ensure that our partners at local education and 

State education agencies are, wherever possible, using the same 

categories we use. 

Fourth, we need to consider any increased reporting burden and 

the implementation cost of adding new or revised racial and ethnic 

categories. The question we ask is the question you all have asked: 

Is the increased burden justified relative to new information we 

would expect to gain? 

Our third concern is trend data. Integrity in longitudinal trend 

information is a critical component in all programs in the Department of Education, including the Office for Civil Rights. If and 

when any changes are implemented and put into effect, there needs 

to be a bridge. And we agree with OMB on the principle that there 

need to be bridge studies to determine that data continuity is ensured. 

Now I want to address the NCES study, and that is a 1995 study 

conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, in consultation with our Office for Civil Rights. This was part of the reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
137

search that you heard described by OMB’s review of Directive 15. 

I understand that copies of the study have already been submitted 

to your subcommittee. 

The study asked what methods schools used to classify race and 

ethnicity, what categories they used, and how they reported that 

information to the Federal Government. This study used a stratified sampling design of 500 public elementary schools and 500 public secondary schools across the country. 

Let me summarize the main results: 55 percent of all public 

schools that the students’ race and ethnicity is collected when students initially register for schools in the district. Another 17 percent collect this information at initial registration and whenever 

the students change schools within the district, and about a quarter of public schools collect data on an annual basis. 

About 41 percent of public schools reported there are students in 

their districts for which the five categories were not accurately descriptive for them, and 83 percent of the schools reported that this 

represents 5 percent of their students who are affected by a lack 

of accuracy in the current five categories. 

The majority of public schools, that 73 percent, reported that 

they use only the five standard categories the Federal Government 

uses. Additional categories, such as Filipino, are being used by 7 

percent of all schools, and this is predominantly in the western 

States and also in urban districts. 

Public schools typically ask their parents to identify the race of 

the children, and about half of the information comes in from parents. But it is interesting to note that we also have a good section 

of identification that is done by the teachers. About 22 percent responded that the teachers or administrators observed the race or 

ethnicity of the students. A majority of the respondents said that 

the current categories are not a problem, that they were not a 

problem at all or a very minor issue to them. 

To close, I want to offer a written statement by Dr. Forgione, the 

Commissioner of NCES, which further explains the study in greater detail. And I ask that that statement be made a part of the 

record of this hearing. 

Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation. I would 

be pleased to answer any questions. 

Mr. HORN. Without objection, it will be put in at this point in the 

record. 

[The prepared statements of Ms. Cantu and Mr. Forgione follow:]

138


g:\graphics\45174.105
139


g:\graphics\45174.106
140


g:\graphics\45174.107
141


g:\graphics\45174.108
142


g:\graphics\45174.109
143


g:\graphics\45174.110
144


g:\graphics\45174.111
145


g:\graphics\45174.112
146


g:\graphics\45174.113
147


g:\graphics\45174.114
148


g:\graphics\45174.115
149


g:\graphics\45174.116
150


g:\graphics\45174.117
151


g:\graphics\45174.118
152


g:\graphics\45174.119
153

Mr. HORN. We thank you. That’s very helpful information, and 

we will pursue a lot of that in the question period. 

Next is Edward Sondik, Director, National Center for Health 

Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

Dr. Sondik. 

Mr. SONDIK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am very pleased to be here. I also serve as the senior advisor 

to the Secretary on health statistics, providing technical and policy 

advice on statistical and health information. 

I am very pleased to be here. We have taken a great interest in 

the OMB process to review the adequacy and usefulness of Directive 15. My specific focus today will be on the use of race and ethnicity in health research and statistics, and a necessarily brief discussion of the impact of a few of the changes that have been discussed. 

Let me turn first to the use of race and ethnicity in health research and statistics. Collecting data on health status, on our use 

of health services, on the relationship between risk factors and disease, are all crucial components of the National Center for Health 

Statistics’ mission and that of many of the other department components, including the NIH, especially as applied to vulnerable or 

disadvantaged population groups. 

Directive 15 has proven very valuable in fostering data comparability across these different sources. For example, we work 

closely with the census to assure that their population data can be 

used with our national vital statistics system to calculate death 

rates. 

Although the directive does not require the collection of race and 

ethnicity data, our health statistics data systems, and virtually all 

of those of the department as a whole, do collect such data. Nearly 

all of our data systems follow the standards established in Directive 15, and many collect substantially more detail, as has already 

been mentioned in this hearing, than called for. Equally important, 

many State, local, and nongovernmental entities have voluntarily 

followed this standard. 

A strong health data system is essential to identify health problems and find ways to maximize the health status of all Americans. 

Indeed, over the last decade, we have devoted considerable attention to improving the level of health information about specific racial and ethnic populations. 

It is important, however, that we maintain a clear focus on the 

limitations of race and ethnicity data, because these designations 

often conceal more than they reveal. Although data show that 

groups do differ in health status and the use of health services, 

such as, for example, the use of mammography, these differences 

depend, in a very complex way, on many factors. 

For example, education, occupation, income, community environment, culture, and individual behaviors and values, as well as discrimination and racism, all of these may play a role in effecting differences. In short, race and ethnicity are important analytic tools, 

but are only part of the picture. 

Reconsideration of Directive 15 is a key issue to the health and 

statistical agencies, and also to the human services and civil rights 

components throughout Health and Human Services. We in health 

154

statistics, along with many of our colleagues elsewhere in HHS, 

have appreciated the opportunity to be actively involved in the 

open and very participatory process that OMB has established. 

Our involvement has included considering the impact of the proposed changes across the Department’s various programs and providing formal comments in response to the initial Federal Register 

notice. We also have attended public hearings and encouraged and 

facilitated input into the process from many of our partners in the 

States and in nongovernmental organizations. 

Making changes as fundamental as those under consideration 

can be difficult and potentially disruptive. We appreciate the priority that OMB and the statistic community have placed on sound 

research as a basis for these decisions. 

Let me turn to a few of the proposed revisions to illustrate a 

health research and statistics perspective. Let’s consider first one 

of the most challenging methodological issues, multiracial identification. We recognize the need to capture information on the full 

range of cultural and racial diversity in our Nation’s population. 

However, we do not routinely have information that identifies individuals of multiple races, and this limits our ability to take a more 

complex view of race into account in our analyses and research. 

However, establishing a new category presents several practical 

and methodological challenges, and we will not have a sound basis 

for reaching definitive conclusions until research now underway, 

that you have already heard about, is completed and fully analyzed. 

If the category ‘‘multiracial’’ is to be included as one of the new 

response categories, there are important considerations in how this 

would be done. These include the need for understanding changes 

in trends and preserving the rich detail on multiple individual race 

groups with which a person may associate. Losing the detail to a 

single category could be a threat to our ability to monitor and protect the health of communities at risk. 

One way to maintain continuity and comparability is to augment 

a multiracial category with information about the multiple individual races that a person would report. Another possibility is to 

not use the multiracial category itself, but simply allow the individual to associate themselves with more than one racial group, 

which allows a number of options for followup questions, coding, 

and analysis. 

We believe that such potentially major changes should be made 

only after careful research. We have conducted one of several studies carried out by statistical agencies to explore the impact of certain approaches to collecting this data, and I have included a summary of the findings in my written statement. 

I would also like to mention the issue with respect to Native Hawaiians and to point out that redefining the category ‘‘Hawaiian’’

as Native Hawaiians, and suggestions that have been made to shift 

this newly defined Native Hawaiian category to either a new or 

separate category or a Native American category, would very likely 

disrupt our ability to monitor trends in these populations. Again, 

research is very important to understanding this. 

With respect to Hispanic origin, there is a question of whether 

Hispanic origin should continue to be maintained as a separate 

155

ethnic category or included as one of the race categories. We in 

health statistics have collected race and Hispanic origin separately, 

and many have found this useful for analytic purposes. We recognize, however, that many respondents have difficulty distinguishing these two concepts and, therefore, difficulty in responding 

to separate questions. 

Some studies have shown that changing our current practice, 

that is, moving away from separate race and ethnic questions toward a single question that includes both, will result in a smaller 

number of persons who report that they are Hispanic. Moreover, 

when individuals report themselves as Hispanic without the additional option of designating a race, studies have shown that there 

are unpredictable shifts in the estimates of the other racial categories. Further research, again, is important to understanding 

these shifts and to maintaining continuity between the current and 

any new standard. 

I see my time has expired. Let me just summarize and say that 

not only are we concerned with interview surveys where the questions are answered directly, we also have to be concerned with 

records and form-based systems, administrative record systems, 

and systems designed to collect data to protect against discrimination. 

In conclusion, we at the National Center for Health Statistics 

and the Department of Health and Human Services recognize the 

need to carefully consider these changes, and have worked with 

OMB, and will do that in the future. We have a very strong partnership with States and other governmental organizations, and we 

intend to work with them to assure an orderly transition for both 

our data sources and our data users. 

I, too, will be happy to answer any additional questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sondik follows:]

156


g:\graphics\45174.120
157


g:\graphics\45174.121
158


g:\graphics\45174.122
159


g:\graphics\45174.123
160


g:\graphics\45174.124
161


g:\graphics\45174.125
162


g:\graphics\45174.126
163


g:\graphics\45174.127
164


g:\graphics\45174.128
165


g:\graphics\45174.129
166


g:\graphics\45174.130
167


g:\graphics\45174.131
168


g:\graphics\45174.132
169


g:\graphics\45174.133
170


g:\graphics\45174.134
171


g:\graphics\45174.135
172


g:\graphics\45174.136
173

Mr. HORN. Well, we appreciate that very much. That’s a very 

thorough presentation, and I’m sure we have a lot of questions. 

Our last panelist on panel III is Bernard L. Ungar, the Associate 

Director for Federal Management and Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, which is part of the legislative branch. We 

look forward to your testimony. Please proceed. 

Mr. UNGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mrs. Maloney. I am 

pleased to be here today. 

I would like to focus my summary statement on two topics: one 

is GAO’s prior work in the area of collection of data, federally, on 

race and ethnicity, including the decennial census; and the second 

is the collection of data at the State and local areas on health and 

education. 

I would first like to point out or just highlight the pervasiveness 

of OMB Directive 15. If it is changed, it would certainly suggest 

there would need to be a change in the way data is collected 

throughout the country, and that would include probably many 

State agencies, many local agencies, all the schools in the country, 

and probably all of the employers in the country. So a change in 

Directive 15 could certainly have a wide implication. 

In terms of Federal data collection, in 1992 we did a survey of 

eight Federal agencies to determine the extent to which they were 

complying with the standards in OMB Directive 15. Fortunately, 

we found that they all were using the directive for the operations 

that we reviewed. 

We also looked, in the early 1990’s, at issues concerning how the 

1990 census was conducted, and there were really two issues we 

focused on. First, was the extent to which the Census Bureau was 

able to achieve a consensus on the race and ethnicity questions, 

and then, too, as now, it was quite controversial. The second issue 

related to the accuracy of the data. 

In the 1990 census, the major issue was the formatting of the 

question on Asian and Pacific Islander populations. Unfortunately, 

the Bureau had a late start in addressing that issue and, at least 

partly due to that late start, was not able to achieve a consensus. 

It therefore ended up using a question that it did not feel was quite 

as accurate or would produce as accurate a result as its preferred 

route. 

Fortunately, for the 2000 census, the Bureau and OMB did get 

an earlier start on their planning and involvement of advisory committees. However, with the controversy, I’m not so sure that that’s 

going to help a great deal in the end. 

In terms of an accuracy problem that the Census Bureau experienced with the 1990 census, as was indicated, many folks, particularly of Hispanic origin, had a problem answering the question on 

ethnicity and race. As a result, the Bureau ended up with inconsistent answers. Of course, that is one of the issues that it has been 

testing for the 2000 census. 

In terms of State collection of data, I would like to start with a 

little context. That is, there are at least five States that do have 

laws that pertain to the collection of race and ethnicity data that 

specifically identify the multiracial category as one that should be 

used. Now, these five States don’t all have the same type of legislaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
174

tion. They don’t all cover the same agencies, and they all have not 

been implemented. 

I would like to start with the health area. What we focused on 

in the health area was the collection of data on births and deaths. 

This data is collected by the States and sent to the National Center 

for Health Statistics under a cooperative arrangement that the National Center has with the States. As part of that arrangement, the 

Center has worked out, in consultation with the States, some guidance that includes model forms and instructions. 

We did check with nine States and found that, by and large, they 

were using the model forms, and they say they were following the 

instructions. In the case of collecting the data, the model form calls 

for a question on ethnicity, ‘‘Are you Hispanic?’’ Yes or no, followed 

by a block for the write-in of a racial category. 

There the person responding, for example, on a birth certificate—

it would usually be the mother or the father of the child—is asked 

to identify race. The person responding could put in ‘‘multiracial,’’

although the instructions would say, if they are, they are asked to 

identify the specific components or the specific races or ethnicities 

that he/she would identify with. 

It is interesting to note that, on the birth certificate, the race or 

ethnicity of the infant is not called for, or is not asked for. When 

the data is tabulated by NCHS, it’s the race or ethnicity of the 

mother that is tabulated. That was changed maybe about 10 years 

or so ago, as a result of some problems, I believe, that NCHS was 

having in getting the race and ethnicity of the infant in a consistent manner. 

Two States, Georgia and Indiana, have implemented laws that 

require the collection of data on multiracial categories across all 

State agencies, including health agencies. However, because these 

laws basically say that that multiracial information would be collected in those cases where there is a list enumerated of choices to 

choose from, they don’t apply to the birth and death certificates directly, because there is a write-in space; there is not a list, in general, that is used. 

In terms of education, again, the data that is collected by the 

States and at the local level on student enrollment is collected 

under a cooperative agreement or arrangement with the Department of Education’s, National Center for Education Statistics. Also, 

this data is collected as part of compliance with the civil rights 

rules that the department has issued. 

Like the National Center for Health Statistics, the National Center for Education Statistics has published guidance in concert with 

the States. However, there is no model form for the collection of 

data, and there is no suggested protocol for the aggregation of the 

data on the education side as there is on the health side. 

Now, contrary to the health side, we found quite a diverse range 

of practices at the local level in collecting data on race and ethnicity at the school level or at the school district level. Some 

schools use the five categories that are specified in OMB Directive 

15; some use less; some use more. Some schools have a write-in 

block. Most schools ask parents to fill in the information; other 

schools have that information recorded by an observer, a school emVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
175

ployee. It could be the principal, a clerk, or a teacher. There are 

some schools that have the multiracial category. 

I would like to point out that there is a big difference between 

the way the data is collected and the way it is reported nationally. 

There are many variations to the way the data is collected, and I 

would like to give some examples of those. 

Just in this area, for example, the District of Columbia, on its 

school enrollment form, uses a write-in category where the parent 

writes in the race or ethnicity, and then the school aggregates that 

data using the five categories. If there is another category used, the 

school may allocate the other category across the five. 

On the other hand, in the city of Alexandria, VA, the school system prelists the five categories and asks the parent to check which 

category applies. If the parent doesn’t, a person from the school 

will do that by observation, and the observation, we are told, is 

based on the parent who is registering the child. It may be the father or the mother. 

Another difference would be Fairfax County, VA, which, by administrative order, has established a multiracial category on its 

school enrollment form. Basically, it uses the five OMB categories 

plus the multiracial category. Fairfax County officials tell us that 

that category was included as a result of concern expressed by residents of the county. They say that they have been doing it for a 

couple of years, and it has not caused any problem. When they do 

report to the State, they allocate the folks who have checked ‘‘multiracial’’ to the other categories, and that’s in compliance with the 

State of Virginia requirement that the data must be reported to it 

in accordance with the five categories. 

Another and the last example would be the State of California, 

which you mentioned. It requires 7 categories, but I would like to 

point out an example, which would be the city of San Diego. This 

city collects data on 19 categories, most of which are subgroupings 

of the five, plus it has a multiracial category. Its protocol calls for 

a parent to select 1 of the 19. If the child is multiracial, one can 

designate ‘‘multiracial’’ and then write in the specific races or 

ethnicities that apply. 

There are three States that have laws that require the use of the 

multiracial category in school registration. We looked at a number 

of counties or local school systems in those States and found that 

they were actually collecting that data using the multiracial category. 

Finally, there are some States that have administrative orders in 

this area, but not laws. North Carolina is one of those. It has implemented the order. We did find that, in some cases, the local 

school systems actually use the category ‘‘multiracial.’’ In a couple 

of other cases there is a write-in space. 

That concludes my summary, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ungar follows:]

176


g:\graphics\45174.137
177


g:\graphics\45174.138
178


g:\graphics\45174.139
179


g:\graphics\45174.140
180


g:\graphics\45174.141
181


g:\graphics\45174.142
182


g:\graphics\45174.143
183


g:\graphics\45174.144
184


g:\graphics\45174.145
185


g:\graphics\45174.146
186


g:\graphics\45174.147
187


g:\graphics\45174.148
188


g:\graphics\45174.149
189


g:\graphics\45174.150
190


g:\graphics\45174.151
191


g:\graphics\45174.152
192


g:\graphics\45174.153
193


g:\graphics\45174.154
194


g:\graphics\45174.155
195


g:\graphics\45174.156
196


g:\graphics\45174.157
197


g:\graphics\45174.158
198


g:\graphics\45174.159
199


g:\graphics\45174.160
200


g:\graphics\45174.161
201


g:\graphics\45174.162
202


g:\graphics\45174.163
203


g:\graphics\45174.164
204


g:\graphics\45174.165
205


g:\graphics\45174.166
206


g:\graphics\45174.167
207


g:\graphics\45174.168
208


g:\graphics\45174.169
209

Mr. HORN. Well, that’s an excellent presentation and summary, 

as I would expect from the General Accounting Office. 

Let me ask you—and all three of you are welcome to answer this 

question—which Federal laws would benefit someone or the agency 

that is collecting the data if they mark certain racial or ethnic categories out of proportion to the actual numbers in the room? In 

other words, do local school districts gain money? I want to know 

the greed factor. 

I am worried when I see people are checking the race and ethnicity in a school, if the principal is out to get more money for that 

school. Now, I’m curious, No. 1, from GAO, have we looked at some 

of these programs with regard to that? No. 2, I’m curious, from the 

agencies, if the Inspectors General have done a random sample of 

this to go back and check data, and see if there is fraud being committed by school administrators? 

Mr. Ungar, can you start on the overall picture, and then we will 

work our way backward. 

Mr. UNGAR. Sure. Mr. Chairman, we recently have not looked at 

that in the manner in which you have asked. We were told by a 

number of school officials, in our current inquiry, that it is not uncommon for a parent to want to change the racial or ethnic designation of their child, for example, when they want to apply for 

college scholarships or admission. But we certainly did not look at 

any effort or any manipulation of the data at the school level. 

Mr. HORN. Well, there is no question we have seen some of that 

in college scholarship applications. If they can check Hispanic or 

Latino or whatever the category, and feel that that’s a benefit they 

will and that is a problem, obviously. 

Mr. UNGAR. Right. Yes, sir. 

Ms. CANTU. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. Yes. 

Ms. CANTU. We do have, at the Department of Education, a very 

thorough check by our Inspector General of any misrepresentations 

in any type of data. The program my office is responsible for 

verifying is the magnet school applications. We did not notice a 

greed factor, as you mentioned. 

But, as I mentioned, one of our first principles was accuracy. We 

do not want to see either an overcount or an undercount in any of 

the racial categories, so we do compare data reported by districts 

to other data bases, such as the census and reports that they file 

with our agency over time. So if there is an aberrant number, if 

all of a sudden a school looks very minority where in past years 

it was not, we will pick up the phone, we will verify, and we will 

check our sources. 

Mr. HORN. Has the Inspector General in Education done any reports in this area? 

Ms. CANTU. I’m not aware of that, but I can check for the subcommittee. 

Mr. HORN. Yes, please, and have the staff also followup on that, 

because you implied in a comment there that the Inspector General 

did look at the data. 

Ms. CANTU. The Inspector General looks at all reports. They are 

interested in any fraud, so they look at all reports. They would not 

210

exclude a category such as race; they would treat it like they would 

treat every other category. 

Mr. HORN. Well, I just wondered. In other words, they don’t seem 

to have done any work. They have looked at them, but either their 

suspicions were not aroused or there were no tips, or whatever, I 

guess. But I am curious as to whether a random sample is done 

of any data collection to see to what extent it’s really accurate. 

Ms. CANTU. I will check that for you. 

Mr. HORN. OK. Thank you very much. 

How about health statistics? That’s vitally important. 

Mr. SONDIK. I must say I can’t think of a law where the greed 

factor comes in. 

Mr. HORN. I can’t think of the greed thing, but I can think of inaccurate conclusions from data on various diseases. 

Mr. SONDIK. I don’t think there’s any question about that. All of 

this data, at least all that I can think of, is asked on a self-report 

basis. And I can’t think of a situation really where it would relate 

to something along the lines, if you will, of greed, or something 

along those lines. But it certainly may relate, since it is self-reported, to an individual’s desire to put themselves in one group or 

another. 

That’s one of the reasons why I think it’s so important that we 

have the research, and I’m very pleased that the research is currently underway. 

Mr. HORN. Then the question comes, who should make that judgment? I gather we have some where the mother is asked to make 

the judgment. I would simply ask, on the health side, is there any 

genetic information, as to recessive characteristics and all, that 

come through the mother and might not have come through the father? And does that affect the data in any way? 

Mr. SONDIK. Well, actually, Mrs. Maloney said something—I believe it was Mrs. Maloney—early on concerning the variation in genetics between peoples. The figures, as I understand them, are that 

if we look at differences between races, we see about 15 percent of 

the genome representing those differences. But within a particular 

race, we see an 85 percent variation. 

So there’s no question, of course, that factors are inherited, and 

we are concerned about particular genes that may be inherited that 

relate to particular diseases. But fundamentally, as is stated in the 

OMB directive, this is, in effect, a cultural anthropological, if you 

will, concept that is up to the individual to specify. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, though, when we use this information in health research, we need to couple it with all sorts of 

other factors to really make sense out of what is causing these differences. 

Mr. HORN. I yield 10 minutes to Mrs. Maloney. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

I would like to ask each of you to respond to this question, if you 

would like. One of the proposals on the table before us is to let 

each person check all the boxes they think apply. What is your reaction to that suggestion? Just go down the panel. Do you think it’s 

a good idea, a bad idea, and why? 

Mr. SONDIK. Well, we conducted a study that asked questions 

about birth certificates. We asked mothers of children less than 3 

211

years old, particularly multiracial mothers and Hispanic mothers, 

as to how comfortable they felt with filling out the boxes in various 

ways. And they seemed to be most comfortable with not checking 

a single multiracial box but choosing from a list or putting in a series of categories. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Ungar. 

Mr. UNGAR. Mrs. Maloney, I think there are two things that 

come to my mind. One is, the State of Michigan has legislation that 

would require the use of a multiracial category across State agencies, and the State put together a working group to sort through 

how to implement this. I think the group’s recommendation was to 

identify the specific categories and then add a separate box for 

multiracial, allowing the parent or the person to choose one category or check multiracial, and then identify what the races or ethnic composition would be. 

As I mentioned, the city of San Diego does something comparable 

to that, too. I think the whole issue in education has arisen from 

concern by parents; when they go to register their child, they feel 

there is not a box there that the child fits into. So this might be 

one way to accommodate that concern as well as address the concern about being able to aggregate the data into the categories that 

the Federal agencies need to have it. 

Ms. CANTU. Not taking a position either pro or con, but let me 

walk you through the pros and cons that I noted. The pros agree 

that it may assist in more reporting, because people will be able 

to check all the boxes. You get closer to accuracy, because you will 

get more responses. It may also help with keeping longitudinal 

data, because it will help you cross-walk it to earlier responses. 

The cons are, as far as civil rights enforcement, we will need a 

designation. Are they white or black; are they Asian or white? We 

will need a designation in order to be able to tell if we’re making 

progress with the Civil Rights Act, and checking all the boxes may 

not give us that information that we need to measure progress. 

And we would need to study that phenomenon. We would need 

to study ‘‘multiracial’’ as a group, because we hear in our office 

from individuals, several times a month, that they believe they are 

discriminated against because they are multiracial. One keen example was in the South where the high school principal would not 

allow biracial couples to come to a prom. And a young woman who 

was the product of a biracial marriage said, ‘‘What about me? I 

can’t come at all?’’ She was very offended by that principal’s decision. So we would need to collect information on that. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Ungar and Ms. Cantu, in your testimony 

today you highlighted the different ways that different school districts in America are compiling information on race and ethnicity, 

and it is very different. Even within one State, it’s compiled in a 

very different way. So, therefore, it’s not reliable, and I would 

think, statistically, it’s probably not dependable in many ways. 

Why doesn’t the Department of Education issue guidelines to 

school districts on how to do self-identification or observation, or 

issue guidelines to help make the responses uniform and therefore 

more usable in our country? 

Ms. CANTU. I’m speaking for our office. If we can supplement 

with other parts of the department, I will be happy to do that. But 

212

we’re trying to meet several interests here. We’re trying to, one, 

preserve students’ privacy, because there is a Federal student privacy act. So we don’t want to single a child out and say, ‘‘You answered this incorrectly,’’ or ‘‘We’re going to follow you up and somehow hound you until we get the right answer from you.’’ So we’re 

meeting the interest of student privacy. 

We also do believe the data is reliable, because we sample large 

enough groups. For example, our elementary and secondary survey 

samples one-third of the student population every 2 years, so at the 

end of 6 years we will have gotten a full universe. And that’s a big 

sample, considering how large the student population is in this 

country. So that’s quite reliable. 

We are trying to meet the interest of civil rights, too, in that perception matters. How a student is viewed by his teachers or her administrators counts here. So a student may come in with a self-concept that ‘‘I am biracial, half white, half black,’’ but the teacher 

treats her as if she were black, and puts her at the back of the 

class, and gives her a watered down curriculum compared to her 

white peers. So it matters, and so we’re trying to serve that interest, too, of collecting perception data, as well. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Would you care to comment, Mr. Ungar, because 

you did touch quite in depth on the disparity of this data? 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, Mrs. Maloney. I don’t know if I can comprehensively answer your question. I think it’s a little tougher in the 

school situation than it is in the health situation to have a standard form, perhaps. I think there are a lot of different practices at 

different schools, in terms of how this information is collected. 

I think it might be possible to come up with some standard categories and to have subgroupings of those along with the multiracial category. To a great extent, I believe that’s going to depend 

upon OMB Directive 15, though. I think that the States really do 

take their signals from OMB Directive 15 to a great extent. So, I 

think that the extent to which that is changed would basically 

heavily influence what is done at the State level. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Many biracial couples have written my office expressing the agony that they have in choosing between the race description for their child. They are asking Congress and OMB to do 

something about it. I would like to ask each of you, if you were sitting in this chair, what would you do about the multiracial question, the multiracial category? What is your wisdom on this issue? 

Dr. Sondik. 

Mr. SONDIK. Well, in some sense, I’m glad I’m not sitting in that 

chair. But in this chair, I look at it from a health statistics and, 

in particular, the chronicling of our social fabric and health research points of view. In doing that, what I guess I’m most concerned about, based on the fundamental notion, that this is a selfreported concept, is that we develop trends that are consistent, or 

that we are able to maintain trends. 

One of the areas where we learn the most about our health and 

our social fabric is in looking at these trends and how they have 

changed over time, and understanding the reasons for those. So I 

prize, I guess, and I would consider one of the key factors here, 

consistency, so that in any change that is made, that change be 

213

made in such a way that we can understand how the country has 

changed over time. 

That could mean a variety of options, and I don’t think all of the 

data, if you will, is in yet. That’s what OMB is currently considering. At this point, I’m not sure that I see enough to be able to 

make a specific choice. 

Mrs. MALONEY. You did testify earlier about the need for accurate data for the health measurements that you need for your research. How would the addition of a multiracial category affect the 

measurements that you are taking for health research? 

Mr. SONDIK. Well, it really depends on how it’s done. If it did not 

allow us to maintain the trends, it would damage our efforts. 

There’s no question about it. 

Mrs. MALONEY. You say it would damage your efforts? 

Mr. SONDIK. If it were done in such a way that we could not 

maintain the trends. For example, we’re looking at a particular racial group, if you will, and at some point in time we couldn’t continue to track what happens to that group over time, its response 

to risk factors, its morbidity, its mortality. That would be very difficult for us. 

But there are a variety of ways, of course, that this proposal 

could be done that would allow trends to be maintained. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Ungar, your wisdom. 

Mr. UNGAR. Well, personally, I think I would strongly consider 

the Michigan recommendation and proposal. I believe that that is 

one that the Census Bureau is testing. I don’t know what those test 

results are, so I don’t know what the testing has shown. But in the 

final analysis, I believe the decision will probably be based, at least 

partly on judgment and not totally on objective data. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Cantu. 

Ms. CANTU. I would try to offer a human response rather than 

a bureaucratic—Well, we have to have statistics, and they have to 

be accurate. The difficulty of this question is here because it involves human beings, not just ciphers. 

When they do call our office, we do empathize. We do tell them, 

if it is painful to respond, you are under no obligation to respond. 

There’s no penalty for declining to cooperate and fill in a box that 

you don’t think is telling the truth. 

We do explain why the information is being collected, that it is 

important for us to measure if the job is done in serving all students and helping all students reach their full potential. We try to 

humanize. There is a reason why the Federal Government does 

what it does, not because it’s always done that way, but because 

we have a current need for that kind of information, and it is presently valuable to the taxpayer. 

Mrs. MALONEY. How would a change, with a multiracial category, affect the implementation, the monitoring, the effectiveness 

of the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, and other antidiscrimination laws that we have put in place? 

Ms. CANTU. Not speaking for Department of Justice and other 

Federal agencies like EEOC and U.S. Commission, I do not believe 

you need to change any of the civil rights laws, because they have 

214

been interpreted by the courts in ways that pick up all types of discrimination. 

You mentioned the Lau case, that was a Supreme Court case involving Chinese-speaking children. Well, Chinese-speaking is not a 

category within the civil rights laws, but because it is a characteristic of national origin, it was picked up under coverage by the 

civil rights laws. 

So I am personally confident that the civil rights laws we have 

in place right now would continue offering protections to children, 

regardless of how we collect data. We have, however, testified that 

there needs to be an orderly process for phase-in so as not to be 

disruptive of civil rights monitoring. The same need we have is the 

need that the people who are conducting surveys and analysis need 

to be able to do that cross-walk, to connect data to prior historical 

information. 

I have full confidence in OMB moving forward in that orderly 

way. It’s one of their stated principles that they will not disrupt 

current data gathering, and I trust in that. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much. My time is up. 

Mr. HORN. Well, we thank you very much for that line of questioning. That’s very helpful. We are going to submit additional 

questions to each of you, and if you don’t mind, we will put them 

in the record at this point. We have a number of Members here, 

and we want to start with that panel. 

You have provided some very valuable testimony, each one of 

you, and we appreciate that. There will be maybe 10 or 12 questions we will send down. Please fill them out, and we will put them 

in the record, without objection, at this point. 

Thank you all for coming. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. Yes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Another Member who was supposed to be part of 

this panel unfortunately will not be able to be here, Maxine Waters. 

Mr. HORN. That’s the coming panel. We are not on this panel yet. 

Mrs. MALONEY. OK. Please, put it in the record. 

Mr. HORN. We will, eventually. We have two very distinguished 

gentlemen to join us, and possibly some others. Mrs. Meek, I believe, is also here. So Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Petri, Mrs. Meek, if you 

would come to the table. We appreciate your coming. 

You two are the House of Representatives experts on the census, 

based on your past incarnation. When there was a Post Office and 

Civil Service Committee, you were chairman, Tom, of the Census 

Subcommittee, I believe. So it’s a great pleasure to have you here. 

We hope we didn’t keep you waiting too long, but I assumed you 

were absorbing the current thinking in this area before your own 

testimony. So we are looking to both of you and Mrs. Meek to integrate it for us, and take all the time you would like. 

We don’t swear in Members. We assume they are telling the 

truth. I did swear all Members till last year’s chairman said, you 

might be insulting some of them, because we know once they lie 

to us once, we never listen to them again. So that’s the punishment 

around here. 

215

OK. Mr. Sawyer, since you were the former chairman, and Mr. 

Petri was the former ranking member, why don’t we start with 

you, Tom. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. THOMAS SAWYER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO; HON. THOMAS 

PETRI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE 

OF WISCONSIN; AND HON. CARRIE P. MEEK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Tom and I know what you and Mrs. Maloney are going through. 

Frankly, thank you for undertaking these hearings. The work that 

is embodied here is inevitably more complex than it appears on 

first blush, and important in the lives of millions and millions of 

Americans. 

As you may recall, in 1993, the Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and so forth, held hearings on Directive 15 and racial and ethnic data, and I think perhaps the best that I can do at this point 

is to try to recap what we learned at that point. 

The ideas that I would like to share with you today, if I could, 

basically fall into the groupings of what categories are and what 

they really are not, the purposes for which the data is collected, 

why race and ethnicity is a difficult matter to measure, how it fits 

with the desire for—and I suspect growing desire for—a multiracial 

category, and how to reconcile those important differences. 

First, let me suggest, above and beyond all, that OMB’s primary 

consideration in putting together Directive 15 to bring about consistency and comparability of data over time is important. It is perhaps the single most important element in establishing the categories. But in looking at that, I think it’s also important to understand what the categories are and what they are not. 

Clearly, they are not deeply grounded in genetic or scientific, anthropological bases. In fact, there is a specific disclaimer to that in 

Directive 15. Nor are they fixed and unchanging. As your questions 

earlier, Mr. Chairman, suggested, these categories have ranged 

widely over time, from a period of a time in the 1790’s, where they 

tracked questions of taxation and a variety of other measures of 

humanity, as a Nation, to questions of race and color, and then, in 

this century, ultimately, national origin. 

Categories are, in the end, largely culturally determined 

descriptors that reflect societal concerns and perceptions, and often 

the bias of a particular age. Categories, however, at least under Directive 15, are not used for determination for eligibility for any 

kind of Federal assistance, and there is a specific prohibition 

against that. 

The example that you raise of where private sector uses may be 

determinants of eligibility, for example, for scholarships is a consideration, but perhaps ought not to define what we are doing with 

Directive 15 and with Federal categories. Rather, as you have 

heard today, the Federal Government collects data for three main 

purposes: to enforce law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1973 being primary among them; to measure differential outcomes throughout society, in terms of incidence of disease and better health statistics, life expectancy, assimilation of 

216

immigrants, residential and economic segregation, educational attainment, and a variety of other important measures. And maintaining continuity and comparability from one decade to the next 

becomes important to Governments on all levels, for purposes of 

policymaking, and in the private sector for targeting investment. 

There is another reason, and that is to measure and understand 

change itself, which may be, in fact, the fundamental characteristic 

of our age. It is a key component of that kind of change to recognize that people’s view of themselves is changing. It’s one of the 

things that leads me to my third point, and that is why race and 

ethnicity is difficult. 

That kind of accounting is hard because it is imprecise in its 

character and highly subjective. OMB categories have sought to 

achieve a variety of goals that the categories that they use be discrete, that they be few in number, that they be easy to use, that 

is to say, convenient, that they are broadly understood and yield 

a consistent response. 

In doing that, you raised the question earlier of the Hispanic 

question and how that question itself might migrate and evolve 

over time, but, clearly, that’s not the kind of broad-based change 

that we are talking about when we are talking about multiracial 

questions. 

There are a number of different dimensions, though, when we 

ask the question about the multiracial, multiethnic category. You 

mentioned one: who makes the identification? Directive 15 allows 

for a self- or observer-made identification. 

In the census, over 60 percent of the households returned a completed form, but in most cases, only one person in that household 

made that identification, and that identification may vary, particularly from one generation to the next. Having consistency within 

that identification becomes very difficult. 

It is even more difficult when you recognize that the remainder 

of those identifications may be made by an external observer, outside the household. We’re not even talking about hospital personnel 

or school personnel; we’re talking about the census itself. We’re 

talking about asking at the door or asking a neighbor, or sometimes doing what is loosely referred to as ‘‘curbstoning,’’ where you 

just take the best guess that you can. 

It is important that we try to recognize that precision may not 

be possible, but that accuracy is diminished if we have too many 

categories or that they not have a shared understanding. 

Let me just mention one that has been in the news recently a 

great deal. Tiger Woods is a gentleman of diverse background. And 

I’m not going to suggest that we or I or any of us ought to suggest 

how he might answer a particular question, but rather only to recognize that his parents might have answered the question for him 

differently, that an outside observer might answer a question differently, and that he, himself, might have answered the question 

differently this year, 10 years ago, or 10 years before that. 

Trying to develop consistency, continuity, in longitudinal terms, 

is very important. In the end, I guess it comes down to this: that 

the concept of multiracial is not easily or uniformly understood, 

and therefore is unlikely to yield a consistent response in current 

terms. 

217

If we were to add a multiracial category, the question becomes, 

how far back would we draw the baseline? Would we ask individuals to trace their roots from the beginning of the Nation, from the 

end of the Civil War, the turn of the century, World War II, last 

year, 2000? I don’t know the answer to that question, but it’s a dimension that we all need to recognize, because the desire for selfidentification, as real and as human as it is, has changed over time 

and must be weighed against ensuring the usefulness of data for 

enforcing law and making policy. 

It is important to recognize that we are changing in ways that 

are not easy to measure or define, but that that change may be one 

of the most important characteristics of our age. To that end, I 

would strongly recommend that, first of all, as much as possible, 

we not try to make this decision by a show of hands on the floor 

of the House of Representatives, that you have a number of very 

scholarly people who have worked on this and tested these measurements for some time, and I hope that we can rely on them. 

I would hope, second, that we would be able to use the 2000 census itself, perhaps in the long form, to explore ways to measure 

change, to enable tracking of the way in which we define ourselves 

in racial and ethnic terms and in multiracial terms. To do this 

without disruption of continuity or comparability, and that we recognize that we, as a Nation, are on the edge of becoming 

sometwhether hing that may not have existed before. 

You asked the question about other industrial nations. I have 

spoken with the demographic bureaucrats of the former Soviet 

Union, which may be the only other nation on earth that has had 

the ethnic and traditional concepts of racial mix that the United 

States has had. But they were different in many ways, and perhaps 

the most fundamental of those is that they were not evolving and 

changing as rapidly as we are. 

We may be becoming, in real terms, the world’s first transethnic, 

transracial nation. It has gone beyond the limitations of region and 

geography, and found that what we heard reported about the genetic content of humanity really is true, that there are only fine 

gradations among the more than 5 billion of us. 

You have undertaken an important question, Mr. Chairman, one 

that will affect policy and practice for the next decade. I look forward to working with you in trying to resolve the dilemmas. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas Sawyer follows:]

218


g:\graphics\45174.170
219


g:\graphics\45174.171
220


g:\graphics\45174.172
221


g:\graphics\45174.173
222


g:\graphics\45174.174
223

Mr. HORN. Well, we appreciate that. 

Now I am glad to lead with your partner in the once Subcommittee on the Census, of Post Office and Civil Service Committee, Mr. Petri of Wisconsin. 

Welcome, Tom. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be here 

again. 

The only change that I really notice between appearing last year 

on some of these questions before your subcommittee and this year, 

is that Representative Meek is no longer sitting up on the platform 

to your right, but is here to my left testifying. I am delighted that 

she is continuing to be active, even though she has ascended to the 

appropriators’ group in the Congress. 

As you mentioned, I first became interested in the issue of the 

racial classification question on the census and other Government 

forms, and specifically the lack of a category by which people of 

mixed race ancestry can adequately define themselves, when I was 

ranking minority member on the Census Subcommittee of the old 

Post Office and Civil Service Committee, that was so ably chaired 

by my colleague from Ohio, Tom Sawyer. 

As our committee reviewed the results of the 1990 census and 

heard from many points of view on its merits and defects, I felt 

that the lack of a multiracial category was an oversight which 

should not be repeated in the 2000 census. This may seem to be 

a small matter to some, but if you think about it, one of the great 

sources of strength in our country is the melding of many great cultures and traditions from around the world into one. As each of us 

can take pride in being an American, we can also take pride in our 

own ancestral heritage and its contribution to American society. 

When we exclude an entire category of people on a Government 

form such as the census, we are denying these people recognition 

of their unique place in society. 

Here we have an official form of the U.S. Government telling 

them that they don’t quite fit in. In the case of multiracial individuals, we are asking them to choose between one part of their heritage and another, between one parent and the other, or possibly between four different grandparents. When Tiger Woods fills out his 

census form, why should he have to choose between his AfricanAmerican father and Asian-American mother? I am sure he is 

proud of both parents and both heritages. The current categories 

force him to deny half of his heritage. 

This principle is not dependent on the size of the group in question, and I would support including a multiracial category regardless of the number of people involved. But I do think it’s worth noting that this group, which is not recognized as a distinct category, 

is, in fact, growing by leaps and bounds. 

Interracial marriages doubled in the 1960’s and tripled in the 

1970’s. By 1990, the Census Bureau counted 1.5 million interracial 

couples. Naturally, with more interracial couples, we have more 

interracial offspring. Whereas there were less than a half million 

children of interracial couples in 1970, there are believed to be over 

2 million today. This may be small, as a percentage of the entire 

population, but it is obviously a significant number of people. 

224

I don’t think the choice of ‘‘Other’’ is an acceptable option. These 

individuals don’t think of themselves as an ‘‘Other,’’ and it suggests 

some type of second-class citizenship, almost an afterthought, in 

the population. 

Some have suggested allowing people to check more than one category if they are multiracial. While this comes a bit closer to addressing the issue, I think it would be problematic, myself. The statistics generated from this question on the census form are used in 

all types of research and assist public policymakers. These statistics will not be reliable if the categories add up to more than 100 

percent. 

For example, when developing social policy, we might want to 

know how those people living in poverty are divided along racial 

lines, or when considering health policy, we may want to know if 

a given disease has a disparate effect on one race or another. If the 

percentages of the races add up to more than 100 percent, it will 

cause confusion, and policymakers will not get a clear picture of 

the problem at hand. 

Since I introduced my bill in the last Congress to require the inclusion of the multiracial category, which has been reintroduced in 

this Congress as H.R. 830, I have had the opportunity to work with 

a number of organizations and individuals in the multiracial community. 

As I understand it, the subcommittee is planning on another 

hearing next month, and at that hearing you will hear testimony 

from some of the individuals who are active in these organizations. 

You will be hearing from some very sincere and dedicated people 

to whom this is a crucial issue. It’s about full recognition as an integral part of the American tapestry, the melting pot, that makes 

our Nation unique in the world. 

Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to make 

this statement, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas Petri follows:]

225


g:\graphics\45174.175
226


g:\graphics\45174.176
227

Mr. HORN. Well, we thank you very much. Have you put in your 

bill in this Congress yet? 

Mr. PETRI. H.R. 830, and we are thinking of renaming it the ‘‘Tiger Woods Appreciation and Recognition Act.’’ In any event, we 

would invite people’s review and co-sponsorship. 

Mr. HORN. Mr. Davis, the gentleman from Illinois, do you have 

any questions you would like to ask the panel? I want to get to 

Mrs. Meek. I want to make sure, before you have to leave, are you 

OK? Can we wait? 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I can wait, but I do have a question. 

Mr. HORN. OK. Our last witness this morning, Ms. Waters, cannot make it. Without objection, her testimony will go in the record 

at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Maxine Waters follows:]

228


g:\graphics\45174.177
229


g:\graphics\45174.178
230

Mr. HORN. We are delighted, Mrs. Meek, the gentlewoman from 

Florida, is here with us. Please proceed. 

Mrs. MEEK. Chairman Horn, thanks for giving me the privilege 

of being here today. 

I am glad to be here with two of my colleagues who have helped 

me, over the years since I’ve been here, with this question of the 

census. If I am not well educated, part of it is their fault. I served 

with you, Mr. Chairman, last session, in the 104th Congress, on 

the Government Reform Committee, in which I had strong interest 

in the census. 

I have some personal experiences with both sides of this issue. 

I have a son-in-law who is Japanese, and I have a granddaughter 

who is in a similar situation to that of Tiger Woods: one parent of 

one race, and the other parent of another race. I can understand 

the difficulty that will force these children to choose between parents when responding to a census question, but I want to remind 

you that that census question will not occur until 3 years from 

now, and it is extremely important that we realize that. As it is 

at this point, I have two things I want to bring before the subcommittee. 

On the other hand, I grew up in a very strongly segregated part 

of the country, and I went to graduate school in the State of Michigan, paid for by the State of Florida, because I could not go to any 

graduate school in Florida because of my race. They had graduate 

schools, but because of my race, I could not attend them. 

I know that Congress has passed several civil rights laws to try 

to end this horrible legacy of slavery, which we still face, and it 

was because of one of these laws, the Voting Rights Act, that I and 

two other Members of this Congress are here today, and perhaps 

more from other States, other southern States. But I know there 

are three of us from Florida that would not be here if it weren’t 

for that. 

These same civil rights laws which the Congress has passed protect other racial groups. While they may not be the descendants of 

slaves, they have suffered and still suffer from discrimination. 

These civil rights laws can act as Congress intended only with accurate and consistent information. 

I was glad to hear the former testimony regarding the slowness 

that this process should take. I also heard my other colleague say 

that, the Congress needs more information in order to make an informed decision on this. I commend OMB for its careful process. It 

has solicited comments, just as you are doing. It has held public 

hearings, such as you are doing. It has commissioned research. Administrator Katzen has testified today that OMB will publish its 

preliminary conclusions in July 1997 and its final conclusions in 

October 1997. 

I applaud what this subcommittee is looking at, Mr. Chairman. 

It’s going to take some time and some deliberation. I want to point 

out a few reasons why I think that the current OMB directive is 

a sound one. I would recommend that we remain within the confines of the OMB decision, and I want to tell you why. 

Multiracial categories apply only to the children of interracial 

marriages. They do not apply to the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of these interracial marriages. For example, the child of a 

231

black father and a white mother would be multiracial by what we 

want to see on the census. But if their child were to marry another 

multiracial child, the grandchildren would be considered black and 

not multiracial. So a child with two black grandfathers and two 

black grandmothers would be a black child, probably not a multiracial child. 

I understand how Tiger Woods and the rest of them feel, but no 

matter how they feel from a personal standpoint, we’re thinking 

about the census and reporting accuracy, so that Government and 

other agencies can make accurate decisions. Because historical discrimination has been against persons that have been assigned to 

a single racial category, there is really no history. More than likely, 

the racial categories that these records of discrimination have been 

applied to were black. 

There’s no court or any legislative or legal record of discrimination against multiracials. So it’s going to be, perhaps, prohibitive 

for multiracials to get the advantage of the discrimination which 

black citizens of this country have faced. Without such a record of 

discrimination, courts will have a hard time claiming discrimination against multiracials. 

This young man in golf would have a difficult time today, Mr. 

Chairman, claiming discrimination, because there is no legal record 

in the courts that will back him up with any claim. There’s no history toward that. From a personal point of view, I think he is absolutely right. Further, as the category is presently drafted, any history of discrimination against multiracials will be moot after one 

generation, if I am correct in my assumption. Multiracial categories 

will make it difficult for Government agencies and civil rights organizations to track ongoing civil rights violations. 

Individuals like Mr. Woods, who designate themselves as multiracial on the census form, will not thereby reduce by any amount 

the discrimination they face. I’m sure Mr. Woods has recognized 

that by the statements that were recently made at the Master’s 

tournament about him. So there is no way you will have a chance 

to do this. Usually, the amount of discrimination a person feels, 

and would perhaps want to followup on it, is based on appearance 

and not on racial classification. 

The multiracial category will just make it more difficult to identify where discrimination has taken place and where it has not 

taken place, because it will cloud census counts of discrete minorities who have been restricted to certain neighborhoods and, as a 

consequence, to certain schools. It will cloud the census count of 

these discrete minorities who are assigned to lower tracks in public 

schools, and you know that they are. It will cloud the census count 

of discrete minorities kept out of certain occupations or whose 

progress toward seniority or promotion had been skewed. The list 

goes on and on, Mr. Chairman, to include civil rights reporting in 

the arenas of lending practices and the provision of health services, 

and beyond. 

Census data is used in all levels of Government, so the impact 

would be at the State and local levels, as well. Further, the proposals which are now being offered would change not only the census but all Federal programs reporting and statistical activities requiring data on race and ethnicity. Thus, the negative impact on 

232

the ability to track ongoing civil rights violations would be greatly 

magnified. 

Last, Mr. Chairman, multiracial categories will reduce the level 

of political representation for minorities. It is unlikely that majority/minority districts will be created for multiracials, especially 

given the lack of recorded discrimination against them, within the 

meaning of the Civil Rights Act. I think it would have a negative 

impact on that act. 

As pointed out by the coalition of groups opposed to the proposed 

modification of OMB Directive 15, in 1994, the experience of other 

nations with multiracial categories, such as Brazil and South Africa, has been that such categories increase rather than decrease social stratification and stigmatization on the basis of race. 

So I think, Mr. Chairman, in summary, that my recommendation 

is that we stick with the position as taken by the coalition of 

groups opposed to this modification and make very slow changes in 

Directive 15, because, otherwise, our records on civil rights will certainly not be helped by this. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Carrie P. Meek follows:]

233


g:\graphics\45174.179
234


g:\graphics\45174.180
235


g:\graphics\45174.181
236


g:\graphics\45174.182
237


g:\graphics\45174.183
238


g:\graphics\45174.184
239


g:\graphics\45174.185
240

Mr. HORN. We thank you for your testimony. 

Now, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me appreciate the testimony of all three of my colleagues. 

Let me also apologize for not having been present when Representative Sawyer was testifying, but I have had an opportunity to scan 

through your testimony. 

My question is, if we move to multiracial categories—and, of 

course, all three of the Members could, in fact, respond—is there 

a scenario that we could see where individuals would be counted 

twice, or maybe three times, once in the multiracial grouping, and 

then a split-off of the other groups of which they are a part? So the 

question becomes, would we view that as any kind of possibility, 

especially given the fact that OMB has suggested that the purpose 

of looking at this is to be able to use it as a management tool, as 

a way of being accurate, in terms of knowing who we are and 

where we came from? 

Mr. SAWYER. I can go first. Your question goes directly to my 

conclusion. My belief is that it is important to sustain the continuity of the existing categories, perhaps as they evolve, in small 

ways, to make sure that they are better administered. The Hispanic category is a good example of that, where the order of the 

question and the way in which it is asked can make a substantial 

difference in the kind of response. 

But that notwithstanding, the numbers can, as you suggest, continue to be aggregated in the form in which they provide comparability from one decade to the next. But it is also true, as you 

suggest, that the way we understand who we are is changing, as 

well. This is not something that ought to surprise us. 

Just to name a few, we have measured race and ethnicity for 

questions of free versus slave, questions of color and race, for purposes of taxation, for purposes of keeping track of migrant populations and non-Western European immigration. All of these things 

have been of interest at various times in the 200 years of our national history. 

Today, as we become a more blended population, understanding 

how that blend is taking place and how we perceive ourselves in 

that blend is, I think, an important characteristic that we ought to 

begin to measure. But we shouldn’t confuse the two. Keeping the 

management tool, as you suggest, on one hand, and maintaining 

the ability to understand how we are changing, on the other, I 

think can both be done within the census and yield valuable information for all of us as a Nation. 

Mrs. MEEK. May I address that, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. HORN. Why don’t we just go down the line. 

Mrs. MEEK. Go ahead, Mr. Petri. He’s trying to yield to me, but 

I’m not accepting it. 

Mr. PETRI. I actually covered this in my prepared statement, 

when I indicated that I think it would be good if we could. It’s a 

good question. 

Some have said, well, why not just let people check more than 

one category? I think that is an option, but the difficulty there is 

that, when they start running it through, you end up with more 

than 100 percent, and that could lead to some confusion. So I 

241

think, for some purposes, it might make more sense, for the long 

form or other ways of doing the data, to try to break down that category for analysis purposes. 

But from the point of view of the individual citizen who is being 

asked to fill this form out, to give them the feeling either that 

somehow they are not fully American, and therefore they are in 

some other category, psychologically, I think is a mistake. Also, to 

try to force them to accept or to associate with one parent or with 

the other parent, really is putting kids and families in a very difficult position. They don’t want that. That’s not the way they think 

of themselves. They think of themselves as multiracial. 

We are talking about several millions of people, and a rapidly 

growing number, in our country. If this is to be a snapshot of 

America, there is someone standing over there who is not in the 

picture right now, and we would like to include him or her in the 

next census’ snapshot. 

Mr. HORN. Mrs. Meek. 

Mrs. MEEK. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

To my colleague, Mr. Davis, I recognize and empathize with everyone’s individual right to be identified with whatever ethnic or 

racial name that they choose. But I think the question here is, 

should the census create a new mixed race category? And I would 

say, naturally, no, because that particular category is so vague 

that, 90 percent of the people filling out the census, it would take 

them all day to determine how many categories they are in and 

how to fill out the census figure. 

As I said before, it would weaken the Voting Rights Act, and I 

would be the last person to ask for that. There would be no commonality in this category. For example, let’s say if an Asian and 

a Hispanic have a child, is that child of mixed ancestry? Yes. If a 

black and a white have a child, is that child mixed? The answer 

is yes. But does the black and white child share the same race as 

that Asian-Hispanic child? Clearly not. So you can see the confusion and the lack of commonality in separating, in terms of our 

census. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I raised that question a little bit earlier, 

in terms of the differences in mixes, and I certainly agree with you. 

If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one additional question. 

Mr. HORN. Sure. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I associate myself most directly with the 

testimony of Representative Meek. 

I would like to ask if we could respond to some of the fears that 

were raised in her testimony, relative to the diminution or dilution 

of voting rights strength on the part of some minority groups, the 

inability to really track and make use of the data to effectively enforce components of civil rights legislation, and the whole business 

of looking at the question of who is disadvantaged and where, and 

the question of where individuals live as a factor that needs to be 

considered when we look at the whole question of entitlement opportunities as a result of race and ethnicity. 

Mr. SAWYER. I can begin. 

I have argued, since the hearings that we had in 1993, as a product of the lessons that we learned in 1990, that the categories are 

242

important for precisely the reasons that you suggest, that they 

need to be discrete, few in number, easy to use, broadly understood, and yield consistent responses, no matter who may be answering the question, whether you are answering the question 

about yourself or about another member of your family, of your 

generation or another, or whether, in fact, it is an outside observer 

responding to the question. 

The reasons are that it becomes extremely difficult to enforce the 

laws of this Nation guaranteeing protection against discrimination, 

and it becomes incredibly difficult for those who track other kinds 

of outcomes, health status, life expectancy, assimilation, and as you 

suggest, residential and economic segregation, not only in terms of 

formal civil and voting rights. The ability to enforce the fundamental guarantees of equal protection under the laws of this Nation is grounded in the ability to do aggregate measures of the Nation, not for the purpose of individual identity, as important as that 

may be to individual Americans, but for the purposes of guaranteeing aggregate rights for all of us, so that we all have equal protection under the law. 

Having said that, I identify that portion of what I’m saying entirely with Mrs. Meek’s testimony. I also believe, however, that one 

of the critical characteristics of change that is going on in the country right now is in terms of the blur that is becoming traditional 

racial and ethnic determinations. 

In that sense, I believe that the census becomes a vehicle that 

can be used, particularly if we focus on the long form side, in measuring the characteristic of that change. If you keep the two separate, as your first question implied, then you can do both without 

destroying either, and, in fact, perhaps illuminating both in ways 

that we have never done before. 

Mr. HORN. Does the gentleman have any other questions? 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Do you have a response? 

Mr. PETRI. I can make a little stab at it. I think that I understand the concern that somehow having this category might make 

it more difficult to enforce civil rights laws and protections for particular elements of the community, but I also think that it is important to recognize that, while we have not made uniform progress, 

we have made considerable progress in this area. What we don’t 

want to do is freeze ourselves in time, and because we’ve made 

progress, try to deny it and maintain rigid categories, regardless of 

the progress that has been made, because it advantages certain organization officials, or bureaucrats, or other people who were hired 

to get us moving down this road. 

In other words, we don’t want to freeze us in time or deny it if 

we are making progress. I think the fact that these statistics exist 

and that people are trying to move beyond some of these stereotypes is actually a plus, not a minus. While we shouldn’t try to 

gloss it over or say there aren’t a lot of problems—there still are—

we ought to try also to accommodate progress when we make it. 

This census broadening is in response to a legitimate concern of 

real people, and I think the fact that it is being discussed is a sign 

of progress. Whether we are at the point where we want to move 

to this step or not, whether we should do it through legislative action, or the Census Bureau should just recognize the growing numVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00248 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
243

ber of people who would like this category and make this change, 

is an interesting question and something that you all will be pursuing. 

I am very happy, I should conclude by saying, that they are taking this very seriously. They have been doing surveys. They are 

having professionals review it. And I think, according to the kind 

of criteria that they traditionally use as they review census questions and revise them, they might well decide this is an appropriate step. They still have a little while to make that decision, and 

I know you will be monitoring as it moves forward. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mrs. MEEK. I just want to say, I appreciate Mr. Petri’s approach 

to this, and I agree with him that there should be some consideration for the people he is mentioning, for all of them. I wish we 

were living in an America where we did not have to focus on race. 

But I don’t see anything changing that much, even in the next 10 

years, in this country. 

As I look at it, race seems to be one of the most important references in this country. And I must agree with Mr. Sawyer that 

unless that is considered, if we mesh them all in a multiracial category, you will find out they get so enmeshed that there will not 

be any consideration for those groups of people who have not historically received equal rights under the law. 

It would require, I think, a whole new effort by Congress, over 

and over, to level the playing field, so that everyone in this country 

could be treated equally. I think this is going to be a hard thing 

to do, Mr. Chairman. If the Census Bureau goes to using these 

kinds of data, in terms of multiracial identify, it’s going to be very, 

very difficult, if not impossible. There will be a lot of confused people, a lot of confused agencies, as well. 

I understand this thing of the melting pot, but we are not looking 

at that in all of our considerations. We are not looking at there are 

a lot of multiracials in this country. Other people are coming from 

other countries; they are mixing in with people in our country. 

That’s true. But why should we consider it just for the census, 

when it has not become an overall consideration? 

So I plead to the subcommittee, and to people who will come forward, to think of that. If you begin to take away what the Voting 

Rights Act has given us, take away what this wonderful Congress 

has given this country in trying to equalize civil rights, it will be 

very difficult. If you remember, that came up with Plessy v. Ferguson. Those of us who have been around a long time, we can understand and remember those cases and what they mean. 

So I think that everything I’ve heard here today is very positive, 

Mr. Chairman, and it calls for deliberative kinds of actions. Thank 

you. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, very 

much. 

I would like to thank the panel for some very thoughtful responses and very serious testimony. I certainly would agree with 

those who suggest that we’ve made progress in this area of blending and melting. Actually, we’ve come a long, long way. But I’m 

also reminded of a song that we often sing at the church I attend, 

244

when we’re trying to get to heaven, and that is that we’re still a 

long way from yonder shore. 

So we’ve got to keep pressing on. We’ve got to keep moving 

ahead. And I think, as we move a little further, then I think I will 

have a different level of comfort that this will turn out to be positive and not negative. And certainly, I thank you very much. 

Mr. HORN. Mr. Petri, would you like any final word on this? 

Mr. PETRI. No. 

Mr. HORN. Let me just suggest that this is simply the first of at 

least three hearings, and that one should not assume any action 

will be taken by this subcommittee based on what witnesses say 

or Members say from the dais. We are going to look at this very 

thoroughly. We would hope that the Office of Management and 

Budget, and the Census Bureau look at this very thoroughly, and 

that no door is closed. 

I think what we want is an accurate census that does reflect the 

diversity of this country. There are a lot of ways to get at that and 

to solve these problems, from both perspectives. Socioeconomic 

class still remains a major factor in this country, in terms of discrimination. It’s not just racial discrimination; it’s not just ethnic 

discrimination. Having spent, I think, 25 years of my life on these 

issues, I’ve seen all the arguments, and they are held very closely 

by many. 

But we do need the data to carry out some laws that we have 

on the books, and we also need to have data accurately reflect the 

nature of the demographics of this society, which is certainly a 

multicultural, multiracial, and multi-anything you want to put at 

the other end of the hyphen. 

So, without objection, I am going to include Maxine Waters’ testimony. She wanted to be here very much this morning and couldn’t 

make it. It will be put as part of this panel. 

As I suggest, today’s hearing was the first of our subcommittee’s 

review of the important issue. Our next session will be on May 22, 

where we will receive testimony from both individuals and representatives of professional groups in this area, advocacy groups, 

interest groups, and so on, and we will also have some of those 

groups, newer ones, at the last session that we hold a little later, 

perhaps, in June. 

Once OMB has acted on this, we will take a look at what they 

have done. We will again have, perhaps, them and the Census Bureau to testify on how they came to whatever conclusion they came 

to. 

In closing this hearing, I want to thank the staff that prepared 

it. On my left, your right, is J. Russell George, the staff director 

and counsel for the Government Management, Information, and 

Technology Subcommittee, who has had a large responsibility in 

this hearing; Joan McEnery, right back here, who shortly will be 

leaving us for the U.S. Senate, otherwise known as ‘‘the other 

body,’’ professional staff member; John Hynes, professional staff 

member, next to her, for the majority; and Andrea Miller, the clerk, 

next to Mr. Hynes, for the majority. 

On the minority side, working on this hearing were David 

McMillen, professional staff member; Mark Stephenson, profesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00250 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
245

sional staff member; Ellen Rayner, chief clerk for the minority; and 

Jean Gosa, clerk for the minority. 

And our faithful court reporter, Charlie Smith. 

We are going to have the hearing record left open for 2 weeks, 

if anybody would like to submit anything. We have a series of questions we have sent to OMB, Census, and the relevant agencies. 

So thank you very much for coming. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(247)

FEDERAL MEASURES OF RACE AND ETHNICITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE 

2000 CENSUS 

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1997 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding. 

Present: Representatives Horn, Sessions, Sununu, Maloney, and 

Davis of Illinois. 

Also present: Representative Norton. 

Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and counsel; John 

Hynes, professional staff member; Andrea Miller, clerk; David 

McMillen, minority professional staff member; and Ellen Rayner, 

minority chief clerk. 

Mr. HORN. The Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology will come to order. 

This is the second in a series of hearings on the topic of how the 

Federal Government classifies the people of this country according 

to race and ethnicity. We can all agree that this issue is both complex and important. It is a public policy issue, yet it is also a personal identity issue. 

Currently, the government classifies people according to five categories of race and ethnicity. The race categories are black, white, 

Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaska Native. 

The ethnic category is Hispanic. The question is whether these categories are adequate to measure our society today and into the 

coming decades. 

The race and ethnic classifications under the Office of Management and Budget’s Directive No. 15 are vital to the implementation 

of numerous Federal laws and regulations. Data on race and ethnicity are required by Federal statutes covering issues such as voting rights, lending practices, provision of health services, and employment practices, among others. The data are also utilized by 

State and local governments for legislative redistricting and compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. 

For several years now, there has been an organized movement of 

individuals who argue that the current categories are not complete, 

because people with multiracial backgrounds cannot fit into one of 

248

these five categories as required on various Federal forms. Their 

argument has recently received a dramatic and inspiring illustration, Master’s champion Tiger Woods. 

Where, people are asking, does Tiger Woods fit on the map of 

race in America? Some argue that existing categories need to be 

redrawn to give multiracial individuals one of their own. Others 

say there is no coherent racial identity that could be called multiracial. The only effect, say opponents, would be to diminish the importance of race in analyzing the fairness with which Government 

benefits and services are delivered. 

Is it possible to reach a compromise that satisfies both public policy and individual desire? Perhaps we will get an answer today. In 

order to do so, we will need to be very clear about the issues involved. We are joined by some of the preeminent experts on this 

issue. 

As chairman of this subcommittee, I would like to touch briefly 

on one fundamental issue. The five categories of race and ethnicity 

in question were established on Federal forms for the purpose of 

remedying the wrongs of past and present discrimination. Data 

gathered according to these categories are required by a variety of 

Federal statutes, most of which were required by the civil rights 

movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s. 

Our discussion today must begin with the question of why we 

gather data on race and ethnicity. There is no hope for agreeing on 

the issue of what data we should gather unless we can agree on 

the purposes for which the data will be used. I hope our witnesses 

today will address this fundamental question: Is the chief purpose 

of measuring race and ethnicity to help specific racial and ethnic 

groups receive equitable treatment in our society? 

If the witnesses should answer no to this question, it is incumbent upon them to explain their alternative view of the primary 

purpose for utilization of these data. If witnesses answer yes to this 

question, then they must explain how their proposals for the current categories fit that purpose. 

Our first panel will consist of Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii. 

He is a long time advocate for Native Hawaiians. We are very 

pleased to welcome him here today. 

The second panel will feature Harold McDougall, the Washington 

bureau director of the NAACP; and Eric Rodriguez, who is a policy 

analyst at the National Counsel of La Raza. These two organizations bring highly respected voices to this discussion. 

Also on the second panel are Susan Graham, president of Project 

RACE, Reclassify All Children Equally, and her son Ryan Graham 

who is multiracial. They appeared before Congress in 1993 to testify on behalf of a multiracial category, and since that time have 

been very active as multiracial advocates at the State and local 

level as well as the Federal level. 

The third panel consists of Ramona Douglas, who serves as president of the Association for Multiethnic Americans; Helen Samhan, 

the executive vice president of the Arab-American Institute; 

Jacinta Ma, who is staff attorney at the National Asian Pacific 

American Legal Consortium; and JoAnn Chase, executive director 

of the National Congress of American Indians will round out that 

249

panel, along with Nathan Douglas, who is a member of the Interracial Family Circle and a parent of a multiracial child. 

Our fourth panel features three scholars with strong backgrounds on issues of demographics, race, and ethnicity. Mary Waters is a professor of sociology at Harvard University. Dr. Harold 

Hodgkinson is director of the Center for Demographic Policy at the 

Institute for Educational Leadership and Dr. Balint Vazonyi is the 

director of the Center for American Founding at the Potomac Foundation. 

We welcome all our witnesses today, and look forward to their 

testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:]

250


g:\graphics\45174.186
251


g:\graphics\45174.187
252

Mr. HORN. I will now yield to the ranking Democrat at this point, 

Mr. Davis of Illinois, who is prepared to make some opening remarks. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me also welcome the panelists and I thank you for the opportunity to make a few brief comments. 

I understand that today’s hearing is to focus on the possible 

change of Directive 15, which specifies the definitions of race and 

ethnicity for legal, administrative, and statistical purposes, since 

OMB will decide this summer whether or not to change the definitions of race used by the Federal Government. 

I feel that it should be noted that the possible change of this policy has many implications to it, in that Directive 15 is used 

throughout the Government in policymaking, and is key to implementing numerous Federal laws. 

Since this issue first began to gain public attention, we have 

heard from a number of groups, organizations, individuals, and 

agencies. They have raised questions that if we get into multiracial 

identity, then how would this effect the protection of voting rights 

laws, reapportionment, civil rights laws, lending practices, employment practices, et cetera. 

I realize the personal nature of today’s topic, and also acknowledge the desire of those of multiracial heritage to be able to fully 

express themselves. But I also need to convey my worries about the 

adverse effects that the multiracial category may imbue. 

Since census information is used for civil rights enforcement and 

policy purposes, and given that we the Federal Government do not 

currently have a method for ensuring accurate collection and analysis of results in a multiracial category, I am generally opposed to 

this issue being addressed in the Census 2000. It is too soon I 

think to implement. 

Until a process to collect meaningful, accurate, or specific racial 

and ethnic data that remedies past, current, and/or even present 

future discrimination is in place, I feel that the multiracial category could jeopardize the civil rights or many minorities as well 

as may provide inconsistent and damaging effects on overall racial 

counts. 

I have concerns as to how the fusion of race and ethnicity would 

challenge the ability to administer and enforce civil rights laws 

against discrimination. I understand that a multiracial category 

may make sense for the first generation. But when you begin to 

look at it long term and those multiracial children marry others, 

their children are then classified as multiracial, and it could go on 

and on. 

I welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters, and look forward to hearing the opinions of the experts. I trust that after all 

is said and done that more will be said than done. And that we will 

end up with a system that accurately reflects the status of minority 

groups in this country, the problems that we have faced, and possible remedies to correct those past ills, and then move ahead. 

And I thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]

253


g:\graphics\45174.188
254


g:\graphics\45174.189
255

Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman. 

And I now recognize the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. 

Sununu, for an opening statement. 

Mr. SUNUNU. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have only a few brief 

remarks. Principally to thank you and the subcommittee for putting together a hearing on this extremely important issue. 

Americans are very proud of our reputation as a melting pot 

country, where people of many faiths, backgrounds, and different 

cultural heritages come together. But even as those different cultures and ethnicities blend together, we continue and should continue to celebrate the cultural heritage that makes us unique. It is 

a celebration that strengthens our families and our communities. 

And that makes us ultimately stronger as a Nation. 

I believe that we need to maintain a system within the census 

that enables us to understand who we are as a country, what the 

variety of backgrounds and heritages are that make up the United 

States of America, the citizens of the United States. I think that 

it is of great value to have this type of a hearing which enables us 

to better understand the value and the importance to maintain just 

such a system. 

I want to welcome all of the panelists that we are going to have, 

especially the Senator who has taken his valuable time to be with 

us today. And all of the members of the different organizations that 

represent their membership so ably. 

Particularly, Helen Samhan from the Arab-American Institute. 

As a Member of Congress of Arab-American descent, I know the 

fine work that she and the AAI has done, not just on behalf of their 

constituents, but on behalf of all of the different groups that have 

been fighting for fair treatment, fair recognition, and the elimination of discriminations for years and years. 

So again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing the panel together today, and for the work that the committee has done on this 

issue. 

Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman and I now yield to the ranking 

Democrat on the subcommittee, Mrs. Maloney of New York, for an 

opening statement. 

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

We are here today because 200 years ago black slaves were 

counted as three-fifths of a person. We are here today because 100 

years ago, a black male in Mississippi could not buy a one way 

train ticket and could not buy a round trip ticket without a note 

from his employer. We are here today because last weekend a 

church in Northeast Washington was painted with swastikas. 

This is not just an arcane statistical issue. This is the measurement of race in this country, and the measurement of race in this 

country is a story of discrimination, discrimination all too often 

condoned by the Government. 

It has been less than 50 years since the Supreme Court ruled 

that separate is not equal. It has been only 30 years since our 

country was torn apart by riots caused by hate and discrimination. 

Over the last 2 years, we have seen an unprecedented number of 

black churches burned to the ground. 

Racial hatred and discrimination is as alive today as it ever was 

and it is against this backdrop that we must have this discussion. 

256

The interracial couples who have brought the measurement of 

race to national prominence are to be praised for their effort. We 

all know that the lens that the Government puts on issues shapes 

the way that all of us see it. All too often, however, we simply cannot accept that lens as accurate. Their efforts have forced us to reexamine the lens we put on measuring race, and we are discovering 

just how pitted and scratched that lens is. 

We cannot deny the history of discrimination or its presence in 

our society today. Neither can we deny the progress our society has 

made that is symbolized by the interracial couples testifying before 

us today. Well into this century, States had laws on the books that 

made interracial marriages illegal. 

The pain caused by forcing the children of an interracial couple 

to choose between a mother’s race and a father’s race is very real. 

So is the pain caused by discrimination. A solution that eases one 

pain while making the other worse is no solution at all. 

I would like each of you today to help us in answering two questions that will be placed before us. First, do the categories as they 

are constituted today continue to serve the intended purpose of 

helping the Government to fight discrimination? Second, how can 

we achieve that goal and simultaneously provide individuals with 

the opportunity to identify themselves in a way that they are most 

comfortable? If we can answer these two questions, we will have 

made significant progress in how we define race and ethnicity. 

I thank the chairman, my colleagues, and all that are here; particularly the Senator, and the couples. 

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

257


g:\graphics\45174.190
258


g:\graphics\45174.191
259

Mr. HORN. I now yield time for an opening statement to a guest 

of the subcommittee, and an active member of the full committee, 

the distinguished delegate from the District of Columbia, Eleanor 

Holmes Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

the opportunity to sit in on this hearing as a member of the full 

committee. 

I come here in part as a former chair of the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, whose work was not only to enforce the 

laws against discrimination, but to collect statistics that would enable us to enforce the laws against discrimination. I have come to 

say that that was a very difficult task. And I hope that we can find 

a way to satisfy the concerns raised here, while keeping in mind 

the official purposes that racial statistics serve. 

I have no difficulty with clarifying Directive 15. I believe that we 

must find a way to satisfy the concerns of those who want to recognize the particular heritage of both their parents. That concern is 

very sensitive, and has to be felt very deeply. 

But, Mr. Chairman, that is largely a personal concern, and one 

that deserves our response. But it is very important not to mix personal concerns with the official business of the Government. There 

may be a way to allow people even on census forms to satisfy that 

personal concern without making it impossible for the Government 

to enforce the laws against discrimination. 

My view is that we must work to satisfy both those concerns, and 

I want to indicate some of the reasons why. In this country, since 

overthrowing racial discrimination, we have allowed people to selfidentify themselves and I have to say that I think it is important 

that people self-identify themselves. But once we say that you can 

self-identify yourself and the categories or some revision of them as 

we have known them no longer exists, I have not yet heard how 

they can be counted. And that is what I want to hear. 

Once we can all identify ourselves any which way we want to, 

then I want to know who in fact should and who should not be 

counted when we are enforcing laws that allow affirmative action. 

That is very difficult as it is. The questions that are raised are 

deep. Some people feel just as deeply, not only about their parents, 

but their grandparents. No, I am not Irish and American Indian as 

to my parents, but my grandmother was, and I want to claim her. 

What should the Government say? I tell you one thing I oppose. 

I oppose the Government going behind that category to find out 

what you really are. Because then we really have brought the 

South African regime to the United States of America. 

If you are claiming a category that qualifies you for some Government benefit, you bet your bottom dollar that somebody is going 

to want to find out whether you are legitimately claiming that category. 

The civil rights laws have become very difficult to enforce. I am 

certainly not for making them more difficult, because of a personal 

concern that I regard as entirely legitimate, but I am for trying to 

find a way to recognize legitimacy of that claim. And I would do 

so even on the census forms, as long as we do not get ourselves into 

trying to find out who is really what and who is really what not. 

260

But let me indicate another concern that I have. I must be very 

old. Because the America that I come from is an America where 

these differences found their way into the culture in the most painful ways. Where at one point, blacks thought they might mitigate 

the effect of being black by claiming something else in their heritage. ‘‘Oh, I am black, but I am also American Indian. I have got 

an Italian great grandmother.’’ Oh, it was so pitiful. 

About the only thing that American racism did for us is saying 

no, you are one or the other. Let us look at societies where that 

is not the case. South Africa, and the Caribbean. Visit those places. 

And we have in triplicate what we had duplicate there. Go to Haiti. 

Go to Jamaica. Go to Brazil. 

If you go there, you will find the blacks, those are the darkies. 

There are those who have escaped being black, because they can 

now claim something else, and then they are whites. The only 

thing worse than what we have in America is that. 

I am going to tell you that I have official reasons, because I think 

that the census has to be the census, and cannot satisfy each and 

every one of us in our personal concerns. I have concerns as a 

former enforcer of the laws. And I have concerns about polarization 

in the United States of America. I have never seen it more polarized. 

As a youngster in the civil rights movement, there were blacks 

and there were whites, and there was more communication along 

racial lines than there is anywhere in America today. 

Race relations are as much a problem in the United States of 

America as racism is. And when we go to sub-categories and we 

have got Asian, and black, and Hispanic, and Irish, it will go on 

ad infinitum. The reason that it will go on ad infinitum is because 

this glorious country has freely taken in people of every race and 

ethnicity. 

So I sit here as a light skin black woman and I sit here to tell 

you that I am black. That people who are my color in this country 

will always be treated as black. And calling yourself a multiethnic 

will get people walking down the street to say you a multiethnic, 

so I do not regard you as like those blacks that I see on television 

that steal from people or who murder people, you are multiethnic. 

We have got to join together, people of color. We who are Asian, 

and who are Hispanic. We who are black have got to say look, we 

are people of color, and we are readily identified. Any discrimination against one of us is discrimination against another. If you 

want to know my heritage, I am going to tell you what it is, because I am proud of my mama, and I am proud of my daddy, but 

I will identify with people of color. 

If you do not do that, you are right now creating a different 

America. There are going to be whole groups of people who are 

going to drop out of the black race. That is how pitiful it is going 

to be, if we go to these various categories. People who do not have 

any immediate heritage of black and Hispanic, they are going to 

drop out. 

And there is nothing that we can do about it, because I am going 

to get you if you try to go behind them and find out who they are. 

Because then you are into a regime and into a country that I do 

261

not want to be a part of. You are going to be whatever you say you 

are, which means that we will have no statistics. 

To satisfy the concerns who are multiethnic, I say put another 

category on the census form. Let them satisfy themselves that way 

without further complicating race in this country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. We thank you. 

And we now will call on our first witness. Senator Akaka has a 

vote that he has to get to in about a half hour. So we hope that 

we can get every bit of wisdom out of you in that time period. The 

Senate takes forever to end a roll call, so I think you are safe. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am delighted to be here, and I am pleased to be here to testify 

about Office of Management and Budget Directive No. 15, an important guideline governing racial and ethnic data collection by 

Federal agencies. 

I must say, Mr. Chairman, your leadership in convening this 

hearing is to be commended, particularly since OMB is expected to 

make a decision in the fall on Directive 15. 

Mr. Chairman, once again, I continue to strongly advocate that 

the Federal Government rectify a longstanding misperception that 

Native Hawaiians are not indigenous peoples. 

In the 1993 congressional and 1994 OMB meetings, I proposed 

to reclassify Native Hawaiians in the same category as American 

Indians and Alaska Natives, rather than the Asian or Pacific Islander category. 

After viewing the April 23 hearing record, which your subcommittee held on this subject matter, I am further convinced that 

Federal officials have yet to recognize the gross disparities of Native Hawaiian statistics in the Asian or Pacific Islander category. 

Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about two main arguments 

against my proposal. First, it is argued by Federal officials that my 

proposal would likely disrupt their ability to monitor trends or 

skew the statistics in the affected populations. I find such statements baffling and misguided. 

Any disruption of either the Asian or Pacific Islander, or the 

American Indian or Alaska Native category is negligible compared 

to the benefits which Federal officials would accrue in being able 

to fairly assess the Native Hawaiian community. 

Between 1980 and 1990, the Native Hawaiian population increased by 22.4 percent, compared to the American Indian or Alaska Native population, which increased by 37.9 percent. The aggregate Asian or Pacific Islander population by contrast doubled in 

size between 1980 and 1990, just as it did between 1970 and 1980. 

As a result, the Native Hawaiian percentage of the Asian or Pacific Islander category decreased from 4.6 percent in 1980 to only 

2.9 percent in 1990. If Native Hawaiians were added to the American Indian or Alaska Native category for the 1990 census purposes, they would have comprised 9.7 percent of the category. 

262

I believe that this is fairer for statistical purposes, and because 

the aggregate demographics of the American Indian or Alaska Native population more closely match the Native Hawaiian population. If one simply looks at health statistics, for example, Native 

Hawaiians are more comparable to American Indians and Alaska 

Natives rather than the healthier Asian populations in infant mortality, cancer, and life expectancy rates. 

A 1987 Office and Technology and Assessment Report found that 

Native Hawaiians had a death rate 34 percent higher than the 

death rate for all other races in the United States. One alarming 

statistic was the death rate for diabetes. Native Hawaiians die 

from diabetes at a rate 222 percent higher than for all other races 

in the United States. 

If you look at other Federal statistics like immigration, you 

might wonder what use the current Asian or Pacific Islander category serves Federal officials when it comes to Native Hawaiians. 

According to the 1990 census, over 63 percent of the aggregate 

Asian or Pacific Islander population were foreign-born. This means 

that this category is largely comprised of individuals who have immigrated to the United States. Comparatively, only 1.3 percent of 

Native Hawaiians were foreign-born. 

The 1990 census also revealed that over 63 percent of the Asian 

or Pacific Islander population speak an Asian or Pacific Islander 

language at home, compared to 7.7 percent of Native Hawaiians. 

In education, 37 percent of the total Asian or Pacific Islander population over the age of 25 had completed college, compared to 12 

percent of Native Hawaiians and 9.3 percent of American Indians 

or Alaska Natives. I implore Federal officials to explain to me how 

these aggregate social and economic trends are fair to Native Hawaiians. 

Mr. Chairman, the second concern raised about my proposal is 

that it would adversely impact Federal programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives. OMB Directive No. 15 specifically states 

that the directive should not be viewed as determinants of eligibility for participation in any Federal program. 

It should also be emphasized that the majority of Federal programs established for the benefit of American Indians and Alaska 

Natives, particularly the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian 

Health Service, are based on a trust relationship between the Federal Government and federally recognized American Indian tribes. 

My proposal, Mr. Chairman, does not, and I repeat does not, affect the Government to Government relationship which exists between federally recognized American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives and the Federal Government. It also does not affect the political status of Native Hawaiians. That is something that we, as Native Hawaiians, will resolve through the legislative process. 

Let me make this clear, Mr. Chairman. OMB Directive No. 15 

cannot grant Federal recognition to Native Hawaiians. Federal recognition can only be granted through the Bureau of Indian Affairs’

recognition process, treaties, Presidential Executive orders, statutes, and case law. 

While Native Hawaiians are culturally Polynesian, we are descendents of the aboriginal people who occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii. Like 

263

the varying cultures among the hundreds of American Indian 

tribes and Alaska Native groups, Native Hawaiians also have a 

unique political and historical relationship with the United States. 

Our current classification by the Federal Government denies us our 

identity as indigenous peoples. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I simply urge that when Congress and 

the appropriate Federal agencies prepare for the 2000 census, any 

proposed changes to OMB Directive No. 15 should be based on the 

merits of the relevant issues, not political expediency and popularity contests. There is no one in the Federal Government who can 

deny that Native Hawaiians are native peoples of the State of Hawaii. It is high time that Native Hawaiians be properly classified. 

My proposal, Mr. Chairman, recommends that the following 

changes be made under Directive 15. One is definitions. The category of American Indian or Alaska Native in paragraph 1(a) 

should be changed to American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native 

Hawaiian. And be defined as, ‘‘A person having origins in any of 

the original peoples of North America or the Hawaiian Islands, and 

who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or 

community recognition.’’ Two, utilization for recordkeeping and reporting. The category of 

American Indian or Alaska Native in paragraph 2(a) of the directive for minimum designations for race and ethnicity should be 

changed to ‘‘American Indian, Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian.’’ That is the extent of my proposal. Mr. Chairman, I thank you 

very much for giving me the opportunity to testify before you and 

this subcommittee on this very important issue. Thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Daniel K. Akaka follows:]

264


g:\graphics\45174.192
265


g:\graphics\45174.193
266


g:\graphics\45174.194
267


g:\graphics\45174.195
268


g:\graphics\45174.196
269

Mr. HORN. Do you have time for a few questions, Senator; or do 

you need to get back right now? 

Senator AKAKA. I have a vote at 3. 

Mr. HORN. At 3:00? 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. 

Mr. HORN. If I could just ask you a couple of questions on Native 

Hawaiian issues, to get it straight for the record. When I was vice 

chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, we took a look 

at the situation in Hawaii. And I can certainly share your concern 

about the bad treatment that has been given a lot of Native Hawaiians in terms of access to land and so forth. 

What, roughly, is the percent of the total population in the State 

of Hawaii reflected by so-called Native Hawaiians, what are we 

talking about? 

Senator AKAKA. Well, right now, that would be about 20 percent. 

Mr. HORN. And if they were categorized as Native American or 

Alaskan, that group that you want to join, would the benefits increase in various Government programs that are not now triggered 

because Native Hawaiians are not in the Native American category. What impact would that have on Federal programs? 

Senator AKAKA. I would tell you that at the present time that 

Hawaiians have not been eligible for some programs. 

Mr. HORN. Has anyone done a study in the Federal Government 

that has analyzed this to the degree that that change of moving 

from Native Hawaiian to Native American would increase Federal 

benefits? 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. There has been a study done by CRS. At 

this point in time, I do not know the findings. 

Mr. HORN. Well, we will ask staff to followup on that, and do a 

bibliographic search as well as get the Congressional Research 

Service. And if we can, if it is not 8,000 pages, we will put it into 

the record at this point, if it is 20, 30, 40 or whatever. I think that 

we need to get a better feel for that. 

[The information referred to follows:]

270


g:\graphics\45174.197
271


g:\graphics\45174.198
272


g:\graphics\45174.199
273


g:\graphics\45174.200
274


g:\graphics\45174.201
275


g:\graphics\45174.202
276


g:\graphics\45174.203
277


g:\graphics\45174.204
278


g:\graphics\45174.205
279


g:\graphics\45174.206
280

Mr. HORN. Is there any anthropological evidence that the Native 

Hawaiians came perhaps the same route as the Native Americans? 

Most of the Native Americans’ origin is over the Bering Straits into 

Canada. You find Antibasti—I think it is in Canada—is similar to 

Navaho in Arizona. And, of course, you know that great reservation 

goes into three States, and is the size of the State of West Virginia. 

And you certainly have a similar situation on how the Native 

Hawaiian population is spread out, or are they concentrated more 

on one island than another? 

Senator AKAKA. They are spread over all of the islands. And to 

answer your question, they did come to Hawaii. As you know, the 

Hawaiian Islands are volcanic islands. They erupted from the bottom of the sea. But the Hawaiians did migrate there, and were the 

first people there, and they became the indigenous people of the 

Hawaiian Islands, and are part of the Polynesian race. 

Mr. HORN. You have been working on this subject for a long 

time. 

Have you discussed this with the people at the Census Bureau 

and the Office of Management and Budget, the Chief Statistician 

of the United States? What kind of comments have you received 

from those discussions? 

Senator AKAKA. Well, the reception has been negative. 

Mr. HORN. But is there an intellectual reason behind why they 

think that? 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. I would say that part of the reason was because of the chaos that might come in changing the forms. And in 

that particular case, we are not changing the forms. We are just 

adding the Native Hawaiians to the Native American category. 

Mr. HORN. Right. They could do it with a rubber stamp, and they 

would not have to destroy their forms. 

My last question is on what they call them the Pequots in Connecticut. Go to the westward expansion corridor of the U.S. Capitol 

that opened at the time of the 200th anniversary of laying the cornerstone. The Pequots are very prominent in the 1500’s, 1600’s, 

and 1700’s. Presumably, they had diminished, as you know. And a 

gentleman who recalled the stories of his mother put the tribe back 

together, and got billions of dollars and thousands of acres from the 

State of Connecticut. And they now have the largest casino in the 

world. 

Under law and the Constitution, if we made the Native Hawaiians into Native Americans, would they gain any constitutional status in their law claims against the United States? 

Senator AKAKA. Right now, there are some claims that the Hawaiians do have. As you know, Hawaii has gone through six different governmental structures, one of which was the monarchy. 

And, of course, the royal family and the monarchy owned most of 

the land. But the history is that such land claims are only ceded 

lands. 

And by the 1959 statehood document that was signed as we became a State, those lands were set aside. To that extent, the Hawaiians have some bearing in the State of Hawaii. 

Mr. HORN. I now yield to the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, Mrs. Maloney of New York. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. You have covered all of my questions. 

281

Mr. HORN. Mr. Davis of Illinois. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I have one question. 

Senator, you indicated that OMB suggested that if they were to 

change the designation that it would cause chaos with the forms, 

is that correct? 

Senator AKAKA. That is correct. Meaning that to change the 

forms would have caused many problems in their process of taking 

the census. And what I am saying is that we are not changing the 

form, but we are just adding. The categories are there. They are 

very hesitant, as you know, about revising the forms at all for the 

census. And this is part of the reason why they try very hard not 

to bring any changes about. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Do you know what their position might 

be with reference to the chaos that would be created by adding 

multiracial? That would seem to be an alteration of the form as 

well. 

Senator AKAKA. I would not know what it would be. Except that 

I would say at this time that we would not be in that category of 

causing any changes or bringing about chaos. But originally, and 

I proposed this, that was one of the reasons that they were against 

it. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Let me just say that I agree with your 

logic in terms of the designation of Native Hawaiians. I think that 

the same logic exists for Native Americans. I mean indigenous people are indigenous. If Hawaii is a part of the United States of 

America, then the people who are indigenous to Hawaii are indigenous to the United States of America. 

Mr. HORN. We thank you. There are no more questions I see 

from the panel. We appreciate you taking the time. We know that 

you have a busy day trying to deal with some of the legislation that 

we have sent in your direction. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

wish you well, you and the subcommittee. 

Mr. HORN. I appreciate it. 

Will panel II come forward. Ryan Graham, Susan Graham, Harold McDougall, and Eric Rodriguez. 

We have a tradition in this subcommittee of swearing in all witnesses, since it is an investigative committee, except for Members 

of the Senate and Members of the House. So if you will stand and 

raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HORN. All four witnesses have affirmed, the clerk will note. 

And we will now go by the order that is noted on the program. We 

will begin with Susan Graham, the president of Project RACE. 

Welcome to you and your son. So please proceed. 

I might add that since most of you have not testified before that 

your full statement is automatically placed in the record without 

objection by anybody. So if you would like to summarize your statement—most of us stayed up late last night reading it—there will 

be more time for questions. Do not read it to us. We have read it. 

282

STATEMENTS OF SUSAN GRAHAM, PRESIDENT, PROJECT 

RACE; RYAN GRAHAM, PROJECT RACE; HAROLD McDOUGALL, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU, NAACP; AND ERIC 

RODRIGUEZ, POLICY ANALYST, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA 

RAZA 

Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

I am very pleased to be with you today representing the national 

membership of Project RACE. 

I testified before the former Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, 

and Postal Personnel in 1993. Much has happened to the multiracial classification since that time. Five more States and many individual school districts have added the multiracial classification. 

Testing has been completed by the Census Bureau. 

CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, NPR, AP, Time magazine, USA 

Today, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and it seems 

every newspaper and radio station across the country have carried 

stories and debates on the multiracial question. And Tiger Woods 

won the Master’s and proudly claimed all of his heritage. 

Members of Congress know that as any issue gets more and more 

attention, as people take sides, as personal feelings get intertwined 

with facts, stories emerge and become truths in the public’s minds. 

It is more important than ever in any issue to keep our perspective 

at such a time and separate myth from reality. 

The reality is that not all Americans fit neatly into one little box. 

The reality is that multiracial children who wish to embrace all of 

their heritage should be allowed to do so. They should not be put 

in the position of denying one of their parents to satisfy arbitrary 

Government requirements. 

The reality is that seven States now officially recognize multiracial children. They are Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, Michigan, Indiana, 

Florida, and North Carolina. Other individual districts across the 

country have taken the step to include a category for multiracial 

children, including the Fairfax County, Virginia schools. This 

shows that people want the right to designate themselves or their 

children as multiracial. None of the States, State agencies, school 

districts, parents, or children have reported any problems with utilizing the multiracial classification. 

The National ACT test adopted the multiracial category. High 

school students complained that they felt discriminated against 

when one of the very first questions they were asked on this important test was one they could not answer, because their combination 

of races was not there. 

I am not a statistician or a demographer. It would be a very big 

myth to say I am. We decided to look at the actual enrollment figures from Fulton County, GA, because it was the first county in the 

country to add the multiracial classification. We looked at the data 

for 6 years, from 1991 to 1997, to see how many students actually 

use the category, and to see if numbers dramatically decreased 

from any other racial or ethnic category. 

I set out to find a statistician to analyze the data. A curious 

thing happened on the way to reality. Each statistician said, ‘‘Tell 

me what you want to prove.’’ I would say, ‘‘Just honestly tell me 

what the figures prove.’’ They would laugh and say, ‘‘We can prove 

283

anything you want to prove.’’ I did not throw out the data, but I 

did throw out the statisticians. 

Attachment A shows the enrollment figures for the school district 

of almost 60,000 students. The multiracial category was added in 

the 1992–1993 school year. In the current 1996–1997 school year, 

835 students are checking multiracial in the race category. That is 

1.39 percent of the total student population. The black, white, 

Asian, and Native American populations have stayed pretty constant, with fluctuations so small as to be insignificant. The Hispanic population has steadily increased. 

There are 835 real, actual children who consider themselves to 

be multiracial in the school population of almost 60,000 students. 

There are 835 real, actual children, not government projections, not 

‘‘what ifs,’’ not a number someone dreamed up. There are 835 real, 

actual children between the ages of 5 and 17, who only want to embrace all of their heritage. 

There is a pervasive myth of massive defection from other racial 

categories into the multiracial category. There are 835 children in 

60,000, 1.39 percent of the total number of students. These very 

real figures dispel that myth. The reality is that 1.39 percent is 

pretty close to between 1.0 and 2 percent found by the National 

Content Survey, which states that less than 2 percent of respondents nationally might select a multiracial category when it is offered. The reality is that 1.39 percent is pretty close to 1.5 percent 

who identified as multiracial in the report by the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. 

There also seems to be a concern that the addition of a multiracial classification will suddenly cause all of the past statistical data 

in America to become useless. If we want accurate data, we need 

to count people accurately. The addition of a Hispanic classification 

on the 1980 U.S. census did not render past data meaningless. 

Census categories have been added and taken away since the inception of the census, and never once did they have to throw out 

all of the historical data. To say that the multiracial classification 

would suddenly wreck havoc with the data is a myth. 

Attachment B outlines the many, many different ways the Census Bureau has classified multiracial individuals. It explains why 

my children are classified as white on the U.S. census. It is actually pretty interesting reading. 

What do we want? The myth is that on a Federal level that we 

want only the term multiracial and nothing more. The reality is 

when we testified in 1993, we suggested a format for Federal purposes that instructed a multiracial person to also choose their racial combinations from a list of categories listed underneath the 

multiracial category. 

When we answered the OMB’s Federal Register notice in 1995, 

we asked for the same type of configuration. Although these models 

yield the most accurate data, we have been told by the OMB and 

the Census Bureau that they take up too much real estate on the 

forms. We have also been told that multiethnic definitely would not 

be considered. 

So do we scrap the whole idea? Absolutely not. The multiracial 

community is sensitive to the concerns of all communities. After 

all, we belong to all communities. The question of a multiracial catVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00289 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
284

egory has been studied for over 20 years, most extensively in the 

past 4 years. Much time and money has been put into research. If 

it is not done now, it will be brought up again for every census. 

We will not go away. 

It is time for all communities, including the multiracial community, to compromise as we go into the year 2000. There is no better 

time to begin to reflect the true and accurate heritage of all Americans. 

Our model for OMB Statistical Directive 15 is attached as Attachment C. It would be similarly adapted for the census or at any 

time the ethnic and racial categories are separated, with Hispanic 

placed under ethnicity and would state under race: ‘‘Check one. If 

you consider yourself to be biracial or multiracial, check as many 

as apply.’’ Numbers would be allocated accordingly. It adds only 14 

small words. It is concise. It is clear. It is precise. It is accurate, 

and would yield results that could be easily coded and tabulated. 

In short, it works. 

What we do not want. We would prefer to have a category of biracial or multiracial, again with the ability to designate races because we recognize the need for this information at the Federal 

level. We do not want multiracial with blank spaces to fill in races, 

because that leaves too much room for error and confusion. We do 

not want to be known as other or some other race. We totally reject 

any question which allows a multiracial person to specify multiracial, but then asks us to write in the race we most identify with. 

It is an invalid question, and an insult to the multiracial community. 

Would this change be costly? No. States, schools, businesses, and 

the U.S. Government constantly change their forms. Data cells are 

added all of the time. Tax changes, new health care plans, new 

area codes, name changes for racial groups, et cetera are all 

changes we expect and absorb. Why would the multiracial classification be any different? 

The reality is that the century update to the year 2000 will be 

far more costly than adding another racial category. In fact, it is 

the perfect time to make such changes. The myth is that party 

lines must be drawn on this issue. This is a bipartisan issue. This 

is a children’s issue. This is a civil rights issue. 

Three Republican Governors have signed multiracial legislation 

into law: Governor Voinovich of Ohio, Governor Engler of Michigan, 

and Governor Edgar of Illinois. Two Democratic Governors have 

also signed our legislation: Governor Miller of Georgia, and Governor Bayh of Indiana. The Democratic Governors of North Carolina and Florida have been fully supportive of the administration 

addition of a multiracial designation in their States. The Republican and Democratic lawmakers of these seven States feel that no 

child should be forced to deny his or her heritage. 

In remarks made by House Speaker Newt Gingrich on January 

7, 1997, after winning a second term as Speaker, he said, ‘‘What 

does race mean when many Americans cannot fill out their census 

forms because they are an amalgam of races?’’

President Clinton was asked about the multiracial classification 

during his speech in Dallas on April 17, 1995. He stated that he 

285

would not be opposed to a multiracial category. And went on to say, 

‘‘I think it ought to be done.’’ We think so, too. 

In conclusion, I think that we need to remember that what is 

right is often forgotten by what is convenient. It would be easy to 

leave things as they are. But it would not be right for millions of 

American multiracial children who feel just as proud of all of their 

racial heritage as does their role model, Tiger Woods. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express the views of 

the membership of Project RACE. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Graham follows:]

286


g:\graphics\45174.207
287


g:\graphics\45174.208
288


g:\graphics\45174.209
289


g:\graphics\45174.210
290


g:\graphics\45174.211
291


g:\graphics\45174.212
292


g:\graphics\45174.213
293


g:\graphics\45174.214
294


g:\graphics\45174.215
295


g:\graphics\45174.216
296


g:\graphics\45174.217
297


g:\graphics\45174.218
298

Mr. HORN. We thank you very much. 

We are now delighted to call Mr. Ryan Graham for his statement. Welcome. 

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. 

My name is Ryan Graham, and I am multiracial. I live in Georgia and when I fill out forms, there is always a multiracial box for 

me to check. It was not always that way. But when my mom and 

the parents of other multiracial kids asked the Georgia lawmakers 

to add the multiracial classification, they passed it and the Governor signed it. Some of the legislators told us later that they voted 

for it because it was the right thing to do. 

Four years ago, when I was 8 years old, my mom and I came to 

Washington to ask the Members of Congress to make it possible for 

the multiracial classification to be on every form in the country. We 

hoped that the Federal Government would also think it was the 

right thing to do. Four years is a long time when you are only 12, 

but here I am again. 

My mom is white, and my dad is black. Most forms force me to 

choose between one of those races. I feel very sad, because I cannot 

choose. I am both. 

Wouldn’t you be embarrassed if your classmates laughed at you 

because you went up and said to the teacher, ‘‘I do not know what 

race to mark on my test’’? 

One day a kid asked me, ‘‘Are you mixed?’’ I said, ‘‘No, I am multiracial, big difference.’’ He said, ‘‘What is the difference?’’ I said, ‘‘Puppies are mixed, people are multiracial.’’ Some forms include the term ‘‘other,’’ but that makes me feel like 

a freak or a space alien. I want a classification that describes exactly what I am. 

In Georgia, I have that option. But there are millions of kids just 

like me all over the United States who do not. I think those of us 

who are multiracial should be able to choose that classification. I 

think adults should understand. 

My little sister is waiting for me back in Georgia, to come home 

and tell her that this subcommittee has said yes to the multiracial 

classification. It is not how you see me; it is how I see myself that 

is important. 

I thank you for letting me be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Graham follows:]

299


g:\graphics\45174.219
300


g:\graphics\45174.220
301

Mr. HORN. Well, we thank you for coming. I was just wondering 

if you have the record as the youngest witness, from when you testified 4 years ago. I remember trying to testify at age 17. And what 

I got from the ranking minority member at that time was a pat on 

the head, and ‘‘now, now, young man,’’ et cetera, a brush-off. We 

are delighted to have your perspective here. So keep testifying. 

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. HORN. Now we are on No. 3 of the panel, Harold McDougall, 

director of the Washington Bureau of the NAACP. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before you 

today on behalf of the NAACP. I am director of the Washington Bureau, as you know. 

The NAACP is the Nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization, with over 6,000 members in 2,000 branches around the 

country and in five foreign countries. We are committed to the protection of the civil, legal, political, economic, and human rights of 

African-Americans and other citizens of color here in the United 

States. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we have great 

sensitivity to the issue of personal identification and self-identification. We have always supported the right of self-determination. As 

is evident from my statement, we are very concerned about the possible impact that a personal choice might have on the data. Delegate Norton explained that quite well. 

According to the most recently released study by the U.S. Census, the field study that was released last week, relatively small 

numbers of African-Americans appear to identify themselves as 

multiracial. The census data indicates that this is a phenomenon 

which is most current in terms of people who are presently in 

interracial marriages or are the products of interracial marriages 

that have just taken place in the last 20 or 30 years. 

There are figures that indicate that perhaps 70 percent of the 

population of the African-American population is of mixed race. African, Native American and European. These mixtures took place 

during slavery and that period immediately after. 

Most of the African-Americans who are of mixed race, are the 

product of marriages before the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision, 

continue to identify as African-American. The census data indicates 

that of the children of black/white interracial marriages that have 

taken place since the 1960’s, about three-quarters of those children 

continue to identify themselves as black. Only one-quarter of the 

children who are the products of the most recent generation of 

interracial marriages actually identify themselves as multiracial. 

But the study that has been released is still far from a full dress 

census and we have no idea how this might play out in decades to 

come. History demonstrates that the interaction between the categories as they appear on this census and the self-conceptions of 

the population, are not static. 

The Hispanic category, for example, first appeared, I believe, on 

the 1960 or 1970 census. And since that time, in over two or three 

censuses for 20 or 30 years, the numbers of people who think of 

themselves as Hispanic has expanded dramatically. 

302

This could have an impact on data. And this is why census professionals always take the position that we should be very conservative and very cautious about making any changes in the way that 

the census is presented. 

So in terms of the question that Representative Maloney asked, 

would the introduction of new categories possibly have a corrupting 

effect on the data, the NAACP feels emphatically that that is a 

danger. And we counsel caution. 

But again, we are very sensitive to the issues that the young 

man raises. I have a son who looks very much like him, but my 

son identifies very clearly as a person of African descent. And we 

are concerned about the possibility of confusion. 

Again, we respect people’s rights to make a self-identification. 

We just question whether the census is necessarily the best place 

to do that. Most of the data that my colleague, Ms. Graham, presented was a function of children making decisions in terms of 

school forms. Indeed, there is a difference between a school form 

and a census form. 

Ms. Norton said that she was concerned about the possible impact of fraud in self-identification. How we do determine when 

somebody is black, or white, or multiracial? 

Carol Simpson, who is a Channel 7 news anchor, gave a presentation at Howard University about a week ago, where she talked 

about being in South Africa, and being shown a tool that the South 

Africans used to use to determine whether you are white, or colored, or black. It is a little tool that they put a piece of your hair 

in. And if your hair is kinky, then it does not make any difference 

what color your skin is, you are black. If your hair is straight, it 

does not make any difference what color your skin is, you are 

white. What Carol said to the audience was do you really want to 

go there, do you really want to get involved in those kinds of determinations? 

So again, we are concerned about that. 

We are also concerned, because we think that it is one thing to 

approach questions of discrimination and segregation as matters of 

semantics, as matters of words. We think that segregation and discrimination in this country has to be battled with deeds, not just 

with words. 

There was a very compelling editorial by Clifford Alexander, the 

former chair of EEOC and also the Secretary of the Army, who 

made it possible for Colin Powell to advance as a general. It is in 

the Saturday May 17th Post and I would like to offer it to be included in the record, if that is possible. 

Mr. HORN. Without objection, it will be inserted at this time. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:]

303


g:\graphics\45174.221
304

Mr. MCDOUGALL. I would also like to say that the NAACP’s role 

is to protect people. The census data help us do that. One of the 

things that we are concerned about, or that everyone should be 

concerned about, as Ms. Norton said, ‘‘multiracial people do not 

spare themselves social discrimination or segregation, because of 

what they call themselves.’’ The social discrimination and segregation of this society is a matter of how you look, not a matter of what you call yourself. A very 

good example of that is an interracial couple who were both jailed 

in New York about a week ago. A Danish woman, an actress, and 

her African-American husband had a multiracial child. The child 

was in a stroller right outside of a restaurant. The couple was 

charged with child abuse and child neglect. 

Now I have been on the streets of New York. And I have seen 

people beat their children on the streets of New York and never be 

arrested. These people were arrested for putting their stroller outside of the restaurant, a practice which is very common in Denmark. 

The upshot of it is that the two of them were put in jail for 2 

days. The child, a multiracial child—and I have an article here 

with the child’s picture—the multiracial child was taken from her 

parents, and placed in foster care for 2 days. 

The African-American father of the child allegedly was beaten by 

the police. The charges against the Danish mother and her multiracial child have been dismissed, and they have been sent back to 

Denmark. The African-American father, however, is facing charges. 

That is also detailed in an article called Danish Mother Free to 

Take Child Home, Washington Post, May 17th. I also would like 

to submit this for the record. 

Mr. HORN. Without objection, it will be inserted in the record at 

this point. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Thank you, sir. And there are copies on the 

table. 

[The information referred to follows:]

305


g:\graphics\45174.222
306

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Just to finish this up, I want to point out that 

it is what you look like and not what you say you are, that determines whether or not you meet social discrimination in this country. This is very, very much underlined by the case of Plessy v. Ferguson. I believe that Mrs. Maloney might have been referring to 

that when she talked about a black gentleman who got a ticket to 

go to Mississippi. 

Plessy v. Ferguson was a case in which a person of color asked 

to be able to ride in a white car. The Supreme Court of the United 

States upheld the power of Louisiana to assign him to a black car. 

Mr. Plessy was classified by the census as an octoroon. He was not 

black. He was multiracial. Octoroon means that if you have eight 

great-grandparents, that only one of them is black. 

Now it was Mr. Plessy’s appearance, not what he was called in 

the census, that had to do with the way that his rights were treated. We are interested in the struggle against segregation and discrimination in this country. We call out to all multiracial people 

who so identify themselves, to join us in that struggle. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDougall follows:]

307


g:\graphics\45174.223
308


g:\graphics\45174.224
309


g:\graphics\45174.225
310


g:\graphics\45174.226
311


g:\graphics\45174.227
312


g:\graphics\45174.228
313


g:\graphics\45174.229
314


g:\graphics\45174.230
315


g:\graphics\45174.231
316


g:\graphics\45174.232
317

Mr. HORN. We thank you for your testimony. 

We will now turn the podium over to Eric Rodriguez, policy analyst, National Council of La Raza. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

subcommittee. 

In answering the question as to why we care about this issue, it 

is important to underscore what census data under the current 

classifications tell us. For example, these data show that Hispanics 

constitute the second largest minority group in the U.S. Currently, 

more than 1 in 10 Americans is Hispanic. 

Further, these data tell us that Hispanics are two-fifths of the 

U.S. minority population. It is one of the fastest growing and 

youngest population groups, and are expected to become the Nation’s largest minority by 2005. 

The proposed addition of a multiracial response block on the decennial questionnaire resonates with Latinos, a multiracial population with origins in European, African, and Asian countries. The 

Hispanic community sustains a multifaceted identity, so that 

Latinos often also identify themselves as white, black, Asian, and 

Native American. This racial and cultural diversity is the essence 

of a Hispanic-American culture, and will be increasingly influential 

as the U.S. Latino population continues to grow. 

Yet in spite of this and other relevant issues including the legitimate need to count the growth of the number of multiracial persons in the United States and the often voiced powerfully emotional sentiments of biracial parents and multiracial people, the addition of a multiracial option among the current racial classifications is not a good idea. 

Rather than improving the accuracy and quality of census information, this change would likely create a less than useful new 

identifier and disturb the current classifications, making race and 

ethnic data less than accurate. This is troubling, because provisions 

that threaten the accuracy, quality, and utility of the Federal race 

and ethnic data would likely inhibit civil rights and other public 

policy initiatives that rely almost exclusively on such data. 

So why do we think that the multiracial identifier is less than 

useful. The purpose of the census is to provide a socioeconomic and 

demographic snapshot of the U.S. population, determine Federal 

policy and research needs for groups with broad common characteristics, and enforce and implement statutory rules and laws. The 

census is not meant to capture or express specific individual identity. While issues regarding socio-political acknowledgement and 

identity are quite important, census decisions cannot be based on 

that criterion alone. So from a public policy perspective, we know 

that the disparities among Asians, whites, blacks, and Native 

Americans, and Hispanics in such areas of income and employment 

are clear and persistent, making such data collection imperative 

and valuable. 

Multiracial persons, on the other hand, have few and perhaps no 

socioeconomic characteristics, since this category would include 

those of any multirace. Therefore, multiracial data collected in this 

manner would not be terribly informative for public administrators 

and policymakers. 

318

For example, if we knew that 50 percent of a target population 

were multiracial, how would we respond from a public policy perspective? From a civil rights perspective, multiracial is neither a 

race nor a protected class under the law. Therefore, the collection 

of such data does not serve any clear statutory purpose. Given that 

a major driving force behind the development of standard classifications is civil rights law enforcement and implementation, the 

utility of collecting data on this population in this manner is questionable. 

I do not mean to suggest that persons of mixed race do not face 

discrimination in America. I am merely suggesting that the collection of data on multiracial persons serves neither a public policy 

or legal purpose at this time. 

So how does the current proposed multiracial category reduce the 

accuracy of census information? 

First, as the U.S. population becomes increasingly bi- or multiracial, or as people begin to view themselves as multiracial, fewer 

people are likely to be considered protected as they fall into an ambiguous all-encompassing and heterogeneous category for which 

few public policy initiatives, civil rights, or otherwise can reach 

them. This dilution of standard racial categories will seriously 

hinder public policy initiatives aimed at serving historically disadvantaged communities. 

Second, as proposed, this category is likely to include many respondents who are confused about the meanings of race and identity. Tests conducted by the Census Bureau show that many people 

misunderstand the meaning of the multiracial category. Many respondents confuse race with ethnicity. 

Hispanics are especially likely to find this category confusing, 

since they primarily identify with ethnicity and not race. Therefore, 

a black Cuban is more likely to believe that he or she is multiracial 

when his or her race is black and ethnicity is Hispanic. 

As a result, respondents who are not multiracial may erroneously 

select this category effectively reducing the accuracy of the census 

count. 

Consequently, as you continue to undertake the task of reviewing 

Federal race and ethnic data classifications, we hope that you will 

properly gauge the cost and benefits of having a heterogeneous 

identifier that is not an actual race category among the current racial categories. 

The principal interest of the Hispanic community is the accuracy, 

quality, and utility of race ethnic census data. While concerns regarding self-identity and societal acknowledgement resonate with 

the Latino community, we understand that the purpose of the census is both to enforce and implement the law, and inform law makers about the distinct needs of special historically disadvantaged 

populations. 

As you proceed, we would like to underscore the following. First, 

quality, accuracy, and usefulness of race and ethnic data should be 

of primary consideration in the design of race classifications. Having said that, the addition of a multiracial category among standard classifications is not recommended. 

Second, the addition of a multiracial category undermines prudent public policy, and may inadvertently subvert the Nation’s abilVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00324 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
319

ity to ensure the protection of civil rights for all groups. The drive 

for a new census category has on the surface been fueled almost 

exclusively by emotional concerns related to identity. 

However, while many proponents of the multiracial option sincerely claim that they need the box to validate their personal identity, many nonmultiracial persons, particularly those who oppose 

civil rights initiatives to begin with what appears to be advancing 

the multiracial cause. In addition, the multiracial cause has begun 

to resonate with many nonmultiracial persons who believe that the 

very existence of racial classifications divides the Nation and exacerbates racial tensions. 

The erroneous conclusion that the elimination of such racial categories or the creation of a more ambiguous and all-encompassing 

classification would ease such tensions is dangerous and counterproductive. While the many personal and compelling pleas for such 

a category have overlooked the intent and purpose of the census, 

others appear to be more focused on elimination or erosion of current racial classifications, precisely because of the intent and purpose of those classifications. 

Third, while we oppose this proposed change, under some clear 

circumstances, we may be inclined to support a disaggregated multiracial option. Should a multiracial category be added to the census in the future, it should not be located among the standard classifications; and should only be included if it is proven by reliable 

census testing not to disturb the current classifications; and should 

be disaggregated to provide more useful data; and should be proven 

to improve the accuracy of census data. The current proposal is far 

from this. 

In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the difficulty and sensitivity of this issue. NCLR appreciates the need to assure that the 

census reflect the changing demographics of our Nation as it captures the important racial, ethnic, social, and economic data that 

are critical for creating sound public policy. 

Nevertheless, we urge the subcommittee to consider carefully the 

concerns outlined above as it proceeds on this matter. I would like 

to underscore that the census is not merely a means for personal 

acknowledgement, and that no group prior to this debate has 

fought for a category simply as a means of public acknowledgement. 

Moreover, public policy goals of preventing discrimination and 

poverty, based on accurate data on disadvantaged communities, 

and the fear that the disadvantaged school children and communities may no longer receive the protections and services that they 

need should outweigh any concerns or needs for personal public acknowledgement. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]

320


g:\graphics\45174.233
321


g:\graphics\45174.234
322


g:\graphics\45174.235
323


g:\graphics\45174.236
324


g:\graphics\45174.237
325


g:\graphics\45174.238
326


g:\graphics\45174.239
327

Mr. HORN. Well, we thank all of you for your helpful testimony. 

Let me start first with a few questions of Mr. McDougall and Mr. 

Rodriguez. 

Have either one of you ever been involved in the Voting Rights 

Act and its implementation, and the way that one looks at discrimination data, to know that it ought to come under the Department 

of Justice who would review any changes in registration laws and 

so forth? Have either of you been involved in that kind of analysis? 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. I have some familiarity with it, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. Well, the question that I want to ask based on that 

is: is there an assertion that the multiracial category would hinder 

the implementation of civil rights laws? This happens to be one 

where I was on the drafting term. So I pick that one. Your opponents disagree with that assertion. 

And I guess that I would like the subcommittee to get an example of how data on race or ethnicity is used to implement one particular law. I think that you might want to tell us how it is used 

in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and as amended. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. I would certainly be more prepared to respond 

in terms of the Fair Housing Act. 

Mr. HORN. Well, try the Voting Rights Act. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. All right. You know, essentially, we are able to 

track the—when we talk about the possibility of creating a vehicle 

by which people who have been historically repressed in terms of 

their ability to express themselves through the ballot, when we 

talk about that, we are talking about a history of practices which, 

as you know, drafting have to be submitted. 

Because of the past practices, the pre-clearance provisions require that any change in the system have to be cleared, because 

of the history of legal segregation gerrymandering that made it impossible, and a variety of other practices, poll taxes and these kinds 

of things. 

It has been the consensus of the civil rights community that the 

best way to respond to this historic inequity has been to create majority and minority districts. If we do not know who lives in a district, it is going to be very difficult for us to construct a district 

that we say is majority and minority. I think that is probably it 

in a nutshell. 

Mr. HORN. Well, you described it very well. But it seems to me 

that the question then is, if you use that method of analysis, and 

you are absolutely right, is there a pattern and practice, and is 

there under-utilization of those. You have to look at it on a proportion, because sometimes you do not have detailed backgrounds of 

individuals. 

But you are looking at census tracts that might get aggregated 

or precincts that might get aggregated into the census tract, and 

you try to see if there is under-registration of let us say a Hispanic 

Latino group proportionately, or is there under-representation of 

black citizens, whatever. And then if it is, as you say, you would 

come under the pre-clearance rule of having to consult Justice if 

you are going to change the voting rights laws. You would be carefully looked at in elections. You might well have Federal registrars 

even go there. 

328

Now the question would be if you had a check-off of multiracial, 

why would that detract from winning a fight on under-utilization? 

Why can you not just add the multiracial column and the percent 

or the numbers, and aggregate that with the various racial checkoffs, and say hey, this is either under-utilized or it is sort of normal 

where you have the whites who register, et cetera? 

We know that there are a lot of different factors of why people 

register or do not register, just like white people vote or do not 

vote, even when they are registered. But let us assume that everybody could register and everybody could vote, and you look at the 

data of that tract, and you have the specific racial categories adding up to 40 percent, and let us say that you have got 10 percent 

multiracial. 

Can you not say that is 50 percent minority? 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. I think that there are two ways to respond to 

that. It is very intriguing. 

I guess one question that I would have for you, Mr. Chairman, 

would be whether adding those two categories together, would require some change in the voting rights law as it now stands, either 

by a change in the law itself or by change in the regulations? 

Mr. HORN. I would think that you would change the regulations 

on that. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Right. 

Mr. HORN. If it is an either/or. If it is a both/and, where you 

check off the racial, and then you have got this general category 

down there that you also want to check. I think that might also be 

one of the problems we have got to look at. So you keep it. So its 

equivalency is what the particular racial categories are. But if it 

said multiracial, we have got to assume, I guess, that they would 

fall under the protection clause let us say of the 14th amendment 

on race, and that you could count them in. 

And as you know, if you go and move to set-asides for small business or education, it has been clear for years that Asians per se do 

better than the average group of whites per se. So we have got various changes in public policy based on that. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Again, I would say that it is a very intriguing 

idea. Our national conference is where we debate issues like this 

in full, in their full incarnation, if you will. That will be in Pittsburgh in July, and I am sure that we will be talking about this. 

I would be happy to report back to the subcommittee after that discussion. 

The second thing that I would want to say, of course, is that the 

multiracial category, as I understand it, is one that includes people 

of many different races including white. I am not sure whether the 

public would be prepared to accept the proposition that because a 

person designates themselves as multiracial, that they have been 

discriminated against. 

It gets back to what I was saying before. It is not so much a 

question of what you call yourself, but what actually happens on 

the ground. 

But to me, it is an intriguing idea. We certainly will consider it 

in our convention. 

Mr. HORN. Well, let me ask you another along this line. You are 

probably much more familiar with it than I am. I have not had a 

329

chance to look at it, but the thought came to me as I was listening 

to the testimony. 

In the implementing regulations, has there been any particular 

percentage specified by the Federal Government that you must be 

this percent black to check the black category, not that anybody 

could enforce that, but is there such a rule anywhere? 

Now some American Indian tribes have that. Some tribes say you 

must be one-sixth or something in order to claim tribal rights, and 

that person has to prove that. Different tribes have different percentages. 

But I have never heard it, and it does not mean that it does not 

exist, that is why I am asking the question. I have never heard it 

in relation to either Asians, blacks, Latinos in the ethnic category, 

that you should not check this unless you are—and fill in the 

blank. 

And that worries me obviously. If there is a percentage, and particularly if it is 1 percent or so, I am just curious. 

What do you know about that? 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Well, I do know that as far as the census is 

concerned, certainly the way that it is being managed now is that 

it is totally a matter of self-identification. 

Mr. HORN. Right. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Which I think is why Delegate Norton raised 

the whole question of fraud. Theoretically, I could check off that I 

was white, and you could check off that you were black, and we 

have that freedom. And once you get into a question of checking 

these choices—as you say, is there a minimum percentage—you 

then start talking about the tools like the one that I was talking 

about from South Africa. 

Now clearly, we have historically had laws that did that. For example, the so-called rule that one drop of African blood makes you 

black. That was certainly recognized in Plessy v. Ferguson. As I 

said, because Plessy was only one-eighth black. But he was still 

considered not to be a white person and because he was not a 

white person, he did not ride in the white car. 

I mean, clearly we have a very ugly history in this country of 

those kinds of determinations, just as you described. The reasons 

for the categories are to track the footprints of those deeds, so we 

can undo them. 

I think as my colleague, Mr. Rodriguez, mentioned that the purpose of those categories is to enable us to right wrongs that have 

been done. The purpose of the categories has not been, at least in 

their original formulation, to be a vehicle for self-identification. 

There are more than 100 groups who can theoretically make the 

same claim that we see here today. But again, we are very, very 

sensitive to these issues. These are issues that have grown historically. We just want to urge caution at this point. 

Mr. HORN. Well, I think that we can all agree with you on the 

caution. I think that the last thing that we want is some type of 

bureaucratic, racial characterization that God knows poor old 

South Africa went through for long enough. You had the blacks, 

the coloreds, and the whites. 

I remember when I was sent over there by the U.S. Information 

Agency to speak on human rights and civil rights in 1979, I was 

330

used as the excuse they had to bring all of these people from these 

different categories together. 

One of them happened to be an Indian woman from India with 

a Ph.D. in nuclear physics that the South Africans spent 12 years 

deciding whether to admit her, because she was not black. I guess 

she was colored. But since they call Indians caucasians, they did 

not want to put her in white. And so forth, and so forth. A sickening commentary on the human condition. I do not think that we 

want to get into it. 

But it leads to the next question, which is should we ask any of 

these questions, and can we not determine voting discrimination by 

looking at precincts and wondering why they are low, and maybe 

look at socioeconomic class which might be the main factor rather 

than race or ethnicity? 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Well, again, I think that my colleague, Mr. 

Rodriguez, responded to that in his statement. There is a real concern that there are people out there who want to eliminate the categories to cover their tracks. There are some articles that appeared 

in the Washington Times recently indicating that elimination of all 

categories would be a really nifty way to take those footprints that 

I was talking about, just kind of take a little broom and just dust 

them away. So now nobody knows what really happened. 

And I think that would be something that we would have to— if that were the reason for this, we would clearly have to oppose 

it. 

You know, we do not think that we are done with the business 

of eliminating racism, segregation, and discrimination in this country. We do not think that it is time to erase those footprints. When 

we are, then we will come back and we will talk about it some 

more, I think. 

Mr. HORN. Mr. Rodriguez, do you want to get into this voting 

rights discussion? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I would probably just prefer to just piggyback on 

what he just mentioned, but also speak about it from a research 

perspective. For the Hispanic community, it is important considering that currently we experience 30 percent poverty. There is a 

real concern for us to know what is going on within the community 

with regard to all of the socioeconomic conditions as they relate to 

ethnicity. 

We cannot afford to lose that data, from a public policy or research perspective. Because that is really critical to the kind of 

work that we are doing in trying to alleviate poverty and discrimination within the Hispanic community. 

Mr. HORN. I now yield to the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, Mrs. Maloney of New York, to question the witnesses. 

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

First of all, I would like to mention to Mr. McDougall that Kweisi 

Mfume, the head of your organization, is a former colleague and 

good friend. I hope that you will send my warm regards to him, 

and I would especially like to thank Mr. Graham for his very 

thoughtful testimony, and for coming here and being with us today. 

I would like to really ask each of you to answer the two questions 

that I presented in my opening statement and I will say them 

again to you. 

331

Do the categories as they exist today still serve the purpose of 

helping the Government fight discrimination? That is question No. 

1. Second, how can we achieve that goal and simultaneously provide individuals with the opportunity to identify themselves in the 

way that makes them feel most comfortable? 

And I would like to start with Ms. Graham. 

Ms. GRAHAM. In the fight against discrimination, I think that we 

have to remember that there are all kinds of discrimination. The 

multiracial community is very, very sensitive to discrimination of 

other communities. But there is not only black discrimination and 

Hispanic discrimination, but there is also discrimination against 

multiracial people because they are multiracial. And that has to be 

looked at as well. 

If we do not have a category, if we are not counted, if we are not 

tracked, then we cannot do any of that. We cannot fight discrimination against the multiracial community. 

Mr. Rodriguez says that his community needs certain data for 

certain reasons. Our community needs the same type of data for 

the same type of reasons. It is no different than any other community. 

We have medical issues where multiracial children are totally invisible in the medical community. They are not recognized. They do 

not exist. I have no idea what the medical risks are for this child, 

not at all. No studies have been done, nothing. 

It is a very, very big problem for our community. I think that it 

is one that can only be solved with the addition of a multiracial 

category as we propose it. 

I also want to say something about the Voting Rights Act too. I 

am not a lawyer. But our legal experts asked us to call the Census 

Bureau and ask if there is any type of memorandum on how this 

is going to affect voting rights, because this question had also come 

back to us several times. 

The Census Bureau said, ‘‘We have nothing, we suggest that you 

call the Justice Department.’’ I personally called the Justice Department and asked if there were any kind of memorandum or any 

kind of explanation on how multiracial classification was going to 

adversely affect voting rights. And they said there is nothing, because it will not affect voting rights in this country. 

Mr. HORN. Do you have that particular answer? We would like 

it for the record at this point, if you could put it in, on the Justice 

Department. 

Ms. GRAHAM. I said what the answer was. 

Mr. HORN. I mean did they ever do it in writing? 

Ms. GRAHAM. No, they did not do it in writing. I have the name 

of the gentleman that I talked to. 

Mr. HORN. Why don’t you let our staff know, and we will followup and try to get something in writing. And that will be put in 

at this point in the record. 

[The information referred to follows:]

332


g:\graphics\45174.240
333


g:\graphics\45174.241
334


g:\graphics\45174.242
335


g:\graphics\45174.243
336


g:\graphics\45174.244
337

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Ms. Graham. 

Mr. McDougall, would you like me to repeat the questions? 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Would you just repeat the first question, and 

then the second one? 

Mrs. MALONEY. Do the categories as they exist today still serve 

the purpose of helping the Government fight discrimination? 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. If I could just answer that one. Absolutely, yes. 

That is our position. 

The second question? 

Mrs. MALONEY. Would you like to elaborate on that? 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. No. I think that all of our testimony, my testimony and Mr. Rodriguez’ testimony, I think underscores all of the 

reasons. Education, discrimination in education, lending, employment, and voting. We need the data. Our position is that we absolutely do need those categories to do the work that we do. 

Mrs. MALONEY. My second question is how can we achieve that 

goal and simultaneously provide individuals with the opportunity 

to identify themselves in a way that makes them most comfortable? 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Here, I think, I am moving out into territory 

that is more the territory that I covered when I was an organizer. 

It is my view that one asserts one’s social, political, and economic 

rights in relationship with other people. 

We have never seen the categories in the census as a way for us 

to assert who we are. We see the categories as a record of some 

things that have been done to us, and that we have to respond to. 

But we have never seen the census as a medium of self-definition. 

Self-definition in the African-American community has to do with 

what church you belong to, where you live, where you work, what 

political organizations you are associated with, and what civic organizations you participate in, as you articulate your citizenship in 

the country. That is the only answer that I could give. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. On the first question, I think that there is no 

question in our mind that the data has been used and is critical 

to public service delivery at the street level. Clearly, we have seen 

that happen in terms of our own programs in serving our own respective communities, in establishing and defining need, and being 

able to address and target some resources to them. 

On the second question, I think that in part we have been sort 

of thinking about just that very question. And suggesting that if 

very reliable census data showed that you can put a multiracial 

category outside of the standard race classification, thereby not disturbing those categories and providing for some disaggregated multiracial data, meaning that you would not just have multiracial but 

you might have sort of African-American and sort of white, much 

more specific data. 

So that you are not lumping a bunch of persons into one category 

or a bunch of multiracial persons into one very heterogeneous category, where the data is kind of ambiguous. If that could be done 

at some other point or at some other place within the census without disturbing or without taking away from the quality and accuracy of the data as it is currently collected and used, then I think 

that is something that we would like to consider and that we would 

entertain. 

338

Mrs. MALONEY. Some people have suggested keeping the census 

form, the short form, as it is, but adding multiracial and other categories to the long form as one approach. That might be a compromise approach. 

But my second question, I guess you have elaborated enough. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Hopefully. But clearly, there is a real serious 

concern on our part that the categories as they are currently, are 

not disturbed. And so even on a long or short form, we would have 

a lot of concern with that. 

Mrs. MALONEY. You would not even like multiracial on the long 

form? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, not if it is within those standard classifications. We would have a problem with that. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Some of my colleagues have been quite vocal 

about the content of the census. They argue that the census should 

collect only what is required to administer the law. I would like to 

ask each of you to comment on this criteria on what you think 

should be included in the census. They want only information that 

is necessary to administer the law. 

How do you feel about that? And I will start with Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think that to the extent that we are talking 

about administering services, which means that you would necessarily collect socioeconomic data, that that sort of makes sense. 

If it is for the strictest purpose in terms of the narrowest definition, 

that being collecting race and ethnic data only for civil rights enforcement, I think that we would like to see it a little expanded, 

because of the use, and the purpose, and the importance of all of 

the remaining data in terms of socioeconomic and otherwise that 

is used for research and delivery of public services broadly throughout the agencies. 

So in some sense, if the meaning is the narrowest definition of 

administering the law, then we probably would not support that. 

But if it means that we would be collecting and maintaining socioeconomic data, that is something that we would support. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. McDougall. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. I concur. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Would you comment also on the proposal that 

some of my colleagues have put out on keeping the short form as 

it is for race, but putting multiracial on the long form? 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. I believe that in last month’s panel that I 

heard Congressman Sawyer advance that proposal. That is something that we would certainly study. Again, like I say, we are gearing up for our national convention right now where these kinds of 

things will be discussed in a full blown aspect. Again, I would be 

happy to report back to you after that. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Graham. 

Ms. GRAHAM. I think that part of the problem that we have at 

this point is that multiracial people can be multiracial people in 

one State and not multiracial in another State. In one State, they 

might be considered white or black. And if you go to different 

States across borders, you have that problem. 

I think that if we furthered that by putting the multiracial category only on the long form and not on the short form, we would 

339

have a very big problem. Then you can be multiracial on one Government form, but not on another Government form. 

I see a lot of problems with that, and we would not accept that. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Ms. Graham, how does Project RACE feel about 

the potential civil rights consequences of decreasing the populations of longstanding minority groups that were raised by Mr. 

Rodriguez and Mr. McDougall? 

Ms. GRAHAM. I think that my testimony shows that particularly 

with the use of the Fulton County school data that that is not happening. As a matter of fact, in that situation, the Hispanic community grew by 119 percent when the multiracial classification was 

added. So we are not talking about decreasing numbers. 

Also, three Government studies have now been concluded. The 

National Content Survey, the survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the RAETT Test, the results of which came out last 

week. 

Why are we doing all of these Government studies, if we are not 

taking this useful information and putting it to work for us? 

And what all three of these Government studies showed, was 

that there are not big defections, if you will, from any of the other 

racial categories into the multiracial category. So I think that really has been taken care of. 

Mrs. MALONEY. My time is up, but one brief last question on the 

point that you just raised, and that some of you raised in your testimony. And that is the pilot studies by the Census Bureau shows 

that about 1.5 percent of the population chooses a multiracial category when given the opportunity. And I would like to really address this question to Mr. McDougall and Mr. Rodriguez. 

Given that fact, Mr. McDougall, would you and Mr. Rodriguez 

explain why this 1.5 percent makes it so difficult to enforce civil 

rights laws? 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. One of the things that I mentioned was that 

as a matter of racial fact, perhaps 70 percent of the African-American population is in fact multiracial. That racial interchange took 

place primarily during slavery and immediately afterwards. And 

there is a pretty clear African-American identification all the way 

up until the products of interracial marriages that took place after 

the Loving case and the counter-culture of the 1960’s. 

But the experience in the Hispanic category I think is instructive. Because before 1960, there was no such category. Now we 

have heard of the studies of the U.S. Census Bureau, the three 

studies that have taken place. I would just need to point out that 

those three studies have taken place during a period of time which 

is actually rather telescoped in terms of the evolution of the census. 

We are talking about three studies that all took place in less 

than 5 years. The experience of the Hispanic category is that when 

it was introduced into the census over a period of two or three censuses in like 20 to 30 years, that there was a dramatic change. 

That is something that we cannot ignore. And again, that is the 

reason why we are urging caution. And we are planning ourselves 

to study this, and watch and wait. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think in part that my testimony also suggests 

that over time, and this is really in the long run, that the likelihood that more people will become more conscious and underVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00345 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
340

standing of their multiracial and multiethnic areas makes it more 

likely that they will choose this category. 

There is also an issue of straight confusion about race and ethnicity, and about the differences, and about the meanings, which 

makes it very likely, and the tests have shown this, that there is 

confusion in identifying with the multiracial category, partly because of confusion in identifying as a race or as an ethnicity. 

So it is likely that a good number of those who erroneously chose 

this category, those who are not multiracial, will select multiracial. 

And indeed, that is a problem. 

So I completely concur that the Hispanic category has been an 

interesting one to look at. Because over time, as identity becomes 

a more visible discussion and debate in terms of what is Hispanic, 

more Hispanics are more inclined to view themselves as Hispanic. 

So over time, as multiracial becomes a more heated debate in this 

country, which I think it will, and I think that the media and definitely the attention so far has shown that this proposes to be a 

major issue in the future. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Should multiracial be treated as one of the protected categories for civil rights laws and voting rights laws, should 

expand the class of protection to include multiracial? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think that from our perspective that we will 

have to see how courts interpret past remedies of disadvantaged 

populations, and what occurs from the legal framework in terms of 

civil rights, and whether this category fits into that or not. It will 

be an interesting discussion, and I think that we will be viewing 

it very carefully. 

But if in fact it is determined that this is a protected class, then 

lots of things start to change. And I think that we will be seeing 

some of those changes. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Congresswoman, if I can also respond to that. 

One of the things that I think it is important to remember is that 

there is no legal record of discrimination against a person because 

they are multiracial. A multiracial person is part of a protected category, I would think, or the argument will be made. Because some 

part of the multiracial person’s ancestry correlates with a historically oppressed group, a group that has historically suffered segregation or discrimination. 

Under those circumstances, a person who is multiracial might 

take the position that they wanted specifically to affirm their identity with that group which has suffered the most. Partly because 

of the benefits that might accrue, but also because of the honor of 

the struggle against those kinds of things. 

That is certainly the route that my family has taken. My family 

is, you know. I do not even go there, do you know what I mean. 

So you know, I think that it is an honorable calling to stand up 

and be counted, you know, in the struggle against discrimination 

and segregation in this country. 

Certainly, this is one of the things that I meant to say earlier. 

I meant to actually bring some NAACP membership applications 

with me. Because I wanted to distribute them among all of my colleagues who are here, and welcome them to join us in the fight that 

we have. 

341

But again, we do have a slight legal obstacle. Because there is 

no legal record of discrimination against a person because they are 

multiracial. 

Ms. GRAHAM. I would like to comment as well. There is legal 

record. I am not an attorney, and our attorneys were not invited 

to be here today, but I would like to get written statements from 

our legal experts about that. Because there has been rather blatant 

discrimination. 

Mr. HORN. Without objection, that will be put into the record at 

this point. 

[The information referred to follows:]

342


g:\graphics\45174.245
343


g:\graphics\45174.246
344


g:\graphics\45174.247
345


g:\graphics\45174.248
346


g:\graphics\45174.249
347


g:\graphics\45174.250
348


g:\graphics\45174.251
349


g:\graphics\45174.252
350


g:\graphics\45174.253
351


g:\graphics\45174.254
352


g:\graphics\45174.255
353


g:\graphics\45174.256
354


g:\graphics\45174.257
355


g:\graphics\45174.258
356


g:\graphics\45174.259
357


g:\graphics\45174.260
358


g:\graphics\45174.261
359


g:\graphics\45174.262
360


g:\graphics\45174.263
361


g:\graphics\45174.264
362


g:\graphics\45174.265
363


g:\graphics\45174.266
364


g:\graphics\45174.267
365


g:\graphics\45174.268
366


g:\graphics\45174.269
367


g:\graphics\45174.270
368


g:\graphics\45174.271
369


g:\graphics\45174.272
370


g:\graphics\45174.273
371

Ms. GRAHAM. Also, Mr. McDougall talks about fighting racism 

and discrimination. And I would like to make clear that a multiracial category will not mean that multiracial people will ever stop 

fighting discrimination and racism. We will continue to fight discrimination and racism as multiracial people and as members of 

other communities. 

Mrs. MALONEY. But Ms. Graham, do you believe that multiracial 

should be a protected category in terms of civil rights laws and voting rights laws? 

Ms. GRAHAM. I really do not know how that will play out quite 

honestly, and that is what I would like to talk to our legal experts 

about and get back to the subcommittee on that. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HORN. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, for questions. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Graham, let me first of all just commend and congratulate 

you for the level of activism, involvement, and willingness to advocate for something that you believe in, and believe very strongly in. 

I think that is really the essence of what has made America, and 

I commend you for that. 

I would like to ask you, would you suggest that I am multiracial? 

Ms. GRAHAM. I think that it is how you consider yourself. If you 

identify yourself as multiracial, then you would be multiracial. If 

you identify as black, you would be black. 

We talk a lot about self-identification. And Mr. McDougall and 

Mr. Rodriguez have talked about that you can self-identify. Multiracial people cannot always self-identify. That is part of the problem. 

As a matter of fact, the Equal Opportunity Commission tells employers that they should not ask a person their race. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. But we are talking about public policy. 

We have gone beyond the individuality of self, even though that is 

a part. So I need to know what you would define me. 

Ms. GRAHAM. It is not up to me to define you. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Then would it be up to the Government 

to define individuals by putting it on the form? 

Ms. GRAHAM. No. It is up to you to define yourself, and have the 

ability from the Government to be able to define yourself. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Let me ask you another question. 

Would you tell me just briefly what you think racism is? 

Ms. GRAHAM. I think that the racism is any kind of discrimination by anyone of one race or two races against anyone else. We 

see racism sometimes in this country as just racism against the 

black community, but that is not true. You can be racist against 

any community, including the multiracial community. I do not 

know if that answers your question. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Oh, I think it does. Of course, my definition is a little different than your definition. My definition suggests 

that racism really is the deliberate and systematic oppression of 

one group of people by another group of people for the sole purpose 

of maintaining dominance and control for the oppressing group 

over the oppressed group. 

372

So I think that it is a little different and I think that we all operate on the basis of our understanding. As I indicated, I certainly 

appreciate your involvement. 

Ms. GRAHAM. I agree with you on your definition. 

Would you agree with me that that is what is happening to the 

multiracial community? 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, I am not sure that there has been 

the orchestration of the deliberateness that perhaps I am talking 

about and have seen. Perhaps we will ferret out a little bit of that, 

because I would like to go to your son. 

Ryan, let me just tell you that you are indeed a role model for 

thousands of young people all over America. For them to know that 

you believe that by expressing yourself, by taking a position in relationship to what you believe, and that you actually live it out in 

a real sense the true meaning of what America is designed to do. 

That is for all of us to help make decisions about our country and 

what our country is. 

Let me ask you, have you ever experienced what you would call 

racism or discrimination? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, not actually. The school I go to, I mean, we 

all pretty much play fair, and there is no discrimination. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. You have been most fortunate, in that 

you have not. And I certainly want to commend the area where you 

live, and the people that you come in contact with, and the community that you come from. It seems to be a model kind of community 

in terms of race and race relations. 

My point would probably be that when you do or if you ever run 

into it, it will probably be more on the basis of how you look than 

on the basis of how you are listed on the form. I really thank you 

for the answer. 

Mr. Rodriguez, you seem to be very definitive in terms of your 

position and the feeling of your organization that a change in the 

rules under which we have become accustomed to playing will in 

some way diminish, dilute, or take away from the ability for the 

group that you represent to experience equity and justice. 

Is that accurate? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is accurate. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I know that while you have already laid 

it out a number of times, could you once again indicate why you 

feel that it is important to protect the rules and the game, that perhaps some of the largest minority groups in the country have had 

access to and have been able to use? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I will certainly try. I would say that we fought 

very hard in terms of civil rights and otherwise to gain a category 

on the census for the purposes of really attacking the issues of poverty and discrimination, that disproportionately affects our respective communities. 

So there is no question in my mind that the accuracy and quality 

of data is critical to the efforts that have brought us up to this 

point in time. And there is no question in my mind that any disturbance or any reduction in the quality and accuracy of census 

data is going to have an impact on the effectiveness of programs 

and services that reach our communities. 

373

The range of services is endless. We are talking about Head 

Start for our youngest. We are talking about all kinds of programs 

that serve those in higher education. Throughout, cradle to grave 

programs that are there and are designed to help alleviate poverty 

and reduce discrimination in our communities. 

Yet there is a clear understanding that right now 30 percent of 

the Hispanic community suffers poverty, and we still suffer disproportionate discrimination. We have got a long way to go, and we 

need these tools. We need them to be accurate, and we need them 

to be useful, and we definitely cannot risk any harm to these programs. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, let me just say that I certainly appreciate the position that you are taking. I agree wholeheartedly 

with it. Because it appears to me that you are saying that yes, we 

have made some progress, that we are moving. But you are also 

saying let us not risk that progress by altering or changing the way 

in which we operate. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Absolutely. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you. 

Finally, Mr. McDougall, I certainly appreciate your testimony. I 

have long been a member of the NAACP, and have always had 

high regard for its work. And I appreciate the decisionmaking process that you are aware of and familiar with. The fact that on some 

of these issues, you are actually going to take policy positions on 

them at the upcoming convention, and you would not want to jump 

the gun in terms of that. I appreciate that understanding of the 

process, and I am sure that your organization does too. 

Did I detect though in your testimony a suggestion perhaps for 

a desire for all of the minority groups in this country to sort of understand that we may have gotten our status differently, or that 

we may have become part of the minority in a different way? 

Another way of saying it is maybe we have come over on different ships. But for all practical purposes, we are on the same 

boat. And maybe we better just try to coalesce around that. 

Did I detect that? 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. You did, sir. That is my view certainly, but I 

think that it is in the tradition of the best of what the NAACP has 

accomplished over the years. That is our job after all. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. I appreciate all of 

you being here. 

And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. You are quite welcome. 

I just have a few closing questions. 

Mr. Rodriguez, my Spanish is many years ago. 

Could you translate the word La Raza for me? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Oh, sure. La Raza actually emanates from Latin 

American literature, meaning what is the cosmic race. It is a mosaic of differing persons and it reflects the diversity of the Spanish 

Latino community within the United States and externally. So it 

has an interesting philosophical meaning. 

Mr. HORN. Has that sort of been a school of literary criticism or 

a school of philosophy, or how has that evolved in Latin America? 

We all know that every country is unique in Latin America. 

Americans make the mistake of thinking that there is one overall 

374

culture that is replicated in every country. The language is the 

same. It may be pronounced differently at a different pace. But if 

you look at the art, and it is all distinctive when you go country 

to country. 

And yet it translates sort of the race. And yet you made a strong 

point here I think—well, let me put it this way: How would you 

relate the questionnaire on the census form that Hispanic people 

now can check off? But they are not considered as a race, because 

they are not a race in terms of the anthropological analysis. Now 

some of that anthropology is nonsense, I might say. Just because 

a group of professors said it does not mean it is right, and a lot 

of it has been thrown out—mostly in this century. 

Anyhow, I find it unique that your group would really be the 

council of the race when racial stereotyping is sort of I think in bad 

form in this country. Go ahead. 

Why would you prefer that ethnic category, or do you prefer to 

have it suddenly classified as Hispanics, Latinos, whatever you call 

different things by yourselves, and then you have big fights over 

these, as I remember. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is correct. 

Mr. HORN. From the older citizens who say keep it Latinos, and 

younger citizens have another view of life. 

So explain to me what category matters the most in terms of the 

census? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think that in terms of the census that because 

Hispanics are an ethnicity and not a race in terms of counting, we 

know in our own respective countries and in the United States, and 

most of us are native born, that we have ancestors and we come 

from a range of different racial areas of the world; African, European, and Asian countries. And with that, we take those traditions 

and some of those cultural memories. 

So I think that it is interesting, because there is such a diversity 

within the Hispanic population, that the separation of ethnicity 

and race does actually make sense from our perspective just because of that, and because we know that there are interestingly 

enough black Cubans who speak Chinese. It is fascinating, and it 

is part of the mosaic that makes for diversity. 

So in terms of the census, we do want to be clear. And we want 

to be able to determine if there are and where the distinctions lie 

between Hispanics of different races. Because we clearly see that 

there are racial differences and disparities within our respective 

Latin American and Caribbean countries. 

And so we recognize that racism is prevalent even throughout 

the Hispanic community. And we understand the need and the necessity for collecting that kind of information. 

Mr. HORN. Since I am half Irish, I am well aware that the 

English did not like us, and perhaps still do not like us. And the 

feeling was mutual for a very long time, even in this country. Yet, 

that discrimination is within a race, as the anthropologists look at 

it. So, I am just curious in terms of voting statistics, for example. 

And in terms of appeals to the Supreme Court, I think that Mr. 

McDougall would admit, the Court takes much more seriously racial discrimination as opposed to ethnic discrimination or other 

forms of discrimination within races as such. 

375

Is it that there is a desire to be in ‘‘protected’’ category of the 

Constitution, that the Court puts a much higher standard in some 

ways in its administration of that particular phrase? 

Do you just want to leave it at the ethnicity category that you 

have now in the census? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Would we like to leave it as ethnicity? 

Mr. HORN. Yes. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In terms of a separate and distinct category 

from race? 

Mr. HORN. Right. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. I think that the census tests have really 

shown that in separating the categories I think we gain some very 

valuable information about the racial distinctions in the Hispanic 

community. So there are some clear needs for some information 

about Hispanics by race, which is something that we are really 

looking into. So I think that from our perspective that the accuracy 

of the data is helped when the categories are separated. 

Mr. HORN. Well, if they check the Latino Hispanic category, does 

that not give you enough data in terms of administering the Voting 

Rights Act and various Housing Discrimination Acts? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, I do believe it does. 

Mr. HORN. If you take any of the racial columns. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I do believe that it does. But the additional information that we get from the racial disparities is really critical 

to the research and otherwise. Because there is a distinct difference 

between what is race and then what is Hispanic origin discrimination. And the Hispanic community by the nature of who they are 

can experience both. 

And being a dark skinned Hispanic who speaks very well English 

can be discriminated against as opposed to a light skinned Hispanic who speaks very poor English, can be discriminated against. 

So there are some clear disparities, and discrimination takes 

many forms within the Hispanic community that makes collection 

of the data really essential. 

Mr. HORN. I recall those that come under the national origin category, often Eastern Europeans in particular, that lectured the 

Civil Rights Commission—I think quite appropriately—for doing 

almost nothing about looking at discrimination among Slavic 

groups as they came to the United States. And let us face it, they 

had tremendous problems in some of our urban cities, and they 

still do. And yet, the Government was not really worrying about 

them. It was worrying about everybody else. 

As you say, sometimes it may not be appropriate, because some 

of those who were in these protected categories were a lot better 

off than the average citizen of the United States. 

So that, it seems to me, is one of the problems we face in reality. 

And I guess that we can ask the basic question of when does the 

day come that we do not need to check the racial category, or we 

just throw everybody into a multiracial category. 

I mean does the day come only when the groups that have their 

lobbying efforts say yes, now is the time? I doubt that those groups 

will ever say that is the time. Right? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In response, I guess when discrimination and 

poverty sort of subside, I would not have an issue with finding a 

376

new line of work at all. So when that day comes, I would be very 

pleased to end the reasoning behind simple discriminatory questioning. 

Mr. HORN. Obviously, what I am thinking about is the 15th 

amendment, which is the right of citizens of the United States to 

vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any 

State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. 

Well, we do not ask for color really. In part we do in the racial 

categories of the census. But I do not know if that solves all of the 

problems of the people of color. But we do ask for race, which is 

the highly protected category in the Constitution. 

Well, we thank you all for coming. And we will have some questions to followup with all of the witnesses, this panel and others. 

And if you would not mind answering them, we would be most 

grateful. And we will put them in the record at the appropriate 

point. We did not have time to ask all of the questions that we 

have here. So we thank you for that effort. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. I believe that the gentlewoman from New York has 

an insertion for the record. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Yes. I would like to insert in the record a letter 

from the U.S. Department of Justice, the Civil Rights Division. And 

it is a long letter. It is dated October 1994. But in it, they speak 

out strongly about any changes that would fragment racial and 

ethnic group data, and thereby make it more difficult to prove that 

numbers of a particular racial or ethnic group are suffering discrimination. 

And may I put that in the record? 

Mr. HORN. Without objection, it will be inserted at this point in 

the record. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:]

377


g:\graphics\45174.274
378


g:\graphics\45174.275
379


g:\graphics\45174.276
380


g:\graphics\45174.277
381


g:\graphics\45174.278
382

Mr. HORN. Thank you very much for coming. 

And Mr. Graham, we are going to look forward to you when you 

hit 16, and maybe you hit 20, and all ages in between. We will be 

glad to have you testify. Thank you for coming. 

So if panel III would come forward, we will begin. If you would 

stand and raise your right hands, please. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HORN. All five witnesses affirmed. 

We will follow in the order on the program. As I said earlier, we 

have read all of the testimony. Please do not read it. We would like 

you to summarize it. 

The way that we are going to go on these rounds is we are going 

to have the clock going, and I will enforce it. There will be 5 minutes to summarize your testimony. The caution light will go on at 

the 4th minute. So try to wind it up by that time. 

We will also put this time rule on the Members of the panel. We 

will have 5 minutes essentially for questions by each Member. 

So let us begin then with Ramona Douglass, the president of the 

Association for Multiethnic Americans. Ms. Douglass. 

STATEMENTS OF RAMONA DOUGLASS, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION FOR MULTIETHNIC AMERICANS; HELEN HATAB 

SAMHAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ARAB-AMERICAN INSTITUTE; JACINTA MA, LEGAL FELLOW, NATIONAL ASIAN 

PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CONSORTIUM; JOANN CHASE, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN 

INDIANS; AND NATHAN DOUGLAS, INTERRACIAL FAMILY 

CIRCLE 

Ms. DOUGLASS. Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members 

of the subcommittee. At your request, I will not be reading my testimony. 

But I can assure you that I am proud to call myself a multiracial 

American of African, Italian, and Native American heritage. I 

would also like to say that I have been a civil rights advocate for 

the last 30 years, a civil rights advocate who is aware of the civil 

rights struggles of all of the communities that I represent. 

In 1997, the community that I represent today are the 2.5 million Americans that call themselves multiracial. If this were not a 

key issue for the 1990 census, we would not have had over 9 million people mark the other category at that time. 

My organization came into being in 1988, and it is a federation 

of local grassroots organizations that are interracial and multiethnic, and they span all of the racial and ethnic groups. 

Some people say that we are not a community, because our colors 

do not match. Therefore, how can we claim community rights and 

issues. I speak all over the United States at student organizational 

conventions. Those conventions include people who are Asian, African, European, Native American, and mixtures, that call themselves a community. 

I think that what is important here today is that a new conversation needs to be addressed in terms of race. We spent an awful lot 

of time talking about a history of racism in this country strictly in 

terms of a white/black context. 

383

I know that when my parents got married in 1947, that the idea 

of interracial relationships was against the law in over 17 States 

in the United States. It was against the law until 1967. This year, 

my family will be celebrating a 50th anniversary of an interracial 

and interethnic union and there are many others like us. 

What I want to bring to your attention is the fact that this is not 

only a personal issue. I am in the medical field. I deal with medical 

issues on a daily basis. 

From personal experience, it is a very interesting prospect being 

put into a hospital having the clerk at the admissions department 

list me as white from her perspective. And the East Indian resident 

listing me as black from her perspective. 

From a lab technician’s point of view, they decided that I needed 

to be listed as sickle cell positive, but the test was never done. And 

if I had not been a vocal and conscious patient, I may have been 

given the wrong anesthesia. 

I am not the only person who has suffered this because I look 

ambiguous. There are many other people like me who because of 

the perceptions of others get misclassified for medical issues. They 

get shortchanged for testing. There is not enough research being 

done. 

So someone like Michelle Carew, who was the daughter of the 

famed baseball player Rod Carew, did not have a donor match for 

her bone marrow transplant. Therefore, she was unable to survive 

and died. 

If we had the ability to at least acknowledge that what you see 

is not always what you get, then at least more intelligent questions 

could be answered on medical forms with regard to race and ethnicity. 

We are not saying that we are a solution to civil rights laws or 

civil rights injustices of the past. But I find it ironic that our organization and our people are being asked to correct by virtue of how 

we define ourselves all of the past injustices of other groups of people. 

I would also like to say that my former president of the Association of Multiethnic Americans is Mr. Carlos Ferrandez, who is both 

Hispanic and not Hispanic. From his perspective and from the perspective of people who identify as Hispanic and not Hispanic, they 

feel that it is as important to claim the Hispanic heritage and to 

acknowledge the other heritage that they are a part of, as it is to 

say they are part of one racial or ethnic group. 

In terms of political agenda, I would like to distinguish the 

American multiracial movement from the movement of Brazil, and 

from the movement of South Africa. I think that too many stereotypes and too many generalizations have been made in this room 

today and in the American public with regard to our purpose and 

our reasoning for being a part of this movement. 

Because I have been a civil rights advocate, I have no flight from 

blackness on my agenda. I have no insensitivity to the fact that 

there are injustices that are going on today in every community. 

But I have to say that what we are doing is basically breaking 

down a paradigm. We are basically having another conversation 

which says we want choice in the matter. We want choice in the 

384

matter of who we are, just like any other community has choice in 

the matter. 

And it is not just to feel good, but it is also because we are discriminated against. When someone goes to a housing development 

and the colors do not match, they face discrimination not because 

they are black or white; they are discriminated against because 

they are both. And when they go to get a loan for a house, the 

same issue can apply. 

The Wedowee case was a perfect example. A young lady named 

Revonda Bowen, was of mixed race heritage, not simply an AfricanAmerican young lady. The insult to her was that her parents had 

created a mistake, and the mistake was a multiracial child. 

I would be happy to answer any questions that you have on this 

issue, because I know that there are many. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Douglass follows:]

385


g:\graphics\45174.279
386


g:\graphics\45174.280
387


g:\graphics\45174.281
388


g:\graphics\45174.282
389


g:\graphics\45174.283
390


g:\graphics\45174.284
391


g:\graphics\45174.285
392


g:\graphics\45174.286
393


g:\graphics\45174.287
394


g:\graphics\45174.288
395


g:\graphics\45174.289
396


g:\graphics\45174.290
397

Mr. HORN. We thank you. 

And Helen Hatab Samhan, executive vice president of the Arab 

American Institute. Welcome. 

Ms. SAMHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I, too, will summarize my statement. 

I want to say that I come here in two capacities. I am here representing the Arab American Institute, which is committed to including Arab Americans in all forms of public, political, and civic 

life in this country, as well as the founder of the Working Group 

on Ancestry in the U.S. Census. Our membership spans all of the 

ethnic communities in the country from Europe, the Middle East, 

Africa, and Asia. It is really cross-cutting on race lines. It is primarily organized around ethnic data. 

I would like to submit for the record the list of the members of 

the working group. 

Mr. HORN. Without objection, it will be included at this point in 

the record. 

Ms. SAMHAN. Thank you, sir. 

[The information referred to follows:]

398


g:\graphics\45174.291
399


g:\graphics\45174.292
400


g:\graphics\45174.293
401


g:\graphics\45174.294
402


g:\graphics\45174.295
403


g:\graphics\45174.296
404

Ms. SAMHAN. I would also like to say that I am perhaps the only 

witness that is here not to speak about the race categories. Our 

Working Group Coalition and my institute in specific would like to 

see the continuation of existing race and Hispanic origin measurement. We believe that these are important categories, and they remain important categories. 

What we have come to talk about is the importance of broadening the concept of ethnic measurement, which complements race 

data. Specifically, I want to talk about the ancestry question in the 

U.S. Census, which was basically a very good idea that the Census 

Bureau initiated in 1980. 

What it does is it complements race data by expanding the definition of ethnicity to include all Americans. It measures the ethnicity of all Americans regardless of whether they fit within a minority or a majority category. 

I have in my written testimony several categories of need, and 

purpose, and use of ancestry data over the last 20 years. It is valuable for research purposes. It is valuable for public service delivery. 

It is valuable for business and commerce. 

It is also valuable for another area that is very dear to my heart, 

because this is what we do in my Institute. And that is to promote 

civic involvement, especially of the immigrant community. Without 

data on ethnicity that goes beyond race, we would have no way of 

knowing where our community lives. We would have no way of 

reaching that community, and trying to involve them in the political process, and in the public life of this country. 

The other point that I would like to make is about the specific 

questions of the 2000 Census. First of all, I would like to thank the 

Census Bureau for including ancestry as a required item in the 

topics that they submitted to Congress in April. I would also like 

to thank the Members of the House and Senate who sponsored a 

bipartisan concurrent resolution to support ancestry data. 

I would also like to say that I know that the OMB and the Census Bureau are now considering a combined question on race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry. Our full working group has not had a 

chance to deliberate and come to any consensus on this. But I 

would like to say that my community, the Arab American community, would support such a combined question. 

Because I think particularly for those Americans whose ethnicity 

is not measured in the race question, or in the Hispanic origin 

question, the addition of the ancestry data makes it really an inclusive question. And I think that it would be a good thing for our 

country. 

I would also like to support the continuation of the long form of 

the census. I think that some of the witnesses in the other panel 

referred to the socioeconomic data that is derived from the long 

form. It is absolutely crucial to have that demographic data. Otherwise, the information we get from the short form is simply not as 

useful. So I would definitely support, and our coalition supports, 

the continuation of the long form. 

In conclusion, I would also like to give an example of how our 

community, the Arab American community, how the OMB categories as they exist today have affected our community, and how 

I believe that the OMB categories are actually more flexible than 

405

we think with a little bit of restating of what the purpose of those 

categories are. 

Four years ago, I testified about some confusion that exists for 

people from my community, particularly for immigrants coming 

from Arab countries and the Middle East in general, who are very 

confused by the fact that the Government classifies them as white. 

We are not going to get into an anthropological discussion as to 

why people from the Middle East and North Africa are classified 

as caucasian. That is really not what I want to talk about today. 

But what I do want to talk about is the fact that sometimes the 

race categories that we are put into are not necessarily as meaningful, and sometimes they are confusing. 

I did testify then and I would like to remind the subcommittee 

today that on the State and local level there are many needs for 

agencies, civil rights commissions, and schools to actually collect 

more detail than the Federal categories require. And I believe that 

they have continued to do that. 

What I would like to stress is I believe that Directive 15 has the 

flexibility to allow for more detailed information when it is required. And I think that what the OMB has to do is restate the 

fact that the categories in the Federal Directive 15; 1, they are 

minimal standards that should encourage and allow for further detail when necessary; and 2, that they have no intrinsic bearing on 

qualification for Federal programs or affirmative action. 

But these standards have much more flexibility. They do not 

need to put ethnic communities and racial communities in a zero 

sum bidding over benefits. We are talking about the ability to 

measure ethnicity when it is needed. 

With that, I will conclude my statement. And I thank you for this 

opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Samhan follows:]

406


g:\graphics\45174.297
407


g:\graphics\45174.298
408


g:\graphics\45174.299
409


g:\graphics\45174.300
410


g:\graphics\45174.301
411


g:\graphics\45174.302
412

Mr. HORN. Well, we thank you. That is very helpful. You finished 

right on the nose. 

Now Jacinta Ma is with the National Asian Pacific American 

Legal Consortium. Thank you for coming. 

Ms. MA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. 

The National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium is a national nonprofit and nonpartisan organization whose mission is to 

advance the legal and civil rights of the Nation’s Asian Pacific 

Americans. We are affiliated with the Asian Law Caucus in San 

Francisco, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center in Los Angeles, 

and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund in 

New York. 

Together we have over half a century of experience in providing 

legal services, community education and advocacy on issues affecting Asian Pacific Americans, including issues on the census. We 

work with the Census Bureau, policymakers, and other community 

groups to assure that the Asian Pacific Americans are accurately 

and fully counted, and that appropriate sub-ethnic data is collected. 

I would like to begin by noting that the Consortium is very sympathetic to the emotional interests of people who wish to identify 

themselves as multiracial. Many of our board members and family 

members have children who are multiracial. I have two nieces who 

are multiracial. Specifically, they are white and Asian. 

Tiger Woods has helped to personalize this issue for everyone, 

and has pushed it to the forefront of people’s consciousness. And 

self-identification is particularly important to people like me, 

whether they have been unfairly stereotyped and categorized. 

However, this is not just a personal issue. Census data is used 

for important national research, data collection, policy development, and resource allocation. In particular, it is very important to 

use this information to monitor and fight discrimination. 

As the tests have shown, there is not adequate time for the Government to fully determine the effects of a multiracial category before the Census 2000, and to do the massive education that would 

be necessary to prevent public confusion, and to prevent inconsistent counts, under-counting, and other adverse effects. 

Therefore, at this time, we oppose the addition of such a category. And this information is used for public policy and civil rights 

purposes including enforcing the Voting Rights Act. The Voting 

Rights Act, the census data determines which jurisdictions are required to provide bilingual assistance for Asian Pacific Americans. 

Adding a multiracial category has resulted in inaccurate counts. 

The results of the most recent report from the Census Bureau further confirms that the data is unreliable. In the test, the Census 

Bureau over-sampled relatively small populations like the Asian 

Pacific American population, including the Native Hawaiian population. 

In one comparison, Asian Pacific Islanders dropped from 65 percent to 60 percent. Now some people have said that this 5 percent 

difference is fairly small. But for a population like the Asian Pacific 

American community which is small, this difference can have a 

very significant effect. And in fact, it will have ramifications that 

413

ripple down, because of all of the different statistics that are derived from census data. 

In addition, this report showed that the percentage of Asian Pacific Americans who identified themselves as reporting more than 

one race varied from 4 percent to 12 percent. What these results 

demonstrate is the complexity of the race question and the potential for confusion. The reporting of race will vary depending on the 

wording of the questions and the order of the questions. Also, these 

varying responses are attributable in part to confusion. People do 

not understand what the multiracial question is, and what the 

multiracial category is. Discussions with people in the Asian Pacific 

American community have shown that there is confusion between 

multiracial and multiethnic. 

I was in a panel yesterday when specifically somebody was asked 

about how they felt about the multiracial question, and the panel 

was confused, and thought that they were talking about multiethnic considerations. 

So there is just not going to be confusion between multiethnic 

and multiracial. People are going to wonder what constitutes multiracial. Is this going to be another drop rule, where if you are one 

part of another race, that you will be classified as multiracial? 

Adding a multiracial category will only cause more confusion, 

and make the integrity of the data collected on the census questionable. And one of the things that we have not had time to fully 

address and consider is the other forms of questions on reporting 

a multiracial heritage. We believe that the mark ‘‘one or more’’ or 

the mark ‘‘all that apply’’ forms of questions need to be studied 

more fully before a conclusion on their use should be made. 

And as Chairman Horn noted in his opening remarks, OMB Directive 15 does have roots in this country’s attempt to rectify this 

devastating impact of de jure and de facto discrimination on people 

of color, and the discrimination that has impacted their ability to 

even assert from very basic rights. 

Asian Pacific Americans do continue to suffer from discrimination. In our annual audit of incidents of violence against Asian Pacific Americans, there are 458 incidents reported. This showed an 

increase of 80 percent of incidents in southern California. A 14 percent increase of aggravated assault, and an 11 percent increase of 

assault. These numbers are really striking when you compare them 

to the FBI reports that overall crime is down by 13 percent. And 

such a persistent presence of violence serves to show that racial 

categories are not abstract, and they are not limited to self-identification. There is really still a very potent impact on identifiable racial minorities. 

I would just like to conclude by also stressing the importance of 

data that is historically comparable and able to be utilized across 

many years if the civil rights enforcement is to continue. Because 

the Government does not yet have a method for ensuring accurate 

collection and analysis of results in a multiracial category, we oppose adding multiracial as a racial category in Census 2000. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ma follows:]

414


g:\graphics\45174.303
415


g:\graphics\45174.304
416


g:\graphics\45174.305
417


g:\graphics\45174.306
418


g:\graphics\45174.307
419

Mr. HORN. Thank you. 

We now have JoAnn Chase, the executive director of the National Congress of American Indians. Ms. Chase. 

Ms. CHASE. Good afternoon, Chairman Horn, and members of the 

subcommittee. 

On behalf of President Ron Allen and the over 200-plus member 

tribes of the National Congress of American Indians, I am pleased 

to have this opportunity to present a statement regarding a multiracial category. 

I am JoAnn Chase, and I a member of the three affiliated tribes 

of North Dakota. I serve as director of the National Congress of 

American Indians, the oldest, largest, and most representative Indian organization in the Nation. It is our job to advocate on behalf 

of tribal Governments, particularly on a myriad of complex issues 

including ethnic and race data. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my comments this afternoon 

with a very brief overview of the principles of Federal Indian law 

that we believe are relevant today. Any discussion of Indian policy 

must be grounded in the fundamental principles which form Indian 

law and policy. And it is essential that lawmakers who pass laws 

and make decisions which dramatically affect Indian people have 

at least the basic context for the legal foundation, which guides the 

decisionmaking process. 

From the outset, it is imperative to understand tribal sovereignty. Since the earliest days of our Republic, Indian tribes have 

been considered sovereign nations with separate legal and political 

existence. Indeed, tribal governments represent one of the three 

enumerated sovereign entities mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. 

As you may be aware through the constitutional mandate, literally hundreds of treaties, and Federal statutes, and dozens of Supreme Court cases have settled that Indian tribes have a unique 

legal and political relationship with the United States. 

For our purposes today, it is important to understand that this 

relationship is grounded in the political Government to Government relationship, and it is not always race based. Further, as distinct political entities, Indian tribes have the power to determine 

questions of membership, and this power has been consistently recognized and upheld by the courts. 

The term then ‘‘Indian’’ may be used in an ethological or in a 

legal sense. For example, if a person is considered to be one-fourth 

Indian, and I am not an expert, but it is my understanding that 

the person would ordinarily not be considered Indian for ethological 

purposes. Yet legally, such a person may be an Indian pursuant to 

the tribal membership criteria and as citizens of sovereign nations. 

When addressing the American Indian and Alaska Native issues, 

it is important to note that the racial composition is not always dispositive in determining who is Indian, according to Federal Indian 

law. In dealing with Indians, the Government is dealing with members of political entities, that is Indian tribes, and not just persons 

of a particular race. 

The second important legal principle that I believe is relevant 

today is that of the trust responsibility owed by the Federal Government to Indian tribes. 

420

As you know, and I would add another reason why we are here 

today, is that we ceded vast lands and resources to the United 

States. And accordingly, the Federal Government made certain 

promises to Indian tribes, such as to provide into perpetuity various goods and services, including health care, housing, education, 

and the right to self-government among others. 

The Federal Government’s trust responsibility is not easy to define by any means, but it is grounded in the oversight and trusteeship of Indian lands and resources. And using analogous common 

law principles, it has been determined by Federal courts to be similar to the highest fiduciary duty owed a beneficiary by a trustee. 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the fact that data on race and ethnicity have been used extensively in civil rights monitoring and enforcement governing areas such as employment, voting rights, and 

educational opportunities. We know firsthand the importance of accurate data in these areas, because we know firsthand the pain 

and devastation of discrimination. For these reasons alone, accurate data is imperative. 

But when it comes to dealing with American Indians and Alaska 

Natives, there is another distinction. And it is the method by which 

many of the Federal agencies actually quantify and carry out their 

trust responsibility to this Nation’s first residents. 

Why NCAI celebrates the diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds 

that make up this Nation, and while many American Indians and 

Alaska Natives are of diverse heritage, myself included, nonetheless we believe that it is essential to maintain the distinct classification standards for American Indians and Alaska Natives as 

they currently exist. 

And while we are very sympathetic to those persons who are asking for a multiracial category, we nonetheless at this time oppose 

the inclusion of a multiracial category in Directive 15 primarily because we believe that such a measure would inaccurately count the 

number of American Indians and Alaska Natives who are members 

of tribal governments, and unfortunately further diminish the Federal Government’s fulfillment of its trust responsibility to Native 

Americans. 

Simply stated, we cannot afford further inaccurate reductions in 

our numbers. We believe that a multiracial category poses a risk 

to the ability of Federal agencies to collect useful and accurate data 

with respect to Indian people. The stability and the quality of the 

data for our population is of particular concern, because we are a 

small population. And the data, as I mentioned, is used to disperse 

Federal program funds to American Indian tribal and Alaska Native village governments. 

In testimony before this subcommittee in April, I believe, OMB’s 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs concluded that a multiracial response option is likely to reduce the proportion of the 

population reporting as American Indian and Alaska Native. Of 

course, these findings were actually echoed in the census’ recent 

race and ethnic target test. 

Perhaps the most poignant argument, however, comes directly 

from the Indian Health Service that concluded that from a multiracial option, that there would be a loss of Indian count in the census 

and on vital event records of approximately 25 percent. IHS beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00426 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
421

lieves that diminishment of Indian counts would translate to a 

total annual funding loss of $500 million, and that tribal health 

contacts would be curtailed to the degree that the data are diminished. 

IHS stated overall that this would severely impact their ability 

to advocate on behalf of tribal governments, and further diminish 

their ability to provider services to an already severely underserved 

population. 

It is my understanding that the new rules being set forth by the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development with respect to Indian programs are also going to rely on census data, and could be 

affected as well. 

We concur with the concerns that have been raised certainly regarding the issues of confusion. I know that even to say that I am 

Native American is something that I have had to learn, or am I an 

American Indian. I identify as a member of the three affiliated 

tribes. So we know when we go into our communities that there is 

going to be confusion. We thank you for this opportunity to present 

the statement in connection with this vital issue. And I would finally conclude that our position is that any change to current 

measures of race and ethnicity would have far reaching legal, financial, and statistical implications for the American Indian and 

Alaska Native population. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chase follows:]

422


g:\graphics\45174.308
423


g:\graphics\45174.309
424


g:\graphics\45174.310
425


g:\graphics\45174.311
426


g:\graphics\45174.312
427


g:\graphics\45174.313
428

Mr. HORN. Thank you very much and now Mr. Douglas. Nathan 

Douglas is with the Interracial Family Circle. Somehow I did not 

have a biography. Maybe it is floating around here. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. There are two floating around. 

Mr. HORN. Tell us a little bit about the group, if you would. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. It is a group of about a 150 families who get together and support each other, interracial families. That could be 

interracial because of transracial adoptions. 

Mr. HORN. Is it in this area? 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir. It is a Washington-based group. 

Mr. HORN. Go ahead. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Thank you. 

Congressman Horn, distinguished subcommittee members, fellow 

multiracial activists, well-meaning opponents, members of the 

press, and others gathered in this room, greetings and best wishes 

to each and every one of you. 

I am here today on behalf of my son, Anthony, a healthy, welladjusted 8 year old boy who happens to be multiracial. Like all 

proud fathers, I carry around a picture of my son, and I would like 

to show it to you now. This was taken a few years ago when he 

was dressed up for a wedding in some sharp looking but very uncomfortable shoes. 

As you can see, Anthony is not a statistic. He is flesh and blood, 

bones, muscle, intellect, and genes. And I want to remind everyone, 

regardless of your opinions on the multiracial issue, 50 percent of 

my son’s genes came from me. That means that he is neither black 

nor white. He is both and no one should presume to have the authority to tell him or me anything to the contrary. 

Regardless of what some would have you believe, race remains 

essentially a biological construct in our society. When my son was 

born and the vital statistics people wanted to know what race he 

was, the issue of culture was never mentioned. 

It did not matter how he was to be raised or with which social 

group he might identify in the future, or even what type of music, 

literature, dance, folklore, et cetera that he might prefer. It was 

just about my wife’s genes and my genes. So we should keep this 

debate honest and focused on biological reality, rather than cultural diversions. 

Now most of us know that white supremacists, using their insidious one drop rule tell us that one drop of black drop makes a person black. This crazy concept is an anachronism in today’s world. 

Thankfully, we have reached the point in our Nation’s great history 

where we must reject the racist one drop rule once and for all. 

Supporting one drop today is like supporting the flat earth theory. It is irrational and illogical period. People who continue to uphold the one drop myth, whatever their stated reasons, are major 

contributors to lingering racism in America. Ironically, among 

those still supporting the one drop myth, and opposing the new 

multiracial category, are many in the civil rights establishment. I 

say to these folks, brothers and sisters, this is a civil rights issue, 

and you are clearly on the wrong side of it. 

How can you suggest that a group of your fellow human beings, 

no matter how large or small, must be denied their right to identify 

accurately in order to accommodate the status quo. How hypoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00434 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
429

critical. The violation of multiracials’ right to self-determination 

should ring loud warning bells for every believer in civil rights. 

Furthermore, no organization or individual has the moral authority to impose racial patriotism over others. Some of our opponents 

appear to have commissioned themselves as members of a racial 

border patrol. They dutifully stand guard over America’s imaginary 

borders between the races, scanning the horizon for illegal racial 

immigrants. And when they see one, they swoop down with all of 

their might and unrighteous indignation. 

Well, it is sometimes said that the truth shall set you free. If our 

opponents are truly interested in freedom, why are they so afraid 

of the truth? 

I remind every nay sayer, from the private or the public sectors, 

that all previous civil rights legislation was construed to be doing 

harm to someone, somewhere, somehow. People argued about the 

loss of presumed freedoms or privileges; or the projected disastrous 

financial impact; the insurmountable logistical difficulties; or the 

accompanying social upheaval. 

However, these were never legitimate reasons for activists to 

withdraw. Civil rights legislation and complementary court decisions were enacted and implemented because they were morally 

correct. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the multiracial identifier is the morally 

correct thing to do. We deserve the right to identify accurately and 

whatever the consequences of this change, we as a society will just 

have to cope with them. Yes, it may mean other legislation will 

have to be created and passed. Yes, there will probably be many 

test cases before the courts. And yes, the whole process will be inconvenient to many. So be it. 

Multiracials and their supporters have no reason to be ashamed 

of demanding their true identity. They deserve respect, support, 

and accommodation in their efforts. 

In conclusion, our Government should stop demanding that 

multiracials and their parents commit fraud in order to maintain 

an erroneous status quo. It is irrational and immoral to ask me as 

a parent, or my child when he becomes an adult, to choose only one 

of his racial heritages as his racial identifier. 

Exclusively calling my son African-American or black is a lie 

also, calling him just European-American or white is a lie. Anthony 

will be multiracial for as long as he lives. We should respect and 

acknowledge that fact. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Douglas follows:]

430


g:\graphics\45174.314
431


g:\graphics\45174.315
432


g:\graphics\45174.316
433

Mr. HORN. Well, we thank you for your presentation. 

How old is Anthony now? 

Mr. DOUGLAS. He is 8 now. 

Mr. HORN. He is 8, OK. We might make him the first congressional witness after Mr. Graham. 

I now yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, 

to question the witnesses. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I might suggest that not only are those sharp shoes that Anthony is wearing, but that is a sharp outfit. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Thank you. I thought so, too. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Plus he has a very passionate father. I 

am sure that he is very proud of him, without a doubt, as he ought 

to be. 

Let me just ask you. I mean I understand your testimony, I 

think. 

Do you believe that individually that we can accomplish what the 

Nation must do? 

I am saying that we have individual rights obviously, and individual responsibilities, but do you think that individuals just sort 

of taking a position that this is where I am at, and this is where 

we ought to be, that that might get us to where we are trying to 

go? 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I would not suggest that. I am not naive. But I 

am rational. To me, a lot of what I have heard today is irrational. 

In the first place, a lot of these folks here are talking about ethnicity and culture. They are not talking about race. Race is my 

genes and my wife’s genes, and the result is Anthony. That is what 

race is. 

When people on the one hand talk about well, physical features. 

You are going to be discriminated against because you look a certain way. Well, what is that? That is race. That is the way that 

we should keep this debate focused. 

And the fact is that we are not talking about what Anthony 

wants to be or what I may want him to be. We are talking about 

what Anthony is, the truth, the fact and all we want is a multiracial category. It could have subdivisions. I think that negates a lot 

of the arguments that I just heard before I gave my testimony. 

We want Anthony to be able to choose an accurate description of 

what he is, not who he is going to be, but what he is racially. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. You also indicated that you were somewhat amazed a little bit to see the civil rights organizations, individuals representing the civil rights establishment, on the other 

side. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Why do you think that they are there? 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Well, I would have to filter that answer. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I guess what I am trying to——

Mr. DOUGLAS. I think that a lot of them are locked up into old 

habits and old ways of looking at things. And when we see someone 

like Anthony, we do not know how to deal with it. And when we 

hear a white parent actually claiming a ‘‘black child,’’ it bothers 

people. 

434

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Do you think that it might be that based 

upon their years of study, their years of analyses, their years of understanding the issue, and their years of involvement may have 

given them a certain perspective about it based upon experiences 

that they have had, and based on information that they have had 

access to? 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir. I believe that they believe that, and I respect that. But I have got 30 years of experience in my life dealing 

with these matters too. And I know what I have seen, and I know 

what is true. 

We are not talking about an opinion here, but we are talking 

about a statement of fact. We are talking about what I call a vital 

statistic, a reality. We are ignoring reality here. We are talking 

about multiracial as if it were multicultural and multiethnic and 

it is not. It is multiracial and it stops there. The ethnic categories 

are another issue. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, I can certainly appreciate your passion and the individuality of your being. And I guess that we would 

probably call it shooting from the heart as opposed to maybe from 

the head. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Well, if you read my full testimony, it was from 

the head. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Ms. Ma, does your organization have individuals in it who are multiracial? 

Ms. MA. Yes, as I said, our board members, I believe that we 

have board members who are multiracial. But definitely, their families have children who are multiracial. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So you spend a great deal of your time 

looking at issues that affect multiracial individuals or situations 

that multiracial individuals would most likely be confronted with 

and by? 

Ms. MA. Yes. When we are considering all the positions that we 

take on issues, we work with other Asian American groups as well, 

who also have constituencies where there are numbers of multiracial individuals. And we definitely consider the impact that we 

think that a policy may have on them as well. 

Because we know that discrimination is not always based on how 

you self-identify yourself. We have heard of situations or we know 

of situations where identity really depends on how you appear. We 

know of people who come from the same family, who have a Japanese-American mother and an African-American father. The sister 

identifies as Asian-American, and the brother identifies as AfricanAmerican. 

So yes, we take these concerns very carefully and thoughtfully. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Yet, you are saying that you are able to 

go beyond the individual feelings or the individual experiences that 

people may have, and look at the question in the context of the 

group, and what might be happening, or what might happen, or the 

impact on the whole group as opposed to what some individuals 

may have experienced? 

Ms. MA. Yes. It is something that when you live in a society, you 

know that your personal expression may not always come first. 

That the greater good may be something that you are concerned 

about. 

435

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you. 

Ms. Douglass, you also identify yourself as being multiracial? 

Ms. DOUGLASS. Yes, that is what I am. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And you have studied the issues surrounding this? 

Ms. DOUGLASS. Yes. I have been a civil rights activist since the 

late 1960’s and early 1970’s. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And I guess that the question is do you 

think that there is any possibility that the designation could detract, or take from, or diminish in any way the progress that is 

being made relative to multiracial inclusion, not in terms of designation, but in terms of the movement toward the common and integral part of the overall society? 

Ms. DOUGLASS. I am not sure exactly what you are saying. But 

I can tell you from what I have heard today. I am on the Census 

2000 Advisory Committee. I was on the working group for content. 

I have been active not just as an individual seeking individual redress for my community, but I have also worked as a very conscientious American looking for the best way to identify our society as 

it is today. 

And one of the ways that you cannot do that is to continue to 

tell people that they must adjust their identity to fit the laws. The 

laws in reality must be a reflection of our society. And if our society 

is shifting, and if our numbers as multiracial people who identify 

as such are growing, if in fact we have groups such as Hapa Issues 

Forum, which is Asian multiracial, and if we have the groups that 

identify as Hispanic multiracials, and they all come together and 

have joined the Association of Multiethnic Americans, then there is 

more at stake here than just individuals expressing individual desires. 

These are families and communities. These are people who are 

very consciously saying that what you are asking us to do is no 

longer acceptable. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Do you think that there is any possibility 

that class discrimination or category discrimination could be more 

difficult to identify with the multiracial labeling? 

Ms. DOUGLASS. I am not sure exactly what you are asking. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. What I am asking is individuals who may 

be discriminated against because they are of a certain race and live 

in a certain area. And let’s say that that area is red lined, because 

somebody decides that they are not going to provide insurance coverage to a black community. 

Ms. DOUGLASS. I am listening. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. That is what I mean. 

Ms. DOUGLASS. Well, there are multiracial people who are under 

economic distress. There are interracial families who are poor. We 

are not all middle class striving professionals. We are also poor. We 

are also discriminated against on the basis that as a family we do 

not have colors that match. It is not just because you are black or 

white. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So you are basically saying that this really has nothing to do with all of these sociological and economic indicators, but that what it would really do is give individuals the 

436

feeling that they have been so rightly identified, and now they are 

a real part of the American dream, that this takes care of it? 

Ms. DOUGLASS. You have lost me. I just said that we get discriminated against in the same way as other communities. We are 

a community too. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I think I understand what you are saying. I am not sure that I agree with the approach to rectifying the 

discrimination that you are talking about. But I do think that I understand. 

I really do not have any other questions, Mr. Chairman. Well, I 

do have one. 

Ms. Chase, obviously, you have a great deal of civil rights experience or a great deal of advocacy experience, in terms of looking at 

the needs of groups of individuals. And it seems that there is some 

argument or some difference on the basis of whether or not the 

rights of individuals are being denied, if the designation is not included. 

Yet, there is a feeling by people like myself that individuals are 

indeed a part of it, but that individuals certainly do not have as 

much impact or influence on public policy decisionmaking as 

groups of individuals do. And so the group representatives seem to 

come from a different side. 

Why do you think that is the case? 

Ms. CHASE. Mr. Davis, my whole value system is one that is a 

community based value system and a community based identity 

and so I have great appreciation for my culture. But I am also a 

member of a sovereign entity, that is a nation, that exists within 

this great Nation, and have been acutely aware of the efforts over 

the period of the history of this great Nation to diminish that sovereignty, to diminish that status, and to diminish my ability to 

exist as a member of the three affiliated tribes. 

Even the notion that there are three affiliated tribes is an example of such diminishment over time. We are no longer simply the 

Hidatsa Nation or the Mandan Nation. 

So certainly, I have an absolute commitment both from my heart 

if you will, and certainly in terms of the work that I do each day, 

to maintain that sovereign status. And we certainly find that it is 

that commitment that comes from the community and to preserve 

that status. 

As we have seen increasing attacks to undermine the tribal sovereignty from a variety of corridors, Congress included, that it is 

imperative that we work together as a group, and that we come together. And that is the very existence for the National Congress of 

American Indians. We came about as an organization representing 

the collective sovereigns, because it was the policy of this country 

to terminate Indian reservations, and to assimilate native people 

into mainstream society. 

That is why we exist. We fought that policy. And we fought that 

right to maintain our individual identity, and in so doing to 

uniquely come together and advocate together. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So you would probably take the position 

that no matter how well meaning individuals might be, that the 

greater the rift, or the greater the split, or the greater the diminuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00442 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
437

tion of group potentiality, the less the amount of protection that 

the individuals in the group or that the group itself would have? 

Ms. CHASE. Yes, I would take that view. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, I certainly would concur with that. 

And I thank all of you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. HORN. Thank you very much. 

I just have a few general questions. On our next panel, Professor 

Waters will be one of the witnesses. In her written testimony she 

wrote this, ‘‘The census and Federal forms create categories which 

then have meaning for people. Creating a multiracial category 

rather than allowing people to ‘check all races that apply to them’

will create a category that will take on some social meaning, and 

may actually become an ethnic or racial group.’’

Do you agree that a multiracial category could promote a distinct 

multiracial experience and identity, and would this be desirable? I 

am asking that of all witnesses. 

Yes, Ms. Douglass. 

Ms. DOUGLASS. First of all, the Association for Multiethnic Americans as well as Project RACE have stipulated that the most intelligent way to look at this is to add a multiracial category with the 

ability of checking all that apply. Both of them were components. 

Mr. HORN. All of the above? 

Ms. DOUGLASS. All of the above. We recognize the need to make 

a distinction, so that the multiracial category is not simply just a 

substitute for other. 

Mr. HORN. So if you were doing a voting rights analysis in a particular area, how would the investigators do that, would they include the multiracial and then also all of the check marks? 

Ms. DOUGLASS. Right now, the census has worked on three different formats for putting the question to the public. I am not a 

demographer. But from the studies that have been done, and there 

have been three, there have been multiracial and a blank space; 

check all that apply; check one or more boxes. 

The jury is still out as to which one will produce the best results. 

Our contention is that if you are going to count us, count us first 

as multiracial because we are. If you want further information, 

then ask us what that means. 

Mr. HORN. Well, let us go right down the line. 

Do you have any reaction to that question, Ms. Samhan? 

Ms. SAMHAN. Well, I think that I will just pass, because I think 

that this is not an issue for the coalition on the multiracial question. 

Mr. HORN. OK. Ms. Ma. 

Ms. MA. I cannot say whether or not multiracial people have a 

particular multiracial experience. But I can say that I do believe 

that people who are say half African-American and half AsianAmerican may have very different experiences than somebody who 

is Asian-American and half American Indian. I think that they will 

have very different experiences. 

So the multiracial category is not very descriptive and we have 

looked at the most recent test of the Census Bureau, the race test. 

And this was the first time that we have actually seen any studies 

talking about the check one or more, or the check all that apply. 

438

In that test, the results that seemed to be the most accurate for 

our racial counts would be the check one or more. But we really 

have not had time to fully study this category. 

Mr. HORN. Ms. Chase. 

Ms. CHASE. Mr. Chairman, while we certainly have a great appreciation for some of the arguments that are being set forth today 

by those who advocate for a multiracial category, I must say that 

on behalf of the National Congress of American Indians, the category itself and the implications that it would have for those individuals who consider themselves multiracial has not been a subject 

of extensive discussion. 

What has been is maintaining the distinct category for American 

Indian and Alaska Natives, because in fact part of the function of 

the census data that we have found a reality is that it does help 

the Government fulfill its trust responsibility. 

We, too, have an upcoming national organizational meeting in 

June. Certainly, these issues will be put on our agenda and discussed. And I would be very pleased to report back to the subcommittee some of the results of those discussions, particularly 

those addressing the multiracial category. 

Mr. HORN. We would welcome your input after that meeting. 

Mr. Douglas. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Well, I want to say that I appreciate everybody’s 

sensitivity. But we would more appreciate your support on this 

issue. 

The fact is that everybody keeps talking about census data and 

other data as if it were accurate now. It is not accurate. Obviously, 

multiracials are being counted as monoracials. Guess what? That 

is not accurate. It is not true. It is not real. 

What we are asking is for the first time to make it accurate, and 

to have a multiracial category. I concur with Ramona, Ms. Douglass, that it should be subdivided for political expediency. And you 

will still be able to go back and find out who is black, who is white, 

and who is whatever. So that is my opinion. 

Mr. HORN. Your comment reminds me when I was an undergraduate many years ago in the 1950’s. And this statement that I 

am about to quote is from a college professor at Stanford. This was 

before the Kansas case, Brown v. Topeka, was handed down, which 

overruled Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896. 

This comment was made by a professor in international relations 

who got onto the subject of race in America. He said, ‘‘Well, it will 

be solved some day, and we will all go around with sort of a light 

tan.’’ And in essence, that would be interracial marriage. That 

would solve the problem, he felt. 

Since that is the only political science course that my wife ever 

took as a history major, that statement has been riveted in both 

of our minds since that time. 

Do you think that he was right? 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am not going to fall into that trap. 

Mr. HORN. It is not a trap. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Well, what I tell my son when he comes home and 

he asks me these questions about what is black, what is white, and 

who is white, and who is black, I tell him that everybody is brown. 

And I am going to hold up a white sheet of paper and put my hand 

439

on it, and can you tell me that my hand is white? I would love for 

somebody to tell me my hand is white. It is not. My hand is a 

shade of brown as a result of melanin. We all have melanin. We 

are all some shade of brown. Let’s get over it. 

Mr. HORN. OK. We appreciate your testimony. There might be a 

few questions that we will have the staff send you. You are still 

under oath when you answer them. We will insert them into the 

record at the appropriate point. And we thank you for the time 

that you have taken to make such interesting presentations. Thank 

you for coming. 

We now will go to panel IV. Professor Mary Waters, Department 

of Sociology at Harvard University. Dr. Harold Hodgkinson, Center 

for Demographic Policy, Institute for Educational Leadership and 

Dr. Balint Vazsonyi, the director for the Center for the American 

Founding. 

If you would stand and raise your rights hands, please. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HORN. The three witnesses have affirmed the oath. 

So we will begin in the order in which you are on our agenda 

starting with Professor Waters. 

STATEMENTS OF MARY C. WATERS, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY; HAROLD HODGKINSON, 

CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHIC POLICY, INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP; AND BALINT VAZSONYI, DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR THE AMERICAN FOUNDING 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

subcommittee for inviting me to speak with you today. 

I am a sociologist and demographer who specializes in racial and 

ethnic identity. In my comments today, I will not be arguing for or 

against a multiracial category. And I also take as given the need 

to continue collecting data on race ethnicity by the Federal Government. 

And to answer your question that you posed at the beginning of 

the hearing, I do think that the reason to collect these data is for 

enforcement reasons. I think that you are facing a problem. And 

we, as demographers, who try to do this actual work, are facing a 

problem. Because in order to collect the data and in order to meet 

enforcement needs, you need the compliance of the population. 

As you are seeing, people are visualizing their categories in lots 

of different ways, and I think that is where you get the disjuncture. 

The laws were written in one way, and people are thinking of 

themselves in another way right now. 

I have five general points. First, groups that we socially define 

as races have always had permeable boundaries. Groups last for 

generations, even with high intermarriage and movement of individuals into and out of the group. 

Currently, most parents do choose one race for their child when 

they are intermarried. This is similar to identity changes, which 

have happened over a long time period for white ethnic groups, 

who were once thought of as racists. 

Right now, children of many intermarriages involving whites 

with Asians, American Indians, and some Hispanics are labeled 

white by their parents in the census, while children of interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00445 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
440

marriages involving blacks and some Hispanic groups are predominantly labeled black or Hispanic. 

The point that I want to make is a simple one, which is that 

there is already movement into and out of these groups without a 

multiracial category. This often goes unrecognized. 

Second, there is research on how mixed ethnic individuals fill out 

the census form. And there are just a couple of insights that I 

think should inform the decision that you have to make. 

First, we know that education is positively linked with reporting 

a multiple ancestry. Less educated people tend to report fewer 

identities to the census. We also know from examining mixed ethnic people, that parents tend to simplify their children’s ancestry 

in filling out the census form. And yet, parents also tend to give 

more data than the children themselves do when the children grow 

up and answer the census form for themselves. 

So there is some slippage. When the parents fill out the census 

form, you have less information. And when the person grows up 

and leaves home, there is even less information. And over the life 

course actually, people tend to simplify their identities and give 

less than one answer. 

There is also evidence that when people get married, they tend 

to match up their ancestry with that of their spouse. So if an 

Italian and Polish person marries an Italian person, they tend to 

say that they are both Italian, and they forget about the Polish 

part. 

The implications of this is to the extent that lobbying groups are 

pressing you for a multiracial category, they are composed of parents of multiracial children. One question for research over the 

coming years would be whether the children themselves would 

identify with the same degree of completeness about their ancestries that their parents are currently doing. 

Second, it is unclear about whether this is something that is associated with age, because multiracials are quite young now because of growing intermarriage. And we do not know in the future 

how Mr. Graham will identify when he grows up. 

The third point that I want to make is that there is a much larger potential multiracial population than the number of people who 

currently try to identify as multiracial. Right now, there are a 

number of people who choose one race, yet they report elsewhere 

they have more identities. The pool of potential multiracials is 

large. Recent testing, which has been referred to today, finds the 

number of people who actually report a multiracial identity is 

small, 1.0 to 2 percent of the population. 

The fourth point is that political attention, like we have seen 

today, will likely focus on black/white interracials, and on the implications of an interracial category for the long run political and 

social fortunes of African-Americans. This reflects the enormous 

importance of the black/white color line in our society, and the distinctive legacy of slavery. Yet if there is a multiracial category, it 

will affect much more strongly the Asian and American Indian 

counts. And if Hispanics are included as a racial category, the Hispanic populations. This is because of the much higher rates of 

intermarriage, and they are much smaller groups, except for the 

Hispanics. 

441

So the statistical impact will be much greater. And indeed, in the 

census tests, the African-American population has not been significantly statistically impacted by a multiracial category. 

Finally, the census and Federal forms create categories which 

then have meaning for people. Creating a multiracial category 

rather than allowing people to check all races that apply to them 

will create a category that will take on some social meaning, and 

may actually become an ethnic or racial group. 

The fact that this group does not exist now, except as a statistical artifact and a coalition of people lobbying the Federal Government, does not mean that the group cannot come into existence and 

begin to have social meaning for people. We are probably seeing 

the beginning of that with people right now. And that is what happens with racial and ethnic groups. They come into existence, and 

then they change over time. 

So the point that I am making is what may appear to be a technical choice, which you are probably going to get information about 

how much it costs to do one or the other, it is not simply a technical choice, but it will have long run implications for how people 

actually think of themselves, and what kind of data are actually reported for different categories. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Waters follows:]

442


g:\graphics\45174.317
443


g:\graphics\45174.318
444


g:\graphics\45174.319
445


g:\graphics\45174.320
446


g:\graphics\45174.321
447


g:\graphics\45174.322
448


g:\graphics\45174.323
449


g:\graphics\45174.324
450


g:\graphics\45174.325
451


g:\graphics\45174.326
452


g:\graphics\45174.327
453


g:\graphics\45174.328
454


g:\graphics\45174.329
455


g:\graphics\45174.330
456


g:\graphics\45174.331
457


g:\graphics\45174.332
458


g:\graphics\45174.333
459


g:\graphics\45174.334
460


g:\graphics\45174.335
461

Mr. HORN. Thank you. And I particularly enjoyed your paper. It 

was a very sound piece. 

Have you given that at particular academic conferences? 

Ms. WATERS. Yes. And some of it has been published in other 

places. 

Mr. HORN. Well, it is very helpful. 

Dr. Hodgkinson. 

Mr. HODGKINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The speaker’s last comment, Dr. Waters, is one that I would like 

to start with. And that is the fact that it is not quite clear what 

Directive 15 is all about. If I can quote from the directive. ‘‘The racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standard should not be 

interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature,’’ which 

does not tell us what they are, but tells us what they are not. And 

it would be very helpful for me if we had some clear sense of what 

Directive 15 means. 

If it is to describe the American people as accurately as possible, 

that would be one set of conditions that I could understand. The 

issues that we have talked about were clear when Thomas Jefferson began this process, and we began to see that the ‘‘one drop of 

blood’’ rule was clearly a way of expanding the slave pool. 

Ever since, it has been used for political purposes as well as simply to describe the people, so that we could reorganize the House 

of Representatives, which I thought was a stroke of political genius 

at the time and still do. 

That idea that we change the Government so that it fits the population is a very, very useful idea. It seems to me, however, that 

with the mixed category that we have finally run into the fact the 

scientific basis for the categories is not clear. And that, indeed, we 

may begin to think about biology in terms of what it means for 

these new categories. 

So should there be a category in the 2000 census for multiple ancestry? If the census is to accurately describe the American people 

of course. 

I would like to raise a different question. What do we as a Nation 

need to know about people and why? Some argue that to target 

Federal assistance equitably, we need to keep the current categories in order to eliminate them. Bringing to mind the famous 

comment about Vietnam, destroying the village in order to save it. 

I think that we need to build on our history so far, and learn 

from our experience. When Brown v. Board of Education, which 

you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, was decided, all of the black children in Topeka were poor. Today 20 percent of black households 

have an income higher than the white average. And in 1996, high 

school graduation rates for whites and black students equalized at 

90 percent. 

Minority populations are spreading across this vast economic and 

educational range as whites, which is a great success story. Being 

a minority is no longer a universally handicapped condition. But 

being in poverty is. No one ever benefited by being born into poverty. 

In fact, wealthy black students do better on standardized math 

tests than Asians from poor families, although we assume that all 

462

Asians have a math gene which then enables them to perform superbly. 

Today in America, the census itself has reported that we are 

more segregated by wealth than we are by race, two reports as of 

1996. Minority middle class families are alive and well living in the 

suburbs preparing their children to go to college. 

Our racial desegregation efforts have if anything only increased 

economic segregation. What if we were to bend our efforts to economic desegregation, if we were to truly right wrongs? We are seeing a large increase now in low income children living in the closein suburbs. So the idea that the city contains all the poverty is simply no longer as true as it used to be, if indeed it ever was. There 

is also a large increase in white children in poverty, and that presents another set of issues. 

I know hundreds of communities in which white, black, Asian, 

and Hispanic, and urban Indians live together as friends and 

neighbors, but there are few if any poor people there. I know of no 

community in which rich and poor people live as friends and neighbors. And it seems to me that this issue is one that will come up 

in one way or another in the next 10 years. 

The fuss that white parents made about having their children go 

to school with minorities is nothing compared to the explosion if we 

demanded that wealthy children to go to school with poor children. 

The Kentucky State Supreme Court decision effectively desegregated the State schools economically, arguing the enormous difference in per student spending between its poorest and richest 

school districts. Many other States have had similar court judgments without a date certain for implementation. 

The courts have not yet tested the equally great difference in equity between the richest suburban schools and those of their 

innercity, much less economic equity within a single school. 

If the census categories are to correct economic injustice, what 

indeed should they be? 

If I know that a household contains a married couple, one or both 

college graduates, with one or more children, I do not need to know 

their ethnicity for equity purposes. If I wish to sell things to them, 

which is another function of the census, the most widely used marketing tool in the Nation, I would like to know the nations of origin, and I would like to know how many generations their ancestors have lived in the United States. 

It seems unlikely to me that the traditionally black colleges 

would lose funds by having a mixed race category. I do not think 

that we really know what people are going to decide on ‘‘mixed 

raced’’ until we actually do it. There have been other noncensus estimates that are much higher in terms of how many people would 

change. 

But the idea that black colleges would lose money in this way, 

because they would be a smaller population overall, I think is probably not true. That is if there were a Federal category to aid colleges that have historically taken in large numbers of poverty students from home without a college graduate parent, all of the traditionally black institutions would still be included and would perhaps even be higher in terms of the amount of money that they 

would be eligible for. 

463

It is my hope that while you look at the mixed ancestry box, that 

you need to think about the broader question. And Congress needs 

to advise, I believe, OMB on this. 

And that is, what do we need to know about the American people’s ethnic background, for what purposes, and why? 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hodgkinson follows:]

464


g:\graphics\45174.336
465


g:\graphics\45174.337
466


g:\graphics\45174.338
467


g:\graphics\45174.339
468


g:\graphics\45174.340
469


g:\graphics\45174.341
470


g:\graphics\45174.342
471


g:\graphics\45174.343
472


g:\graphics\45174.344
473


g:\graphics\45174.345
474


g:\graphics\45174.346
475

Mr. HORN. Thank you. 

Dr. Vazsonyi, you are next. And maybe you could tell us a little 

bit about the Center for American Founding, of which you are the 

director. 

Mr. VAZSONYI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We advocate and practice a discussion of national issues as they relate to America’s 

founding principles. We believe that too many issues are being discussed without reference to the principles, as I think my testimony 

might also reflect upon. 

It is a great privilege to be here. It is my first time and the last 

thing that I would like to do is abuse the privilege. So I hope that 

I am not offending the panel and my fellow witnesses if I suggest——

Mr. HORN. None of us get offended at anything, I can assure you. 

Mr. VAZSONYI [continuing]. If I suggest that I believe we are in 

the wrong debate altogether. And this is one of many such instances because as all of the difficulties referred to already by everyone, the question is not whether we need more categories, but 

the question is should there be any categories at all. 

And I would like to recall that when I think about the most 

memorable moments of my life, it is not when I played in Carnegie 

Hall or in the Kennedy Center—I am a pianist by profession—but 

those moments happened in a courtroom in Grand Rapids, MI in 

1964 on the day when I became an American citizen. 

And I will never forget the judge, after administering the oath 

of citizenship, looking over the courtroom at the people and said, 

‘‘Now please remember, you are not Dutch-American,’’—being 

Michigan, there were many from Holland—‘‘and you are not Hungarian-American, or any other hyphenated American. You are 

American.’’

And so, Mr. Chairman, on April 20, 1964, when I was 28 years 

old, I was for the first time in my life a human being with equal 

rights. Never before, because I grew up in Hungary, never before 

had I achieved that status. And I will come back to Hungary in a 

few moments. 

But I would like to spend a minute talking about equality before 

the law, this most noble and most elusive attribute or asset that 

humanity may avail itself of. It was a long hard road. And although the English began to dream about it some 800 years ago, 

ours is the only country that committed itself to that concept in the 

moment of its birth. 

And the relevance, the overwhelming importance of equality before the law is such because we are unequal in every other respect. 

You can just look around this small gathering, Mr. Chairman, as 

I am sure that Thomas Jefferson did when he wrote that memorable sentence, to realize that we are unequal in every other aspect. The only way that we can be equal is before the law. 

It is a very precious thing. And the fewest people, the fewest nations, have ever gotten there, which is why I would like to disagree, 

and I am very sorry that Representative Maloney is not here, because in her opening statement, she said that the reason we are 

here is that there was slavery in America 200 years ago. And there 

were very unsatisfactory conditions even 100 or even 50 years ago. 

476

I would like to disagree, because that is not why we are here. 

There was slavery everywhere, in every corner of the globe, and 

still is, if our newspapers are correct. The reason that we are here, 

Mr. Chairman, is that 200 years ago some people got together and 

decided to build a better life. And it was in America, and they were 

Americans, and that is the reason that we are here today. 

The road to it is very hard, and nobody suggests that equality 

before the law was accomplished the moment it was declared. It is 

like announcing that we will climb Mount Everest. That is an intention announced. It does not mean that we are at the summit. 

It means that we are committed to the hard and arduous road of 

getting there. And I think that this Nation has an unequaled 

record in trying to do just that. 

I spoke of the memorable moments in my life. There was another 

one that I would like to relate. And that was the first time that 

the mail delivered an affirmative action form to me. I remember 

staring at it. And I remember the night when I walked out of Hungary, dodging Soviet military search lights, and mine fields, and all 

of those things. I thought that I would never see anything like that 

again. And I could not understand what was happening in my new 

homeland. 

It seemed to fly in the face of common sense. Because the university that sent it to me described itself as an affirmative action/

equal opportunity employer. And I looked at it and asked, what 

happened to the country of common sense? It cannot be both. You 

are either one or the other. 

Then it seemed to me that it flies in the face of what is the essence of America, which is that we are not locked into our origins. 

This entire society came into being to offer the peoples of this earth 

a place where they can come and not be locked into their origins. 

And then, of course, I remembered my first 20 years in Hungary, 

first under the Nazis and then under the Soviet occupation. People 

were locked into their origins. And people were judged by the forms 

that they had to fill out, and the categories they had to choose. 

And it is a horrible proposition to even mention those abhorrent 

regimes that we all detest in the country that we all love. But unfortunately, there are really no two ways about collecting data with 

the force of law behind them, and enforcement behind them, of people’s origins. 

It was never done for a good purpose. It cannot be done for a 

good purpose. Because it flies in the face of freedom and equality 

before the law. 

I would like to refer to three important documents. Thomas Jefferson, of course, said that all men are created equal. 

Mr. Chairman, I see the red light. I was asked to prepare a 10-

minute oral testimony. I hope that you will permit me to do that. 

So in the Declaration, we are committed to the idea of equality 

before the law. The Constitution in its preamble, as the very first 

purpose of its being, says ‘‘in order to create a more perfect union.’’

And then we come to the Bill of Rights, which recognizes the 

rights of persons as individuals, or the people as a whole, but there 

is absolutely no mention or no provision for groups of any kind. 

And this was true in 1776 and in 1791. It still seemed to be true 

in 1964, when a distinguished American who now serves in another 

477

chamber of this august body with the minority, his name is Daniel 

Patrick Moynihan, wrote that groups do not have rights in America, only individuals do. 

And so what we are really looking at, Mr. Chairman, is the question of the rule of law. And the law is not a smorgasbord. And by 

law, I mean the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. It will 

not do that a generation, any generation, looks at it and says, 

‘‘these laws I like, the others I do not, so let me just observe the 

ones that I like.’’ It will never do. 

So therefore, it seems to me, even though I am not so naive as 

to think that one testimony late Thursday afternoon is going to 

change what so many people are committed to, but I think that the 

compassion which dictated so many of these processes is misplaced 

here. 

Although compassion should prevail when we write the law and 

compassion should prevail perhaps when we apply the law, but it 

should never take the place of law. And therefore, it seems to me 

that both the law, and the spirit, and the nature of America requires that there be no categories. And this is not to say that the 

census should not collect data about ancestry, which people are free 

to write in any way they want. But that is a very different thing 

from preexisting categories, which freezes people into a condition. 

And I thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vazsonyi follows:]

478


g:\graphics\45174.347
479


g:\graphics\45174.348
480


g:\graphics\45174.349
481


g:\graphics\45174.350
482


g:\graphics\45174.351
483


g:\graphics\45174.352
484


g:\graphics\45174.353
485


g:\graphics\45174.354
486

Mr. HORN. Well, I thank you for that eloquent statement. My father happened to be an immigrant from Germany in 1903. You 

sound much like him. I have always found that immigrants have 

a greater appreciation for the Constitution than most people born 

here regardless of race or ethnicity. Because you saw the difference 

between where you came from and where you came to. I thank God 

for immigrants who renew our faith in America when they come 

here. 

Since you mentioned that point of groups versus individuals, I 

am going to take the liberty of the Chair without objection to put 

in at this point in the record a dissent that I wrote when I was 

on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights when some of my colleagues were saying well, we have to translate our ballots, and this 

started in the Federal courts in Lau v. Nichols, into particular languages. 

[The information referred to follows:]

487


g:\graphics\45174.355
488

Mr. HORN. Of course, that is sheer idiocy under the Constitution. 

And yet, we are still doing it, and it is wrong. This Congress should 

have the guts to deal with that matter when we get to it. It was 

not in the original Voting Rights Act, I can assure you. It was 

added later, I am sure, with well meaning people with compassion. 

But if we are going to start carrying out the equal protection 

clause as being based on helping groups and not individuals, then 

we will need 300 or 350, if you include Indian dialects, of different 

types of ballots printed in the United States. And since that is so 

absurd, maybe we all ought to speak English, and read English, if 

we are going to be citizens. 

That was the tenor of my remarks. But I am going to put in the 

full remarks, and take advantage of you opening up that question. 

I am going to yield the time now to my colleague from Illinois, 

Mr. Davis. We will each take 7 minutes to question and maybe a 

little longer. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 

had a feeling that this group might bring out the academician in 

you. I was sitting there hoping that you did not pack up your books 

and run back to academe. 

But it was certainly delightful to hear the testimony coming from 

each one of you. And I do think that academe provides a foundation 

of hope for not only America but indeed for the world. 

Dr. Vazsonyi, I could not help but think when you raised the 

question of Thomas Jefferson relative to the creation of men how 

one can bridge the gap to the practicality or the reality when I 

think of the fact that Jefferson actually owned slaves, but made 

this lofty statement. 

How do you bridge the gap between what one says and what one 

does? 

Mr. VAZSONYI. Congressman, I think that I began responding to 

this when I mentioned the climbing of Mount Everest. That there 

can be little doubt that Mr. Jefferson looked around him and saw 

a very unequal world both in his household and the world at large. 

And it seems to me that the phrase that he wrote is the expression of an aspiration, one that was not reality anywhere else at 

that time, or in the very fewest places. And mostly those who spoke 

English even described it as an aspiration to achieve at some later 

date. 

So it was a long and arduous road, and there were realities 

which happened to exist at that time. I have a Ph.D. in history, so 

I have done a certain amount of reading and thinking about these 

things. It seems to me that there are two things that people cannot 

do. One is to change the past, and the other is to foretell the future. And it seems to me that there is no disagreement today about 

the way that we viewed the past, but we cannot change it. 

I do not think that Mr. Jefferson would have been in a position 

even to change his present beyond a certain extent, but it was possible for him to propose that the Nation be committed to an idea. 

And I wonder if you might agree with me, Congressman, if I suggest that the only test that America ever failed was when measured against American standards. America certainly never failed 

by any standards established or existed in other nations, only its 

own. 

489

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, I would agree with that. But I was 

taught never to compare yourself with others, because you might 

become vain. Because there is always someone greater and far lesser and so the only true measurement is against or compared to self. 

The other question that I would ask, we had a little bit of it, but 

I would ask each one of you, if you could respond to it. 

Since politicians have to make decisions, I mean we ultimately 

may have to decide something on the basis of something, do you 

think that the categories which currently exist really help to fight 

discrimination and help move us closer to that state that Jefferson 

may have been talking about? 

Mr. VAZSONYI. I would just like to report that I arrived here in 

1959, and I happened to end up in Tallahassee, FL, because there 

was a great musician with whom I wanted to study. And I found 

myself in the middle of a segregated State and community. 

I do not mind telling you that I simply could not believe that this 

could exist in America, in the America that I had hoped to come 

to. 

But I was also here in 1964 when I became a citizen, and I saw 

what was happening. And that America was always famous for 

self-examination, more than others. I claim this vanity, I permit 

myself the vanity, because I was not born here, and am not as prejudiced. 

So I know where we come from. Because I have experienced it, 

and I fought it in my own little way, you know, before I was a citizen or could speak English. 

But your question is have we accomplished something? And my 

answer would have to be that if I compare the spirit, the intent, 

the genuine good will that I felt about 30 years ago really sweeping 

the country, my honest answer under oath would have to be that 

I think that we are worse off today than we were then. 

And I take up something that one of the witnesses mentioned. 

I think that if we seek information, then a question about ancestry 

is helpful. The sense is that these categories are really about benefits, or to even put it more crudely, money and that is not a good 

recipe for good feelings to develop. 

Mr. HODGKINSON. I think that the categories are getting less useful, partly because of something that Dr. Waters said. And that is 

the fact that we are now finding much more things going on within 

each category as well as the costs. 

Shirley Halzlett has a wonderful book called ‘‘The Sweeter the 

Juice,’’ which describes a black family in which two children have 

light skins and go North, and two stay in the South. And the description of what happens to them in terms of their lives is deeply 

moving for a white person. 

My feeling is that the categories will continue to get less useful, 

because of the fact that the population is going through some very 

major shifts that we never encountered before. And it seems to me 

that those shifts can only get larger. 

Several indications are that we have roughly 2 million Native 

Americans, and 4 to 5 million people who will claim in one form 

or another, in one venue or another, that they have Native American ancestry. 

490

All of those things, I think, are going to begin to boil over. And 

people are going to become aware of the fact that these categories 

are not scientific. And there may be a disillusionment with this 

whole process, which would be a bad thing for everybody. 

So my concern is that these be as accurate as we can possibly 

make them. And I do not think that the current categories are as 

accurate as we could possibly make them. 

Ms. WATERS. Yes. I think that the current categories are very 

useful for protecting people and for helping people. 

As part of the National Academy of Science’s workshop on OMB 

Directive 15 a couple of years ago, they wrote to every Federal 

agency and said how do you use these categories. And we had a 

binder about that thick. It was extremely informative to me about 

the incredible range to which these data are put in protecting people and helping people in all kinds of different ways. 

I do think that you are facing a technical problem though, which 

is as the population changes, the categories have to change along 

with them. And that is partly a technical question and it is partly 

a political question. And clearly, those lists of races on the census 

are a political result. No person I trained in demography or social 

science would come up with that list of categories. 

But you do need to walk a fine line between changing them 

enough to keep them useful, and not destroying the uses to which 

they are being put currently. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So you are saying the ultimate bottom 

line. I guess when you raised the question of the benefits, I could 

not help but think of Voltaire who suggested that there were a lot 

of people who took the position that the purpose of politics was to 

take as much money from one group of people as you could, and 

give it to another group. Also, I guess that he was a philosopher. 

And I am not sure that much has changed in the way of thinking. I am saying that practically everybody that I know thinks in 

terms of a certain kind of self-interest, and then figures out a way 

to rationalize the self-interest, so that it does not sound or seem 

to be self-serving. 

So there is a tremendous gap that already exists, but it is being 

generated even more between those who have and who have not. 

And all of the groups are concerned about how do I get. You know, 

not how I get what may rightfully belong to someone else, but how 

do I get my fair share. 

And I think that civil rights groups take the position that somehow the addition will decrease the ability to get their fair share. 

How do we allay those fears, or how do we respond to those feelings and questions? 

Mr. VAZSONYI. I think that the first problem, Congressman, is 

what fair share is. And I think that since you bring up Voltaire, 

I would like to take the liberty of referring to what I think is the 

real debate that has been going on for 300 or 400 years between 

two fundamentally different views of the world. And I think that 

we are in the middle of it here right now. 

One view believes in perfection that can be and must be achieved 

at any cost. And another view holds that we are imperfect, and so 

was Thomas Jefferson incidently, and we all are. And that we need 

to go with the best possible. 

491

I would like to submit to you that only if you believe that perfection is possible can you define what fair share is. Because it is a 

very relative thing. 

I really do not mean to get melodramatic. But believe me that 

if you are 8 years old and you are in the siege of Budapest as I 

was, followed by 2 or 3 years with basically no food for anyone, 

then relatively speaking, the poor of America appear to have generally a better lot than a whole lot of people in all sorts of conditions elsewhere. Which is not to say that they are not poor relatively speaking. But because it is relative, what is fair? 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I think that I understand you. I often debate the question of is it fair for birds to eat worms? And I take 

the position that if you ask the bird, you get one answer. And if 

you ask the worm, then you get a different answer most likely. And 

so there are dilemmas I guess that we really face as we try to arrive at a conclusion. 

I am finished, Mr. Chairman. I think that you have been more 

than generous. If the other two would respond, that would conclude 

my questions. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, I think that what I would try to do is to think 

creatively about how to allow people their ability to self-identify, 

but then be able somehow to come back to the categories that you 

need for legislative needs. And that may mean having some kind 

of a combination question, and I have seen a couple sort of floating 

around, in which you have the categories that you need for legislative purposes, and you also allow people somehow to tell you what 

they really are. There is a small percentage of Americans that really do want to tell you that they are a combination of different 

things. 

And I think that it is important for you to recognize that that 

has become a real sense that people have that when they fill out 

these forms, that they are really asking for recognition of something. They are some dignity issues that come up with people about 

being recognized for who they are. 

So I think that some combination there where you can allow people to answer a question to say who they are, and then get back 

to the categories that you need for legislative needs. 

Mr. HODGKINSON. I would also suggest that you look carefully at 

the national origin issue. Because there are some nations that were 

clearly put in the form as examples, because of political pressure. 

And I see nothing wrong with that as long as everybody has the 

right to compete. But why out of 200 and some nations in the 

world, we have a list of some nations on the census and we do not 

have others, when every nation has somebody living in the country, 

it seems to me to be a disequity in itself. 

I find it sort of a hodge-podge of different kinds of information. 

And to my mind, there has to be some self-scoring. But there also 

has to be a sense on the part of people to understand what this is 

all about. And I do not think that most people do. I think that 

there is vast confusion about what this thing actually is. My feeling 

is that we have seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of people who 

actually do come from mixed circumstances. And I think that once 

it becomes socially acceptable to talk about it, you are going to see 

492

a large increase in the number of people who will so record themselves. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I really hate that the press left so soon. 

Because I think that it would have been just great or it would be 

great for the American public to experience this discourse. And I 

certainly again appreciate your responses. 

Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman, and I agree with him on his 

last comment. That maybe we are going to get you back here on 

the third hearing on this subject, which will be July 25, 1997. 

OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, is supposed to receive a preliminary recommendation on Directive 15 sometime in 

July. And the subcommittee will convene to consider that recommendation. 

I just have a few closing questions here that interest me. I happened to serve in President Eisenhower’s administration, believe it 

or not, and I think that I am one of the few that is still in Congress, except for Strom Thurmond and Senator Byrd. I remember 

living through the Depression. 

Eisenhower had a great comment. He lived through, not the Depression I lived through—he was in the military and a major—but 

when he was a young boy in the early part of the century in Kansas. Kansas was not exactly the well off section of America. He 

said, ‘‘I guess that we were poor, but we did not know it.’’

And that is exactly the way I was. My father was completely 

wiped out in the Depression. He lost everything he had, except 13 

acres of a hillside and a house that he had built with his own 

hands. That is where I was born. So I did not know any different. 

I thought that it was the best life I could find. I thank God every 

day that I was not born in urban America, be it Los Angeles, Long 

Beach, or anywhere else. 

Some of this is consciousness of one’s relative deprivation. I think 

that probably one of the most influential books that I ever read 

was Crane Brinton, one of your colleagues a few decades ahead of 

you, at Harvard in the history department, who wrote ‘‘The Anatomy of Revolution, Phase I, Alienation of the Intelligentsia.’’ That 

could cause the Government more trouble than most people think. 

Ideas are important. 

And I remember, as a young man in my eating club, having Kerensky over for dinner. He had been one of the great democrats—

small d—in Russia, who had actually led the Duma in trying to get 

democratic policies and putting the Czar aside peacefully. 

As he warmed up, you saw what might have been Russia, instead of 70 years of communism and totalitarianism and killing 26 

million people. But that did not happen, because of a mistake here 

and there. 

But what I am particularly curious about, Dr. Waters, since you 

have written so much on the subject, and I regret that I did not 

have time to read all of your books before this hearing, but this has 

been a bad week in terms of reading anything but budget resolutions. 

But you wrote one, ‘‘From Many Strands, Ethnic and Racial 

Groups in Contemporary America,’’ then ‘‘Ethnic Options, Choosing 

Identities in America,’’ and numerous articles. 

493

What I am curious about, since you might have been here when 

I noted that groups were concerned that the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights was not thinking about national origin discrimination, 

and correctly came and berated us, and I agreed with them. They 

should have berated us. 

The original focus of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights under 

President Eisenhower was first on black voting, voting discrimination as to blacks in the southern United States. That was point 

one. 

The Commission came in unanimous. He never thought that they 

could agree. They did agree, even with southerners on it. No one 

could say that that was not true. 

Then in 1961, they issued major reports on housing, education, 

administration of justice, and so on. Six major reports. Which those 

of us on the Hill in a staff position tore apart and put into legislation, and beat on the door of the Kennedy administration for about 

3 solid years. We finally forced out of them—they were very reluctant to do anything believe it or not—a civil rights draft in June 

1963. 

Now the Civil Rights Commission broadened its base. Well, by 

late 1969, they at last thought about discrimination against Mexican-Americans. They issued a Mexican-American education report. 

They had not done anything about it. I would hate to tell you that 

we finally forced them to think about the Native American, the 

American Indian. And we held hearings on the Navaho Reservation 

in October 1973 and all of that. 

And women, they did not bother themselves with women. So we 

had to force them into thinking about that. And shame them in as 

fellow commissioners, they finally went along with that. 

The bias of the staff was simply, and I can certainly understand 

it, no group has been discriminated as much against in this country as African-Americans historically, and still to some degrees in 

some places. But it has been a slow evolution of groups coming into 

their own with their problems. Since we had review of the administration of justice in the country, we would look at what was happening to the gay Americans, nobody on the staff wanted to touch 

that one. I mean it was just a wall that went up. And police abuse 

was going on, and nobody was facing up to it. So I faced up to it. 

And so it went. Even groups of Government people that mean well 

sometimes have to be kicked, dragging their feet, or pulled into the 

20th and 21st century. 

So what I am curious about with your writings is do you feel in 

this day and age that we are several decades or three generations 

past the large East European ethnic migration to the United States 

in the 1870’s, 1880’s, and 1890’s, the turn of the century, I would 

just be curious as to what your feeling is on this, how much discrimination if any has been suffered in the East European communities as they met the cultures that came ahead of them? 

And this includes my Irish ancestors who felt that the Yankees 

were beating them up politically, economically, and every which 

way, and then by the 1940’s they were beating the yankees up in 

terms of politicals and all of their neighbors. You know, you had 

the Italian gangs in one block and the Irish gangs in another. 

494

My assistant, I remember, when I was president of the University at Long Beach, I said, ‘‘How did you learn to be a track star?’’

He said, ‘‘I learned by running like heck when the neighborhood 

gang came after me.’’ One learns to be very fleet of foot at that 

point. 

But I would be curious as to how you would sum it up with your 

research on this. Is ethnic discrimination still with us, and is it 

worthy of anything the Government agencies are supposed to be 

doing to fight discrimination? 

Ms. WATERS. I think that you can find individual instances of 

discrimination based on a particular national origin or European 

origin ethnic group. I think that what we have learned, and really 

the census ancestry data has been incredibly important for answering these questions. Before we had that ancestry question we could 

not even really talk about later generation European origin ethnic 

groups. 

But I think that most of the data points to the fact that for most 

of these groups, even from Eastern Europe, they have experienced 

what sociologists Andy Greeley calls the ethnic miracle. That in 

most cases that there is no evidence of systematic occupational discrimination. They earn the same incomes for people at the same 

educational levels. 

Even the occupational concentrations that you had seen for Slavic groups, and Greeks, and Italians, et cetera by 1980 and 1990, 

you can see some vestiges of it, but you really cannot see much of 

it at all. So in most cases, I think that you have seen real social 

progress over a couple of generations for those European ethnic origin groups. 

Whether or not there are particular people who still experience 

particular discrimination, I would say that I am sure that there 

are. But I think that systematically the data points to real ethnic 

progress for those groups. 

Mr. HORN. So then the question would be why do we need the 

ancestry question? 

Ms. WATERS. Well, you know what is interesting about the ancestry question is that the census tends to always be designed to solve 

yesterday’s problems, because that is what you are thinking about 

when you design it. So, of course, the ancestry question was designed to really give information about European groups, because 

the groups were aging generationally. 

But in fact, it is being used for instance to look at Arab Americans, discrimination against Arab Americans. And in fact, if it is 

on the year 2000 census, there will be another group that it will 

turn out that we did not even think about them when we were designing the census. But there are people who will self-identify that 

way, and you will actually find red lining against them, systematic 

discrimination, and income problems. 

And so I do not think that you necessarily know before you collect the data who you might be actually best using it for. We collected it to find out how Eastern Europeans were doing. It actually 

gave us a lot of info about Arab-Americans. And it is the only 

source of information about Arab-Americans, some of whom experience very virulent discrimination. 

495

Mr. HORN. We have major refugee groups in various parts of the 

country. In my own city of Long Beach, there are roughly 50,000 

Cambodians. If you go over to Orange County and Westminster 

Garden Grove, they even have a sign that the State has put on the 

highway, Little Saigon. If you go into central Los Angeles on the 

freeway, there is a sign Korea Town. That is all put up with the 

excited part of the businessmen and women in those communities, 

who would like the tourists to come there, sample the food, and so 

forth and so on. 

So you think that by having an ancestry category on the census 

form, that is we wanted to do an economic analysis or other type, 

a school progression analysis or whatever, we could find where 

those clusters are, and see if they are going at the same pace as 

the majority of American citizens? 

Ms. WATERS. Well, the reason that we have everybody lobbying 

you to be on the short form which is the race and Hispanic question is that sometimes that kind of question that you have, the ancestry data will not be very good for it, because you will not be able 

to get it at a low enough level of concentration, because it is from 

the sample, it is from the 20 percent sample. 

So sometimes if you have, for instance, school enrollment kinds 

of data that you are looking for, the ancestry data is not as helpful 

as if you had it on the race or Hispanic question. So Koreans are 

a race category and you can get that data for the school enrollment 

for Koreans. The Cambodians are not. You have to find them in the 

other Asia category. So it is a hit or miss kind of thing in terms 

of the politics of who is listed separately. 

Mr. HORN. As you suggest, that is very misleading. Look at the 

Mung people, the poorest of Asias that came over here as refugees. 

They certainly deserved to come here given all of the service they 

rendered to the U.S. Government. You have thousands of them in 

the central valley. I have probably a thousand in my district adjacent and mixed into the Cambodian areas of Long Beach. They certainly are as poverty ridden in many ways and less adaptable to 

adjustment to the United States, because they were an older generation really. It is difficult to learn the language and so forth. 

I guess that if we have that question of whether people know 

what they can write down there, and even what it is. I can see 

value in that, as you do a random check of different groups and try 

to look at their relative standing. I think that there are one or two 

good studies that I saw 20 years ago where people actually did that 

kind of analysis. 

Now, I do not know that the Government is doing it. It should. 

It should be exploiting these things. So you see where the trouble 

spots are. And as we go through this argument on what is the effect of changes in the welfare law with legal immigrants, that is 

also a major problem. Because you have an older generation that 

faces a lot of problems that any older generation in poverty would 

face. They are living on very little, which is whatever the SSI check 

under Social Security puts in their mail box. 

But anyhow, those are certainly some of the things that I think 

would affect many districts in this country. Now there are a lot of 

other arguments that we can go through. And the courts have been 

doing it piece by piece. 

496

You have got places in West Virginia that are still speaking Elizabethan English. There has not been much movement out of there. 

And some of them are still in deep poverty with the end of mining 

and all the rest, or the others left, and left them behind. So you 

have pockets of this all over the country. 

I do not know if any of you have any other comments that you 

want to make on this. We will welcome them. And then we are 

going to adjourn this. The House is going to reconvene at 6:30. So 

we are just in time. 

Mr. HODGKINSON. If I could have 10 seconds, I would like to commend your attention to the Kentucky State Supreme Court decision, which desegregated schools economically. Rural districts 

brought suit against basically Louisville. And without any census 

data being used as far as I could tell, the State went through a significant shift in terms of building a floor under every poor child in 

the State of Kentucky. 

That is a model for what we may have to do more often in the 

future. I commend that sort of issue to your attention. 

Mr. HORN. Frankly, I could not agree with you more. When you 

look at the economic deprivation, I think that all of this shows up. 

There has been substantial discrimination. And there are enough 

idiots in this country as well as anywhere else that would discriminate based on color. But often, that will come up in the economic 

data. 

And affirmative action, the word fraud was used in some of that. 

There is no question that nonminority students have checked the 

column, because they feel that universities will not admit them 

otherwise. That is a pretty sad commentary on where we are in 

university admissions. 

Of course, California now is having to grapple with how you deal 

with that when you cannot use the quota system. Affirmative action ought to be used, and a good personnel policy. That is all it 

is. But if it ends up with a quota, that was never the intent of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Hubert Humphrey was adamant on this, as the co-floor manager 

with my own mentor, Senator Kuchel. When we had a major briefing for the whole Senate, those questions came up and it was absolutely clear, there is no quota related to anything in this legislation. 

And all of that was both Executive orders of President Johnson 

and President Nixon, one Democrat and one Republican, who 

thought that they were doing good deeds. Well, they were to a certain extent. But good deeds sometimes get turned into things you 

wish you had not started, because it can be so misused. And that 

is where we are sort of making the circle right now. 

Well, I thank you all for coming. It has been very helpful. Keep 

in touch with us. We would be glad to have any other thoughts you 

have, and we will put them in the record at this point, if on the 

way home and back to your offices you have other thoughts. 

Mr. VAZSONYI. May I make one final observation, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. HORN. Surely. 

Mr. VAZSONYI. It seems to me that discrimination and other 

atrocities are committed by individuals against other individuals. 

Groups can’t do things, and groups can’t sustain things, people do. 

497

And it would seem to me that if the effort that we are putting into 

remedies through groups would be put into maximum enforcement 

of the law and remedy of the law for every individual who suffers, 

we may be further down the road. Thank you. 

Mr. HORN. Well, I thank you. 

And I am now going to thank the staff who worked on this hearing starting with our very able staff director and counsel for the 

Government Management, Information, and Technology Subcommittee, Russell George, against the wall there quietly observing 

this, once the wheels start. And John Hynes, who is right next to 

me, is the professional staff member responsible for this hearing. 

Andrea Miller is the clerk for the majority subcommittee is over 

there waiting to scoop everything up, as soon as we get out of here. 

David McMillen, a professional staff member for the minority and 

Ellen Rayner, the chief clerk for the minority. 

Our court reporter here, committee reporter, Charlie Smith. 

We thank them all for what they did to make a very useful and 

enjoyable hearing. 

And we thank you all. We appreciate you coming. 

With that, this meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

498


g:\graphics\45174.356
499


g:\graphics\45174.357
500


g:\graphics\45174.358
501


g:\graphics\45174.359
502


g:\graphics\45174.360
503


g:\graphics\45174.361
504


g:\graphics\45174.362
505


g:\graphics\45174.363
(507)

FEDERAL MEASURES OF RACE AND ETHNICITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE 

2000 CENSUS 

FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1997 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Horn, Davis of Virginia, Portman, 

Maloney, Davis of Illinois, and Owens. 

Also present: Representative Norton. 

Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and counsel; John 

Hynes, professional staff member; Andrea Miller, clerk; David 

McMillen, minority professional staff member; and Ron Stroman, 

minority counsel. 

Mr. HORN. The Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, quorum being present, will come to 

order. We will begin with opening statements. 

This is the third in a series of hearings on how the Federal Government measures race and ethnicity. Today’s hearing follows a 

major decision on this issue. After 4 years of review, a task force 

set up by the Office of Management and Budget, known as the 

Interagency Committee, has issued a detailed recommendation for 

changes to the standard measures of race and ethnicity. 

This is not a casual matter. It is highly personal for millions of 

Americans who take pride in their full heritage. It also is a vital 

issue for the enforcement of the civil rights laws of our Nation. 

The current measures include four basic categories of race: black, 

white, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaskan 

native. These categories and other standards for the collection and 

reporting of data on race and ethnicity are set forth in OMB Directive 15. 

A major issue is whether these categories are adequate to measure our society now and in the coming decade. In particular, there 

is growing concern that asking individuals to identify with only one 

of these four categories on the census questionnaire and other 

forms fails to accommodate people of multiple racial heritages. 

It is not hard to understand this problem. All you have to do is 

imagine you are Tiger Woods, perhaps without the Nike endorseVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00513 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
508

ment, and someone is telling you to identify with only one part of 

your heritage. 

The challenge is to allow for multiracial identification without 

harming the usefulness and accuracy of the data. One proposal for 

multiracial identification is to create a fifth racial category called 

‘‘multiracial.’’ Another proposal is to keep the current four categories but allow respondents to check off more than one. 

On July 9, the Interagency Committee recommended against a 

multiracial category but in favor of allowing people to identify with 

more than one of the existing categories, to reflect their diverse 

backgrounds. In its recommendations to the Office of Management 

and Budget, the Interagency Committee stated that the multiracial 

population is growing and needs to be measured, but that a separate multiracial category is not the best way to do this. 

The recommendation notes that years of surveys and public town 

meetings did not show a general consensus on the definition of 

‘‘multiracial,’’ and that such a category is likely to be misunderstood by individuals responding to questions concerning race. 

As Edmund Burke once observed, ‘‘All government, indeed, every 

human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act, 

is founded on compromise and barter.’’ The Interagency Committee 

did just that. In effect, the task force has advised the Director of 

the Office of Management and Budget to preserve the current usefulness of racial and ethnic data, and also to acknowledge the desire of individuals to identify their heritage. 

Some will say this recommendation tries to please all sides, and 

therefore pleases none. There are two distinct aspects to this issue: 

The first is individual identification. People need to be treated with 

dignity, especially when they are being asked to identify themselves. The second aspect is the utilization of these data. They are 

put to some very important purposes, purposes that many would 

say outweigh concerns over individual identification. 

The Interagency Committee recommendation leaves the questions about tabulation and reporting of the data largely unanswered. That is a problem, and we need to address it. Will people 

who check two racial categories be counted twice, significantly inflating the numbers of two particular races in a particular area? 

We begin today with very distinguished witnesses. The Speaker 

will be delayed, because he is in some negotiations now on major 

issues before the closing of next week’s session, and we have told 

him he will be able to speak any time he walks through the door. 

So we are pleased when he can join us. 

We also will be hearing from other Members of Congress. We will 

then hear from a number of individuals who are experts in this 

area, as well as the administration witnesses, who will appear after 

we have heard all the rest of the discussion, so that they can integrate the views of the Interagency Committee with what they have 

heard. 

We will then hear the reaction of various witnesses. We will finally get the testimony, not only from the Office of Management

509

and Budget, but also the Bureau of the Census, and the Department of Justice. 

We thank you for joining us. Now I will call on the ranking Democrat, Mrs. Maloney of New York, for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:]

510


g:\graphics\45174.364
511


g:\graphics\45174.365
512

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As you know, I am committed to assuring that the next census 

is the most fair and most accurate that has ever been conducted. 

The measurement of race is central to that effort. Unfortunately, 

all of my colleagues are not committed to this effort. In fact, there 

are those who would have us pay a higher price for a 2000 census 

that is less accurate and, in some instances, will render the race 

question moot by not even counting them. 

The 2000 census will be the 22d census conducted by this Nation. 

Many are surprised that 3 years before the census there is so much 

discussion about what data to collect and how to collect it. That’s 

really no surprise. At this point prior to the last census, the Commerce Department was already in court over how much that census 

would cost and how that census would be conducted. 

The measurement of race is essential to our understanding of the 

accuracy of the census. Shortly after the 1940 count, the Census 

Bureau started looking at the accuracy of the census using birth 

and death records. In preparation for World War II, the Census 

Bureau provided the Army with an estimate of the number of men 

eligible for active duty. 

It turned out that those estimates were low. Thirteen percent 

more black males turned up than the Census Bureau had predicted. It was then that they began to understand the relationship 

between race and a gross undercount. 

Now, more than 50 years later, we have quite a collection of data 

regarding census errors. The methods used in the 1990 census 

caused nearly 26 million errors. That is an error rate of more than 

10 percent. The 1990 census missed people, double counted people, 

and created fictitious people. Nearly 6 million people turned up in 

the wrong place. 

These errors were made by using the same methods that are 

being touted by those opposed to sampling. As a result of those errors, millions of dollars in Federal aid designed to provide assistance to the poor, are being misdirected. Millions of people are not 

being included in apportioning representation. 

Our first understanding of the undercount in the census was that 

young black males were missed at a much higher rate than others. 

But we now know more. We know that people in rural areas are 

almost as likely to be missed as those in urban areas. 

We know that African-Americans are missed at a much higher 

rate than whites. In 1990, the undercount for African-Americans 

was almost 10 times that of non-Hispanic whites. Fifty-two percent 

of those who were undercounted are children. I believe issues of 

counting minorities need to be resolved before we decide how they 

will be categorized. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. Thank you. 

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis, for an 

opening statement. 

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I’m going to 

be brief. 

I appreciate that you are holding this hearing today. I represent 

a district that is 25 percent minority, very multiethnic. One of the 

kids I was talking to the other day asked, ‘‘Well, I’m an American: 

513

25 percent Vietnamese, 25 percent African-American, 100 percent 

American.’’ That was the way they defined themselves, and I’m not 

sure that the categories that we’ve dealt with over the past few 

decades encompass all that Americans believe themselves to be. 

So I approach these hearings with an open mind. I appreciate the 

opportunity to hear a number of different viewpoints as we move 

through this today. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you for convening this hearing regarding the very important issue of how the Federal Government should measure race 

and ethnicity for the Census 2000. I would also like to acknowledge 

and thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for taking the time 

to come and share with us their expertise and feelings as it relates 

to the issues of race, ethnicity, and the census. 

We gather here today to discuss the recommendations of the 

Interagency Committee for the review of the racial and ethnic 

standards on changes to OMB’s Directive 15. This is an issue of 

critical importance to our Nation. This issue is directly tied to the 

accuracy of count for the Census 2000. 

When I think about the census and its importance, I am reminded of a quote from Thomas Jefferson, referring to the question 

of slavery, when he likened it to a fire bell in the night that filled 

him with terror. I submit that the issue of race, as it relates to the 

census, is one of the fire bell issues of the day, because race divides 

us, defines us, and in many ways strengthens us. 

We stand today at a crossroad. We can go forward, or we can go 

backward. I say, let’s go forward. We have measured race in this 

country since 1790, during the first census. We counted free white 

male property owners as a whole person and black slaves as threefifths of a person. Now we’re being told that we should be counted 

as a multiracial person. 

While blacks are now recognized as 100 percent of a person, we 

have not fully realized full participation in the systems of this Nation. We have not reached the day where equal opportunity and 

equal justice prevail. Discrimination is alive and well in America 

today. 

We are not a color-blind society. Income inequality between 

blacks, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Native Americans and whites 

continues to persist. In education, race differences persist in high 

school completion rates, college enrollment, and graduate degrees 

granted. Blacks and other minorities are not receiving a fair share 

of Federal, State, or local procurement opportunities. 

The question of how we measure race in the Census 2000 has 

some profound consequences. Census data is used to reapportion 

Congress, State legislatures, city councils, county boards, and other 

special political subdivisions. In addition, census data is used to enforce the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Equal 

Credit Opportunity Act. Millions of dollars of Federal resources are 

determined on the basis of the census. 

I have a great sensitivity toward American citizens who have a 

mixed ancestry, whether it be interracial, biracial, or multiracial. 

514

In fact, I am certain that a large number of Americans could be 

considered technically multiracial, and especially within certain minority groups, but I do believe that a ‘‘multiracial’’ category and 

other major changes could dilute the political, economic, and social 

progress that minority groups have worked so hard to attain. Such 

a category could take us back a number of years. 

However, I look forward to hearing our witnesses. And I do believe that, after all is said and done, we will realize that although 

possibilities exist, the American people will take a course of action 

that will not take us back away from the gains that have been 

made by large minority groups in this country. 

I thank you very much and look forward to the testimony of our 

witnesses. 

Mr. HORN. I now yield to the gentlewoman from the District of 

Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, for an opening statement. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the opportunity to sit in with the subcommittee this 

morning. I am a member of the full committee but not the subcommittee, and I am here because I believe this is an important 

subject and hope we will all be able to come to some rational response. 

The census itself, for a long time now, has been a very controversial and complicated subject. Into this controversy, we now plunge 

race. The one thing we did not have to worry about in the last census was how we categorized people. We have made a very complicated and very important subject much more complicated. 

At the last hearing, Mr. Chairman, where I was privileged also 

to sit, it was not then clear whether the census was going to move 

us to a new category, a multiracial category. They have come to 

their senses and understood, it seems to me, the rank confusion 

that such a category would impose upon the census. 

Now they come, apparently, with a set of categories that may 

pose some of the same difficulties. I have come this morning particularly, to hear about the new proposal to allow people to check 

multiple boxes. All I can say is watch out. I can’t imagine what 

kind of confusion may come from multiple boxes. 

I know this much: Those who come forward wishing a category 

to recognize their mixed parentage are very sincere, and I very 

much sympathize with what they are doing. They come forward 

seeking a real solution to their dilemma. My problem is, I do not 

believe that solution is found in an official document of the United 

States. 

As to several categories, indeed, even as to the multi category, 

I hope we do not now bring down upon us fun and games in the 

census, as people try to identify themselves in multiple ways and 

in ludicrous ways. We have to not only ask ourselves what are we 

after, but how will Americans receive this question. 

I cannot imagine how Generation X, for example, would have received the multiethnic question or the multiracial question, not to 

mention the ability to check off as many boxes as you feel like 

checking off. This is serious business. There is much at stake here. 

I very much look forward to hearing how OMB describes the discipline in its multiple boxes, because that’s what I’m interested in. 

I am also interested in finding a way for people of mixed heritage, 

515

or at least mixed parentage, if they desire, to indicate that mixed 

parentage. I don’t believe we want to intrude on these categories 

that we have learned to live with. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say this: We are not, when we talk 

about a multiracial category, in this country, only talking about a 

category. We are talking about, not a new category, but a new race. 

And if you do not believe that this is the case, I invite you to look 

at the history of the West Indies, of Brazil, and of South America 

where, indeed, there has long been a multiracial category. 

That is not a category. What attaches to that category has been 

a whole set of distinctions, privileges, benefits, and lack of the 

same. The last thing we need in this country, given the role race 

has played, is a new category that develops into a new race. 

I ask that we understand that we are not dealing with this unrelated to history, either of our country or the world, and that we not 

plunge into new racial directions in an official way, without understanding all the implications. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. Thank you. 

I now yield to the gentleman from New York, Major Owens. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The designation of a racial or ethnic category is not just a statistical, abstract government procedure. In America, racial designations are very political and they were made that way by the majority population a long time ago. 

There was a time when the designation ‘‘octoroon’’ or ‘‘quadroon’’ were not enough. They would not be accepted. It was decreed that 

if you had one drop of black blood, one drop of Negro blood, you 

were automatically a Negro. You were automatically considered a 

descendant of African slaves. 

I think that there are many constructive reasons why that designation still should continue, not for the same negative political 

reasons provided before, but for very positive reasons. We don’t 

want to lose the identity of the descendants of African slaves. 

We have a situation now where the President has called for a dialog to move America forward and to own up to the problem of a 

multiracial society. At the heart of that dialog has to be a discussion of what happened with the African slaves. And you cannot 

talk about justice unless you talk about what happens to the descendants of those African slaves. 

For 232 years, we had a group of people who were forced to give 

their labor to the building of this country for free; for 232 years, 

an accumulation of problems that resulted from the fact that the 

owners of slaves found it profitable to try to obliterate the humanity of the slaves. They didn’t want to annihilate slaves. 

The obliteration was very different from the Holocaust, where 

the hatred in the Holocaust was so great until they wanted to annihilate people. The slaves were valuable property. Nobody wanted to 

annihilate them as living entities, but they wanted to annihilate 

their humanity. 

It was profitable to have them become more efficient beasts of 

burden. It was profitable to have them operate more like machines. 

It was profitable not to have them establish bonds related to families. It was profitable to continue the practice of refusing to recogVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00521 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
516

nize marriages and families, to sell children away from parents and 

to deny any sense of belonging among families or any sense of a 

society, which had mores and traditions before it came to these 

shores. 

Every effort was made to obliterate any past traditions and any 

things which established the humanity of the African slaves. Great 

injustices were done. 

The Emancipation Proclamation and, more importantly, the 13th 

amendment, 14th amendment, and 15th amendment began to 

change all that. But there are some residues that still exist. Because of those residues, because of the kind of damage that was 

done over the 232-year period, its lingering aftereffects, we still 

need to have distinctions which clearly tell who the descendants of 

the African-American slaves were. 

Other groups may have other kinds of concerns, but we don’t 

want to have obliterated, at this point, that distinction before the 

justice—if not the justice, at least the truth and the recognition of 

the injustice is confronted. 

I wholeheartedly applaud the President’s efforts to raise the level 

of the dialog on race relations and the dialog on a multiracial society to a new level. We are the indispensable Nation, as the President said in his inaugural address. We are the indispensable Nation. In order to remain in that position, we ought to try to build 

on the positive factors that flow out of being a very diversified society. 

We are a diverse society ethnically, but we have a problem. At 

the heart of our diversity, there is still a core problem related to 

the relationships between blacks and whites, and this grows out of 

the long years of slavery. The descendants of slaves, just probably 

as the descendants of Native Americans, have a special distinction. 

That special distinction should be kept for a long time to come, 

until we deal with the problems that the long years of oppression 

and injustice generated. I thank you. 

Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman. 

We will now begin with our Members’ panel. Will Representative 

Thomas Sawyer of Ohio, Representative Thomas Petri of Wisconsin, Representative Maxine Waters of California, and Representative John Conyers of Michigan please come forward. 

I think Mr. Sawyer is second there. 

Mr. SAWYER. We’re going down in the order you said, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. I am going to call on Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Petri first, 

because they are former chairmen and ranking members of the 

committee that had jurisdiction over the census before it was 

merged into the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 

at the beginning of 1995. We have looked to them as our experts 

in this area. They have been kind enough to come to a number of 

our hearings and testify on various aspects of the census. So we 

will begin with Representative Thomas Sawyer of Ohio. 

517

STATEMENTS OF HON. THOMAS SAWYER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO; HON. THOMAS 

PETRI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE 

OF WISCONSIN; HON. MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND HON. 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am grateful for your designation as an expert. I guess I would 

say thank you and recognize that maybe the most that we can 

claim is that we have long familiarity with this issue, as a matter 

of census practice and other statistical systems of the United 

States. 

In that sense, I am grateful to you and Congresswoman Maloney 

and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to share 

some additional thoughts beyond those that I shared at your last 

hearing on this subject, as you continue to review the categories for 

collecting data on race and ethnicity in the 2000 census. 

Let me begin by congratulating OMB for all of the work that is 

has done on this important issue. After 3 years of careful and thorough consideration of alternative ways to measure race and ethnicity, OMB has recently released its proposed recommendations 

for Directive 15. 

While I believe that its recommendations properly address the 

concerns of those on both sides of the multiracial issue, I would 

really like to begin and end today by encouraging OMB to address 

something that you discussed, and that is establishing guidelines 

for how the Federal Government is to tabulate and publish and use 

this data. 

When I testified in April, I discussed the importance of understanding what racial categories are and what they are not. Clearly, 

they are culturally determined descriptors that reflect societal concerns and perceptions. They are not grounded in genetic or anthropological or scientific bases, and they are not fixed and unchanging. 

OMB has historically sought to establish categories, therefore, 

that are discrete, are few in number, are easy to use because they 

are broadly understood, and which yield consistent responses. The 

categories are also intended to maintain continuity and comparability of that data over time. That’s a tall order, but I believe 

OMB’s recommendations meet those goals. 

First, the task force that dealt with this was composed of 30 Federal agencies who regularly use racial and ethnic data. The panel 

voted unanimously to recommend that to OMB that a multiracial 

category not be used when collecting racial and ethnic data. 

Instead, they suggested the individuals be given the opportunity 

to provide multiple responses to the race questions when they identify personally with more than one category. Second, they recommended that ‘‘Hispanic’’ remain as a separate ethnic category 

and not be added as a new racial category. 

Additionally, they found through testing that arranging the Hispanic origin question so that it preceded the so-called race question 

proved to minimize confusion. This is important to yield a more accurate count, particularly among all of the populations that have 

been undercounted in past censuses. 

518

Taken together, these recommendations, in my opinion, are an 

important step forward in measuring racial and ethnic and change 

that is currently taking place in our country and may, in fact, be 

a fundamental characteristic of our age. 

By providing respondents with the choice to mark all that apply, 

OMB satisfies a compelling human need for self-identity, while allowing for measurement in the aggregate of the changing racial 

and ethnic makeup of our Nation. Adopting OMB recommendations 

would also enable us to preserve, with consistency, the comparability and continuity of data over time. 

While its recommendations are sound, let me again urge OMB to 

look carefully at the data that will be produced by this new collection system, and accompany these changes with clear and meaningful guidelines for tabulating and publishing and using the data 

once it’s collected. 

Let me give you an example: The Civil Rights Division of the 

Justice Department is charged with enforcing the Fair Housing 

Act. It prohibits discrimination in the granting of home mortgages. 

Monitoring and enforcement generally involve a comparison of census data with reports of lending activity for minority applicants for 

a specific geographical area. 

If the census data on race and ethnicity for a given census tract 

includes a percentage of residents who checked off white and black 

or Asian-American, the question is, should the Justice Department 

consider that portion of the population to be minority or nonminority for the purposes of determining whether there is a pattern 

of discrimination in that neighborhood? It is particularly important 

to understand how and when to use aggregated or disaggregated 

data when more than one category is checked. 

There are not easy answers to this and similar kinds of questions, but they need to be clear, because the soundness of OMB’s 

proposed changes to Directive 15 must be judged, in part, by 

whether clear and consistent guidelines can be developed to provide 

a rational and consistent response that is comparable with similar 

data over time. 

Otherwise, the Federal Government may inadvertently erase the 

gains that the Nation has made over the last few decades in an effort to create a more inclusive society. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity that you 

and members of the subcommittee have given to participate in your 

continued oversight of this important issue. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas Sawyer follows:]

519


g:\graphics\45174.366
520


g:\graphics\45174.367
521


g:\graphics\45174.368
522


g:\graphics\45174.369
523

Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman and I think he put his finger 

on the key question. 

I now yield to his colleague who has spent many years working 

with the census, Mr. Petri of Wisconsin. He is the introducer of the 

Tiger Woods bill, H.R. 830, of the House of Representatives, which 

would create a multiracial category. 

Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing 

and continuing to take an interest in the issue of racial categorization. 

Last April, I testified before this subcommittee on behalf of the 

bill you referred to, H.R. 830, to add a multiracial category to the 

census and other Federal forms which ask respondents to categorize themselves by race. In the course of that testimony, I briefly mentioned some concerns on how the data would be tabulated 

if, instead of a multiracial category, we were to allow people to 

check more than one of the existing categories. 

As you know, the Office of Management and Budget recently 

issued its preliminary recommendations which indeed call for a 

‘‘check all that apply’’ system. I would like to reemphasize that 

there should be at least one compilation of data from the race issue 

on the census in which the total is not greater than 100 percent, 

and therefore, in which multiracial individuals are included as a 

separate group when the tabulation occurs. 

The numbers can be tabulated in several different ways, of 

course. If the Bureau wants to publish information about how 

many people checked off a certain category, including multiracials 

who checked off that one and another, I certainly have no objection. 

It might be useful information for certain purposes. 

That is done with each of the categories. Those who check off 

more than one category will be counted more than once, but for 

some uses of the data that may be OK. For other purposes, however, it is necessary, in order for policymakers to get a clear picture 

of the situation, that the individual categories do not add up to 

more than 100 percent of the total. 

Thus, we need one compilation in which multiracial individuals 

who have checked more than one box are counted in their own category and only in that category. These two ways of compiling the 

data, and perhaps still others, are not mutually exclusive. 

I have been briefed by OMB officials on their plans for compiling 

the data, and I was encouraged by that briefing. Officials there 

seem to be aware of the need for data in which multiracial individuals are grouped together separately from the other categories. 

Although I would like to see a separate box on the form for the 

multiracial category, counting separately those who have checked 

more than one box comes close, and if the OMB follows through, 

would, in my opinion, accomplish the goals of H.R. 830. 

I thank you for allowing me to appear here this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas Petri follows:]

524


g:\graphics\45174.370
525

Mr. HORN. Well, again, I think the gentleman has put his finger 

on one of the key questions. If people do not like the multiracial 

aspect, maybe we just check a category that says, ‘‘I have checked 

more than one above.’’ We will get into that with the Chief Statistician of the United States and the representatives of the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Maxine Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today. 

The subject of today’s hearing is one which potentially impacts 

every African-American citizen in our country: the recent Federal 

Interagency recommendation that the Office of Management and 

Budget make changes to its current standards for measuring race 

and ethnicity. 

The Interagency Committee, a task force with representation 

from 30 Federal agencies, recently rejected the proposal for creation of a multiracial category, but recommended that individuals 

be permitted to select one or more of the current categories of race 

used in the census. 

Today, I join with this viewpoint, which is shared by several civil 

rights organizations, including the Lawyers Committee for Civil 

Rights Under Law, the National Urban League, the NAACP, and 

the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, in strong opposition to the addition of a multiracial classification in the 2000 census. 

The use of a multiracial or biracial category in the 2000 census 

would jeopardize the ability of individuals in the United States to 

seek legal redress for continued racial discrimination. 

Currently, the United States has made substantial progress. We 

still have substantial progress to make in the area of racial equality. There is discrimination practiced daily in housing, employment, 

voting rights, and education. 

Federal law enforcement efforts to deter such discrimination 

often use data collected pursuant to Directive 15 and the U.S. census. Legal redress of persistent racial and ethnic discrimination is 

contingent on current racial classifications which show disparities 

in racial treatment in a variety of instances. 

I believe that the inclusion of a multiracial or biracial classification is counterproductive to effectively enforcing the civil rights 

laws of this country. Directive 15 has been indispensable in facilitating the information required to move the Nation’s equal opportunity agenda forward. 

The data compiled under this policy have been used to enforce 

requirements of the Voting Rights Act, to review State redistricting 

plans, to establish and evaluate programs and plans to get rid of 

discrimination both in the public and private sectors, to monitor 

and enforce desegregation plans in the public schools, to assist minority businesses under the Minority Business Development Program, and to monitor and enforce the Fair Housing Act. 

You also heard, from Congressman Sawyer, how the HUM data 

is used. I serve on the Banking Committee, and that information 

has been extremely valuable in helping the banks and financial institutions of this country correct their lending practices. 

526

When they unveiled this valuable data and they saw that loans 

were being made to whites who had less income, who had less favorable paying records, et cetera, and were able to compare that in 

communities and census tracts where minorities had been turned 

down, even though they had the income, they had the records, they 

had all that you would think would cause a bank to lend to them 

to buy homes, it was not being done. 

The record indicates that significant improvements have occurred 

in all of these respects. For nearly two decades, Directive 15 has 

been greatly instrumental in that progress. However, the evidence 

is equally clear that much more remains to be done. Racial discrimination is still prevalent in American life, and the residual effects of past discrimination continue to limit progress. 

Recently publicized discrimination cases, such as that involving 

Texaco’s executives referring to African-Americans as ‘‘bright jellybeans’’ in their board room, are highly instructive on the persistence of discriminatory treatment based on race. 

In closing, I would emphasize that I will continue to resist any 

effort to complicate, reduce, or deter progress toward equal opportunity and racial fairness in American society. The multiracial proposal poses a risk to the ability of Federal agencies to collect useful 

data on racial classifications. For this reason, I must vigorously oppose any use of a multiracial category in the 2000 census. 

Mr. Chairman, prior to closing, I would just like to say that I had 

an opportunity to look over Mr. Gingrich’s testimony, where he had 

some discussion in here of Tiger Woods. I wanted to engage him 

in some discussions about another golfer, whose name is Mr. Lee 

Elder, who was a prominent golfer. 

When he was young like Tiger Woods, he would have loved to 

have been able to participate. I think that his handicap was probably zero, and he was excluded for all of the years. Finally, a big 

fight was put up to get him finally on the senior tour. 

After many, many years and long fighting and organizing by African-Americans and some others, we finally got him on the senior 

tour, maybe about 8, 9, 10 years ago. If he had had the opportunity 

to participate back when he was as young as Tiger Woods, you 

would have seen another Tiger Woods a long time ago. 

That story can be told time and time again. Yes, Tiger Woods is 

extraordinary, but we would like to live in a society where someday 

other African-Americans with handicaps of 10, 8, and 9 can get to 

compete just like whites do out on these tours. 

All of those—well, let me just say it this way: We should not 

have to be super, super, super stars to be able to integrate, whether it’s golf or anything else. We should be afforded the same opportunity that any other average American is afforded. 

While people can point to Tiger Woods and try and relate this 

to our need to have a multiracial category, let me assure you that 

this super, super, super human being is a fabulous young man, but 

there are a lot of other fabulous young African-Americans, had they 

had the opportunity to participate, like a Lee Elder, too would have 

excelled on the same tours. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Maxine Waters follows:]

527


g:\graphics\45174.371
528


g:\graphics\45174.372
529


g:\graphics\45174.373
530


g:\graphics\45174.374
531


g:\graphics\45174.375
532


g:\graphics\45174.376
533

Mr. HORN. We thank you. 

It is now good to welcome back the gentleman who presided, for 

many years, in this room, the former chairman of what was then 

the Government Operations Committee, Mr. Conyers of Michigan, 

the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. 

Maloney, members of the subcommittee. 

I am very pleased to be here with you today to continue this very 

important dialog, and I look forward to being here with the Speaker of the House. It indicates how important this matter is. 

Of course, we can understand his busy schedule, and the prevalence of coups on the Hill makes it rather difficult for him to always be where he wants to be. So let’s just hope that all is well 

on the Republican side. Well, most of us hope all is well on the Republican side and the Speaker will soon be able to join us in this 

important discussion that has been going on in this subcommittee. 

I commend you all, first of all, because we can talk about this 

and lower our voices and keep the rhetoric to as low a minimum 

as is possible on the Hill. The President invited the Nation to do 

that and I think we are doing that if we have this discussion in 

the manner that we have been. I commend all of my colleagues at 

the table. They have done an enormously important job and have 

been working at this for quite a while. 

I am heartened by Mr. Petri, my dear friend, indicating that he 

might be willing to do something that I had been thinking about 

yesterday. I asked to testify last night; this wasn’t something I was 

planning for a long time. But the reason is I thought that there 

might be something in here that we could talk about, because I feel 

that it is important that we identify who is in this country, not 

only from the national point of view, but from the point of view of 

the people who are in the country. They have a right to be identified. 

Nobody decided to pick mixed parentage. As a matter of fact, nobody decided to be black——

Ms. WATERS. Or white. 

Mr. CONYERS [continuing]. Or white. So we come here trying to 

untangle a legislative problem that has very deep social roots. And 

the one improvement that I might be willing to consider—and my 

chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus always deeply influences my legislative thought processes, especially when she’s sitting so close to me. [Laughter.] 

The one thing that I might be willing to consider is the identification of a category in which people would be allowed to check 

more than one box. Now why does that become important? It becomes important because some people want to let everybody know 

their parentage, just as I, and I presume all of you are proud of, 

but they don’t want to become the victim of what Major Owens 

said, a category in a government office. They would also like to indicate their preference, if you are biracial, of which identity they 

choose. 

I thought I heard the gentleman from Wisconsin indicate that 

such a further rethinking of his legislation would be possible. It is 

in that vein that I come to this hearing to express interest. I had 

534

no idea the gentleman was going to take the words out of my 

mouth this morning, and I’m very happy about that. 

So please count me in on this dialog. As you can see, my views 

are not in concrete here, but I think that there is a constructive 

discussion going on, and I thank you for allowing me to participate 

in it. 

Now, I close on a subject that is not on the agenda today, but 

I urge the continued openness that I hear here, and that is with 

the subject of sampling. Please, if you are bringing open minds and 

stretching your understandings of this to the limit, please do not 

apply it to the subject of sampling. 

In some respects, here we are dealing with a way of remedying 

an admitted problem, a problem that everyone has confessed, that 

we’ve been undercounting African-Americans by the millions for 

decades, and we’re trying to figure out how to do it. So we want 

to keep those avenues as open, as well. 

I thank you for the generosity of your time, Chairman Horn. 

[The prepared statements of Hon. John Conyers, Jr., and Hon. 

Carrie P. Meek follow:]

535


g:\graphics\45174.377
536


g:\graphics\45174.378
537


g:\graphics\45174.379
538


g:\graphics\45174.380
539

Mr. HORN. We thank the gentleman for coming. 

I will now yield 5 minutes to Mr. Davis of Virginia to begin the 

questioning for the majority, and then we will alternate with the 

minority. 

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you. 

Let me start, Mr. Conyers, I was reading your written statement, 

which is a little bit at variance to what you said orally. Your written statement says, ‘‘I’m going to propose a solution,’’ and throughout it says, ‘‘my solution,’’ ‘‘my solution,’’ and then you get up here, 

and you sit next to Ms. Waters, and you said you might be willing 

to consider your solution. 

I don’t know, Ms. Waters, if you’ve looked at Mr. Conyers’ proposed solution, what you think of that. 

Ms. WATERS. No, I have not, but I listened to his statement, and 

I think what I heard him say is he knows there is a need to solve 

this problem. He’s still somewhat open. He was pleased to hear Mr. 

Petri this morning talk about a multiracial category and other categories that could be checked by someone who falls in that definition. 

So what I really heard was Mr. Conyers coming here to seek a 

solution with somewhat of an open mind. 

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Do you agree with that? In other words, 

you could check ‘‘multiracial’’ and then go down and check the 

other. 

Ms. WATERS. No, I came with a little bit of a point of view. However, I do not think that we should simply disregard Mr. Petri’s 

testimony or Mr. Conyers’ desire to give further thought to it. 

I came pretty much decided that, in fact, the work that is being 

done by the interagency task force, with the background and the 

experience, really should be paid attention to. These agencies are 

looking at all that they must do with the forms that they have in 

their various agencies, and how we can have some consistency in 

government, and what would make sense for everybody. 

So when I took a look at their work, I thought the recommendation not to have a multiracial category, but to have a number of 

categories that people could check, made a lot of sense. Then I 

questioned them very closely that if someone checked more than 

one category, how then would you count? And they are in the process now of making that determination. 

I would really like to see them continue that work so that we can 

have the benefit of a concentrated effort in making sense out of all 

of this. While all of us have some opinions, and we deal with 999 

things on any given day, none of us are as concentrated and as focused as the interagency task force that is designed to do this kind 

of work. So that’s where I’m coming from. 

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Petri, let me ask you, in your written 

testimony you make reference to the need for data in which multiracial individuals are grouped together separately from other categories. What are some specific needs, whether in public policy, research, or elsewhere, do you think, for data on the variety of people 

selecting more than one race? 

Mr. PETRI. Well, I think there are a couple of reasons for having 

people select more than one race. 

540

When Tom Sawyer and I had these hearings, when he scheduled 

the hearings and I attended, to review the 1990 census, a number 

of individuals, and perhaps a few representing small groups or 

newly organized groups, came forward and said they did not think 

it was fair for their children to be forced to choose between onehalf of their heritage and another half of their heritage. They stated that they may have had a Korean mother and an American 

black father, and why couldn’t they say that instead of having to 

say that they were black or say that they were Asian, or whatever 

it happened to be. 

I found that persuasive and thought that it made sense not to 

force people into that untenable and uncomfortable position. My solution was to say, well, maybe we should have the current categories, or whatever the experts think makes sense, and then, by 

the way, if they don’t fit, provide another category that wasn’t as 

off-putting as ‘‘other,’’ which sounds sort of whatever, but that 

would reflect the fact they were multiracial. 

That’s what the bill provided for. But the panel of some 30 agency representatives, under OMB’s direction, came up with the idea 

of why not just, instead of directing people to choose only one category, period, say choose one or more than one as you feel appropriate. Then that eliminates the uncomfortable situation that we 

were forcing people in by requiring them to choose just one. So 

that’s one benefit. 

Now my testimony basically goes to how is that going to be presented for useful purposes by policymakers at the State level and 

National level, in business, and so on. It seems to me, if when they 

do the compilation of the census, the different categories total more 

than 100 percent in a particular area, it starts getting very confusing for redistricting, for example. 

So, at least in one iteration, and they can do it many different 

ways, they ought to have something, whether it’s called ‘‘multiracial’’ or people check more than one box, or whatever, a separate 

category so that all of the percentages total 100 percent. That’s the 

point of my testimony here today. 

How it can be used, there are many different ways it can be useful. The census is supposed to be an accurate picture of the American population at a particular point in time. I think this would 

make it more accurate. 

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK. Thank you. Do you want to add anything to that, Mr. Sawyer? 

Mr. SAWYER. If I can add something. I am not going to disagree 

with what Tom has said. Let me just say, though, that it is important that the data be collected in a way that makes it possible to 

tabulate, in a variety of ways, for a variety of purposes, so that 

they can be aggregated and disaggregated for specific applications. 

This proposal makes that possible. A multiracial category, on its 

own, would not, and would, I believe, add to the confusion in the 

terms that Tom has just described, rather than to clarify it. I believe that what the multiagency task force has suggested will yield 

the result that all four of us across here are talking about. 

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you. 

Mr. HORN. We thank the gentleman. 

541

I now yield 5 minutes to the ranking member, Mrs. Maloney of 

New York, for the purpose of questioning the witnesses. 

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

I welcome all the witnesses, particularly the former chair of the 

committee on which I served, Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Petri, the two 

former chairs of the subcommittee. Really, I want to thank you for 

the many hours that you have dedicated so far in testifying before 

this subcommittee. And always, Maxine, you add a lot of spark to 

all the hearings you participate in. It’s always good to see you. 

I would like to ask the same question to each of you. 

The voting rights laws and the civil rights laws were written to 

really address discrimination against certain groups of people. 

Should we accept the recommendations of the interagency task 

force, which allowed individuals to check various combinations of 

their heritage that they feel they are, in their self-expression, 

should that person check one of the areas of protected status, 

would that person be a protected group, in terms of civil rights 

laws and voting rights laws? 

Mr. SAWYER. Let me begin by referring to Directive 15. I can only 

assume that the same kinds of limitations that apply to Directive 

15 today would apply in the future, and that is to understand that 

the purpose for which these categories are used is not for personal 

identification nor qualification for eligibility of any Federal program. It is used to provide aggregate measurement of population 

in ways that reflect the reality of the Nation. 

So it’s very important to understand that these categories are not 

used for eligibility identification; rather, it’s so that we can understand the direction and the shape and the change of the country, 

in the aggregate and in its many components. 

Mr. PETRI. Yes. At least in the case of the census form, it’s confidential; it’s guaranteed to be confidential. All information provided is absolutely confidential and cannot be used by Federal law 

or any other to, in any way, benefit or hurt an individual. 

So the answer to your question really is, what will the courts, 

lawyers, and administrators make of this change in data. And I 

don’t know. I would think, myself, that an individual would still 

have all of the protections that they have now. Many people are 

being forced into one category or another who are, in fact, multiracial. They still deserve protection, and I don’t think this would lessen it. 

Mr. SAWYER. May I just go back and read from Directive 15. 

‘‘These classifications should not be interpreted as being scientific 

or anthropological in nature.’’ We’ve already talked about that. 

‘‘Nor should they be viewed as determinants of eligibility for participation in any Federal program.’’ That’s the fundamental, underlying principle of these categories. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Maxine. 

Ms. WATERS. I agree. 

Mr. CONYERS. It’s an interesting subject that the committee, I 

now serve on, is going to watch carefully. I’m not asking you to 

share jurisdiction this morning, or anything like that. But obviously, as has been referred to by many of us this morning, we don’t 

need any more monkeying with the civil rights and voter rights legVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00547 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
542

islation in America. I don’t think there’s a Member in this room 

that would support anything that would have that effect. 

I think that the gentleman from Ohio’s rereading of 15 keeps us 

all on the same point, and I agree with you, Tom. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I just have one last question. I would just like 

to ask each of you, yes or no, do you support the recommendations 

of the interagency task force? 

Mr. SAWYER. Yes. 

Mr. PETRI. As I understand it, I do. I expressed my concern about 

how the data that’s collected is presented, and I assume that, when 

they think about it, they will not at least have one thing that 

doesn’t total more than 100 percent. In some ways, it’s better than 

H.R. 830. 

Ms. WATERS. Yes, I certainly do. And I think the recommendation that they have come forth with so far is reasonable, it is logical, and I think it satisfies, basically, most concerns. And I await 

the additional information that will further explain the tabulating 

of that. I’m really pleased to have this concentrated group of individuals who work in all of these agencies working on this. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I’m not a wishy-washy guy, by my staff instructed me to say, ‘‘for the most part.’’ [Laughter.] 

Mrs. MALONEY. OK. 

Mr. CONYERS. I’ll find out what that means. But Mr. Davis, I 

hope, will give me permission to revise my statement so that it will 

comport with what I said, with what was written for me. Thank 

you. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. HORN. I thank the gentlewoman. 

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Portman, for 

questioning the witnesses. 

Mr. PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the panelists for the information today. 

This is my first hearing on this. I’m the newest member of this 

committee. I came back, Chairman Conyers, after being away for 

a few years. I was on with you for my first year. So I really am 

new at this issue and probably reflect, therefore, most of the other 

Members of the Congress who have not had the opportunity to 

spend as much time on this. I found both the opening statements 

of my colleagues here interesting, as well as informative, and 

yours. 

I have a couple very elementary questions, I suppose. The first 

is, it does seem important to me that all of us understand better, 

not those of you here, but those of us in the Congress who are not 

so close to it, what this data is used for. 

I think I have a better sense of that now, Tom, after your explanation. This is really aggregate data. It’s not for eligibility for a 

specific program, but it’s data that would be used for such things 

as redistricting, probably the most sensitive issue, but other general directional policy questions where you need to have the aggregate. 

Mr. SAWYER. That’s correct. 

Mr. PORTMAN. With that in mind, I guess my fundamental question is, how do you avoid the double counting? 

543

I’m intrigued. I did read your statement, John, and also heard 

your oral statement, and it seems to me that to give people an opportunity to identify themselves as multiracial, if indeed they are 

and view themselves that way, is only fair. On the other hand, one 

would want to have a further breakdown, as you indicate in your 

written statement. It seems to me inevitable, then, you have double 

counting. 

How do you avoid that? Can someone respond to that for me? 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. Having never thought about this subject that 

you’ve asked me before in my life, let me say that it is my view 

that double counting is not the world’s worst thing. There’s one 

way to get a total number of the people in the United States. The 

fact that some of the total number of people check more than one 

box, I don’t think will even throw the Census Bureau people off too 

much. I mean, this is not rocket science. 

Some people check two boxes. So don’t, Census Department, add 

up all the boxes and say we got more than 100 percent. Got it, Census? 

So my view is that this may be, you know, a complex problem, 

but from this point of view of this Member, I just don’t see that 

as what we really have to worry about too much. 

Mr. PORTMAN. Other panelists want to comment? 

Mr. SAWYER. I’m going to urge you strongly to ask the folks from 

OMB about this and to refer that question specifically to the career 

professionals at the Census Bureau. 

But what John just said is correct. Each response counts as a 

single response. It may have more than one dimension to it, but 

that does not count for more than one response. So each person responding only counts as one person, no matter how many different 

categories they may check. 

Mr. PETRI. Yes. I would just add, if people were going to be 

counted as more than one response if they check more than one 

box, I guarantee you, for redistricting purposes, I will work as hard 

as I can to get everyone in Wisconsin to check every box on the 

census form. [Laughter.] 

Mr. PORTMAN. You’d have four or five more Members of Congress 

from Wisconsin. 

Mr. PETRI. And I suspect every other Governor, Senator, and 

State legislator in the country will do exactly the same. 

So what we are wanting to do is to have a more accurate census 

and accommodate changes in our population. It seems to me that 

checking more than one, and those that check more than one, the 

multiracial cut on it, doing other cuts on it, all makes sense. 

I would think it would be a mistake, myself, in doing the total, 

to try to deaggregate it. So if someone checked three boxes, say, 

well, we’ll add one-third of a vote to this category and another 

third to that category, and so on. That strikes me as probably easily creating confusion rather than making a more accurate situation. In sociology and in our society, some people think of themselves as mixed, so why not admit it and reflect that in the data. 

Mr. PORTMAN. Let me clarify one point, then, for my edification. 

Maybe I missed something here, but you indicated earlier that you 

supported the interagency recommendation, which rejects the idea 

of a multiracial category. Is that correct? 

544

Mr. PETRI. No, it doesn’t really reject the notion of a multiracial 

category. It accommodates the concern I had in introducing legislation to provide for a multiracial category, which was that if you are 

told you must classify yourself as one or another, and you don’t 

feel, as Tiger Woods is an example and a lot of other people, that 

that is accurate, that you’re a bit of each, you are, right now, not 

accommodated in the census form. 

Telling people that they could check ‘‘multiracial’’ struck me as 

a way of solving that problem. The census task force thinks telling 

people that they don’t have to check just one, they can do more 

than one, that’s fine, too. 

When it’s presented, then, though, my only concern is that you 

then don’t go ahead and end up with 110 or 120 percent in your 

totals. Instead, when you present it, if you want to call it a multiracial category, or whatever, you would have a separate category, 

for statistical reporting purposes, that would reflect those who 

checked more than one box. 

Mr. PORTMAN. I will yield back to the chairman because my time 

is up. 

Ms. WATERS. OMB asked us to wait until they come back with 

a recommendation about how to do it. And I’m just reserving my 

opinion on that aspect of it until they come back, having given 

some real thought to it, to suggest to us how it should be done. 

Mr. PORTMAN. Maxine, are you still concerned—and this goes to 

your written statement, John, really—that given that—as I understand the procedure you’re suggesting, Tom—still individuals who 

consider themselves to be multiracial might not have the opportunity, at the outset, to identify themselves in that manner. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. CONYERS. No, they would. 

Mr. PETRI. No, they would. 

Ms. WATERS. No, no. 

Mr. PORTMAN. They would? 

Mr. PETRI. They would, because they could put down black and 

Asian, or black, Asian, and Caucasian. 

Mr. PORTMAN. So they would have the opportunity to identify 

themselves by one or more. 

Ms. WATERS. That’s right. 

Mr. PORTMAN. But not as multiracial, as a category. 

Mr. PETRI. Yes. You wouldn’t have to choose between your black 

mother; you could put down both. You’re a bit of each. 

Mr. SAWYER. If I might offer a clarification. The question that 

Tom is concerned about is one of tabulation. We don’t want to have 

tabulation that confuses the issue about how many people we’re 

talking about. The issue that we’re dealing about here is one of 

identification as you fill out the form. The recommendations that 

all of us are suggesting to OMB is that they make sure, in their 

instructions, that the tabulation be done with absolute clarity. 

So there are two separate questions. 

Mr. PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. I yield 5 minutes for the purpose of questioning to the 

gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis. 

I might add, before he begins, we have a vote in progress. Fifteen 

minutes to get over there. There might be other votes. This is a 

545

motion on the previous question. So we will try to complete the 

questioning, if you’re not coming back. If you can come back, we’ve 

got 15 minutes of questioning here, potentially. 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just say that I appreciate the testimony of each one of 

our distinguished witnesses. Let me just ask, we know that there 

are political as well as cultural consequences of the census. I observed, as I listened to the dialog, it occurred to me that if all of 

us were as close and congenial as the four of you, that in all probability we could work out, with relative ease, most situations that 

we face. 

But my question is, looking at the political and cultural implications, in your minds does one outweigh the other, or how do we 

consider the two? I think what I’m looking for are some instructions from OMB. 

I know, Representative Waters, you indicated that you wanted to 

hear their position, but I think that this may be an excellent opportunity to give them some ideas and instructions as they wrestle 

with what these boxes would actually mean. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, Mr. Davis, let me just say, I agree with the 

first recommendation to be able to check more than one box. I 

think that is a good, sound recommendation, and I think that that 

recommendation takes care of the concern about those who see 

themselves as multiracial. There is no need for a box called ‘‘multiracial.’’ I don’t have a clue about how to tabulate it. That’s a different 

question. I don’t know and I have no recommendation about how 

they would take an individual who checks three boxes and tabulates that so you don’t get more than 100 percent. I just don’t 

know how to do that. 

But I would like to add—and this may be a little bit outside of 

your question—that for those people who may be concerned about 

having a multiracial category, they may be of the opinion that this 

information is somehow seen and identified with them as an individual, when in fact it is not. 

This information, compiled and used in a general way, needs to 

be explained, I think, to the public, so that people won’t think that 

Ms. Jones is somehow going to be identified other than what Ms. 

Jones believes she is, because they have checked this form. It does 

not work that way. 

What Ms. Jones needs to understand is, if she is not given the 

opportunity to check a category that would ensure that we protect 

her from discrimination, and we are able to count in ways that will 

identify where certain things are occurring and help to make those 

corrections, she must understand that she will be a lot better off 

in this society by having those kinds of protections than not. 

That’s the kind of discussion we have not had an opportunity to 

get into, in this overall education process. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Anyone else? 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I don’t have a University of Chicago in my 

district, Danny, so I can’t deal with these kinds of questions this 

morning. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. We’ll help you. 

546

Let me just say—and I think it’s time to go—I think you raise 

a very interesting point, because many of the individuals with 

whom I have spoken, who indicated that they were looking for a 

multiracial category, have indicated that is was a very personal 

feeling and item to them. 

We have often suggested to them that, yes, that’s important and 

that’s one thing, but just as important as your personal feeling 

really is where you fit as part of a group, especially if you’re a 

member of a minority group and you’re seeking equal protection 

and equal opportunity under the law. 

So I thank you very much. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. HORN. We thank the gentleman. 

The subcommittee stands in recess for approximately 12 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HORN. The subcommittee will reconvene. 

We will begin with panel III: Susan Graham, president of RACE; 

Carlos Fernandez, coordinator of law and civil rights, Association 

of Multiethnic Americans; Harold McDougall, director, Washington 

Bureau, NAACP; and Dr. Mary Waters, Department of Sociology, 

Harvard University. 

If you would please come forward, we will begin. 

I might add, for the benefit of the audience, we could have several votes coming up, presumably, they say, maybe within 10 minutes. I thought I would come back, since I’ve seen those things last 

an hour before they go, and we will just keep plugging away. 

We have a tradition on this subcommittee, which is an investigating subcommittee, of swearing all witnesses except Members of 

Congress to the oath, as to their testimony. So if you would stand 

and raise your right hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HORN. The clerk will note that all four witnesses affirmed 

the oath. 

We will just take them in the order that they are in our agenda, 

and that means we begin with Susan Graham, president of Project 

RACE. 

I believe you are from Georgia, are you, Ms. Graham? 

Ms. GRAHAM. Yes, I am from Georgia. 

Mr. HORN. Well, the Speaker had very much hoped to be here 

to introduce you, but he and Mr. Lott and a few of the White House 

people are working together, so that will have to be postponed. So 

please begin. 

STATEMENTS OF SUSAN GRAHAM, PRESIDENT, PROJECT 

RACE; CARLOS FERNANDEZ, COORDINATOR FOR LAW AND 

CIVIL RIGHTS, ASSOCIATION OF MULTIETHNIC AMERICANS; 

HAROLD McDOUGALL, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU, 

NAACP; AND MARY WATERS, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY 

Ms. GRAHAM. Thank you. 

I am pleased to be with you again today, representing the national membership of Project RACE. I testified before the subcommittee on May 22 about the plight of multiracial children in 

America who are without a racial classification. My son Ryan also 

547

testified. He told you that he wants a classification that describes 

exactly who he is, multiracial. 

This time I’ve brought two other young ladies from Georgia along 

with me. They have a vested interest. They are both multiracial. 

One is my daughter, Megan Graham; and the other is Ashleigh 

Miller. Ashleigh’s mother filed a suit against OMB so that Ashleigh 

and her brother could be considered multiracial. 

I have been asked to come back today to address the interagency 

recommendation to the Office of Management and Budget. The national membership of Project RACE expressed feelings of elation at 

the ‘‘mark one or more’’ parts of the recommendation. For the first 

time in the history of this country, our multiracial children will not 

have to choose just one race. It is progress. 

But after the elation came the sad truth. Under the current recommendation, my children and millions of children like them, 

merely become ‘‘check all that apply’’ kids, or ‘‘check more than one 

box’’ children, or ‘‘more than one race’’ persons. They will be known 

as ‘‘multiple checkoffs,’’ or ‘‘half-and-halfers,’’ or as John Hope 

Franklin, chairman of President Clinton’s Race Relations Commission referred to them, ‘‘half-white Negroes and half-black whites.’’ They are none of the above. They are multiracial children. 

The worldwide readership of ‘‘Interracial Voice’’ and the national 

membership of A Place for Us join with Project RACE in strongly 

advocating for a multiracial category. We want the message to be 

very clear: multiracial category children exist, and the Federal 

Government recognizes them. 

You must understand that the proposal, in effect, says, multiracial persons are only parts of other communities; they are not 

whole. When I was in school, one-half plus one-half equalled a 

whole. I think it still does, unless you’re multiracial. 

Let’s be very clear. The compromise for ‘‘check one or more,’’ without a multiracial identifier, was not a compromise with the 

multiracial community. It was a compromise with the opponents of 

the category. 

I have brought short comments from Project RACE members 

from across the country, of all ages and races, voicing their opinions about the recommendation and the need for the multiracial 

classification. I ask that they be entered into the record. 

Mr. HORN. They will be in the record at this point. 

[The information referred to follows:]

548


g:\graphics\45174.381
549


g:\graphics\45174.382
550


g:\graphics\45174.383
551

Ms. GRAHAM. Thank you. 

Representatives of OMB stated in a media briefing held on July 

8, 1997, that a multiracial classification would ‘‘no doubt add to racial tension and further fragmentation of our population.’’ This 

statement is racist, untrue, and inflammatory. 

In the seven States which currently have a multiracial category, 

there has been no racial tension or fragmentation of the population 

as a result of the multiracial classification. In fact, people of all 

races have been glad to have the multiracial category. I have heard 

of no race riots, hate crimes, protests, or the slightest bit of tension 

in those seven States because of the multiracial classification. 

And incidentally, those seven States include Mr. Sawyer’s and 

Mr. Portman’s State of Ohio, Mr. Conyers’ State of Michigan, Mr. 

Davis’ State of Illinois, and Speaker Gingrich’s State of Georgia. 

The Interagency Committee obviously recognizes the need for appropriate racial labels. They have recommended adding AfricanAmerican to the black category, changing Hawaiian to Native Hawaiian, and changing Alaskan Native to Alaska Native. Terms like 

Latino can be added to Hispanic. Why can’t multiracial be used in 

addition to ‘‘check more than one’’? Why is it unimportant to be 

multiracial but important to be African-American or Latino? 

Why does OMB object to the word ‘‘multiracial’’? First, because 

they do not want to define the word. In fact, they don’t have to define it at all. OMB Directive 15 should state, ‘‘A multiracial person 

may have origins in two or more of the listed groups.’’ OMB Directive 15 could state, ‘‘Multiracial persons can but are not required 

to report more than one race’’ instead of ‘‘Persons of mixed racial 

origin can but are not required to report more than one race.’’ Second, some of the leadership of the other minority communities 

just do not like the term ‘‘multiracial.’’ Their irrational fear of loss 

of numbers was addressed during the last hearing. It is simply ridiculous that multiracial children should have to have the sanction 

and approval of other minority groups in order to have their own 

identity. 

Equally disturbing is the lack of information on how persons who 

check more than one box will be counted. The recommendation 

speaks of tabulation in algorithms. They say they won’t be able to 

figure it out until January 1, 1999. The recommendation states, 

‘‘Data producers are encouraged to provide greater detail about the 

distribution of multiple responses.’’ Encouraged but not mandated. 

There are 10 additional combinations under the ‘‘check one or 

more scheme.’’ Six persons who check two boxes, three persons who 

check three boxes, and one person who would check four boxes. 

That’s it; 10 combinations is all we’re talking about. 

The only accurate and complete way for the government to report 

the breakdown of this racial group is to report on the additional 10 

categories under the major heading of ‘‘multiracial.’’ It should be 

mandatory to report this way. Not only is it the most accurate way 

to count, but it gives us the information absolutely necessary for 

medical purposes. To allow people to check more than one box and 

then revert to some kind of scheme to reaggregate them into one 

racial category is discriminatory. 

It doesn’t take 50 task forces and 50 government statisticians 

running around to find out how other countries do this, to see how 

552

it can be done accurately. It certainly shouldn’t take 2 years, and 

it should have been decided in the 4 years of OMB investigation. 

Thus, we are being asked to comment on a recommendation which 

has not answered a very important part of the outcome. 

I listened to comments of Representative Tom Sawyer the other 

day about sampling on the census. He repeatedly said, ‘‘The goal 

is accuracy.’’ If the goal is accuracy for the argument of sampling, 

then the goal should be accuracy in counting people who do fill out 

their census forms. Can we afford to have two different standards 

when it comes to the accurate portrayal of the makeup of race in 

America? 

Further, it must be made very clear that respondents to race can 

report more than one race. It is not enough to have it hidden within OMB’s Statistical Directive 15; it must be stated clearly on 

forms. The Project RACE recommendation, which we presented before, ‘‘if you consider yourself to be biracial or multiracial, check as 

many as apply,’’ is far more preferable to ambiguous language. We 

must have clarity if accuracy is our goal. 

I want to wrap up with talking about who is confused here. 

President Clinton said last week that his high profile panel on race 

would focus on multiracialism, yet his administration is afraid to 

define ‘‘multiracial.’’ One of the reasons given by the Interagency Committee under ‘‘Findings not favoring adoption of a method for reporting more 

than one race,’’ is that there are no Federal legislative requirements for information about the multiracial population. But there 

are also no Federal legislative requirements for an African-American identifier either. 

This subcommittee should recommend passage of H.R. 830 so 

that no one is confused or, as Mr. Conyers from Michigan said, we 

should include a multiracial category with the same questions and 

checkoffs below it. That would also be another way that we could 

do it. 

The recommendation is for an implementation of the ‘‘mark one 

or more’’ scheme by the year 2003. Is this so confusing that it will 

take 6 years to implement? My son, who first testified on this issue 

when he was 8 years old, will be 18 years old in the year 2003. He 

will be old enough to vote and still not have a multiracial classification. I wonder who he will vote for? 

When I told my son Ryan about the interagency recommendation, he looked at me and said, ‘‘Mom, what’s the Federal Government going to call me next—gray—Why can’t they let me be multiracial?’’ Perhaps you can answer that question for him better than 

I. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Graham follows:]

553


g:\graphics\45174.384
554


g:\graphics\45174.385
555


g:\graphics\45174.386
556


g:\graphics\45174.387
557

Mr. HORN. We thank you for your testimony. It has been very 

helpful. 

Without objection, the testimony of Representative Carrie P. 

Meek will be put in the record at the end of the Members’ panel. 

We now go to Carlos Fernandez, coordinator for law and civil 

rights, the Association of Multiethnic Americans. 

Mr. Fernandez. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Carlos Fernandez. I am here speaking for myself and 

also on behalf of the Association of Multiethnic Americans. I am 

the association’s coordinator for law and civil rights, and served as 

its founding president in 1988. 

The Association of Multiethnic Americans is a nationwide confederation of multiethnic, interracial groups, representing thousands 

of people from all walks of life, and includes individuals and families of various racial and ethnic origins and mixtures. 

On June 30, 1993, I had the opportunity to testify on behalf of 

AMEA before the House Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and 

Postal Personnel, to present for the first time an overview of our 

concerns with respect to the acknowledgement of multiracial, 

multiethnic people by our government. 

I hereby incorporate that testimony herein by reference. 

Mr. HORN. Without objection, it will be put in the record at this 

point. 

[The information referred to follows:]

558


g:\graphics\45174.388
559


g:\graphics\45174.389
560


g:\graphics\45174.390
561


g:\graphics\45174.391
562


g:\graphics\45174.392
563


g:\graphics\45174.393
564


g:\graphics\45174.394
565


g:\graphics\45174.395
566


g:\graphics\45174.396
567


g:\graphics\45174.397
568

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Thank you. 

I submitted written testimony to this subcommittee, in May of 

this year, reviewing the legal and constitutional issues which pertain to the Government’s racial and ethnic classifications as they 

affect multiracial, multiethnic individuals. I hereby also incorporate that testimony herein by reference. 

Mr. HORN. Without objection, it will be put in at this point. 

[Note.—The information referred to can be found on p. 558.] 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Following the enactment of the 1965 Civil 

Rights Act, the newly created Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission. 

Mr. HORN. 1964. I think you mean 1964. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Excuse me, it is a typo. Yes. 

The newly created Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

required employers to report on the numbers of Negroes, Orientals, 

American Indians, and Spanish-Americans, and produced Standard 

Form 100 for this purpose. Other agencies followed suit. 

By the 1970’s, racial statistics gathered from agencies of government at all levels were becoming unwieldy and standardization 

was deemed necessary. Mindful of this, the Office of Management 

and Budget produced Statistical Policy Directive 15 in 1977. Directive 15 remains to this day the supreme authority for racial classifications in the United States, affecting all Governmental agencies, 

including the census, the public schools, Social Security, and so 

forth. 

The directive also dictates classification policy to the private sector through the EEOC, the Small Business Administration, as well 

as by way of example. OMB Directive 15 sets forth five racial ethnic categories: white, black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaskan Native, and Hispanic. Additionally, the directive requires reporting in one category only for each individual counted, 

the so-called ‘‘check one only’’ rule. ‘‘Other’’ is not one of the reporting categories. 

Directive 15’s stated purpose is to require government agencies 

at all levels to design their racial and ethnic query forms in such 

a way that the information provided can be reported in terms of 

one of the Directive 15 categories only. Thus, people whose parentage encompasses more than one of the designated categories cannot 

be counted except monoracially. No reason is stated as to why an 

individual must report in only one category. 

The OMB’s Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial 

and Ethnic Standards announced this month its recommendations 

regarding OMB’s Statistical Directive 15. In particular, the Interagency Committee recommended that Directive 15 be amended to 

permit multiple checkoffs on government forms whenever racial 

and ethnic information is requested. 

Additionally, the Interagency Committee specifically ruled out 

the addition of a new classification for multiracial individuals. The 

Interagency Committee did not issue any proposed draft for the 

amended Directive 15. The committee recommended that the proposed changes be used in the 2000 decennial census and that all 

agencies conform to the changes no later than January 1, 2003. 

There wasn’t any mention as to whether any agency might be permitted to implement the proposed changes before the year 2000. 

569

The Association of Multiethnic Americans and allied organizations and individuals regard the Interagency Committee recommendations as a necessary and revolutionary change. If implemented appropriately, we believe the proposed changes to OMB Directive 15 will meet our most fundamental concern; namely, acknowledgement by our government that multiracial/multiethnic 

people do, in fact, exist and have a right to be counted. 

Additionally, the proposed changes will resolve the legal and constitutional problems presented by the current Directive 15, which 

I pointed out to this subcommittee in May. 

While we have proposed that the directive be changed to also include a new classification for multiracial/multiethnic individuals, a 

proposal that we stand by, we nonetheless regard the Interagency 

Committee’s recommendations as the best compromise possible at 

this time, and will wholeheartedly support them. 

There are, however, three major concerns we have about the 

final wording about the amended Directive 15, all of which are, in 

our view, critical. One, Directive 15 must ensure that the total 

number of individuals returning multiple responses to racial and 

ethnic questions can be discerned. 

The tabulation procedure to be adopted must be one that allows 

us to distinguish both the numbers and composition of people returning multiple responses. Our understanding is that the OMB 

wishes to ensure this, as well, and has solicited assistance in devising a practical means to accomplish this. 

Without such a tabulation, the numbers of multiracial/multiethnic people will be lost among the other classifications. Among 

other things, this would impede assessing the health needs of our 

population and would serve no fathomable purpose. 

Directive 15 must include clear language that will allow for multiple checkoffs for individuals who are both Hispanic and non-Hispanic. It would be grossly inconsistent, and again would serve no 

fathomable purpose, to single out one particular segment of the 

population by denying them the same right to indicate, in a factual 

manner, their identity. 

The Interagency Committee’s recommendations were unclear on 

this point, making reference only to racial identification, and saying nothing about whether the amended Directive 15 will retain its 

dual interchangeable formats, one of which racializes the Hispanic 

classification, the other which treats Hispanics as an ethnic group. 

Third, Directive 15 must not include any prohibition on the use 

of a multiracial/multiethnic classification by any government agency. The Interagency Committee recommended against the addition 

of a multiracial/multiethnic classification but said nothing about 

explicitly prohibiting the use of such an identifier by any agency 

subject to Directive 15. 

The committee explained its position by saying that ‘‘Having a 

separate category would, in effect, create another population group, 

and no doubt add to racial tension and further fragmentation of 

our population.’’

We do not agree with this opinion of the Interagency Committee 

and still believe that a multiracial/multiethnic classification should 

be included, albeit only together with the multiple checkoffs that 

have been recommended. However, we believe that the probable inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00575 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
570

tent of this opinion was to explain why they were not recommending a new classification in the directive itself and not a prohibition on its use. 

Several States and other public bodies have already legislated 

the use of a multiracial classification. We believe these laws should 

stand and that, prospectively, other public bodies be permitted to 

enact such laws, as long as they are amended or enacted to include 

multiple checkoffs. 

We disagree that a multiracial/multiethnic classification would ‘‘create a new population group.’’ The population group to which 

they refer already exists and is growing rapidly. We also take issue 

with the opinion that a multiracial/multiethnic classifier would 

‘‘add to racial tension’’ and ‘‘fragment our population.’’ The essence 

of the multiracial/multiethnic population is one of racial and ethnic 

unity. 

As we have stated before, our community is specially situated to 

confront racial and interethnic issues, precisely because of the special experiences and understanding we acquire in the intimacy of 

our families and our personalities. Of all populations, ours has the 

unique potential to become the stable core around which the ethnic 

pluralism of the United States can, in fact, be united. 

We thank the subcommittee for hearing our views. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fernandez follows:]

571


g:\graphics\45174.398
572


g:\graphics\45174.399
573


g:\graphics\45174.400
574


g:\graphics\45174.401
575


g:\graphics\45174.402
576


g:\graphics\45174.403
577

Mr. HORN. We thank you very much for coming. 

Our next witness is Harold McDougall, the director of the Washington Bureau of the NAACP. 

You have the title of, I think, one of your predecessors, who was 

one of the finest people that ever walked Capitol Hill, and that was 

Clarence Mitchell. He happened to be one of my three mentors 

when I came to the Hill, in 1960, as a Senate staff person. So you 

are filling a very honorable office. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m also trying to fill very large shoes. As you mentioned, he was 

referred to as ‘‘the 101st Senator’’ and ‘‘the Lion of the Lobby.’’ I am Harold McDougall, the director of the Washington Bureau 

of the NAACP, the Nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization, over 600,000 members in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, and around the world. 

I would like to summarize my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and 

have it incorporated into the record. 

Mr. HORN. Without objection, all testimony is automatically incorporated the minute I introduce you. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Certainly. 

Mr. HORN. Feel free to summarize. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Also, I will just make the formality of requesting that my May testimony be incorporated, as well. 

Mr. HORN. Absolutely. Without objection. 

[Note.—The information referred to can be found on p. 307.] 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Thank you. 

Currently, the Federal Government uses race data for statistical 

and administrative purposes, including monitoring civil rights compliance pursuant to OMB Directive 15. The data cumulated under 

OMB Directive 15 has been used to help enforce the Voting Rights 

Act, State redistricting plans, to monitor discrimination in the private sector, and to establish, evaluate, and monitor affirmative action plans. 

As Congressman Conyers indicated, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act is impacted by census data, as well as the Equal Credit 

Opportunity Act, desegregation plans in the public schools, minority business development programs, the Fair Housing Act, and to 

monitor environmental degradation in communities of color, just to 

name a few. 

So this data, obviously, is very important. As I think some of the 

members in the previous panel indicated, much remains to be done 

with respect to racial discrimination in this country, and the data, 

of course, is so very important in that respect. Racial discrimination is still prevalent in American life, and the residual effects of 

past discrimination continue to limit the advancement of AfricanAmericans and other racial minorities. 

I did get an opportunity to take a look at Mr. Gingrich’s testimony. One of the things that he said was that it would be good if 

we could just call each other ‘‘Americans’’ and all this would be behind us. It’s as if we could change reality by changing what we call 

ourselves. 

For those who say our society is color-blind, I have to reiterate 

that saying is not the same thing as doing. If we are to reach the 

deep roots of the legacy of slavery, involuntary servitude, segregaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00583 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
578

tion, discrimination, and hate violence, we must commit ourselves 

not merely to undo the words of forced division but also to undo 

the consequences of oppressive acts. 

The census has been critical in documenting for the American 

public the deep racial inequalities which still exist in virtually 

every dimension of American social, economic, and political life. 

Under these conditions, any effort that threatens to complicate, retard, or thwart the collection of this useful data will meet vigorous 

resistance from the NAACP. 

I want to talk briefly about the aspirations of individuals with 

multiple racial heritages. 

Mr. HORN. Why don’t we, at that point, have a recess so that you 

can finish your statement. 

We are faced with this situation on the floor: We have one vote 

now. The 15 minutes will end in 4 or 5 minutes, and I need to get 

over there to vote. There will then be a series of 5-minute votes. 

So I suggest—and I’m aware of Ms. Katzen’s problem, and we will 

get you out of here by 12:40—but I think we’re going to have to 

be in recess till at least 10 of 12. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HORN. So let’s all relax, and we will come back to hear the 

rest of your testimony. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HORN. The hearing will resume. 

Mr. McDougall, please pick up where you left off. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Maybe I’ll let you catch your breath, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. No, I’m in good shape. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. OK. I was just emphasizing that, for us, the 

question of the integrity of data collection over time is of utmost 

importance in terms of the vigorous enforcement of the civil rights 

laws. 

I also wanted to make some comment about the aspirations of individuals with multiple racial heritages. The NAACP has always 

supported the right of individual self-determination and self-identification in defining one’s racial makeup. For medical reasons and 

for reasons of possible discrimination against individuals precisely 

because they are of diverse racial backgrounds, the NAACP supports the legitimate aspirations of this community for a fair and accurate count of their numbers. 

I want to talk a little bit about the Interagency Committee recommendations of ‘‘select one or more’’ rather than a separate multiracial category. In Chapter 6, the committee recommended that the 

method for census respondents to report more than one race should 

take the form of multiple responses to a single question; i.e., select 

one or more rather than a separate multiracial category. 

The ‘‘select one or more’’ option, according to the committee, 

gives the most accurate picture of changing racial and ethnic identification among our citizens without creating discontinuities with 

historical data collection, such as those associated with a separate 

multiracial designation. 

This accords with my earlier testimony in which the NAACP expressed concern that creation of a separate multiracial category 

might disaggregate the apparent numbers of members of historiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00584 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
579

cally protected minority groups, diluting benefits to which they are 

entitled as a protected class under civil rights laws and under the 

Constitution itself. 

We know that a small minority of advocates from the community 

of persons of multiple racial backgrounds continue to advocate for 

a multiracial category exclusively, apparently because they wish to 

be considered a new race. The NAACP believes that all people of 

color, all facing discrimination and with similar aspirations, should, 

wherever possible, work together and not in opposition to one another. 

The proposal by the Interagency Committee of a ‘‘select all that 

apply’’ approach rather than a multiracial category approach facilitates that process. Let me reiterate the NAACP’s continued opposition to the collection of the data, in the first instance, in any multiracial category. 

The Interagency Committee cautions that the use of a separate 

multiracial category rather than a ‘‘select one or more’’ approach 

would create needless confusion. It gives an example in the fact 

that the States of Georgia, Indiana, and Michigan define ‘‘multiracial’’ as having parents of different races; whereas, California is 

now considering legislation which would define ‘‘multiracial’’ as 

having parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents of different 

races. 

Now, under those definitions, I, myself, would be black in Georgia, Indiana, and Michigan, but I would be multiracial in California. So now I’m getting confused. 

So I think we have to be very careful about this. Speaker Gingrich, in his testimony, indicated that he wanted to avoid the creation of subgroups to further fractionate America. I would caution, 

then, about developing a multiracial group for that very reason. I 

guess, in that respect, the Speaker and I agree. 

We must take care not to recreate, reinforce, or even expand the 

caste system we are all trying so hard to overcome. The NAACP 

believes that most individuals of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds do not think of themselves as a new race, but instead wish 

to celebrate all their heritages rather than blend them into a new 

category reminiscent of the ‘‘colored’’ category of South Africa’s very 

sad history of apartheid. For those who treasure each and every 

forebear, a ‘‘check one or more’’ option should suffice. 

I want to talk a little bit about the methods of data tabulation 

and get past the cultural questions. The remaining question now 

is not the collection of data. The ‘‘select one or more’’ option of the 

Interagency Committee has admirably split the Gordian Knot that 

separated many of the traditional civil rights organizations from 

the emerging multiethnic and multiracial groups. As people of 

color, we greatly appreciate that. 

Now the question moves further down the pipeline of the data 

process to the point of tabulation. What is needed now are protocols 

to modify existing tabulation procedures to accommodate census responses reporting more than one race. Our concern, obviously, is 

that such protocols maintain the integrity of civil rights enforcement. 

In addition, we must bear in mind that multiple race respondents might encounter discrimination as people of mixed race, as 

580

people visually identified with one or more of the single-race categories, either, or both. Under those circumstances, we believe it is 

important to be able to count all the acts of discrimination that an 

individual might face. 

The interagency report identified three possible tabulation methods. There are some others, somewhat more esoteric, that we don’t 

find satisfactory. I think my colleague, Dr. Waters from Harvard, 

will go more deeply into those. 

But the three that we found most interesting were presented by 

the interagency report as bridges between existing classification 

systems and those to be developed. And they are the single-race approach, the all-inclusive approach, and the historical series approach. 

The single-race approach approximates the use of a multiracial 

category. It involves assigning single-race responses to a single race 

category and multiple-race responses to a multiple-race category. 

Now, how the responses to the multiple race category would be 

then disaggregated and reaggregated, we don’t have any guidance, 

and obviously that’s something we would be very interested in finding out about. 

The all-inclusive approach, obviously, we like. Congressman Conyers indicated that adding up to more than 100 percent of a person 

is a problem for capitation, not for the ability to track instances of 

discrimination. The all-inclusive approach involves assigning all 

those who check more than one race into every category that they 

check off. 

Tiger Woods, ‘‘Cablanasian,’’ as he calls himself, Caucasian, 

black, Native American, and Asian, would be counted four times. 

Now, you know, I think a lot of us would like to see four Tigers 

out there. 

Each community of his diverse heritage would have the opportunity to claim him, without an unseemly parents’ battle to be resolved Solomon-like by offering to cut him into quarters. Each community would also have the ability to protect him from each active 

institutional or individual discrimination he might face, whether as 

a member of a single race group or as a mixed race individual. 

As the committee notes, this would result in percentages for each 

of the four separate racial categories exceeding 100 percent, because multiple-race responses would be counted in each reported 

racial category. Still, the report continues, the all-inclusive approach would provide information on the total number of times the 

racial category had been elected. 

It would also enable organizations like the NAACP to record the 

number of times that an individual might face different kinds of 

discrimination. So we, obviously, favor that approach. We wish to 

know each time such discrimination occurs, for whatever reason. 

The third approach, the historical series approach, seeks to finetune the tabulation so that multiple-race respondents are assigned 

to single race categories from the outset, based on the likelihood 

that persons who check off at least one of the historically protected 

categories, black, Asian or Pacific Islander, and Native American, 

will encounter discrimination. 

This approach meets many of the goals of the all-inclusive approach in keeping track of likely acts of discrimination, while also 

581

meeting many of the objectives of the single-race approach in keeping the capitation or head count at no more than 100 percent of the 

population. The only problem area, and it may be a small one, exists with regard to multiple-race respondents who check off more 

than one protected category. Tiger Woods, again, is our example. 

Tiger would not be assigned to white, because he also checked off 

a protected category. He would not be assigned to Asian, black, or 

Native American, because he could be claimed by all three, driving 

the capitation rate in each single race category over 100 percent. 

Instead, he would stay in a multiracial category. This, obviously, 

needs to be examined further. 

In conclusion, we can say that it may be that the single-race, the 

all-inclusive, and the historical series approaches, singly or in combination, might be used by different agencies for different purposes, 

in the kind of aggregation and disaggregation exercises that Congressman Sawyer referred to earlier in the day. 

What is important for our purposes is that evidence of every act 

of discrimination be preserved. What would be important from the 

standpoint of the Census Bureau and the Federal agencies, and obviously Congressmen concerned about the size of their districts, is 

that protocols be adopted that would enable the different agencies 

and the different formulas to talk to one another and share data 

in a meaningful way. 

As a general matter, we favor the all-inclusive approach and 

would not favor the single-race approach, and the historical series 

approach appears to us to be a compromise. All in all, we appreciate the spirit of compromise and creativity the Interagency Committee has shown, and look forward to a successful resolution of 

the remaining questions. 

Surely this is a matter we would all like to get past and through, 

so that we can focus on issues of fair and accurate methods of assuring that the entire population is actually counted. In this regard, the issue of statistical sampling, which was mentioned earlier 

in the day, is key. 

Such modern methods of ensuring an accurate count are necessary in our ever-changing society. Just as we have been innovative in resolving the issue of how our citizens identify themselves, 

so, too, we hope for innovation in ensuring that all our citizens are 

fairly counted, especially minorities and the poor. 

I thank you for your time and for receiving my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDougall follows:]

582


g:\graphics\45174.404
583


g:\graphics\45174.405
584


g:\graphics\45174.406
585


g:\graphics\45174.407
586


g:\graphics\45174.408
587


g:\graphics\45174.409
588


g:\graphics\45174.410
589


g:\graphics\45174.411
590

Mr. HORN. We thank you. 

We are going to adjust panels. I had planned that Dr. Waters 

would sit with both panels. So if we can get some extra chairs in 

there, I’m going to have Ms. Katzen first, because I’m conscious of 

her time commitment. If the staff will move some extra chairs in 

there, we’re going to keep this panel; we’re going to add to it the 

administration panel; and we’re going to get to a dialog once we get 

through the testimony and the formal statement each one wants to 

make. 

As I say, Dr. Waters, we’re not going to forget you. You are going 

to help bring peace and harmony here. 

All government witnesses can come forward, and we will just integrate you. So we have Sally Katzen, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 

and Budget; we have Isabelle Katz Pinzler, Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Department of Justice; and Nancy 

Gordon, Associate Director for Demographic Programs, Bureau of 

the Census. 

All who are going to be testifying, including staff backing you 

up—if you turn, for instance, to Ms. Wallman—I want them all 

taking the oath. So if you will all stand, with all staff that are 

going to be testifying sometime in the course of this hearing. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HORN. All witnesses have affirmed, including staff. The clerk 

will make a note. 

Dr. Katzen, I’m aware that you have a tight time schedule. You 

have appeared here many times, and you and I have talked privately on this, but let’s get it on the record as to where we are, how 

we got there. 

I think the basic question that everyone has asked, the members 

of this panel as well as congressional Members, and Ms. Meek 

mentions it in her testimony, which I’ve put in the record—she 

couldn’t make it this morning—and that is, how are we going to 

realistically use those data to help us in civil rights enforcement, 

in benefits received, and so forth? 

I am assuming that you will get into some of that. 

STATEMENTS OF SALLY KATZEN, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF 

INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; ISABELLE KATZ PINZLER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE; AND NANCY GORDON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR 

FOR DEMOGRAPHIC PROGRAMS, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 

Ms. KATZEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate your inviting me here today. As in the past, I want 

to commend you for your leadership in this area, and the series of 

hearings that you are holding. I think they are very beneficial. 

I have found sitting here and listening to the witnesses who preceded me to be very informative. I appreciate having the opportunity to add a little bit of background and perhaps a little bit of 

prognosis of where we are going from here to the discussion that 

we have had so far. 

As you will recall, the last time I testified was on April 23. At 

that point I gave you a detailed report of our progress, but we had 

591

not yet received the results of the last of a series of tests in the 

research that was a very important part of our work. 

Our work was a two parallel track study: one of public comment 

and public suggestions, and one of research and testing. We received the results of the last research in May, and then I received 

from the Interagency Committee its recommendations and report, 

which we made available to the public in a Federal Register notice 

on July 9 of this year, requesting comments for a 60-day period. 

What you have heard this morning underscores some of the salient facts. First, this is the report of the Interagency Committee 

that consists of 30 Federal agencies that use or generate data. Second, the recommendations were unanimous. There was not a single 

dissent or separate concurrence, which is somewhat unusual when 

you gather 30 Federal agencies together on any issue of policy. 

Third, there has been a lot of discussion this morning about the 

recommendations. With the exception of Congressman Sawyer, who 

mentioned one or two of the others, the witness have been focusing 

on the treatment of persons who have multiple racial heritages. 

All of the recommendations of the Interagency Committee are set 

forth in Chapter 6 of the document. I would encourage those who 

have an interest in this area to look at Chapters 1 through 5, as 

well, because I believe that they provide both a context and the 

basis for the Interagency Committee’s recommendations. 

I also want to emphasize here, as I have in other instances, that 

while this hearing is talking about the implications for the decennial census, OMB Directive 15 applies to all Federal forms for statistical and administrative or programmatic reports. 

As a result, it is not just the census, but these standards, these 

minimum sets of categories that would be determined, would apply 

for housing assistance applications, for school registrations, and for 

medical research. It is not just the census, although that has been 

the sole issue that has been discussed to date. 

I also would like to mention, in light of some of the comments 

that I heard this morning, that this is the recommendation of the 

Interagency Committee. OMB has asked for public opinion on it. 

What I am saying now will be drawn from the report and recommendations. 

Ultimately, at the conclusion of the public comment period, I will 

be making a decision with respect to changes, if any, in the existing standards. I am assuring myself that I will keep an open mind 

and listen to all comments. Therefore, if I’m making a statement, 

it is drawn from the report that we have received rather than representing my own or OMB’s views of this. Our views will be made 

known in October. 

I think, however, one comment that may be appropriate is to respond to the comment that this is an attempt to compromise, or 

that it is seeking to appease one group or another. My view is that 

this is the effort of professional statisticians wrestling with—and I 

think that is the appropriate verb to use—wrestling with a very 

difficult statistical policy issue, and that they were addressing it as 

professional statisticians. 

Indeed, over the 4-year period, we have had very little comment, 

and certainly very little negative comment about the process that 

we have used to keep this on that basis. The objective was not to 

592

read the tea leaves or figure out what might be a politically attractive solution, but actually to try to come up with the best policy for 

the government for statistical purposes. 

Therefore, rather than viewing this as a compromise, I believe 

they believe it is a principled accommodation of the legitimate interests that have been presented. 

I also would note in this connection that we have heard some 

talk about how long it has taken. I believe actually that’s a sign 

of the seriousness of purpose that was addressed to this. It has 

been 4 years. There has been a comprehensive review, which is 

what I committed to in a congressional hearing when we started 

this. 

There was also some question in terms of the timing. The recommendation of the Interagency Committee is that all Federal 

agencies implement whatever changes are adopted no later than 

2003. In answer to Mr. Fernandez, yes, some can implement them 

sooner. 

The 2003 date was used because any changes will be reflected in 

the decennial census, and the results of the decennial census will 

not be available until the early part of the next millennium. Since 

they provide the denominator for many of the programmatic offices, 

it may be inappropriate for some of the Federal agencies to use the 

revised forms before then. But it is an outside date, not necessarily 

an end date. 

I guess the other comment I would make as a general comment 

is that we heard this morning a number of comments about the 

good work that was done. I want to emphasize that whatever kudos 

were given or compliments stated, they belong to the Interagency 

Committee, which is a group of professional statisticians from the 

civil service, under the leadership of Clyde Tucker, who is in the 

audience, from BLS, and under the supervision of Katherine 

Wallman, who is the Chief Statistician and head of my Statistical 

Policy branch. 

Whatever good has been done, it is to their credit, and not to 

mine or to OMB’s generally. This is their effort and their work. I 

have been, in some instances, a spokesperson on this issue, but 

they deserve whatever credit is received on this. 

Now, you have already heard a lot about the actual recommendations, and I think it is not very useful to go through them again, 

except to underscore a few points that may clarify what many of 

the previous witnesses have been talking about. 

You have heard that there should not be a separate racial category, a box to be checked off, called ‘‘multiracial.’’ One of the findings, again, from the Interagency Committee report, is that the 

term ‘‘multiracial’’ frequently was misunderstood by respondents to 

mean not only persons of mixed race, using the four general categories of race that we have previously identified, but also to include multiethnic heritages. 

Irish-Americans, or someone with a parent who is Irish-American 

and a parent who is Italian-American, identified themselves as 

multiracial, as did persons who had a Jewish parent and a nonJewish parent, because they saw Judaism as not only a religion but 

a race. There were a number of different variations in the testing 

that showed that the term ‘‘multiracial’’ had a variety of meanings. 

593

The other finding of the Interagency Committee was that ‘‘multiracial,’’ standing alone, was not particularly informative, since even 

if it were limited to combinations of the four categories that are already provided for, it would be unclear from simply checking a box, 

‘‘multiracial,’’ whether the person had a parent or heritage that 

was both black and white, or whether it was American Indian and 

Asian-American, or black and Asian-American, or one of the other 

combinations. So, standing alone, a multiracial box was not particularly informative. 

There was a call this morning for accuracy and clarity. The finding of the Interagency Committee was that a multiracial box standing alone did not provide that. 

On the other hand, the committee was very clear that individuals 

should be able to check one or more of the historical categories. 

This, I think, reflected the Interagency Committee’s belief that, as 

you, Mr. Chairman, pointed out in your opening statement, this is 

a deeply personal, individual issue. On self-identification, persons 

should be able to celebrate their entire heritage and not be forced 

to choose. As a matter of principle, this was very important to the 

Interagency Committee. 

One of the recommendations of the committee that has gotten 

the most attention this morning is how these data will be reported. 

I think there is unanimity of opinion that that is the most telling 

point. Our goal is accuracy; our goal is clarity. So the recommendation of the Interagency Committee is that, when the data are reported, a minimum of one additional racial category designated 

‘‘more than one race,’’ would be included, so long as the criteria for 

data quality and confidentiality are met. 

We also envision appreciably more data being available. In response to the questions that have been raised, I don’t have answers, but I am aware of the importance of providing as much data 

as possible. 

I have said that I am from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. ‘‘Information’’ is my first name, and I believe that we 

should have robust information that provides the kind of information that would be used in different circumstances. Remember, this 

applies to a variety of different types of forms, and therefore, in 

many different circumstances, different presentations of the data 

can be more informative than others. 

We are in the process, even as we speak, of compiling a group 

of experts, drawn from those who worked on the Interagency Committee in doing the research, to begin to put together recommendations for the tabulation. Our mandate or our charge to this group 

is to provide as much information as possible, in as many different 

ways as possible, so that we will have this information available 

for the purposes that we might like. And we need it to be done in 

a way, as Congressman Sawyer said, that is rational and consistent 

with historical data, so that we do not lose the data that we have 

over the last 20 years. 

This is a not insignificant issue, and I am not at all surprised 

by people who say, ‘‘But you don’t have all the answers yet, and 

yet you want us to comment on your proposal. We need more information.’’ The reason for our proceeding as we have is because of 

the tremendous interest that was generated in the underlying reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00599 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
594

port. Until the final research was concluded in May, we were not 

in a position to receive the basic recommendations. But as those 

are being formulated, as I say, we are putting together a group to 

do the follow-on work and present recommendations and guidance 

for the reporting and tabulating of this information. 

Because the time this morning is short, I will just identify other 

areas that are important for those who are interested in this issue. 

In addition to the multiracial question, there is the set of issues 

surrounding the request for information on ethnicity, Hispanic origin, not of Hispanic origin, and the sequencing of that question 

with the racial questions: whether it should be combined, whether 

it should be separate, and whether it should precede or follow. We 

have, again, interagency recommendations on that that are supported by the findings, that should produce more complete data, 

both on Hispanics and of non-Hispanics that would be very useful. 

There is another area of the report that deals with whether additional categories, apart from a multiracial category, should be included. We heard from Middle Easterners, Arabs, Cape Verdeans, 

European-Americans, German-Americans, Creoles, all asking that 

they have a box identifying them. 

The Interagency Committee’s recommendation was that there 

should be no racial or ethnic categories added to the minimum 

standards, and I stress ‘‘minimum,’’ because in the long form on 

the census, we have a lot of national origin type questions. In other 

kinds of surveys, you can always ask additional classifications, so 

long as they can be reaggregated to the major categories. 

But if you set a minimum standard and you include additional 

boxes, if you will, then those additional boxes would have to appear 

on each and every Federal form. We have found that the size and 

the geographic concentration of several of these populations would 

mean that the inclusion of these in all of the forms would yield 

very little data. That’s not to say they can’t be included where they 

are needed or necessary. 

There also was a lot of discussion in the hearings that we had 

and this is reflected in the report on where Native Hawaiians 

should be included. I have already had one briefing with members 

of the Hawaiian congressional delegation on this issue. There were 

also questions about terminology that were raised. 

What I am trying to do here is simply reflect that, while the attention has been on the multiracial issue, this report goes well beyond that. This report speaks to a much broader base and covers 

a lot of other issues. Again, I would encourage those who are interested to read the whole report, and then comment. We are in the 

middle of a comment period. We want to hear what the American 

public thinks about what has been recommended to OMB. 

There is a set of general principles that has guided this review. 

They may well serve as a very good basis for people to comment, 

to see if we have met our principles. We think it is very important 

that what we end up with is something that the American people 

understand and appreciate and accept, because then we will have 

greater responsiveness and even more accurate data. So I cannot 

overemphasize how important the public comment period is. 

595

I’m sorry I’ve run over my time, but I wanted to respond to some 

of the issues that were raised this morning. I thank you again for 

your leadership in this area. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Katzen follows:]

596


g:\graphics\45174.412
597


g:\graphics\45174.413
598


g:\graphics\45174.414
599


g:\graphics\45174.415
600


g:\graphics\45174.416
601


g:\graphics\45174.417
602


g:\graphics\45174.418
603


g:\graphics\45174.419
604


g:\graphics\45174.420
605


g:\graphics\45174.421
606


g:\graphics\45174.422
607

Mr. HORN. Let me begin the questioning. Each Member will have 

5 minutes. We will go a second round, if we can, and then we will 

get to the other witnesses. 

I know you have to leave. Let’s just get a few facts straight. 

When you mentioned the national origin question, that’s on the 

long form only. 

Ms. KATZEN. Long form of the census, yes. 

Mr. HORN. And how many people get the long form, what percent 

of the American citizenry? 

Ms. KATZEN. One-sixth. 

Mr. HORN. One-sixth get the long form. Is that national origin 

based on where they came from or where their parents and grandparents came from? 

Ms. KATZEN. Nancy. 

Ms. GORDON. The question is left for the respondent to answer. 

It follows the same principle of self-identification, so it’s the person’s desire to express whatever national origin he or she identifies 

with. 

Mr. HORN. Has the Census Bureau, which you represent, ever 

followed up with an interview to see just how accurate that is—to 

know how people are interpreting it and whether the data of any 

use based on that variety of self-identification? 

Ms. GORDON. There was a small reinterview program for the 

1990 census, and I could get you the results of that for the record. 

Mr. HORN. Do you remember offhand just the general conclusion? 

Ms. GORDON. I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with it. 

Mr. HORN. Without objection, it will go in the record at this 

point. 

[The information referred to follows:]

608


g:\graphics\45174.423
609

Mr. HORN. Now I’m interested in who will make the decision—

the President, the Director of OMB, or Administrator Katzen—

after you summarize all the Federal Register comments? That’s the 

hierarchy, isn’t it? 

Ms. KATZEN. That is the hierarchy. The Vice President is there 

as well. 

Mr. HORN. He is not in the hierarchy. Sorry, he is a legislative 

official. Presidents can give him assignments, but there is no Constitutional assignment for him. 

Ms. KATZEN. The Director of OMB has asked me to supervise 

this process. On an issue like this, I fully expect to keep him well 

informed of my thought processes when we reach that stage. And 

I believe, actually, that this will be reflected in an OMB directive, 

which would then be signed by the Director of OMB. 

Mr. HORN. Very good. Now the real question everybody is sort of 

asking is, how do we avoid double counting? What is your view on 

that? 

Ms. KATZEN. My view is that, where we provide different cuts of 

the information, we can use the information in a way that assures 

the most precise measure for the purposes needed. In some instances, one can provide, as we recommend here, at least one alternative that adds to 100, so there is no double counting. In other 

instances, I wouldn’t call it double counting. 

If one were interested in finding out, for example, the aggregate 

number of persons in this country who view themselves as AsianAmericans, it would be fair, I believe, to include all of those who 

check Asian-American and only Asian-American, plus those who 

check Asian-American and one other or two others or three others, 

because such persons are saying they view themselves, in whole or 

in part, as Asian-American. If one is looking for a number, that is 

one way of presenting it. 

Now it is true, if you were to add up all the people who check 

all the boxes, but we don’t need to get there, so depending upon 

the purposes for which the information is being used, you may 

have different cuts of the same data. One of the attractive features 

that we have heard or that I have heard spoken of about the Interagency Committee’s recommendations is it provides those different 

cuts, so that the most appropriate tabulation would be used for the 

purposes needed. 

Mr. HORN. OK. On my time, Dr. Waters, since you are our expert 

witness on both panels, is there a question you would like to ask 

Ms. Katzen before she leaves, based on your own research? 

Ms. WATERS. I don’t think so. I think her testimony covered and 

the report covers everything. 

Mr. HORN. Very good. Would any other members of panel III like 

to ask Ms. Katzen a question while she is here? 

OK. Mr. Fernandez. Pull a chair up here, Mr. Fernandez. We’re 

going to lose track of you. Just grab one of those chairs. We can 

do what we want with this room. We want our witnesses happy. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Yes, I am interested in the handling of the socalled ‘‘ethnic question.’’ In essence, we’re really discussing the Hispanic population, and in particular, with reference to those individuals who are both Hispanic and non-Hispanic. 

610

Now, in the census, the question appears as a separate question, 

and it asks you to indicate whether you are Hispanic or non-Hispanic, in which instance, I would answer both questions. I would 

answer yes and no. And there are a growing number of individuals 

who could do that, and who could also give a multiple response on 

the race question. Many Mexicans are of Native American and 

Spanish or European ancestry, and many Puerto Ricans are part 

African and part European, as well, and understand this. 

What is not clear from the recommendations is the concentration 

on the racial categories in the discussion of new permissiveness, as 

far as the multiple checkoffs is concerned. I’m not sure that that 

was intended, but maybe it was. What I’m asking is for some clarity as to how you’re going to handle that. 

Ms. KATZEN. That is a very good question. I think the Interagency Committee took some steps toward providing information 

on that, but has not provided answers to all of your questions. 

One of the steps that they had talked about was that where 

there is self-identification there would be two separate questions. 

Where there is not self-identification, as in, for example, death certificates or emergency rooms, where a person is not able to selfidentify, that you could have a combined, and then check all that 

may be appropriate. 

There has also been some significant discussion that would ensure that, regardless of how one responded on the ethnic question, 

one had full opportunity to choose among all of the different racial 

questions, as well. 

But those are, I think, several steps toward an answer to your 

question. It is not a complete answer. This is one of the issues that 

we would be very interested in receiving additional consultation 

and help as we go through the public comment period. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. I will be happy to provide that. There was one 

other aspect of that which I raised in my testimony and in other 

venues, and that relates to the ultimate appearance of the new 

OMB 15. 

The current OMB 15, as I understand it, is in two interchangeable formats. In other words, you are supposed to be able to integrate the two formats when you get the numbers together. In one 

of them the Hispanic category is treated as a race, and in the other 

it’s treated as a so-called ‘‘ethnic group.’’ If that problem is not resolved regarding the multiple checkoffs applying or not applying to 

the Hispanic group, and the two interchangeable formats are retained, I think you’re going to have a serious dilemma. 

Ms. KATZEN. I think, on the latter point, the recommendation of 

the Interagency Committee would be that where there is self-identification to have two separate questions, with the ethnic question 

preceding the racial question. It would be only in the instance 

where self-identification is not possible that you would use a combined. So they wouldn’t be interchangeable formats; they would be 

alternative formats, depending on whether it was self-identification 

or third-party identification. 

But, again, this is in the report and the recommendations, and 

this is an area in which, if there are issues that we have not anticipated, or if there are unintended consequences of some of the recommendations that have not yet been fully discussed, the purpose 

611

of the public comment period is to bring those to our attention. We 

very much would like to work with your group and other groups 

in answering those questions. 

Our objective is to enhance the accuracy and the utility of this 

information, not to confuse or complicate the issues. So we appreciate your assistance. 

Mr. HORN. We thank you. 

I now yield 5 minutes to Mrs. Maloney, the ranking Democrat. 

I’m sorry, we’re going to have to, because of the timing, but we will 

try to get it in. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Katzen, we’ve heard from a number of witnesses that, while 

the interagency recommendations are indeed a step in the right direction, the problem of how this data will be used remains a major 

obstacle. 

It’s my understanding that it will be sometime in 1999 before 

that guidance will be offered. That concerns me for two reasons: 

First, it seems to be premature to change the way the information 

is collected prior to determining how it’s going to be used. And second, it means another 2 years of uncertainty for those who rely on 

this data for enforcement purposes and for discrimination cases, 

and so forth. What can be done to shorten this timeframe? 

Ms. KATZEN. We, too, were concerned about proceeding with a 

recommendation without having answered the followup questions 

regarding reporting and tabulation, therefore, we have chosen to 

accelerate that timeframe appreciably. We are already in the process of putting together the committee, and I have asked the chair 

of the committee to please do absolutely everything humanly possible to have preliminary recommendations for the reporting and 

tabulating guidance by October of this year, when we have to reach 

our final decisions. 

I got a sort of stony, cold, ‘‘OK. We’ll do what we can.’’ But I 

think it is important, and I’m going to put as much emphasis on 

that as possible, because those questions need answers. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Do we have any guidance from the courts regarding how they would evaluate statistics in discrimination cases 

which include people who claim mixed ancestry? 

Ms. KATZEN. I would prefer to defer on this question to our witness from the Justice Department who may know of past cases. For 

the future, I hope we would be able to present to the court compelling reasons to look at the various ways in which we are tabulating 

this information and the justification for using the best information 

available. 

Ms. PINZLER. If you like, I can respond to that question. There 

is no case law specifically on that point. But I would echo what Ms. 

Katzen said, that we would obviously try to frame arguments to 

use this data in the best way possible for enforcement mechanisms. 

Mrs. MALONEY. As you know, we have certain protected categories for civil rights and voting rights. My question is, how would 

those persons who check mixed ancestry be treated? Would they be 

treated as a protected status? Just to come down to a specific example, under your proposed guidelines from the Interagency Committee, how would you count a person who is half-black and halfAsian, for the purpose of litigating employment discrimination 

612

cases, for example, and other discrimination cases, for example? 

Would that be a protected category? 

Ms. PINZLER. Again, I think that that is part of the information 

that has to be developed, on how it is going to be tabulated. But 

I think that it would depend, frankly, on the particular kind of 

case, the facts of a particular case you were trying to develop, assuming that you had the data available, that a certain number of 

people were in both categories. It would also depend on the region 

of the country, whether there was a significant number of people 

who fell into that category to even register on the published data. 

Ms. KATZEN. I would add that, in terms of the protections that 

have been afforded based on past discrimination, I do not belive a 

person should lose equal opportunity because he or she is a member of two different minority groups that have been discriminated 

against in different ways at different times. 

As I illustrated earlier, in the different ways of tabulating the information, it seems to me that, for purposes of determining whether there has been discrimination against Asian-Americans, one 

would look to see the number of Asian-Americans who view themselves wholly as Asian-Americans and therefore checked only one 

box, but also include those who checked Asian-American along with 

whatever other categories they saw, because they do see themselves as Asian-American as part of their heritage which they want 

to celebrate and to defend. 

Mrs. MALONEY. To simplify the question, for the purpose of litigating discrimination cases, is the option to check several racial 

categories more useful than a general multiracial category? 

Ms. KATZEN. Absolutely, because it tells you which categories 

they are in. You would have much better, more precise information, 

and therefore I believe that you will have a more accurate picture; 

again, based on the findings and the recommendations that the 

Interagency Committee has presented, and still waiting to hear the 

public comment. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, under the proposed changes, how would 

you count a person who indicated a black and white racial heritage, 

for the purpose of evaluating the impact on minority voting dilution 

under the Voting Rights Act? 

Ms. KATZEN. For purposes of determining that, if they saw themselves as black, and black is a group that is, under these circumstances, protected? 

Mrs. MALONEY. That would be protected. 

Ms. KATZEN. They are protected. They are not less protected because they also claim white heritage. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Now, just to clarify, who will be tabulating how 

this will be determined? Will your interagency task force do this? 

Ms. KATZEN. These would be guidelines for how the Federal 

agencies and programs that have programmatic responsibilities for 

the particular areas are to treat the data. So I would look to the 

Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commissions and others. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Just to clarify, each agency, then, will be allowed 

to determine how to tabulate the data for civil rights programs; is 

that correct? 

613

Ms. KATZEN. Subject to the overall guidance that will presumably 

be set to use the most accurate data for the purposes selected, but 

it is the Federal agency that will better understand the particular 

purposes for which it will be using this data. 

Mrs. MALONEY. But if we go back to the agencies, won’t we be 

going back to the same chaos that we had before we had Directive 

15, with each agency determining. Didn’t Directive 15 come out to 

clarify? 

Ms. KATZEN. Well, in that instance, they were using different 

definitions for the different categories. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Oh, I see. So you will have the same definitions, 

but each agency will tabulate. 

Ms. KATZEN. That’s correct. 

Mrs. MALONEY. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. HORN. Five minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Davis, for questioning the witnesses. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Katzen, you indicated that you felt that the interagency task 

force had done an outstanding job, and I certainly share that. I 

think, from what we’ve heard, there are many others who also 

share that position. Do you feel that, professionally, they answered 

the main questions, seemingly, that individuals have raised in 

terms of the ability to identify, in a concrete way, with their racial 

roots? 

Ms. KATZEN. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. If that be the case, in terms of the additional information that would be generated as a result of the ability 

to generate that information, do you see any other useful—I mean, 

what other purposes, perhaps, could one suggest that information 

would be useful for? 

Ms. KATZEN. One of the questions that the Interagency Committee struggled with initially was whether the number of persons 

who would choose a multiracial box, if there were an opportunity 

to do so, was large enough to acknowledge and was growing. I 

think what we might see, if this recommendation were accepted, 

would enable to better track the increase in immigration and in 

interracial marriages that are occurring. 

Some speak of the melting pot. We will now have, I think, better 

information. That’s one form of information that may come from a 

‘‘mark one or more’’ approach that is the essence of this. 

As to other types of use of this information, I would defer to the 

experts in the social sciences who may foresee other uses. But our 

attempt has been to, again, reflect, as accurately as possible, the 

demographics of this country and not create new categories or new 

protections or new areas in that regard. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Did I understand you to say or suggest 

or indicate that, in your mind, protected categories that already 

exist, in all probability, would not lose their protection, even 

though they may secondarily, or even not secondarily, designate 

that they are part of another race? 

Ms. KATZEN. That would be my view, as I look at the materials 

that are being generated. I’m reflecting here what I believe to be 

the view of the Interagency Committee that sought to enhance the 

accuracy without diluting in any way the valid information that we 

614

have from the past, and without affecting in any way the protections that Congress has already decided. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I would suggest, if ultimately that was 

the case, and we had the acceptance of the task force’s recommendation in terms of the ultimate, then those individuals 

would maintain their protection; other individuals will have had an 

opportunity to be accurately depicted, in terms of their sense of 

being. I think that this task force would have just done the American people a tremendous service. That’s the position that I hold. 

I just have one other question, and that is, has there been much 

conversation about providing instructions for people in such a way 

that it would perhaps decrease the likelihood of their making an 

error because they just didn’t quite understand what was being 

asked for? 

Ms. KATZEN. Yes, and one of the tasks of this committee that 

we’re pulling together now to work on the tabulation and reporting 

is to include training—actually the wording of the instructions on 

the forms themselves, as well as the training of those who would 

be administering them. This is, again, another effort that would be 

governmentwide, to enhance the accuracy of the information. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I thank you very much. 

I would like to ask Ms. Graham; Ms. Graham, from listening to 

the dialog today, do you feel that the interagency task force’s recommendation takes care of some of the concerns that you have expressed? 

Ms. GRAHAM. It does take care of some of the concerns. As I said 

in my testimony, it’s as if we got half a loaf. It takes care of children like mine having the ability to check more than one, so that 

they don’t have to choose to be the race of one of their parents or 

deny, actually, the race of one of their parents. But it still does not 

give them the ability to have a sanctioned category called ‘‘multiracial,’’ or even a sanctioned name called ‘‘multiracial.’’ It’s very interesting, the day after the interagency recommendation came out, the media started to say ‘‘mixed race’’ again. Up 

until that point, they were using ‘‘multiracial.’’ And then the recommendation was no multiracial category, and it reverted back to 

‘‘mixed race,’’ and some other things. But the word ‘‘multiracial’’

was suddenly gone, and that’s what we are fighting to keep. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. You were here when Representative 

Owens made a comment this morning relative to the creation of 

new races, in some instances. Did that bother you any, in terms of 

the possibility of not just the designation but actually the creation 

of a new racial group? 

Ms. GRAHAM. That bothers me, as well, and that is not what we 

are trying to do at all. As a matter of fact, our recommendation has 

always been to have a multiracial identifier with ‘‘check all the 

apply’’ underneath that. So, actually, we’re talking about the same 

thing and not creating a new racial category. We are in agreement. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I think the only concern would be that 

oftentimes intent is not the same thing as result. I’m saying, oftentimes we intend one set of things, but something other than what 

we were seeking ends up being the result. 

I thank you very much, and I have no further questions. 

Mrs. MALONEY. And we have to go vote. 

615

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And we’ve got to go vote. 

Mr. HORN. Yes, I’m conscious that we have to vote here, and I’m 

conscious that the Assistant Attorney General also needs to be 

somewhere else. I do want to hear her testimony. 

Let me ask my colleagues. If we recessed until 2 o’clock, would 

that be convenient for you. Would you be here, or are you on an 

airplane? 

Would that solve the Assistant Attorney General’s problem, if we 

could recess till 2 o’clock? We have got two or three votes here. 

Ms. PINZLER. Well, I’m already—my 1 o’clock appointment with 

the Attorney General is already—I’m late. That will be fine. 

Mr. HORN. All right. If we can, let me just end this session, before Ms. Katzen leaves, we appreciate very much your testimony. 

We know we’ve detained you here. Mr. McDougall did have a question, and I’d like him to be able to ask it. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I was just interested in Ms. Katzen’s description of some of the 

instances in which self-identification would not be possible—for example, death certificates and emergency room certificates. 

I wondered, Ms. Katzen, if you could identify for us if there were 

any other circumstances in which self-identification would not be 

appropriate or possible? 

Ms. KATZEN. I’m not aware of any offhand. Again, this would depend largely upon how the Federal forms are being used in different circumstances. One of our very important principles was 

self-identification, but we have to recognize that there are certain 

circumstances where it simply is not possible to rely upon the individual to respond. 

Mr. HORN. Well, we thank you. We are in recess until 2:05 p.m. 

Ms. KATZEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HORN. The subcommittee will resume. 

We thank you for your patience today. We had an unusual series 

of votes on the floor, and I know it wrecked everybody’s schedule, 

but that’s democracy in action. Since this is democracy in action 

when we work in committee, we’re glad we could have our key witnesses back. 

Assistant Attorney General Pinzler, I’m going to start with you, 

and then Ms. Gordon, and then Dr. Waters, since I’m using you as 

an expert on two panels. Please all stay there, and we can have a 

dialog and solve some problems, perhaps. 

So, as you know, we put your statements immediately in the 

record, and you can summarize them. Generally, we’d like you to 

do it in 5 or so minutes, so we can have time for questions. And 

I know you’ve got a busy day anyhow. 

So Attorney General Pinzler, if you will start. 

Ms. PINZLER. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am 

pleased to join my colleagues on this panel. 

The Department of Justice participated on the Interagency Committee and commend its efforts to address this difficult issue. We 

believe that the country will be well served by the changes recommended by the Interagency Committee. 

If adopted, they will address the concerns of those members of 

the public who find the existing standard does not allow them comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00621 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
616

fortably to report their identities, while at the same time allowing 

the Federal Government to continue to collect accurate and reliable 

data, thus enhancing the effectiveness of the enforcement of the 

civil rights laws. 

It will be necessary to evaluate this newly collected data so that 

their use is consistent with historical precedent. This will ensure 

that the information is presented in a fashion that is reliable and 

useful to agencies and organizations, such as the Department of 

Justice, that have law enforcement responsibilities. 

Since my administration colleagues have already presented the 

recommendations of the Interagency Committee and the work that 

is ongoing, I thought it would be helpful to tell you how the Department of Justice relies on racial and ethnic data to carry out its 

law enforcement mission. 

The Civil Rights Division of the department, of course, enforces 

the civil rights laws that were enacted by Congress to combat historical and continuing discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities, among others. The evidence of discrimination that served 

as a basis for enacting those laws has been compelling, as reflected 

in legislative history, and led to overwhelming support that these 

laws garnered when enacted. 

The division relies extensively on demographic data in the course 

of our efforts to identify and remedy violations of the civil rights 

laws for which we have enforcement responsibility, including the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Fair 

Housing Act of 1968, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. 

Our law enforcement efforts depend heavily on demographic data 

that are accepted by the courts as reliable and presented in a usable format. They also depend on data that allow individuals to 

identify themselves as members of groups that are subjected to discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. 

I would like to just briefly outline some, but not all, of the ways 

that the division relies on race and ethnicity data in our law enforcement work. Obviously, I can’t be exhaustive in the time allowed. We need accurate data for purposes of enforcing the Fair 

Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, both of which 

prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and national origin. 

The data assist in a variety of ways in determining whether a 

housing or a lending practice is unlawful. For example, having accurate information about the racial composition of neighborhoods is 

critical in determining whether a real estate company is steering 

minority homeseekers away from white neighborhoods. 

Racial and ethnic census data are particularly useful in our efforts to ensure that lenders do not discriminate in making home 

mortgages and other types of loans. This helps in determining, for 

example, whether a lender designating its geographical service 

areas has excluded areas where large concentrations of racial minorities live. 

Race and ethnic census data also assist in analyzing marketing 

practices. For example, we consider whether a lender used methods 

such as direct mail solicitation in select areas that avoid minority 

borrowers, or on the other hand, targeted minority borrowers for 

predatory lending practices, such as very high-priced mortgages. 

617

Our fair housing and lending cases require complex statistical 

analysis usually designed to determine the extent to which racial 

and ethnic differences in mortgage in prices or the denial rates 

could have occurred by chance. Here we control for various combinations of racial, ethnic, and economic data to assess their possible impact on the price or denial of rate differentials. Accurate 

identification of race and ethnicity of borrowers is critical to such 

analyses. 

Accurate data play an essential role in our enforcement of Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act. As you may know Title VII prohibits 

employment discrimination, and we enforce Title VII as to State 

and local governments. Race and ethnic data are essential to establish a prima facie case that an employer has engaged in an employment practice that has either intentionally disadvantaged individuals or has had an illegal discriminatory impact on the basis of 

race or national origin. 

In general, a statistical prima facie case depends on comparison 

of, for example, the racial and ethnic composition of a relevant 

labor pool as compared to the racial and ethnic composition of 

those hired for a particular position. The absence of accurate aggregated race and ethnic data that can be used to determine the impact of an employment practice would hurt the department’s ability 

to pursue cases of illegal employment discrimination. 

In the area of voting rights, these data are particularly important for the enforcement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 

which requires covered districts to obtain preclearance of proposed 

changes in election practices to ensure that they do not have the 

purpose or effect of disadvantaging minority voters on the basis of 

race and ethnicity. Under Section 5, census data provide decisive 

information in cases when it is alleged that the proposed election 

rules will have differential impact. 

Enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act also requires 

accurate data, especially when courts must determine whether a 

State, county, or local redistricting plan has the effect of diluting 

minority voting strength. These data are also crucial to demonstrating polarized racial bloc voting patterns, which the Supreme 

Court has found to be of importance in proving a violation of Section 2. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly address the issue of the 

multiracial category versus the ‘‘one or more’’ races debate. The Division has been concerned that the inclusion of additional categories, such as ‘‘multiracial,’’ or ‘‘other,’’ or an open-ended response would fragment the racial and ethnic group data and make 

enforcement more difficult, because the additional categories would 

confuse respondents, lead to less reliable data, and make it difficult 

to prove that members of a particular racial and ethnic group are 

subject to discrimination. 

The research conducted by the Interagency Committee bore out 

our concerns. The committee concluded that the best means of 

measuring the growing multiracial population while continuing to 

conduct an accurate census and to collect reliable demographic data 

would be to choose, as appropriate, the ‘‘one or more’’ races rather 

than the single ‘‘multiracial’’ category, and we agree. 

618

In addition, further work is needed, as has been pointed out, to 

ensure that these data will be used so as not to have adverse impact, in particular, on relatively small groups with relatively high 

intermarriage rates, such as AsianPacific Islanders, Native Americans, and Alaskan Natives, as indicated by the research conducted 

by the Interagency Committee. 

Federal statistical agencies who are members of the Interagency 

Committee will continue to look at how the newly collected and 

complex data will relate to the historical use of race and ethnic categories, and we look forward to working with these agencies to address these issues. 

The question has come up, as I’ve heard it, of double counting 

people. What it caused me to think about is that this ‘‘problem’’ has 

been raised in the past with respect to women and minorities, 

whether black women are counted twice or Hispanic women are 

counted twice, and it simply hasn’t been a problem. 

What we do is, we disaggregate the data. If we have a sex discrimination case, then all women, black or white, are regarded as 

women for those purposes. If we have a race discrimination case, 

then all members of whatever the protected minority in question 

is are counted for those purposes. 

In our litigation, I would presume that we would continue to 

handle the data in that fashion, to disaggregate it when necessary 

and not when it is not necessary. A lot of our cases, especially in 

the area of employment discrimination, are combined cases. Not 

only are they race and sex, but they may be on behalf of a number 

of racial minorities, and therefore this additional data can only 

help, actually. 

The questions raised by Federal measures of race and ethnicity 

are difficult and often emotional ones, and have been well addressed by the Interagency Committee, and we commend them. 

The bottom line for law enforcement for the Civil Rights Division 

is that we need complete, accurate, and reliable data in order to 

combat effectively the types of discrimination against racial and 

ethnic minorities that are prohibited by these vital laws passed by 

Congress. 

We look forward to continuing to work on the question of how to 

interpret the data that are collected. I look forward to any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pinzler follows:]

619


g:\graphics\45174.424
620


g:\graphics\45174.425
621


g:\graphics\45174.426
622


g:\graphics\45174.427
623


g:\graphics\45174.428
624


g:\graphics\45174.429
625


g:\graphics\45174.430
626


g:\graphics\45174.431
627


g:\graphics\45174.432
628


g:\graphics\45174.433
629


g:\graphics\45174.434
630

Mr. HORN. We will proceed with the two other witnesses, then 

we will have general questions. 

The next witness is Nancy Gordon, the Associate Director for Demographic Programs of the Bureau of the Census. 

Ms. Gordon. 

Ms. GORDON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a pleasure to appear before you again today to testify. 

Mr. HORN. Now remember, you did take the oath. Tell the truth 

now. 

Ms. GORDON. Yes, I do remember. 

Mr. HORN. OK. 

Ms. GORDON. And I promise that I will tell the truth, and it is 

a pleasure to be here again today. [Laughter.] 

What I think perhaps might be most useful, in terms of the time 

available—but I am seeking your advice here—is to make a brief 

opening remark or two, and then go directly to the section at the 

end of my testimony that deals with the implications of the recommendations of the Interagency Committee for the Census Bureau’s programs. 

Mr. HORN. That’s fine if you’d like to proceed that way. 

Ms. GORDON. Let me observe, then, that if the OMB does make 

any changes to Directive 15, the Census Bureau intends to collect 

and produce data consistent with those changes. We believe that it 

is essential that there be such standards for use by all Federal 

agencies to ensure that data are consistent and comparable. 

The Census Bureau’s role in this process has been primarily to 

conduct research. The second of the major tests we conducted was 

the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test. Some results from that work 

that relate especially to recommendations of the Interagency Committee are summarized in my statement. If we turn to the bottom 

of page 7, that starts the section on implications of the recommendations for our programs, and in particular for the decennial 

census. 

We have reformatted the forms we currently plan to use in the 

Census 2000 dress rehearsal, which is planned for 1998, to determine the feasibility of accommodating the changes recommended 

by the Interagency Committee, should they be adopted by the 

OMB. 

We have, therefore, placed the Hispanic origin question before 

the race question, used the instruction ‘‘mark one or more races,’’

and made the proposed changes in terminology. We were able to 

do so without any technical difficulties or lengthening of the form. 

We published a Federal Register notice about questions on race 

and ethnicity on July 17, and public comments will be accepted 

during the following 60 days. 

We plan to capture multiple responses to the race question with 

the data capture hardware and imaging technology, regardless of 

whether or not Directive 15 is modified. We also expect to be able 

to capture unrequested multiple responses to the Hispanic origin 

question. Doing so was recommended by our Hispanic Advisory 

Committee and brought up earlier today by Mr. Fernandez. We 

plan to do that in order to provide the information for further analysis and research on the topic of multiethnic responses. 

631

This imaging technology can read written characters as well as 

marked circles. While some technical issues remain about the exact 

coding of the write-in responses and about the exact format of the 

permanent electronic census file, we intend to maximize the 

amount of information we retain. 

As in the past, Census 2000 will collect more detailed data on 

race than the minimum required by the Office of Management and 

Budget, and those data will be processed in such a way as to maintain maximum flexibility for data users. Census data, including 

those on race, will be available to users through the Census 2000 

tabulation and publication series, all of which will follow whatever 

standards and guidelines the OMB ultimately issues. 

The Data Access and Dissemination System will allow even more 

options and broader access for users to generate customized tabulations. This system will be available through the Internet, so that 

people can either access tabulations that have already been produced by the Census Bureau, or they can create instructions and 

then automatically receive the tables that they are interested in. 

Selected micro data files will also be available, but the confidentiality of individual respondents will always be maintained. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gordon follows:]

632


g:\graphics\45174.435
633


g:\graphics\45174.436
634


g:\graphics\45174.437
635


g:\graphics\45174.438
636


g:\graphics\45174.439
637


g:\graphics\45174.440
638


g:\graphics\45174.441
639


g:\graphics\45174.442
640


g:\graphics\45174.443
641

Mr. HORN. We will get to that shortly. 

We now have Dr. Waters, professor of sociology, Harvard University. 

Dr. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you for inviting me to talk with the subcommittee today. 

I am just going to summarize my written statement and talk a 

little bit about some of the issues that have been brought up in earlier testimony. 

I think that the interagency report synthesizes an enormous 

amount of new research that the government has done in the last 

4 years, and that it will really be a while before we’ve been able 

to go through all of the research that they have come up with. But 

I was very impressed with the interagency report and the ways in 

which they incorporated that new research into their recommendations. 

I have three reactions to the interagency report. The first has to 

do with tabulating results. In my written statement, I went 

through five different methods of tabulating results that were mentioned, even if briefly, in the interagency report. The first three 

were discussed by Harold McDougall earlier in his testimony. 

The first was the single-race approach where everyone who 

checked more than one would go into a multiple response category. 

The second was an all-inclusive approach in which we would sum 

up to more than 100 percent. The third was the historical series 

approach, which was defined in detail in the rate report. 

The fourth was the proposal for an algorithm that distributes responses from a multiracial category in proportion to the distributions of the current single-race categories, and I think that was 

rightly dismissed in one sentence in the report. 

The fifth was the idea that there are algorithms currently which 

take people who either put themselves in an ‘‘other’’ category or, 

in some States, into a multiracial category, that use certain characteristics of people to try and match them to the existing historical 

categories. So that’s another possibility. 

Then there were two others that I outlined in my written report 

that we have actually used looking at ancestry data, which does 

come in in multiple categories. One is to assign a weight to a person, and this is something statisticians and demographers do all 

the time, although it sounds kind of awful when you describe it as 

doing to a person. You’re certainly not doing it to a person; you’re 

doing it to a number. 

What you would do is count somebody in both, say, the Asian 

and the white categories, but you would give them a weight of 0.5. 

Then you would add all of your percentages in the end, and you 

would come back out to 100 percent. You wouldn’t have any more 

people counted than you had people. 

Then the seventh would be to just randomly assign people in proportion. So if you were half and half, half of the people who said 

that they were that combination would be put into one race and 

another. 

I’m sure there are other ways, actually, to tabulate. These are 

just some of the ones that were mentioned and a few that we’ve 

used before. I think that the issue which was raised by many peoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00647 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
642

ple earlier this morning, the concern about double counting, is 

something which is definitely for professional demographers and 

statisticians to worry about how you would actually do it. It actually is common to have to do that for particular kinds of counts. 

In a way, actually, you can think about the Hispanic and the 

race question as already doing that, to some extent, because people 

are in the Hispanic question and they are in the race question. So 

sometimes, when you are looking at, say, incomes, people may appear in the Hispanic category, and they may also appear in the 

white or the black category, depending on how savvy the researcher is who is actually preparing those reports. 

So I think we do have some experience with dealing with this 

overlap, but of course it really will be a new question as to how 

those tabulations are done. Of course, there are a lot of political implications for what choice you make about how to do that. 

Let me just talk briefly about two other questions which came to 

my mind reading the interagency report. One is the issue of the implementation of how these data are actually gathered, and the 

question that was touched on briefly before about different agencies 

that collect data by observer and by self-identification. The question really is, and I’m not sure we have enough research to tell, 

whether or not observers might assign more races to people or less 

races to people than the people themselves would. 

The question would be, if you allow more than one race, how will 

that affect data that is gathered by observers? That happens, for 

instance, in school data. Often teachers will sum up how many kids 

of particular races there are. The error rate, I am sure, if somebody 

is guessing about multiple races, is going to be greater than if they 

are guessing about one race. So that’s a question I think that we 

need some research on. 

Second, the instructions to respondents will be extremely important in how these data are collected. I think that there should be 

some attention paid to whether or not the word ‘‘identify’’ is in 

there or not, sort of whether people feel like they are being asked 

for their genealogy or sort of who they think they are. Sometimes 

that has been confused in earlier questions on earlier censuses, so 

I think we need to pay attention to that. 

The third reaction I had to the report, and it’s really just been 

reinforced sitting through everyone else’s testimony today, is that, 

politically, all of the attention has been on blacks and whites. Most 

of the attention has been on African-Americans and whites, and 

that’s very understandable given our political history. 

But all of the research that is summarized in this report points 

to the fact that it’s American Indians and Asians who will be most 

impacted by this change, because they have very high intermarriage rates, because they have a very high population that 

could claim more than one ancestry, and because they are small 

groups, so that a few people changing can have a greater proportional impact. 

The research actually finds that a lot of these changes won’t have 

much effect at all on the overall counts of blacks and whites, but 

it will on American Indians and Asians. So I would stress that I 

would want to get reactions from the American Indian and Asian 

643

communities to this issue, because I think they really are the ones 

who stand to have the most impact. 

I think that the question that came up often today about the tabulation and how that will be handled really touches on the issue 

where there are competing principles at play here, which is the 

issue of historical continuity with earlier data and self-identification. 

That’s kind of why the issue has come up in the first place. People are trying to say we have more than one race, and historically 

we haven’t let that happen. So the question of how you bridge historical data to the current data that you’re going to collect, which 

will allow people to have more than one race, is very important for 

this census. 

I think the thing I would also stress is to really think about the 

fact that you are also setting up for the censuses that will follow, 

so the 2010 census. One point that is very important to make is 

that, if you make a small change now, that will provide perhaps 

the bridge to the society that we will be in 2010, which may have 

even very different things that we can’t even foresee. But putting 

off making the change would make a much greater disruption, I 

think, in the historical series. 

So there may be a real disjuncture between this issue of selfidentification and historical continuity. It may play out, I think, in 

terms of this issue of responding categories and reporting categories. How you tabulate may be different than how you collect. 

That’s a question that I would like to see the OMB describe the 

real—maybe even have a matrix. If you answer these particular 

categories, where will you end up, in what kind of tabulations? 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Waters follows:]

644


g:\graphics\45174.444
645


g:\graphics\45174.445
646


g:\graphics\45174.446
647


g:\graphics\45174.447
648


g:\graphics\45174.448
649


g:\graphics\45174.449
650

Mr. HORN. Well, thank you very much. 

Let me pose a basic question here. The whole reason for the census, very frankly, as we all know, the first one being done in 1790, 

is how you apportion the House of Representatives, so each representative truly does represent even numbers of people. What was 

30,000 at one time is now 600,000 and we have, by our own action, 

stopped the size of the House at 435 Members. 

Now, let me give you an example. Let’s say this is a congressional district. And I’m particularly interested in the Justice Department, because this is what people that draw up reapportionment lines have to think of. To take California, the last time the 

majority in the legislature, their action, was vetoed by the Governor of an opposite party, and it was thrown into the Supreme 

Court of California. This was the 1990 census. 

The Supreme Court said, we really don’t know much about it. 

Let’s appoint three retired judges, representing both parties, and 

have them go and examine the evidence, draw the line. I call the 

1990 apportionment the only honest apportionment since California 

became a State in 1850, because the three judges did a terrific job. 

But one question comes to mind, and that is the Voting Rights 

Act of 1965, as amended—I underline the ‘‘as amended’’—the 

judges felt they could not diminish the voting strength of a minority population. So they reached out to try to combine as much of 

that minority population as they could. In a sense, they diluted the 

strength of the minority population, because whereas it was in two 

congressional districts, it became overly focused in one congressional district. 

When you go at this situation of the historic racial discrimination 

in this country, I think the Supreme Court recognizes—and you 

can correct me if I’m wrong—that obviously the black AfricanAmerican race has had the most discrimination. That doesn’t mean 

Mexican-Americans aren’t discriminated against; and it doesn’t 

mean Asian-Americans weren’t discriminated against. They were in 

California. They never were in voting, to my knowledge. MexicanAmericans in Texas were discriminated against. 

So there are different patterns for other minorities as to whether 

there was a historic discrimination that relate to certain areas of 

government policy. So I would be curious what you’re thinking 

would be on; were the judges right to combine the minority population across several districts because they didn’t want to dilute 

their voting power? Yet, they would have had more voting results 

by being spread over two congressional districts, or three congressional districts. 

How do you tackle that one? 

Ms. PINZLER. Well, as you rightly point out, this is a very, very 

complex question. There are a number of variables that anyone 

drawing districts has to consider. The first being one person, one 

vote. 

Mr. HORN. That’s the easy one. 

Ms. PINZLER. Right. Then, not diluting minority voting strength 

or retrogression from previous strength, which is the Section 5 

standard, I have to tell you that I’m not familiar enough, if at all, 

with the California reapportionment, so I don’t really feel that I 

can comment on that with any degree of intelligence. I do think, 

651

apropos of what we’re discussing here, which is the change in data 

collection, that how people will be tabulated for these purposes is 

a very key question and is the question which is still undergoing 

analysis. 

So I know this comes across as a dodge, but the truth of the matter is, I don’t know the answer. 

Mr. HORN. Well, you’re absolutely correct. It’s a very difficult 

value judgment call. Maybe you could go at it this way, saying, 

based on your experience as a civil rights lawyer, what are the 

courts’ standards when different cases come before it? For example, 

one basic question is, do women have the same imprimatur of the 

Constitution on their issues, compared to African-Americans? I 

wish you would give us a little summary there of how the court 

has, over the years, adopted sort of a hierarchy to worry about. 

Ms. PINZLER. Well, the 14th amendment’s equal protection analysis, at one time, created basically two categories: those categories 

which were subject to the so-called ‘‘strict scrutiny’’ test, which was 

only race and national origin and religion, on the one hand, and all 

other kinds of categories or classifications that the legislature 

might do, which was absolutely everything else were subject to the 

‘‘rational basis’’ test. 

In other words, urban versus rural, and income distinctions were 

all subject to the rational basis test, which is a fairly low test as 

compared to the strict scrutiny, which is a very stiff test. Over the 

years, starting around 1970, there was a so-called ‘‘intermediate 

level’’ test that was developed by the courts, which is referred to 

as heightened scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny, and that’s the 

classification to which gender has been subjected. 

It is sometimes viewed as being between the two, although, with 

the most recent Supreme Court decision on this matter, the Virginia Military Institute case, moved it closer to strict scrutiny, it’s 

not all the way there. 

So the short answer is that classifications or discrimination on 

the basis of gender does not have the same degree of scrutiny by 

the courts as discrimination on the base of race, national origin, 

and religion. Even though women, of course, didn’t get the vote 

until 1920, they are not covered. Sex discrimination is not covered 

under the Voting Rights Act at all. Race discrimination and national origin discrimination are. 

On the other hand, just to sort of close the circle, gender is included, for instance, in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

which prohibits employment discrimination. For those purposes, 

with one exception that doesn’t really apply to this discussion, it’s 

the same standard for gender and race, if that was what you were 

looking for. 

Mr. HORN. Well, it’s just, as I’m saying, the court has had different values to review in different periods. 

Ms. PINZLER. Right. 

Mr. HORN. There is a steady evolution, however, and you sort of 

summed up where it is now. But when you have, let’s say, a district of 14 percent white, 40 percent black, 35 percent Hispanic, 10 

percent Asian, 1 percent American Indian, that is not a myth. 

Those are real districts in the State of California. 

652

Then I would try to say, what does the tabulation from the various racial checkoffs mean when judges, in this case, retired judges, 

if we go that route again, or legislatures, have to look at it and say, 

well, which group in there seems to be the most discriminated 

against? Well, historically, you would have to say the black voter— or nonvoter, because they wouldn’t let them register—was the most 

discriminated against. 

As I said, in Texas, Mexican-Americans were discriminated 

against in Texas. That was not true in California. Some might say 

it is, but the facts are, you didn’t have a problem registering. And 

American Indians, for various other reasons, have probably a low 

registration turnout because of moving from reservation to urban 

America and back, and so forth. 

That’s what they are going to have to deal with, and I just wonder if one would like to speculate on whether adding those checkoffs, that is now being recommended by the Interagency Committee, will either enlighten us and we will be able to make better 

reapportionment decisions, or simply confuse us. 

Ms. PINZLER. As I said in my testimony, I think, on balance, that 

it’s a step in the right direction. The fact is that our society is more 

complex than it was previously, and that’s a reality that the courts 

and Congress simply have to deal with. 

I also should say that, as I said, precisely that question of the 

tabulation, the use and interpretation that this data will be subjected to for purposes of redistricting, is not something that there 

is a specific recommendation on at this point. 

As an attorney, I always depend on demographers and statisticians, frankly, to tell me what the best approach is. I’m not an expert in that respect. 

Mr. HORN. Well, let me put another factor in here. 

After 13 years on the Civil Rights Commission and being on the 

drafting team for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, the fact is, there is one basic factor that nobody 

ever faces up to, and that’s socioeconomic class and income. They 

used to just look at me with glazed-over eyes when I would raise 

the obvious. 

What you have to do—you’re not dealing with Ralph Bunche; 

you’re dealing with the person that’s poor. How do we relate those 

data? A lot of government programs are relevant to it. When we 

get to voting data, perhaps also economic class should be taken in 

to see if there is an under or overrepresentation in a particular 

area, and how are these people registered? 

Ms. PINZLER. Mr. Chairman, there is obviously an interaction of 

those factors, and socioeconomic status is very important. It’s also 

true that Ralph Bunche could be subject to discrimination on the 

basis of race. In fact, Deval Patrick, the former assistant attorney 

general, you know, had taxicabs pass him by outside the White 

House. So we can’t ignore race in these discussions, when we’re discussing discrimination. 

Mr. HORN. I don’t want to ignore it; I want to get it into realism 

though. 

Ms. PINZLER. Well, again, as I say, my eyes don’t glaze over 

when you talk about socioeconomic data, because I do, in fact, believe that that’s a very important factor. One of the things that 

653

these data allow you to do, by the way, is to see what the overlap 

is, to see to what degree race and poverty, frankly, correlate. 

Mr. HORN. Right. 

Ms. PINZLER. That’s an important piece of information to have. 

It’s true with educational data as well. I mean, just across the spectrum, it’s very important, and we would use that kind of data for 

various purposes, in a regression analysis, for instance. So basically—I agree with you. 

Also, as I mentioned when I was talking about equal protection 

analysis, of course, the Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to 

take into account socioeconomic status and give it any form of 

heightened scrutiny, and that’s the way the law is right now. 

Mr. HORN. Dr. Waters, do you want to comment on any of this 

discussion? 

Ms. WATERS. Well, I think that one advantage of this way of collecting data is that, for the first time, we will actually have information on, say, whether people who are black and white, or Asian 

and white look similar to people who are black or people who are 

white, or have their own characteristics. 

One of the questions earlier was, should people who are part one 

race and part another be subject to equal protection? Should they 

be subject to antidiscrimination laws specifically for them? One of 

the problems up until now is that we haven’t had the data to answer the question as to whether or not their incomes are higher or 

lower, whether their infant mortality rate is higher or lower. This 

proposal would actually allow you to begin to describe the demographic characteristics of those people. 

So it might actually reassure us that some things are better than 

we thought, or it might point us to some problems that we hadn’t 

thought about before. 

Mr. HORN. Would anybody from some of the advocacy groups like 

to question the administration witnesses at all? Let’s see what your 

concerns are and their answers, and vice-versa. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. Yes. It’s really more in the way of a comment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time. 

Mr. HORN. Mr. McDougall from the NAACP. 

Mr. MCDOUGALL. I want to thank Ms. Pinzler for her example 

of the cases in which women and minorities are discriminated 

against, because, for me, that crystallizes the whole issue. Mr. Conyers earlier today said it wasn’t rocket science. And I was thinking 

to myself, au contraire, you know. But I think she just really broke 

it right down. 

I think the difficulty that everybody is having, and particularly 

the representatives who are concerned about apportionment. 

I think I said in my testimony that the interagency group had 

cut the Gordian Knot by moving the issue down the pipeline. In 

other words, we are now no longer concerned, or at least hopefully 

we won’t be if some of these little nuances get fixed, we won’t be 

concerned with the way the data is collected. And the data is going 

to be collected in a way that seems to meet everybody’s concerns. 

The issue now is, how do you put Humpty Dumpty back together 

again? I mean, does he have an arm, all of those pieces? Is he now 

twins? 

654

As long as we understand that the data is going to be used for 

different purposes, I think we can kind of come away from this 

hearing with fairly clear heads. One of the principal purposes, of 

course, for census data is capitation or head count. There’s nothing 

inconsistent with collecting data this way and having an exact tabulation of the number of people that there are who live in a certain 

area, in the United States generally, or a certain congressional district. 

You can then use the data, as it has been collected, to demonstrate that there are a certain number of women in the population in a certain metropolitan economic market area, and you can 

determine that they are overrepresented or underrepresented in 

terms of certain levels of employment. 

The same thing with race, as, you know, Ms. Pinzler so aptly 

pointed out. They have never had problems like this. This data has 

never created a problem. You can disaggregate the data to show all 

the women that there are. You can disaggregate the data to show 

all the members of minority groups that there are. 

And now, the way that the data is being collected, we will be able 

to show all the people who are of one race or who are partially of 

that race. And having that information might very well be useful. 

So I just want to emphasize that the double counting problem in 

some ways is a red herring. I think that the Census Bureau has 

already demonstrated that they are able to handle that. 

As I mentioned earlier, we continue to be concerned about instances in which people are identified by the observers rather than 

through interview, because once you are identified by an observer, 

we fall back into some of the problems that we’ve had before. I 

think we’ve heard already that those instances are situations 

where you’re talking about a death certificate, or you’re talking 

about an admission into the emergency room of a hospital, let’s say. 

There might be other circumstances. Obviously, we would be very 

concerned about which ones those would be. 

Finally, just to emphasize the piece about wanting to be able to 

track all instances of discrimination, which is the NAACP’s primary concern, again, Ms. Pinzler has given us, I think, the light 

that shines through that. I thought about this over lunch. Think 

about a guy, we’ll call him Joe Walker, OK, who is part Native 

American, he’s part black, and he’s part Asian. He lives on a reservation in California, or he has family on the reservation. He has 

enough contact with the reservation so that he gets a certain allotment from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and we need census data 

to make that allotment. 

He goes off the reservation and he looks for a job. He is discriminated against looking for the job because he’s black, or he’s part 

black. We want to know that. 

Let’s say that he’s part Asian, because his grandfather was Japanese, who was interned in an internment camp in California during 

World War II, and his grandfather was one of the people who was 

owed reparations under the Korematsu decision. We would want to 

make sure that he got what was coming to him. 

So the way that this data has been collected enables us to perform all three of those operations. And the notion that Joe Walker 

becomes three people instead of just one, I think Ms. Pinzler and 

655

the people from the OMB have demonstrated to us, is a statistical 

absurdity that we don’t have to get into. 

So I stuck around here today because I wanted to hear what the 

rest of the folks had to say. I must say, I’ve been enlightened by 

their testimony. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HORN. Ms. Graham, do you have a comment? 

Ms. GRAHAM. I agree with what Mr. McDougall said. 

Mr. HORN. Pull the microphone close to you. It’s hard to hear 

with this system. 

Ms. GRAHAM. I agree with what Mr. McDougall said on tracking 

all instances of discrimination, and I think that’s very important. 

I’m not a lawyer, or a statistician, and I’m really trying to understand this. Maybe some people on the panel here can help me out. 

I’ll give you a real live instance. You’ve met my son Ryan. He’s 

been here; he’s testified. He’s testified twice before Congress. When 

he was in kindergarten, his kindergarten teacher decided, at the 

end of the school year, that he should not be passed to first grade. 

She also decided not to pass to first grade one other child in the 

class whose last name was Rodriguez, who had a black Hispanic 

father and a white mother. They were the only two multiracial children in the class. 

We went to the principal. We proved that Ryan was indeed able 

to be passed. He’s now an honor student in middle school, so I 

think it worked out well for us. The Rodriguez child was put back 

into kindergarten again. 

Now, these children are both multiracial. It’s important—and I’m 

sure that Mr. McDougall will agree—to track black children, minority children in the schools to see who are placed into the remedial classes, who are put into the advanced classes. We do track 

those by race for a reason. 

In this instance, if I said, well, my child was discriminated 

against because two multiracial children were going to be held back 

out of the entire rest of the population of the class, from what I’m 

hearing, what I would get back is, no, one of them is black and 

white, and one of them is black and Hispanic, so they are not the 

same. 

This is not going to be acceptable to our part of discrimination 

problems, and I’m wondering how this would be worked out under 

the interagency recommendation. 

Ms. PINZLER. May I? 

Mr. HORN. Please. 

Ms. PINZLER. We should probably talk later. But may I ask you, 

were there black and white children in those classes, or were all 

the rest of the children white? 

Ms. GRAHAM. Predominantly white. 

Ms. PINZLER. It is possible, and you can’t really draw from a 

sample of two and make any kind of a statistical analysis, but if 

that were large, you might begin to see a pattern of discrimination 

against children who are mixed race, the animus being about that. 

There is nothing in this formulation that would keep us from making that analysis. In fact, it would be very helpful in making that 

analysis. 

656

Ms. GRAHAM. You can look at all the children who are of mixed 

race as a whole, then? 

Ms. PINZLER. Absolutely. Yes, sure. 

Ms. GRAHAM. OK. 

Ms. PINZLER. You could take all the various categories and do 

that, if that’s what you thought was happening, if you had a large 

enough sample to believe that that was what was happening. This 

would present no problem with respect to that. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Let’s you and I talk later, then. 

Ms. PINZLER. As I said before, there are race and sex discrimination cases, and every once in a while you will have somebody being 

required to pick, was it race or sex discrimination that happened 

to you? And sometimes you don’t know until you get into the process. Again, we can look at those kinds of cases and analyze it, and 

it may be both there, or it may be a combination. 

So I’m not troubled, from a perspective of making discrimination 

cases, by the fact that it would be reported in a more varied way, 

that you would have more information rather than less information. 

Ms. GRAHAM. That’s why, to us, seeing how this is going to be 

reported and tabulated is important. 

Ms. PINZLER. Oh, yes, and we all agree with that. 

Mr. HORN. Let me ask this question for the record and see what 

your response is to it. Assistant Attorney General Pinzler, the written testimony seems to mention a variety of areas in which data 

on race are used to enforce civil rights laws. Often you need to 

know the size of the minority population in an area, as we both 

noted, a labor pool, a housing market, for example, in order to see 

if the population is underrepresented and possibly facing discrimination. 

Now, how would you count a minority population, for these purposes, under the Interagency Committee recommendation? Would 

multiracials who check black as one of their races be counted as 

black? If this were the case, how would you avoid overcounting 

when you consider more than one minority group in the same area? 

Wouldn’t firms find themselves vulnerable to charges of low minority representation even if they employ the right ‘‘percentage’’ for 

their labor pool, because many in that labor pool will be counted 

twice or more; isn’t that true? 

Ms. PINZLER. No, actually, I don’t think so. I was actually heartened by what Ms. Katzen had to say about that, that you could 

disaggregate the data so you wouldn’t be counting people more 

than once. You might have more and varied categories, but you 

wouldn’t be counting people more than once, so you would know 

how many people of the various groups. Black and Asian or black 

and white, those might all be counted as minorities. 

It really depends on what the local labor market looks like, and 

what the employer’s labor pool looks like, as to whether that even 

becomes a factor, statistically, frankly. 

Mr. HORN. Well, I can recall a State official in California coming 

to my campus. He was off-the-wall on his understanding of the 

Civil Rights Act. Since I’d had something to do with it, I knew it, 

and I just kept quiet. We just simply had everybody write a memo 

when he drifted around the university. 

657

What he said to one of our people was, ‘‘I’m not interested in the 

discrimination against blacks. I’m not interested in the discrimination against American Indians. I’m here strictly to help women or 

to help Hispanics.’’ Now, you know, this is a civil rights enforcement officer. 

Could not a firm simply play games, though, with this system, 

where if you’re taking all the mixtures here, and they say, ‘‘OK, 

they want to see Hispanics? Great. Run that tabulation through 

the pool where we’ve got people that are Hispanic. Give them that 

one, and see if that keeps them quiet.’’ Or you could say, ‘‘Run the 

black data census through the pool.’’ Isn’t that subject to manipulation? 

Ms. PINZLER. Well, again, no, I don’t think so, if it’s properly tabulated. And I’m sorry that a civil rights enforcer had that kind of 

view. It is, I think, a very unusual view among civil rights enforcers. 

Mr. HORN. That’s what his supervisor told him after we got fully 

fed up with him. 

Ms. PINZLER. I imagine so. 

Mr. HORN. He said my interpretation of the law was correct. 

Ms. PINZLER. My experience with various groups or organizations 

that may represent specific groups is that they interact on that. I 

spent most of my career, prior to coming to the government, doing 

women’s rights cases, sex discrimination cases. If we looked into a 

situation and saw that there might be data indicating race discrimination, we always took notice of that. 

I really don’t know how else to answer your question. I’m put in 

mind of the famous quote from Sojourner Truth, ‘‘Ain’t I a woman?’’

A black woman may be discriminated against because she’s a 

woman, or she may be discriminated against because she’s black. 

Any kind of sophisticated look at these situations will want to have 

as much information as possible. 

That’s the best answer I can give you to that question. They are 

always, I suppose, subject to possible abuses with these things, but 

we would hope that that would be at a minimum. 

Mr. HORN. Dr. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. I think whenever you’re dealing with multiple responses on any one question, you do have to be extremely careful 

about how you calculate the denominator and how you calculate 

the numerator. I would say that there is a danger, if you have different agencies using different methods of tabulating the denominators and numerators, and if you don’t have some standardization 

from OMB. 

And maybe you need three sets of standardization for three different kinds of purposes: one for apportionment, one for discrimination, and one for something else. But you can get very confused. In 

fact, you can even see it sometimes if you look at reports that include Hispanics with racial categories, in terms of reporting things. 

Sometimes people themselves, analysts, are confused as to 

whether or not somebody is in both categories or not. So I think 

you’re right to be worried that there is a potential for confusion 

there, but the potential is different, I think, than saying you can’t 

do it. 

658

I think it really does rest on OMB or someone having some rules 

about—and maybe you have to have different sets of rules for different purposes, but you do need some rules so that agencies can 

talk to one another, especially since denominators often come from 

the Census Bureau, numerators come from National Health Statistics. If one is double counting and one is using weights, or something like that, it could be a statistical nightmare. 

So I do think you have to pay attention to it. That’s not to say 

that you can’t do it at all. 

Mr. HORN. Now, we don’t have anybody here representing, say, 

the Centers for Disease Control, but to what degree have they been 

involved in approving of this interagency report? Ms. Wallman 

might know. 

I think it would be important to get that on the record, since 

some diseases are ethnic or race-related. It would be helpful, I 

think, in health data to know that. Perhaps this is one way to go, 

as a result. 

Ms. Wallman. Why don’t you identify yourself for the record. 

Ms. WALLMAN. Thank you. I’m Katherine Wallman, from the Office of Management and Budget, and I was sworn in. 

Mr. HORN. Chief Statistician of the United States. 

Ms. WALLMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HORN. It has a nice ring to it. 

Ms. WALLMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. HORN. Go ahead. 

Ms. WALLMAN. I would like to confirm that multiple parts of the 

Department of Health and Human Services were involved in this 

30-agency task force, including the National Center for Health Statistics, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control. There was 

actually another representative directly from CDC, as well. There 

were other folks from the department overall. 

So the health agencies, indeed, were quite well covered in this 

initiative and were part of the 30-agency group that has been referred to. 

Mr. HORN. So they are very supportive of this recommendation? 

Ms. WALLMAN. Indeed they are. 

Mr. HORN. OK. Any other questions any of you would like to ask? 

I have two things left to do, then. I’m going to read into the 

record the Speaker’s remarks. He’s still in negotiations with the 

Senate, and we’re trying to clear a few things out of here to prove 

we did cut taxes, we did cut spending, and we did save Medicare. 

So let me just read his statement, and then I want to thank the 

staff that has been involved with this hearing. And I thank all of 

you as witnesses. I’m sorry we had to go through all these votes 

on the House floor, but you’ve been very patient, and we appreciate 

getting your thoughts in the record. 

The Speaker’s comments are these: ‘‘Mr. Chairman, America is a Nation of immigrants. We have in 

America people who have, for various reasons, come to America for 

a better opportunity. Before there was a Nation called the United 

States, Pilgrims, fleeing religious persecution, landed in a place 

they called the New World. 

‘‘In the 1800’s, the Irish came to these shores fleeing a famine 

which had devastated their country. As recently as the 1970’s, VietVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 081030 PO 00000 Frm 00664 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 W:\DISC\45174.TXT 45174
659

namese fled a homeland wounded by decades of war. These and so 

many others saw hope and opportunity in America. They came here 

for a chance to succeed. They made the conscious decision to become a part of a new family, to become Americans. And becoming 

an American is a unique experience which comes with certain responsibilities, certain habits that one has to absorb and accept to 

successfully finish the process. 

‘‘An American is not ‘French’ the way the French are, or ‘German’ the way the Germans are. You can live in either of these 

countries for years and never become French or German. I think 

one of the reasons Tiger Woods has had such a big impact is because he is an American. He defines himself as an American. As 

Tiger described himself, ‘I just am who I am, whatever you see in 

front of you.’

‘‘I think we need to be prepared to say, the truth is, we want all 

American to be, quite simply, Americans. That doesn’t deprive anyone of the right to further define their heritage. I go to celebrations 

such as the Greek festival in my district every year. 

‘‘It doesn’t deprive us of the right to have ethnic pride, to have 

some sense of our origins. But it is wrong for some Americans to 

begin creating subgroups to which they have higher loyalty than to 

America at large. The genius of America has always been its ability 

to draw people from everywhere and to give all of them an opportunity to pursue happiness in a way that no other society has been 

able to manage. 

‘‘Andria Brown, writing in the Chicago Tribune on April 18, 

1997, wrote about Tiger Woods: ‘We might be saved by the amazing 

grace of golf. And by a kid with a swing whose mixed heritage 

could be a recipe for hope, proving to the world that it’s not what 

color you are but the way you carry yourself, the way you persist 

to reach your dreams. When he steps to the tee, Tiger Woods does 

not represent the struggle of African-Americans. When he sinks a 

putt, the athletic future of Chinese-Americans does not rest on his 

shoulders. Rather, what Tiger Woods does embody each time he 

walks a golf course is the potential of youth and the reward of diligence. What Tiger Woods typifies is the best of what we all can be.’

‘‘America,’’ says the Speaker, ‘‘is too big and too diverse to categorize each and every one of us into four rigid racial categories. 

The administration has made a decision to force us to choose artificial categories that do not accurately reflect the racial identity of 

America. Millions of Americans like Tiger Woods or my constituent, 

Ryan Graham, who testified before you earlier this year, have 

moved beyond the Census Bureau’s divisive and inaccurate labels. 

We live in a technicolor world where the government continues to 

view us as only black and white. 

‘‘It is time for the government to stop perpetuating racial divisiveness. It is time to treat individuals as individuals and to adopt 

the attitude about or fellow Americans that Lou Ann Mullen, a Native American Texan who fought valiantly to be allowed to adopt 

two black children, expressed about her own family when asked 

about their multiracial makeup.’’ said Ms. Mullen, ‘‘ ‘We are often 

described that way, but I don’t think of us that way. To me we are 

just my family.’ ’’

660

Said the Speaker, ‘‘That should be our goal for the way we as 

Americans feel about one another. That is why, ideally, I believe 

we should have one box on Federal forms that simply reads, ‘American.’ ‘‘But if that is not possible at this point, we should at least stop 

forcing Americans into inaccurate categories aimed at building divisive subgroups and allow them the option of selecting the category 

‘multiracial,’ which I believe will be an important step toward transcending racial division and reflecting the melting pot which is 

America.’’ [The prepared statement of Hon. Newt Gingrich follows:]

661


g:\graphics\45174.450
662


g:\graphics\45174.451
663

Mr. HORN. Now I would like to thank the following people that 

have prepared this hearing: Our staff director and counsel for the 

Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 

Technology is Russell George. The one directly responsible for most 

of this hearing is John Hynes, professional staff member, on your 

right, my left. Andrea Miller, our clerk, and her staff of interns I 

thank as well. 

David McMillen for the minority, professional staff member; Jean 

Gosa, clerk for the minority. The interns are Darren Carlson, Jeff 

Cobb, John Kim, and Grant Newmann. Our court reporter is Barbara Smith. 

Thank you very much. With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

Æ

664


g:\graphics\45174.452
665


g:\graphics\45174.453
666


g:\graphics\45174.454
667


g:\graphics\45174.455
668


g:\graphics\45174.456
669


g:\graphics\45174.457
670


g:\graphics\45174.458
671


g:\graphics\45174.459
672


g:\graphics\45174.460
673


g:\graphics\45174.461
674


g:\graphics\45174.462
675


g:\graphics\45174.463
676


g:\graphics\45174.464
677


g:\graphics\45174.465
678


g:\graphics\45174.466
679


g:\graphics\45174.467
680


g:\graphics\45174.468
681


g:\graphics\45174.469
682


g:\graphics\45174.470
683


g:\graphics\45174.471
684


g:\graphics\45174.472
685


g:\graphics\45174.473
686


g:\graphics\45174.474
687


g:\graphics\45174.475
688


g:\graphics\45174.476
689


g:\graphics\45174.477
690


g:\graphics\45174.478
691


g:\graphics\45174.479
692


g:\graphics\45174.480
693


g:\graphics\45174.481
694


g:\graphics\45174.482
695


g:\graphics\45174.483
696


g:\graphics\45174.484
697


g:\graphics\45174.485
698


g:\graphics\45174.486
699


g:\graphics\45174.487
700


g:\graphics\45174.488
701


g:\graphics\45174.489
702


g:\graphics\45174.490