U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

73–941 PDF 2012

THE PROS AND CONS OF MAKING THE CENSUS

BUREAU’S AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

VOLUNTARY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA, CENSUS AND THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 6, 2012

Serial No. 112–126

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

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

http://www.house.gov/reform
(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

CONNIE MACK, Florida

TIM WALBERG, Michigan

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee

JOE WALSH, Illinois

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking

Minority Member

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

PETER WELCH, Vermont

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JACKIE SPEIER, California

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CENSUS AND THE

NATIONAL ARCHIVES

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona, Vice Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee

JOE WALSH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois, Ranking Minority

Member

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 6, 2012 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Groves, Robert, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Andrew Biggs, resident

scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Lawrence Yun, chief economist,

National Association of Realtors; and Patrick Jankowski, vice president, research, Greater Houston Partnership ............................................ 50

Biggs, Andrew ............................................................................................ 70

Groves, Robert ........................................................................................... 50

Jankowski, Patrick .................................................................................... 115

Yun, Lawrence ........................................................................................... 74

Poe, Hon. Ted, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ....... 2

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

Biggs, Andrew, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 72

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

of Illinois:

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 48

Various letters ........................................................................................... 26

Groves, Robert, Director, U.S. Census Bureau, prepared statement of ....... 52

Jankowski, Patrick, vice president, research, Greater Houston Partnership, prepared statement of ......................................................................... 117

Poe, Hon. Ted, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas:

American Community Survey .................................................................. 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21

Yun, Lawrence, chief economist, National Association of Realtors, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 76

(1)

THE PROS AND CONS OF MAKING THE CENSUS BUREAU’S AMERICAN COMMUNITY

SURVEY VOLUNTARY

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA, CENSUS AND THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:46 a.m. in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trey Gowdy (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Gowdy, McHenry, Clay, and Davis.

Also present: Representative Issa.

Staff present: Ali Ahmad, communications advisor; Kurt

Bardella, senior policy advisor; Molly Boyl, parliamentarian; John

Cuaderes, deputy staff director; Gwen D’Luzanksy, assistant clerk;

Adam P. Fromm, director of Member services and committee operations; Linda Good, chief clerk; Mark D. Marin, director of oversight; Jeffrey Post, professional staff member; Jonathan J.

Skladany, counsel; Rebecca Watkins, press secretary; Peter Warren, legislative policy director; Jaron Bourke, minority director of

administration; Yvette Cravins, minority counsel; Devon Hill, minority staff assistant; Suzanne Owen, minority health policy advisor; and Mark Stephenson, minority director of legislation.

Mr. GOWDY. This is a hearing on The Pros and Cons of Making

the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey Voluntary.

The committee will come to order.

In light of our first panel, the distinguished Representative Poe,

Mr. Davis and I will wait and do our opening statements before the

second panel.

With that, Members may have 7 days to submit opening statements and extraneous material for the record.

We will now welcome our first panel, the Honorable Ted Poe represents the Second District of Texas. He has a long and distinguished resume but his modesty, I am sure, dictates that I dispense with reading that and just recognize him for his opening

statement. Welcome, Your Honor.
2

STATEMENT OF HON. TED POE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. POE. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy and Ranking Member

Davis for the opportunity to speak before this subcommittee regarding the American Community Survey.

I understand today’s hearing is to evaluate pros and cons of making the American Community Survey voluntary. I am here to provide a voice for the many Americans who have called my office

angry that they are forced to provide private information in response to the many invasive questions that the American Community Survey requires.

Many of the callers have been from my congressional district in

Texas but even a greater number are individuals throughout the

United States who are upset because they are forced to provide this

personal information outside of what they believe is required under

the Constitution to be given to the Census Bureau.

The information that the American Community Survey asks

spans from, do you have a flush toilet in your home, how many toilets do you have in your home, does someone in your household because of a physical, mental, emotional condition have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering or making decisions.

There are 48 questions asked in this survey, Mr. Chairman. I ask

unanimous consent to submit for the record the American Community Survey form that is sent to Americans.

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Mr. POE. There are, no doubt, many benefits to the information

obtained through the American Community Survey. For example,

it helps allocate funding for Federal programs to States and local

entities.

I am here to suggest that the Federal Government however, does

not have an overriding, compelling interest to force people to divulge their private matters in this survey. The survey should be

voluntary. Congress should prohibit the Federal Government from

forcing Americans to provide this information such as what time

they leave for work in the morning and what time they come home.

People are subject to repeated harassment by contracted agents

who threaten them with fines for not complying with the survey.

It is also concerning how the Census Bureau obtains this personal

information. Let me give you a specific case in point.

One of my constituents, Linda Roberts in Kingwood, Texas, a single mother with a young child, received the American Community

Survey last July. She filled out the information required by the

Census Bureau and mailed it back to the Census Bureau. Later,

she began to receive weekly calls from the Bureau asking her to

complete the entire survey. She refused because she had already

complied with what she believed to be the requirements under the

Constitution to give to the Census Bureau.

When she refused, the calls increased from every week to multiple times every day. Then a Census employee started showing up

at her house, ringing the door bell and peeking through the windows to see if she was there, all for the purpose of getting her to

comply with this survey. On many occasions she came home from

work in the evening to find someone sitting in their car in front

of her house so they could knock on the door as soon as she entered

her home.

Mrs. Roberts explained that she not only felt uncomfortable providing the detailed information to the Federal Government, but she

also felt afraid every time she came to and from her own home.

Mr. Chairman, where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the authority to harass citizens such as this? The

Supreme Court uses a least restrictive means test to assess the validity of laws that could potentially infringe upon constitutional

rights of liberty. The least restrictive means test says that if the

law restricts individual liberty, it must employ the least restrictive

means possible to achieve the overall goal.

It is clear through Mrs. Roberts’ story, and through the hundreds

of other calls that I have received, that the Census Bureau was not

using the least restrictive means to obtain the information asked

in the survey. It seems they are using the most restrictive means

and most intrusive means.

Americans should have a choice to decide with they want to submit to invasive personal information to the Federal Government. If

they choose not to do so, they should be left alone. The Census Bureau can get the information and get accurate information by other

means. Since this is not an actual counting of the people, it can do

a survey like other organizations, like posters, like marketing firms

and private entities. They get accurate information without

harassing people and forcing them to give that information.
20

Frankly, many Americans believe some of the information in the

American Community Survey is none of the government’s business

and it intrudes on their privacy. I happen to be one of them. There

is no compelling State interest that should allow this intrusion into

private lives.

I have introduced H.R. 931, which seeks to make the American

Community Survey voluntary by removing the criminal penalty imposed on the people who choose not to comply. The American people should get to choose whether they want to submit their personal information to the Federal Government. They should not be

forced and mandated to do so through the American Community

Survey. It should be voluntary.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Ted Poe follows:]
21
22
23

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Judge Poe.

Ranking Member Davis and I realize that you have an extraordinarily hectic schedule with other commitments to other committees. With that, on behalf of both of us, thank you for your willingness to testify and your leadership on this issue.

We will be in recess for a few minutes so the next panel can

come up. And if His Honor would be willing for us to go down and

shake his hand.

[Recess.]

Mr. GOWDY. The hearing will come to order.

We will now welcome our second panel.

Since we did not do our opening statements in the order we traditionally do them, I will recognize myself now for an opening

statement and then the distinguished gentleman from Illinois.

Today the committee is gathered for an oversight hearing on

issues related to the decennial census. Specifically, we will look at

the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey [ACS]. Although ACS is relatively new, it is actually more of a continuation

of the old decennial census long form. However, the ACS differs

from the old long form in that it collects data every year. In theory,

this provides more accurate and timely data than information gathered only every 10 years.

The ACS is mailed to 300,000 households each month and 3.6

millions households per year. The goal of the survey is to collect

data used by the various levels of government, demographers and

even the private sector. While many regard the data as useful and

helpful, the ACS is not without controversy.

The objection many of us hear from constituents relates to the

intrusive nature of the questions. A sample of questions include inquiries on healthcare plans, the number of times the recipient has

been married and whether or not the recipient has a mortgage and

if they do, how much they pay each month on the mortgage. Not

content with merely asking the questions, the Federal Government

aggressively pursues recipients with phone calls, visits and threats

of fines and jail time for noncompliance.

Today, the subcommittee will hear from the Census Bureau and

data users about the American Community Survey, its role in government policy and how the specific questions in the survey relate

to the Bureau and its perceived mission.

One of the questions we are sure to hear asked today is how the

results of the survey would be affected if the penalties for noncompliance were repealed. So too we may well hear how the census,

needed for the apportioning of congressional seats, has morphed

into something that inquires about marriage, mortgages and the

like.

I am extremely interested in hearing the perspective of our witnesses, including the one who just testified, the former judge from

Texas. He is the sponsor of a bill which would take away the penalties associated with not responding to the ACS, as he just testified.

I will now yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished

chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California, Mr.

Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
24

I want to thank you for calling this important hearing.

There is nothing more important to our duties as Members of

Congress than, in fact, to read and understand the Constitution

and uphold it. At the end of the day, if we do nothing but recognize

that that is our primary responsibility, if we pass no new laws and

perhaps repeal a few, we probably will have done more of what the

American people ultimately depend on us for than anything else.

States have an absolute ability to take surveys, to pass laws, to

regulate. Only the Federal Government has the mandate for the

census. I have read the mandate for the census. It boils down to

what is the meaning of enumeration. It is to count. Everything beyond that is outside the constitutional mandate.

As we review the existing laws that under our jurisdiction, we

have to answer just a few questions here today. Is it constitutional

to demand it? The answer is it is not within the Constitution to demand this information. Is it nice to have? Yes. Is it important to

have? Perhaps. Is it extremely useful? In many cases, also yes. Is

this the least expensive way to accumulate this information accurately? Perhaps, but the Constitution doesn’t say the government

has a constitutional obligation to spend less. If it did, we wouldn’t

have the deficit we have before us today.

As I look at a world in which every day we have the threat of

litigation, criminal prosecution and, in fact, laws threatened to be

passed because Facebook, Google, and thousands of other companies in and out of social media are accumulating individual information, aggregating it and selling it, selling it to people because it

is useful, you have to ask the question: what is the special role for

the United States that allows us to mandate that which we probably will litigate and legislate against when the private sector does

it?

All these questions and more, I believe, are part of the balancing

act. Our hope here today is to glean more information for the only

committee that has direct jurisdiction over the mandate portion

under the census. The moment this is not mandated, I am quite

sure plenty other committees of jurisdiction will talk about the usefulness of this information.

I join with the chairman in my concern that if we don’t get this

right, we simply haven’t done the first and most important part of

what we are sworn to do: uphold and defend the Constitution.

I thank the chairman and yield back.

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from California.

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, the

ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I also want to thank our witnesses for appearing. I appreciate

the comments of the chairman of the overall committee.

I can’t help but be reminded when I think of the census and census taking, that as a young community organizer, I met the most

professional person I had ever seen or known who opened up the

census data and information to me and colleagues of mine, people

where I worked, in such a way until we became fascinated with information that existed. Her name was Mary Grady. She retired a

few years ago and is no longer here, but she was the most profes-
25

sional bureaucrat, I guess, that I had ever seen. I will always fondly remember her.

So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this hearing and I thank you for

calling it because the American Community Survey is, in fact, beneficial to our Nation in many ways. Funding for education, transportation and human services are determined largely based upon

data gathered by the ACS. ACS statistics provide a means of testing the effectiveness of our civil rights and anti-discrimination

laws. The ACS is a tool that guides the proper targeting of hundreds of billions of dollars by the Federal Government.

Local and State governments also rely on data collected by the

ACS and use the data to target local funds. ACS data is also critical to large and small businesses, non-profits and academic researchers.

The integrity of the ACS would be fundamentally challenged,

however, by Congressman Poe’s bill which would remove the traditional legal requirement to answer the census questions fully and

truthfully. The Census Bureau reports that a voluntary ACS would

cost too much more, much more to administer and the data would

be less reliable.

As stewards of public dollars, we should seek the most cost effective manner to reach our ultimate goal. I appreciate the fact that

some citizens have concerns about their privacy. Congress has

made it a felony offense to make a wrongful disclosure of personal

information gathered by the census. Some complain about the time

it takes to complete the survey. The Census Bureau requests a

mere 45 minutes to complete the ACS. It is a civic duty and a mark

of good citizenship and I also think a level of patriotism and patriotic spirit for individuals to be engaged in providing this information as we seek to make our country as responsive and as effective

as it can possibly be.

In this era of Twitter, Wikipedia, Facebook and online data

where people share the most intimate details of their lives for the

world to view, as a matter of fact, they just kind of do it automatically, as a matter of fact, they even do it on television shows, I am

not convinced that there is an overwhelming number of citizens in

our country who are seriously regarding this as an invasion of their

privacy, although some do.

I have today several letters from interest groups encouraging

Congress to preserve the ACS as we know it and I would like to

submit these, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, for the record.

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.

I would also look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

Mr. Chairman, I know we are looking at, thinking about and

talking about some limitations relative to the participation of people, but it is kind of difficult for me to believe that the accuracy

of information that we would have would be the same using survey

techniques, approaches and other methods.

I think part of what I am relating to is the fact that I have used

the Census Bureau and the census data for so long that I have become so intimate with some of the people who have worked for the

Bureau. As a matter of fact, I think the longest serving individual

happens to run the operation out of Region V, Stanley Moore. Stanley has become almost an institution himself in the lives of many

of the professional groups, colleges and universities, not-for-profits

and we may have a little different view of the importance of the

Census Bureau than some other people who have not had as much

intimate contact as we have been favored with.

I would hope that not only would we do this hearing today, but

that we would have additional hearings so that we can further explore the impact of what is before us.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my

time.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]
48
49
50

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois.

We will now welcome our second panel of witnesses: the Honorable Robert Groves, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Andrew Biggs,

resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Lawrence Yun,

chief economist, National Association of Realtors; and Patrick

Jankowski, vice president, research, Greater Houston Partnership.

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses, other than Members

of Congress, must be sworn before they testify. Please rise and

raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. GOWDY. May the record reflect that all witnesses answered

in the affirmative. You may be seated.

I will recognize you from my left to right, your right to left and

the lights will mean what they traditionally mean in life, red being

go ahead and finish that thought you have. Don’t forget to turn on

your microphone before you speak.

With that, it is my pleasure to recognize Dr. Groves for his 5

minute opening statement.

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT GROVES, DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS

BUREAU; ANDREW BIGGS, RESIDENT SCHOLAR, AMERICAN

ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE; LAWRENCE YUN, CHIEF ECONOMIST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS; AND PATRICK

JANKOWSKI, VICE PRESIDENT, RESEARCH, GREATER HOUSTON PARTNERSHIP

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GROVES

Mr. GROVES. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy and Ranking Member

Davis. I am delighted to be here to talk about the American Community Survey and its roll to the country.

I must note that because of changes we have seen in our society

at the Census Bureau we are in the middle of reorganizing how we

do things to reflect changes in the society that have been mentioned already. We have launched a reorganization of the Bureau,

we have crafted a Cost Efficiency Program that is based on staff

proposals for saving money, we are taking every opportunity to

save pennies in order to invest in innovation and I detail those in

my full testimony that I submit to the committee for the record.

One of the things we are doing that is different is using the

American Community Survey as a tool to make the 2020 census

more efficient. It is a key vehicle in the planning of the 2020 census and through that we believe that we will produce both a more

cost efficient decennial census and a better ACS over time.

What is the ACS? It is literally this country’s only source of

small area statistics throughout the country available for all the

communities in the Nation. As the successor to the decennial census long form, it is the only sample household survey that is mandatory by law. It thereby achieves the highest rates of participation

of all surveys, approaching 98 percent of the population.

The vast majority of households that are sampled into the survey

choose to participate and we have tried to limit the burden of the

survey by limiting the sample size to about 2.5 percent of the

households each year. We are conscious of that challenge to us.
51

The products produced by the American Community Survey

amount annually to 11 billion statistics that inform local communities and businesses down to very small areas of space. That

amounts to about 2 cents a statistic in terms of the efficiency of the

survey. We will talk a lot today about uses of the survey. I would

be happy to do that in a Q and A.

I want to focus on the key issues that I believe are of concern

to the subcommittee. Why do we ask these questions, for example?

Why do we ask the question, does this person have difficulty concentrating, remembering or making decisions and does this person

have difficulty dressing or bathing?

Knowing the spatial distribution of the disabled population in

the United States is crucial, both for Federal programs that serve

them, for the Veterans Administration that has to serve disabled

veterans, for the industry that serves the elderly and is designing

living quarters for them throughout the country, and it is for that

reason that we use the standards from the Institute of Medicine to

form those questions.

Why is the survey mandatory? The U.S. Constitution empowers

Congress to carry out the census ‘‘in such manner as they shall by

law direct.’’ That is unambiguous in the Constitution. When the

founding fathers, many of whom were Members of the first Congress, passed the Census Act in March 1790, it became obvious

that their intent was to make that mandatory. There was a $40

fine in 1790 for not complying to the census.

The long form of the census has evolved to the American Community Survey. As the long form was mandatory, so too has the

American Community Survey that replaced it been voluntary.

What would happen if we changed this to a voluntary survey? In

2003, Congress directed the Census Bureau to do an experiment,

a piece of research to answer that question.

We found that a voluntary test yielded respondent participation

at lower levels in all three modes of data collection. That led to an

increase in survey costs because we follow up those who did not respond on the mail side. That produces smaller numbers of cases for

just those neighborhoods I described which means the estimates

from the sample survey are more unstable. If we turned ACS into

a voluntary survey, we estimate roughly that it would increase the

costs by about $66 million a year.

For all these reasons, we are in the middle of a top to bottom

program review of the ACS that will be finished in December 2012

and I would be happy to talk more on all these topics.

I appreciate being here and look forward to questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Groves follows:]
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Dr. Groves.

Dr. Biggs.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Davis and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify

today with regard to the American Community Survey and, in particular, the legal requirement that Americans participate in the

ACS.

This issue involves important questions of both individual privacy and lawmakers’ need for accurate data upon which to make

important policy decisions. In the United States, we have sought to

achieve an appropriate balance between these two needs. It is my

opinion that mandatory participation in the ACS, coupled with

legal protections for privacy of ACS respondents, maintains that

balance in a reasonable way.

The American Community Survey replaced the census long form

which previously had gathered detailed information on a subset of

the U.S. population. Roughly one-in-six census respondents were

required to fill out the long form in addition to the standard census

questionnaire.

Researchers have pointed out technical pros and cons of the ACS

versus the census long form. The annual sample size of the ACS

is smaller than the census long form but the ACS is produced every

year whereas the long form was generated only every 10 years. For

that reason, the ACS allows for better real time analysis and better

tracking of trends from year to year. These abilities clearly would

be of interest to policymakers, Congress and the administration.

The ACS and the long form are similar in that participation in

both was mandated by law. Like for the long form, mandatory participation in the ACS is controversial and raises legitimate privacy

concerns of which policymakers should remain cognizant. However,

for several reasons, I believe that mandatory participation in the

ACS remains a reasonable policy.

First, the greater detailed information captured by the ACS has

allowed the standard census questionnaire to become less detailed.

For the typical American, the census process may become less intrusive over time.

Second, the same law that mandates individual participation in

the ACS also makes it illegal for the Census Bureau to release data

in such a way that an individual’s privacy might be violated. Any

census employee who violates the privacy of census data faces significant jail time and large monetary fines. I am not personally

aware of any instance in which ACS respondents, or for that matter, respondents to any census survey have had their privacy violated in this way.

Third, and most importantly, without good data, policymakers

are essentially flying blind, lacking solid knowledge of the Americans they are seeking to assist. We already suffer too much from

what might be referred to as policymaking by anecdote. Where lawmakers seek to pass legislation before significantly examining the

severity or sometimes even the existence of a perceived problem,

reducing the quantity and quality of data available to policy-
71

makers, analysts and researchers threatens to exacerbate this

problem.

Moreover, it is likely that with voluntary participation, data will

fall short most for individuals and households on whom government policy is most focused, including the poor, the less educated

and those with poorer language skills. In my own research, I have

found the ACS filled gaps in existing data sets and allowed for

analysis that would have been difficult or impossible to conduct in

its absence.

For instance, I am currently using the ACS in ongoing research

on public sector compensation, some of which has been presented

in hearings before the full Oversight Committee. For much of that

research, we use the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.

However, the ACS contains more detailed information that has allowed us to better control for the different skills of public and private sector employees, as well as much more detailed geographic location that allows us to look at where certain employees are located.

Setting public sector compensation at appropriate levels impacts

the quality of the government work force at the Federal, State and

local levels and can have fiscal repercussions potentially worth

hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Without good data, though,

this kind of analysis is extremely difficult to undertake.

Those who wish to make participation in the ACS voluntary raise

important points. We should not allow our concern for individuals’

privacy to fade even if we judge that mandatory participation is the

best policy course. In the United States, the government exists to

serve the people, not vice versa. Nevertheless, I believe that government can best serve the American people by continuing to gather high quality survey data.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Biggs follows:]
72
73
74

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Dr. Biggs.

Dr. Yun.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE YUN

Mr. YUN. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Davis and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today

and offer a realtor perspective on the American Community Survey.

I am here to testify on behalf of approximately 1 million realtor

members who are involved in residential and commercial real estate. I would like to discuss how NAR uses the ACS data.

ACS provides an important input into NAR’s estimation of existing home sales as delineated in the appendix of this testimony.

NAR’s monthly sales estimate is based on information from a comprehensive sample of multiple listing services around the country.

However, NAR does not obtain information on every single sales

transaction, for example, for sale by owner sales of which we would

not be able to capture.

Rather, NAR has the data for a representative sample of home

sales on a monthly basis and then it is grossed up to obtain an estimate for total national existing home sales each month. The information from ACS provides the basis for this gross up. Based on the

information in yearly ACS, we are able to obtain a benchmark level

of sales that is an estimate or level of total home sales in a given

year. We then use the sample data from the multiple listing service

to estimate the total monthly sales based on this benchmark.

Without the availability of ACS, we probably would not have an

accurate measure of the existing home sales market. It is well

known that home sales are one of the important drivers of the

economy. Timely information on an important part of the economy

would no longer be available. This combination of public and private data provides information on a major part of our economy, information that is of interest to decisionmakers, the homeowners

and a variety of stakeholders.

Another use of ACS is the computing of the Housing Affordability

Index at the local level. NAR publishes a closely watched Affordability Index which is based on mortgage rates, home prices and

local household income. We rely on ACS to provide the local income

measurements. One of the popular reports that we provide for our

realtor members is the Local Housing Market Report. Included in

the report are sales, price and housing start trends. We also include information on population shifts and income trends and the

data sets that come from the ACS.

Our realtor members from faster growing States such as Arizona,

Utah, Texas, Florida, North Carolina and my home State of South

Carolina are particularly delighted to hear about the changing population shifts in their States’ favor, recognizing that my observation in these conversations are just anecdotal.

The major value of ACS is that it is based on random, statistically accurate samples permitting research analysis at the national, State and local levels. The key word is random. A significant, non-response error could be introduced if the participation in

the survey were optional. Moving to a voluntary response to ACS
75

would no doubt reduce response rates, particularly among minority

households, low-income households and from rural communities.

The accuracy and comprehensiveness of the survey is extremely

important. Conclusions from a non-random survey could be incorrect and misleading. For these reasons, it is important that households selected for the survey be counted in the data base. The option of not answering the survey could bias and render meaningless

conclusions based on the data base.

I thank you for the opportunity to present our comments on the

American Community Survey. In concluding, data integrity is important and I hope the American Community Survey can continue

to obtain the necessary response rates needed to assure the development of accurate and meaningful conclusions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yun follows:]
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Dr. Yun. It is good to have someone

from South Carolina here.

Mr. Jankowski.

STATEMENT OF PATRICK JANKOWSKI

Mr. JANKOWSKI. I want to start by thanking you Chairman

Gowdy and Ranking Member Davis for inviting me here to talk

about the American Community Survey.

My name is Patrick Jankowski and I am the vice president of research at the Greater Houston Partnership. We are an economic

development organization.

One of the things that we do at the Partnership is we try to grow

the region’s economy. We try to grow jobs, try to expand the tax

base, and try to bring investment to the region. Basically, we are

trying to build prosperity in the region. This is a job I have been

doing for about 30 years. I started at a college in 1981 doing this.

How do you recruit businesses to a region that has changed so

much over the last 30 years? When I first got started, we would

have a company call us up and want to know do you have a piece

of real estate and is it well served. That was all they wanted to

know, real estate infrastructure. That was in the old economy, that

was in the industrial age. Now we are in the information age we’re

in the global economy.

When we work with companies and companies come to the region, they want to know something about real estate and know

something about infrastructure but one of the most key issues they

are asking about is the work force and the demographics of the region they work in and that they are looking at putting it in.

It is the nature of the questions they ask. We will be working

with a Japanese firm. The Japanese firm will be looking at coming

to Houston and they want to know what is the size of your Asian

community, what is the size of your Japanese community. They

want to know because they need to make sure that their ex-pat

workers they assign to come to Houston are going to feel comfortable working there.

We will be working with an engineering firm and the engineering

firm will want to know, obviously, how many engineers do you

have and how many technicians do you have in the region. They

want to know that so if they relocate to Houston, they open up in

Houston, they are bringing jobs to Houston, they will be able to

meet their staffing needs.

We work with office centers and call centers. They ask us about

commute times. One of the reasons is they want to know is it going

to be difficult for their employees to get to work. They want to

know if it is going to create staffing problems.

These are real life examples. We have 100 Japanese firms in

Houston. We have been able to recruit because we have this sort

of data. With engineering firms specifically, we have Vestas Wind

Energy, a Scandinavian company, which came to Houston to do development and R&D work because we were able to provide them

with data about engineers. Just about any company that looks at

Houston wants to know about commute times.

It is so important that we have this good data, the data we get

from the ACS. It is also so important just because of the nature
116

of the changes which have been occurring in the economy and

which have been occurring in the population over the last 10 years.

It is so important that we get the ACS data on a regular basis.

Houston for example, added 1.2 million people in the last decade.

Of that, 745,000 of those are Hispanic. If we didn’t have the ACS

data, we wouldn’t see these changes which are going on in our population. Consider that there were five metropolitan areas that

added over 1 million people between the censuses. There were another 6 that added half a million and another 50 that added over

100,000. There are 51 metropolitan areas that lost population between the census. If we didn’t have the ACS data, we wouldn’t be

able to see these changes which are going on.

Houston has been fairly successful. We actually had a pretty

good year last year. We actually were able to recruit about 34 companies to the region or convince them not to leave the region. The

ACS data is the sole thing which kept them there. We like to think

we have a good business climate, but we were able to provide them

with the data so they can understand the population, they can understand the work force and be comfortable in making a decision

to invest in the region, to create jobs in the region, and to grow our

tax base.

I am not unique. I like to think I am unique but I am not unique.

There are at least 5,000 other organizations like mine across the

United States in small cities, counties and States that are trying

to recruit businesses to their region. They rely very heavily on ACS

data when they are trying to make their pitches to convince companies to relocate to their region.

If we make the ACS voluntary, as my fellow panelists have

talked about, the quality of the data is going to go down. If the

quality of the data goes down, we are not giving the business community the sort of good information they need to make these business decisions. That is why I like to say making the ACS voluntary

is a bad decision. We need to continue to give the business community good information so they can make good business decisions to

help grow our tax bases, grow jobs and increase investment.

Once again, thank you for allowing me to speak and I am ready

to answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jankowski follows:]
117
118
119
120

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Jankowski.

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.

I want to be extremely clear at the outset. I don’t doubt for a second the helpfulness of the information. I don’t doubt for a second

the importance of the information. What I am trying to determine

is whether or not it is important enough to send someone to jail

who doesn’t answer it.

Let me ask you, Mr. Biggs, do you think it is important to register to vote?

Mr. BIGGS. Do I think it is important? Voting is voluntary.

Mr. GOWDY. That is not my question. My question was, is it helpful and important to vote?

Mr. BIGGS. Sure.

Mr. GOWDY. In fact, one could argue that is the ultimate national

survey, right?

Mr. BIGGS. Correct.

Mr. GOWDY. If you want to take a mood on how people feel and

what they are thinking, go check the election results. What is the

penalty for not registering?

Mr. BIGGS. In our country, nothing.

Mr. GOWDY. What is the penalty for not voting?

Mr. BIGGS. Nothing.

Mr. GOWDY. You can understand how vexing it would be to some

of us when the census was designed and calculated so you can apportion the different congressional seats. That is why we have a

census. I don’t think anyone is going to argue that the founders put

that in the Constitution so we could have more demographic information for realtors. It is to apportion the congressional seats. That

is the reason we have a census, yet we don’t punish people for not

registering to vote, we don’t punish people for not voting and no

one is advocating that we do. We do punish people who don’t respond to portions of this form that have nothing to do with that

right.

I want to walk through not the helpfulness of it. I don’t doubt

that. I am not even doubting the importance of it. I want to ask

about the constitutional grounding of being able to ask this. Director, I want to start with you and ask what level of scrutiny you

think we should apply? I have heard the words compelling interest

and I have heard important interest. Those are two different levels

of constitutional scrutiny. Would you say that the government has

a compelling interest in this information or just an interest in this

information?

Mr. GROVES. If you go to the words in the Constitution, Article

I, Section 2, it clearly gives Congress the responsibility to direct

how the census is done.

Mr. GOWDY. Agreed.

Mr. GROVES. Then in order to understand what the intent was,

I think past Congresses have looked at the first Census Act and

there it is absolutely clear, I think most historians read it that the

intent was a full enumeration of the population in order that the

reapportionment was equitably and fairly done and the mandatory

nature is specified from the get go.

Mr. GOWDY. I don’t want to cut you off but I only have 2 minutes

now and I need to go through the form with you to ask you wheth-
121

er or not the governmental interest is important or compelling because the courts that look at this will have a different analysis if

you say it is compelling versus if you say it is important.

The first several questions, I don’t think anyone challenges you

have to know the age so you can apportion voting age population.

You can’t stuff a district with only people under the age of 18, so

you have to know the age, you have to know the gender and you

have to know the race. I am fine with compelling people to answer

that.

Whether or not someone is forgetful, do you agree with me that

the First Amendment, while it protects your right to speak, also

protects your right not to speak?

Mr. GROVES. With all due respect, I am not sure whether it matters whether I agree but what the intent of Congresses has been

over the decades. Congresses have specified additional information

and then the courts have, in discussions not unlike this, asked the

question, is it right that the government compel. Those cases seem

clear that the intent of those Congresses was upheld by the courts.

Mr. GOWDY. I think those cases dealt with the Fourth Amendment and not the First Amendment which is why I asked you specifically about the First Amendment. Those were privacy cases;

those weren’t speech cases.

Mr. GROVES. I am not an attorney.

Mr. GOWDY. I am not much of one either, but my reading of it

is those were Fourth Amendment and not First Amendment cases,

and I am almost out of time and perhaps we will have a second

panel. Again, no one has to convince me it is helpful. Before all the

realtors email me and call me from back home, nobody has to convince me it is important. Nobody has to convince me it is helpful.

You have to convince me that it is important and helpful enough

to send a person to jail who wants to exercise their right not to answer it.

With that, I would recognize the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think maybe we might have to have a second round because

you have generated some thoughts even in my mind relative to the

whole question of congressional intent. It seems to me I think the

intent was to get as much information as was considered useful at

the time. I agree there are changes that have been occurring. As

those changes have taken place, we readjust and readjust our

thinking in relationship to what is needed.

I think there are even bodies of knowledge now that did not exist

in 1790. So they would not have thought necessarily of the usefulness of some things. I guess trying to form this more perfect Union,

I guess they knew it wasn’t perfect and still isn’t, but it is in formation. Every time we learn something new and readjust, then I

think we are moving toward the perfection that we hope to have,

even though I don’t think we will ever get there because if we ever

got there, then we would have to stop.

As I was thinking about the issue, my questions become even if

we find ways to save money in one way, and I think everyone associated with government or thinking about government are thinking

how do we get the most mileage out of what we are spending? Oftentimes, I am reminded of an individual who lived back before
122

some of this was written, a guy named Frederick Douglass. He always said there was one thing he knew if he didn’t know anything

else, and that is he knew that in this world, we may not get everything that we pay for, but we most certainly must pay and will pay

for everything we get. If we don’t pay one way, then we will pay

another way.

If there is some information that is needed to make a certain

kind of decision and we don’t have that data, or if the data we have

is not as accurate as perhaps it could have been, maybe we make

an error and the error may outweigh what would have been the

cost of another level of accuracy. Do either one of you think that

is something we ought to be thinking about as we think of streamlining and reducing and trying to spend the least amount of money

that we possibly can with the greatest level of effectiveness? Mr.

Director, let me begin with you.

Mr. GROVES. The question of the mandatory nature of ACS is related to your points through an indirect effect of making the ACS

a voluntary survey. If it became voluntary, as the past research

showed, the very small area uses that these gentlemen have mentioned and other people around the country rely on ACS for, those

uses are threatened mainly because of the production of very unstable estimates at the low level.

What happens with unstable estimates is that schools will be

built in neighborhoods where there aren’t enough kids, retail stores

will be built that won’t fulfill their sales projections, roads will be

built where cars won’t need them. There are costs to the quality

impacts and the instability of estimates at the small area. In thinking through these tradeoffs, I think it is critical to talk also about

the cost side of change.

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Jankowski, are there any questions that can’t be asked?

Mr. JANKOWSKI. I haven’t gone through the whole survey to look

at which questions can’t be asked.

Mr. GOWDY. No, I mean are there any questions in general that

can’t be asked? What is off limits?

Mr. JANKOWSKI. You mean philosophically?

Mr. GOWDY. Not even philosophically. If the standard we are

going to use is what is helpful and what is important, can you ask

the people at that residence whether they have committed any

crimes in the last 12 months because heavens knows, we need to

apportion law enforcement services?

Mr. JANKOWSKI. I think there is something in the Constitution

about self incrimination.

Mr. GOWDY. There is. There is the Fifth Amendment that comes

down from the First Amendment which says you don’t have to talk.

Mr. JANKOWSKI. Yes. So in that case, that sort of question would

be off limits.

Mr. GOWDY. What about whether or not someone takes any pharmaceuticals and to list the drugs they take by name so EMS can

know when they respond whether or not there are any counter indications in terms of how they treat someone in case of an emergency? Can you ask what drugs are being consumed there?

Mr. JANKOWSKI. In a census form?

Mr. GOWDY. Sure.
123

Mr. JANKOWSKI. I don’t see the practical application of something

like that.

Mr. GOWDY. How about whether or not the person there has

trouble concentrating?

Mr. JANKOWSKI. That, I can see because you need to be able to

deliver services by geographic area.

Mr. GOWDY. What service? What service would be impacted by

lack of concentration that wouldn’t be impacted by what kind of

pharmaceuticals you are taking?

Mr. JANKOWSKI. Like nursing homes, day care for the elderly,

things of that nature, services that you would provide, social services to provide people who are having difficulty taking care of their

elderly relatives.

Mr. GOWDY. I have heard reliable used a lot. Is self diagnosis the

most reliable way to get that information?

Mr. JANKOWSKI. No, it is not. I don’t think it is an issue of self

diagnosis. I think this is an issue of someone who probably has already been diagnosed in their household by their doctor and they

are just confirming on the form that it has already been diagnosed

by a medical professional.

Mr. GOWDY. Can you ask them what kind of magazines they

read, what kind of TV shows they watch?

Mr. JANKOWSKI. I think Nielsen does that.

Mr. GOWDY. That is my point. There are a lot of other people

who ask these same questions. Is the mortgage information available from other sources?

Mr. JANKOWSKI. You probably need to defer that one to my colleague to the right. That is an area that I am not very well based

on, mortgage information.

Mr. GOWDY. Dr. Groves, is any of this information available from

other sources?

Mr. GROVES. Some of the questions are asked in other surveys

done both by other Federal agencies and the private sector, but

what is unique about ACS is that the questions are asked of the

same individual. That allows us to say not only what is the prevalence of disability in the country but what portion of the disabled

are veterans. Since we ask both those questions, we can target the

use of the information in a much more helpful way for small area

decisions that are being made. That is the strength.

Mr. GOWDY. The annual payment for fire, hazard and flood insurance, the amount, is that information available from other

sources?

Mr. GROVES. Yes, but once again, that single item in conjunction

with other items allow us to calculate and to give to the Housing

and Urban Development Department estimated living costs by

housing type and that is critical in Section 8 administration.

Mr. GOWDY. I am going to ask the question again. What standard

is the standard we should be using?

Mr. GROVES. I think it is very simple. It really is very simple.

Mr. GOWDY. What? Give me a simple answer.

Mr. GROVES. We have attempted to go through the questions on

the ACS and ask of each one, is there a legal mandate to collect

these. I believe we can send this to you at any moment’s notice, the

details, the statutes that require the collection of that information
124

either by the American Community Survey itself or by the Census

Bureau in service of other Federal Government agencies. Then

there are all the business uses that are not mandated statutorily,

but are useful. That distinction I am with you on. I believe that is

an appropriate distinction for Congress to make.

Mr. GOWDY. What questions can’t be asked?

Mr. GROVES. What questions?

Mr. GOWDY. Cannot be asked?

Mr. GROVES. In a similar meaning of the term that you used?

Mr. GOWDY. Yes. Can you ask about medicines because EMS

does need to know when treating someone at the house?

Mr. GROVES. I believe that would not meet the standards of the

American Community Survey, so our question is, where is the statute that requires the collection of information for the use for the

common good if we find that is the threshold we are looking for in

the American Community Survey?

Mr. GOWDY. My time has expired.

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Voluntary versus mandatory ACS studies in 2003 and

2004, the findings demonstrated an over 20 percent decrease in

participation when the answers were voluntary. This seemed to me

to be a large decrease for a limited population and the Census Bureau concluded that moving to a voluntary ACS would compromise

the quality of the data and increase the cost of administering the

ACS.

In addition to that, it seems to me if you are making decisions

about something and you have 20 percent less information or less

accurate information, would that drive up the cost of not only getting the data that you need, but would it also compromise the likelihood of the validity or the highest level of validity of decisionmaking that then would occur?

Mr. GROVES. It is clear to me that the credibility of the ACS statistics used by people throughout the country is dependent on the

rate of participation we get. It is also clear from the 2003 studies

that participation rate would go down with a voluntary survey.

Our estimates are that roughly 600,000 houses that are responding now relative to about the 2 million that respond each year

would be threatened under this. It is important, I think, to understand why. The first receipt of an American Community Survey is

through the mail. All of us sort through a mail making a decision

about whether to open the envelope or not. Is it important enough

to gain our attention?

The American Community Survey has a message on the envelope

that notes the legal basis and the mandatory nature. That has

been shown through the research to be an effective tool merely to

open the envelope. Once the vast majority of people do that, they

then end up eventually completing the survey.

It is important to talk about the tradeoff. What would happen if

we made ACS voluntary? Imagine that world and we are blessed

that an earlier edition of this committee urged us to do that research. We now have the research findings and the research findings suggest that some of the key uses of ACS are gutted by the

voluntary nature and we have to talk about that.
125

Mr. DAVIS. I know the chairman was concerned about the issue

of individuals being penalized for not complying or not answering

the questions. Individuals may end up potentially becoming incarcerated. Certainly given the fact that we incarcerate more people

than anybody else in the world, I wouldn’t want to see anybody incarcerated because they refused to answer some census information

that was inquired.

Do we have much record of people having been prosecuted for refusing to answer questions on census forms?

Mr. GROVES. I have been in this job since 2009 and I asked the

same questions about how we implemented the mandatory nature.

I can’t find an example of prosecution attempts on ACS. When I

asked why, why is it mandatory and why don’t we prosecute, the

answer is that we found over time that the note that this is mandatory and the ability of our interviewers to explain why these data

are so important are much more effective than any prosecution

could be. No one has been fined, is what I am told, because of noncompliance with ACS.

I remind us that the rate of participation is about 98 percent of

the sample. This is extraordinarily high. There is no other survey

in the United States that reaches this level of participation.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Illinois.

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from California, the

chairman of the full committee, Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jankowski, a short answer hopefully. The information for the

census is useful and you would like to have it, right?

Mr. JANKOWSKI. Yes, sir.

Mr. ISSA. It is valuable and you would like to have it?

Mr. JANKOWSKI. Yes, sir.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Yun, the same would be true, the information is

useful and you would like to have it? It is valuable and you would

like to have it?

Mr. YUN. Yes, if it is a random sample. If it is not a random sample, then the results would not be that meaningful.

Mr. ISSA. You want good data, it is valuable?

Mr. YUN. Yes.

Mr. ISSA. Dr. Biggs, you are maybe a little less interested in it,

but would you agree that this is valuable information?

Mr. BIGGS. I have no financial interest, but yes, it is valuable information.

Mr. ISSA. You know that the private sector, associations and true

private sector, they want to have it, they use it and it is valuable

to them?

Mr. BIGGS. That is correct.

Mr. ISSA. They get it for free, right?

Mr. BIGGS. Yes, they do.

Mr. ISSA. Director, your turn. You are not selling this. It is valuable. Statutorily, you are not allowed to sell it, is that correct?

Mr. GROVES. I am not sure.

Mr. ISSA. Let me get to the question behind the question. If ultimately one of your great defenses is that it costs more to do it an-
126

other way, then the first question is, you can offset that by having

the right to sell this very valuable information, so cost is a false

facade, it is a canard, right? Ultimately, cost is something you are

saying but it is not something you particularly care about as long

as the revenue necessary either given to you by the taxpayers or

provided to be collected for this valuable information, you don’t

have a problem with the raised cost then, do you?

Mark McCormick has passed away now, but he was a business

write and he described what a problem is. Director, do you know

what a problem is?

Mr. GROVES. No.

Mr. ISSA. It is something money won’t solve. My first question to

you, and the most important question for me in this hearing is,

could money solve this problem statistically?

Mr. GROVES. That is a great question, first of all. It is a question

I think about a lot. I can say that if there were an increase in the

budget.

Mr. ISSA. In the budget for this particular line item, let us not

go too far here today.

Mr. GROVES. Then it is unambiguous that we could restore the

size of the data set, as it were, that produces the estimates from

ACS. Then the critical question as these gentlemen have noted is

would that reestablished size produce the same estimates. We have

done some simulation on this and sometimes it works, sometimes

it doesn’t work. The jury is still out on the answer.

Mr. ISSA. Let us go to a more studied area. Director, you have

written fairly extensively that you view enumeration could be done

by estimation, that in fact the mandate on the Constitution, which

we do argue about here in Congress, that says you will count could

in fact be extrapolated for greater accuracy. Literally, the convincing argument that has not carried the day is that minorities

are under-represented in the census because, in fact, they don’t answer, they have these other reasons that they are not counted, and

therefore, an extrapolation could increase the accuracy. You are

well familiar with the issue and you and I have even talked about

it in the past, right?

Mr. GROVES. Yes. I don’t believe I have ever written a single

word on this but I understand what you are saying, yes.

Mr. ISSA. That whole point is that we could potentially change

outcomes using further analysis. In this case where there is no constitutional mandate and thus, no compelling reason under the Constitution at least to mandate people answer against their First,

Fourth, Fifth and dammit, I just have a right to liberty set of constitutional rights because there is sort of that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It doesn’t necessarily fit in the 10 but it is clearly

there.

Back to the basic question, one, given enough money, you can

overcome this or at least given enough money, you can find out if

you can overcome it and to what accuracy, right?

Mr. GROVES. It would require a research program to nail it.

Mr. ISSA. Let us do a what-if here. If you in fact did a blind study

or double blind study or triple blind study, you guys are much better at the terms for it, and you did both, and I say triple—if I can

ask for an additional minute, Mr. Chairman.
127

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

Where you had the straight voluntary, you had sort of the first

four questions voluntary, and then follow up to try to encourage

people to participate even if in fact they were reticent to do so, but

ultimately that would be compared against today the you are going

to jail if you don’t answer this type of threat, if you did that, you

would know more than you know today, isn’t that correct, Director?

Mr. GROVES. That is correct.

Mr. ISSA. Once you do that, you would know whether or not you

could receive, for the benefit of these people to your left because

they want this information in many cases. It is valuable information and they think you are a better source of it for free than the

people they pay millions of dollars to get it, right?

Mr. GROVES. That is right. Canada just did this.

Mr. ISSA. Thank God it is not Sweden. I love it when it is Canada instead of Sweden.

Mr. GROVES. They are still grappling with the results as I understand it, so it didn’t work out according to expectations.

Mr. ISSA. In their case, they did these blind tests or did they

change systems?

Mr. GROVES. They switched their so-called long form to voluntary, mounted it as a survey after their census in 2011 and there

was a massive decline, an unexpectedly large decline.

Mr. ISSA. My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, are we going to

have another round?

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Davis and I have had a second round. Mr.

Chairman, you are welcome to also have a second round.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. I will be briefer in my second round than

my first.

This is so important and there is so much question about whether or not the word mandate is necessary, and if so, to what questions. I think this is where, Mr. Jankowski, you were very good at

answering some things and a little bit more deferring in others.

At the end of the day, can’t we all agree that not every question

has a compelling Federal interest that mandates it while, Mr. Yun,

there are things which do not have a compelling Federal interest

but you sure as heck would like to get the information.

Can we all agree that is sort of part of what the study is. It is

not just about the absolute minimum, it is about nice to have information and in some cases, must have information and then it is a

question of how you get it? Is that sort of where the two of you

would be, you would like to have the information and you know

some of it is needed, but some of it that we get, you really appreciate whether it is needed or not?

Mr. YUN. That is correct.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Biggs, in your case, you are sort of my libertarian

friend for a moment, if we can ask for this information and people

voluntarily give it and we can statistically make it accurate for the

other side and if we recover the cost in some way that is beneficial

to the taxpayer either because the additional information is valuable, enough for him to pay for it or her to pay for it, or we sell

it, are you okay, Dr. Biggs, with that?
128

Mr. BIGGS. In general, yes. You can make the economic argument

for government conducting what we call basic research and I think

this would actually fit into the category of that, but in general, I

would. I am pretty well a libertarian person.

The number of programs and departments I think are unconstitutional would probably shock even you, but I think for somebody

who is often accused of wanting to gut the government, I think the

place to start is not through the eyes and ears of knowing what is

going on out there.

If you cut that source of information, all the other government

programs become less efficient. Because they are less efficient, you

are extracting more from people than you otherwise would have to.

You are serving them less well than you otherwise would. That has

a cost not just financially, but a cost to their freedom.

I think the libertarian argument cuts both ways. I am all for cutting government. Is this the first thing we should cut? I don’t really

think so.

Mr. ISSA. Director, I am going to close with you. It looks like you

have a great mandate here. You have a group of people who want

to find a way to do this less onerously, you have a dais who is committed to making sure that information that is valuable to the taxpayers, directly and indirectly, is made available.

You do have some pushback on the mandated. It appears as

though you don’t currently have the kind of parallel, both studies

in Canada and in fact, doing your own work with these various levels potentially. I put those out as a person who only had to take

the required stats to get a business degree. You certainly eclipse

what my teachers had, let us put it that way.

That is an invitation, I would say, for you to come to us with

your proposals for how we get a win-win. Can we, in fact, have Dr.

Biggs get what he wants which is that the onerous nature of mandate fades to zero potentially; Dr. Yun and Mr. Jankowski seem

like they are fine with voluntary. They just want to make sure it

is equally accurate.

I am sitting on the dais saying, I don’t want the taxpayers to

have to get a big increase unless it is absolutely mandated. Can

you come back to this committee in relatively short time with at

least some draft ideas of how we could work together to get the win

for the three people to your left and the win for Mr. Poe and the

other people who believe that today, this mandate, in its current

form, needs to go away completely? The committee certainly would

like to find a win-win. Can you do that for us?

Mr. GROVES. I think this is the proper role for me and my colleagues to comment on the technical matters and for you to address

these more philosophical matters of what should be mandated. I

would be happy to do so.

Mr. ISSA. I thank you. I have never had a bad hearing with you

or a bad meeting with you, so this doesn’t surprise me.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Clay who has joined us, I

thank you for this hearing. I think it is a good first step. We obviously are the exclusive committee of jurisdiction for the census and

we take it seriously.

I thank the chairman and yield back.

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from California.
129

The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Missouri,

Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank all the witnesses for coming today. It is good to see Director Groves again. I appreciate the hard work that you and the

Bureau did during the 2010 census. I believe it was one of the most

accurate and complete we have ever done.

I am, however, concerned that this is the first time that this committee in the 112th Congress is examining an issue related to the

census. When I took over as Chair of this committee in 2007, I discovered that during the previous 7 years, my friends on the other

side of the aisle had held only two hearings about the 2010 census.

Seven years into the planning, most of the decisions had been

made. Many of them, unfortunately, had been poor decisions that

would have created major problems and yielded poor results.

Without any oversight from the then-majority, there was a great

likelihood of failure. We took great care and made efforts in the following 4 years to rectify the problems. We did and we provided

oversight. We held hearings and we investigated. We asked the

GAO to provide us with numerous reports. Let me say that the

GAO did an outstanding job. We engaged with the Bureau and we

listened to an enormous number of stakeholders and we did it all

transparently through more than 20 hearings.

We have not had much follow-up from the 2010 census. Hopefully, we will begin that process, Mr. Chair.

If this is about the American Community Survey, ACS, I am sure

others will be able to give many details on how the ACS came to

be and how it is of great benefit to us all. They will tell us how

participation will decline significantly if the ACS were to be made

voluntary. I would like to go on the record to say that I am opposed

to making the ACS voluntary.

I hope that the Majority realizes the importance of the census

and I hope that they are as committed to an accurate and complete

count as possible as I am.

With that, Mr. Chairman, let me ask one question of the panel.

I will start with Director Groves.

Mr. Groves, there are some who suggest that the private sector

should pay for census data collection. Could you address this idea

and the possible ramifications of an effort like this?

Mr. GROVES. We haven’t considered this seriously, so I can comment that it would be near unique in the world if the United States

chose to do this. Other countries, I think, have taken the posture

that this is a basic responsibility of the central government to monitor and keep track of how we are doing as an economy and a society and that in a democracy, the free and equitable distribution of

this information is key to the notion of the society.

I don’t know what money would be made off this is we tried to

sell it. It is clear that there are companies that use these data,

combine them with other statistics and add value and sell these as

part of their business model, so there is a bit of that, but I have

no idea what would happen if the United States chose to do this

and whether the results would be a desirable set or not.
130

Mr. CLAY. It is also clear that the business community relies on

data to make business decisions on where they locate their businesses and basically how commerce flows in this country?

Mr. GROVES. It is crystal clear that successful American firms

are using empirical data to make day to day decisions and that

what products are stocked in a particular site of a particular national store is determined somewhat by our data. American business runs on these data and we would have to think this through.

Mr. CLAY. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman is recognized for some additional

time.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. Two minutes.

Mr. GOWDY. An additional 2 minutes.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you very much.

Does anyone else on the panel have any thoughts about the data

collection and whether the private sector should pay for it? Dr.

Yun.

Mr. YUN. Like Dr. Biggs mentioned, there is certain basic information I think the government can provide rather than forcing

upon the private sector to pay, that benefits the country as a

whole. Let me relate one long story.

I grew up in South Korea and was raised in South Carolina but

my parents went through the Korean War and it could have been

just as easy that we could have been following the other regime.

The other regime did not collect data. I should say there is a tremendous amount of consensus among economists and researchers

in America, even though there is disagreement here and there, I

think that the level of agreement that is in America compared to

other countries that are divided like North and South Korea because of the prevalence of the data, we can see it, we let the statistics speak for themselves.

I think there is tremendous value in having the basic information. With the research, people can look through it and find the

consensus as to what makes sense and what does not make sense.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response.

Mr. Jankowski, any comments?

Mr. JANKOWSKI. Just one comment. I can see the business community coming back and saying, this is something I am already

paying taxes on. If I am already paying taxes for it, why am I subsidizing it a second time?

Also, I think we need to understand who we are in the United

States, we need to understand the forces that are shaping us and

we need to understand the demographic shifts. I think it is so important to gather this information so we simply know what is going

on in the country.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, before we close, could I have just a moment?

Mr. GOWDY. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ISSA. I just want to follow up. Mr. Clay made two good

points.

Mr. Jankowski, you pay taxes, and Dr. Yun, you pay taxes, but

you pay taxes for the National Parks. Do you think it is wrong to
131

pay a fee to go in a National Park since we collect countless dollars

in that?

Mr. YUN. I believe on the National Parks, it is determined at the

local or State level and I visit many parks, I pay my portion.

Mr. ISSA. Just so you understand, the Federal Government takes

taxes to run the Park Service, we supplement that with fees that

you pay entering. It appeared as though you said yes. I just want

to make sure we understand. I came from the private sector. Just

because taxes are paid doesn’t mean those who use over and above

that get a free ride. I hope neither one of you was actually saying

that.

Mr. YUN. I agree with you but I believe in the importance of the

randomness of the data collection.

Mr. ISSA. That is the second point. Mr. Clay, you and I probably

agree on this much more than we will ever disagree. You made a

statement that you support specifically the mandate. Just as you

were coming in, Director Groves had said that he wasn’t sure because he doesn’t have the full data about what the cost would be

and whether or not he could get, if you will, through statistical

sampling or some other secondary check, equal accuracy or near

equal accuracy through a system that would not be mandated.

He only knew that Canada had gone from mandated to not mandated and it didn’t work out so well. Probably Canada supports

your decision that we can’t just go automatically to not mandated,

but perhaps, Director Groves could repeat what he said about the

possibility that we could get to a hybrid.

Mr. CLAY. Before that happens, if the gentleman would yield?

Mr. ISSA. Of course I would yield.

Mr. CLAY. The ACS, what we found over the last 5 or 6 years,

was beneficial. It really filled in some gaps between the decennial

census and it helped us understand and get a clear picture about

this country, about its growth, about what areas were growing,

which ones were shrinking and I think that is beneficial.

Mr. ISSA. That is one of the areas of our greatest agreement, that

this information is powerful and beneficial. I think every one of the

witnesses all agreed. What we are trying to do is more nuance than

that. That is why I said we are going to have a lot of agreement

on the need to collect this data, at least most of it.

We can all argue over specific questions, but Director Groves,

could you just reiterate briefly, and I know you are going to answer

in writing for the committee, how you get from what you don’t

know to what you might be able to know?

Mr. CLAY. Before he answers, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ISSA. I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CLAY. Does that mean that the majority would support an

increased appropriation for the census for 2020?

Mr. ISSA. That is why I wanted to follow up with my business

side folks to make sure they understood that the source of funding,

if there is an increase in cost for this valuable information, might

in fact come in some way, at least sightly, from the users.

Director Groves was very good to say that it wouldn’t be completely free regardless. Director.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.
132

Mr. GROVES. Just to get our facts on the table, we think that the voluntary nature is in the rough ballpark of about $68–$70 million

a year. That is a key factor in your going forward. The critical scientific work that hasn’t been done is even with that other money,

would the characteristics of those not participating bias the statistics so that all of the uses we just heard about are indeed threatened? We don’t have the right research to answer that.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Director. That is very helpful to us and for

all of us to know what we do know and what we don’t know. Thank

you for the $60 million figure. Perhaps that makes my colleague on

the other side of the aisle more optimistic that we can reach consensus.

I yield back.

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman from California.

On behalf of all of us, we want to thank our panelists for a very

informative, lively discussion. Whenever we balance competing interests, especially when those interests are very important on both

sides, it makes for an instructive, informative hearing.

Thank you for your expertise your comity and how you have

interacted with one another and with the Members.

With that, we are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ