[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENSURING THE 2020 CENSUS COUNT
IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 3, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-127
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
42-594 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Jim Jordan, Ohio
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Harley Rouda, California Gary Palmer, Alabama
Ro Khanna, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Clay Higgins, Louisiana
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Peter Welch, Vermont Chip Roy, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Mark DeSaulnier, California Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Jimmy Gomez, California
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Katie Porter, California
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Peter Kenny, Chief Counsel
Amy Stratton, Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 3, 2020................................. 1
Witnesses
J. Christopher Mihm, Managing Director, Strategic Issues,
Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Robert Santos, Vice President and Chief Methodologist, Urban
Institute; and President-Elect, American Statistical
Association
Oral Statement............................................... 6
Joseph Salvo, Chief Demographer, Population Division, New York
City Department of City Planning
Oral Statement............................................... 8
* The prepared statements for the witnesses are available at:
docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
The document below is available at: docs.house.gov.
* Letter to Secretary Ross from the Department of Commerce;
submitted by Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney.
ENSURING THE 2020 CENSUS COUNT
IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE
----------
Thursday, December 3, 2020
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., via
Webex, Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney [chairwoman of the committee]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Connolly,
Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Khanna, Sarbanes, Welch, Kelly,
DeSaulnier, Lawrence, Plaskett, Gomez, Pressley, Tlaib, Comer,
Jordan, Gosar, Massie, Hice, Grothman, Palmer, Cloud, Higgins,
Miller, and Keller.
Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
And I just want to note at the outset that the Democratic
side, we have a caucus going on right now, and we're expecting
two sets of votes for leadership and committee races. When
those votes happen, we will recess very briefly to allow our
members to vote, and then reconvene the hearing as soon as the
votes are done.
At the moment, we expect the first caucus vote to be around
10:30 or 10:45, and the second vote to be around 11:45, or
noon. I ask that the witnesses and members bear with us as we
recess briefly for these two votes.
With that, I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Good morning, and thank you all for being here today.
Today's hearing comes at a perilous time for the 2020
Census. Last month, there were troubling press reports
indicating that career officials at the Census Bureau warned
the Trump administration about significant problems that will
delay the delivery of Census data to late January or early
February.
After these reports became public, the director of the
Census, Dr. Steven Dillingham, issued a public statement
confirming that problems were found, but he provided few
details. These developments were particularly troubling because
they were not reported to our committee before we read about
them in the press, or before the Census director made his
public statement.
Our committee has direct jurisdiction over the Census, but
nobody from the Trump administration informed us about any of
these problems or delays.
For these reasons, the committee wrote a letter to the
Census Bureau on November 19. We asked for documents that
career officials prepared describing these data problems and
the resulting delays. We also requested documents that were
prepared for the Department of Commerce, including Commerce
Secretary, Wilbur Ross. But, in response to our request, they
gave us nothing--absolutely nothing, not even a single page.
These documents were due a week ago, and the Census is in
its most critical stage. Yet the Trump administration seems to
believe that they owe Congress nothing--no documents
whatsoever.
Last week, we held a bipartisan staff briefing with the
Census director and his top aides. We asked them why they
hadn't turned over any of the documents we were seeking. In
response, they pointed to Secretary Ross' office at the
Commerce Department. They explained that they collected
documents and sent them to Secretary Ross' general counsel, but
that they were, quote, ``not cleared for release,'' end quote.
When my staff asked why not, they indicated that Secretary
Ross' office is withholding these documents due to concerns
about, quote, ``ongoing litigation,'' end quote.
This is entirely unacceptable. The existence of separate
litigation is not a valid reason to withhold documents from
Congress.
In addition, the administration's claim that they are
withholding these documents because of ongoing litigation
raises serious questions about whether they are seeking to
conceal information, not just from Congress, but from the
judiciary.
Just this week, on Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral
arguments in a case involving the President's order to exclude
undocumented immigrants from the Census count. At the same
time, the Trump administration was blocking these documents
from coming out. Nevertheless, despite the Trump
administration's obstruction, our committee has now been able
to obtain three of these internal documents from another
source.
These internal documents not only confirm that the Census
Bureau will not take, until at least late January, to resolve
these data problems and produce a complete and accurate count,
but that these problems are more serious than first reported.
These internal documents show that rather than getting better,
these problems may be getting worse.
Written by career professionals, these documents describe
15...[inaudible] more than 1 million records in every state in
our Nation. These problems could affect state population
counts, impact representation in Congress, and reduce funding
states are due under a host of Federal programs.
These internal documents describe an intensive, 11-step
process to fix the errors. They also warn that taking shortcuts
and trying to rush this process could aggravate the situation
further, and lead to even more problems. As I said, the Trump
administration tried to block our committee from seeing these
documents. We had to get them from another source.
The administration has claimed publicly that they are
addressing these problems by bringing in more resources, but we
do not have the information we need to check these claims.
The Trump administration is preventing our committee from
verifying the scope of these data problems, their impact on the
accuracy of the Census, and the time career professionals need
to fix them.
For these reasons, the committee sent a letter yesterday to
Wilbur Ross, the Secretary of Commerce. We gave him until next
Wednesday to produce a complete and unredacted set of the
documents we requested last month.
I ask unanimous consent to place the record--this letter in
the record, and that it be made part of the hearing record.
So ordered.
Chairwoman Maloney. These documents should be made
available to Congress; to the judiciary, if necessary; and to
the American people, so that we all have confidence in the
Census numbers going forward. But so far, the Trump
administration has tried to keep this information secret from
everyone.
As our letter explains, if Secretary Ross fails to comply
with our request voluntarily, he will receive a friendly
subpoena. The Constitution charges Congress with key
responsibilities over the Census, and we need these documents
to ensure that it is complete and accurate.
Our witnesses today are experts in the fields of data
science, Census operations, and the use of Census data by
cities and states to provide services and improve the lives of
the American people. I look forward to hearing their expert
opinions about the new documents we obtained, as well as the
other significant challenges faced by the Census.
I now recognize Ranking Member Comer for his opening
statement, and I yield back.
Mr. Comer. Chairman Maloney, I appreciate you calling this
hearing today on the 2020 Census.
Let me begin by saying unequivocally the 2020 Census is
counting every resident in the United States regardless of
citizenship status. The Census Bureau has already counted 99.98
percent of households in the United States. The remaining two
one-hundredths of a percent of unresolved addresses will be
resolved by accepted and long-standing statistical methods. But
the Democrats still seem uninterested in these facts, and,
instead, are launching partisan attacks on the 2020 Census to
undermine the public's confidence in the results.
Today's hearing supposedly is about the completeness and
accuracy of the 2020 Census, but just, as for our last hearing,
no Census Bureau witnesses have been invited to testify. So
it's unclear to me what we expect to learn today.
During transcribed interviews earlier this year, Census
Bureau career staff made clear the Bureau was committed to a
complete and accurate Census. They are working to deliver on
this commitment. The Bureau has made clear that the issues it
has encountered in completing the current phase of the Census
are few in number, relate to only 63 one-hundredths percent of
the data for the Census, do not call into question the quality
of the data, and are on par with issues arising in past
Censuses. Bureau officials can confirmed they are working
quickly and efficiently as possible with all available
resources to finalize a complete and accurate Census.
While there likely will be a short delay in delivery of
apportionment results, that isn't because of problems with the
completeness and accuracy of the Census data. It's because of a
delay imposed earlier in the year resulting from activist
litigation.
Just this week--just this week, the Supreme Court heard
oral arguments in the challenge to President Trump's directive
that the Secretary of Commerce report an apportionment count
that excludes nonlegal residents in the United States,
including illegal immigrants. That directive was a very
important step to ensure the sanctity of our Nation's elections
and equal representation under the Constitution.
Including illegal immigrants in the count for
representation in Congress only dilutes the representation of
all Americans who vote in elections, and makes a mockery of our
basic principle of one person, one vote.
I urge us all to focus on the real task at hand: supporting
the Census Bureau's extraordinary efforts to complete an
accurate 2020 Census count, not undermining public confidence
in its work product.
Given that we've already held hearings on the 2020 Census,
and the Bureau is on track to complete an accurate count, our
time would be better spent getting to the bottom of whether the
integrity of the 2020 election was compromised. During the 2020
election, we witnessed blanket mail-in balloting in several
states and a dramatic rise in absentee ballots and others,
leading to errors and irregularities.
For example, I sent a letter to the Election Assistance
Commission inspector general asking him to investigate why the
California Secretary of State used $35 million of taxpayer
money to pay Joe Biden's main election campaign advisory firm
to conduct voter contact. I'd like to know why taxpayer money
was used in such a questionable manner. But unfortunately, the
inspector general has yet to take any action.
Also, on November 18, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member
Jim Jordan and I called upon Chairwoman Maloney and Judiciary
Committee Chairman Nadler to hold hearings to investigate
election irregularities. Why aren't we starting those hearings
today instead of holding yet another hearing on the Democrats'
partisan campaign against the 2020 Census.
Democrats have found ample time to hold countless hearings
on partisan issues to undermine President Trump and further
their left-wing agenda, but they won't hold a single hearing on
election integrity and protecting the sanctity of the ballot
box? These priorities speak for themselves.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Now I will introduce our witnesses.
Our first witness today is Christopher Mihm, who is the
managing director of the Strategic Issues Team at the
Government Accountability Office.
Then we will hear from Robert Santos, who serves as the
vice president and chief methodologist for the Urban Institute
and is also the president-elect of the American Statistical
Association.
Next, we will go to Joseph Salvo, who is the chief
demographer of the Population Division at the New York City
Department of City Planning.
Finally, we will hear from Jeff Landry, who is the attorney
general for the state of Louisiana.
The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them in.
Please raise your right hands.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
I'll let the record show that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
Without objection, your written statements will be made
part of the record.
With that, Mr. Mihm, you are now recognized for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF J. CHRISTOPHER MIHM, MANAGING DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC
ISSUES TEAM, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Mihm. Well, thank you, ma'am. And Chairwoman Maloney,
Ranking Member Comer, members of the committee, I am very
pleased to once again appear before you to discuss the progress
of the 2020 Census. In being here, I have the very great
pleasure of presenting the work of my dedicated GAO colleagues
who have been supporting the Census, or supporting the Congress
on Census issues for many years.
As this committee is well aware, the 2020 Census was
undertaken under extraordinary circumstances. In response to
COVID-19, and related executive branch decisions, the Bureau
made a series of late design changes that affected the way the
Bureau did its work, and the time that it took to do that work.
These changes also introduced risks into the quality of the
Census that the Bureau--Census data, that the Bureau will
provide for congressional apportionment and redistricting.
As Mr. Comer noted in his opening statement, the
professionals at the Census Bureau are deeply committed to
providing an accurate and complete Census count to--for
apportionment, redistricting, and for other purposes.
My bottom line, therefore, today, is that it is important
both for transparency and to ensure public confidence in the
quality of the Census that the Bureau share key indicators of
data completeness and accuracy in near real time as it releases
apportionment and redistricting data.
Today, we are issuing the first in a series of our planned
reports that will assess the operations of the 2020 Census and
identified lessons learned as planning begins for 2030. And,
unfortunately, it's not too early to already be thinking about
planning for the 2030 Census.
That report, entitled, ``2020 Census: Census Bureau Needs
to Assess Data Quality Concerns Stemming From Recent Design
Changes,'' recommends that the Commerce--Department of Commerce
and the Bureau, evaluate the possible data quality implications
and lessons learned, including the operational successes of the
Bureau's response to COVID-19.
We are very pleased that the Department of Commerce has
agreed with that recommendation, again, underscoring a
commitment to complete and accurate Census. Recently, as the
committee is aware, the American Statistical Association and
the Census Scientific Advisory Committee issued numerous
recommendations, including that the Bureau document, what it
knows about the quality of the population counts it provides to
the President and to the Congress.
Consistent with our report, the recommendation that
Commerce accepted and the work of these organizations, my
written statement details some of the Census quality indicators
that the Bureau should consider providing when it releases
those apportionment accounts.
More specifically, the Bureau believes, based on long-
standing practice, that the self-response from households
provides the most accurate Census data. However, the Bureau
necessarily at times uses alternative data collection methods
when it is unable to obtain Census data directly from a
household. These alternative methods include proxies and would-
be neighbors, and other knowledgeable parties, the use of
administrative records, and count imputations.
Looking at the rates at which the Bureau used each of these
alternative methods would give insight into the overall quality
and completeness of the Census. Nationwide rates provide a
high-level indication of overall Census quality, and it's
important that we take a look at those. However, in our view,
and very importantly, the Bureau also needs to examine the
rates at which it used each of these alternative methods at
lower levels of geography, and by key demographic groups to
provide an overall and more complete picture.
Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, members of the
committee, this completes my statement. I'd obviously be
pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
Thank you so much.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
We're going to take a brief recess, because we have a vote
in our Democratic Caucus meeting right now, and I want to give
all of our members the opportunity to vote.
The committee stands in recess for five minutes.
[Recess.]
Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order. Thank
you.
Mr. Santos, you are now recognized. Mr. Santos?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT SANTOS, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
METHODOLOGIST, URBAN INSTITUTE, PRESIDENT ELECT, AMERICAN
STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Santos. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman--
Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and committee
members. It is an honor to assist you today.
Please know that these remarks are my own and not to be
attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its
funders.
The story of Census accuracy is deeper and more complex
than the latest chapter on anomalies. These and problems yet to
be found reveal the consequences and risks. To help illustrate
the challenges to 2020 Census accuracy, I start with research
conducted by Diana Elliott, Steve Martin, and I last year, to
explore 2020 Census outcomes. This was preCOVID. We chose three
risk scenarios, and used Census Bureau research to simulate
2020 counts.
The most optimistic scenario mimicked the performance of
the 2010 Census, which came in within 1/100th of a percent of
an independent total population estimate. When we overlaid that
performance onto a 2020 population projection, we discovered a
net undercount of the population of 0.3 percent.
Stated differently, had the pandemic never happened and the
Census went as well as it did in 2010, an undercount would
occur. People of color are historically undercounted, and our
wonderful Nation had become more racially and ethnically
diverse over the past 10 years.
While this 2010 Census was accurate for the total U.S.
population, it came at the expense of fairness. In 2010, Whites
were overcounted by 0.8 percent, conveniently making up for net
undercounts for people of color. For instance, nonHispanic
Blacks had a net undercount of 0.8 percent; Latinx, 1.5
percent.
It is unfair to overcount one sector while undercounting
another to achieve overall accuracy. It reinforces inequities
in political representation, Federal funding, and economic and
public health opportunities for the next 10 years.
Why does this matter now? Consider the ongoing pandemic. We
see high racial, ethnic disparities in rates of job loss,
hunger, housing, instability, and health. Daily life for people
of color often focuses on just meeting basic needs, not
completing Census forms.
That brings us to the basic quality indicator, the self-
response rate. Self-response occurs when you complete your own
Census form. Research shows that lower self-response rates
increase the risk of a net undercount.
Now, our national 2020 self-response rate was 67 percent,
higher than that of 2010. But, in inner-city neighborhoods
where Latinx, Blacks, and other hard-to-count folks reside,
self-response rates were drastically lower, 50 to 60 percent or
under, while in less-diverse suburban areas, they were ultra
high, at the 70 to 80 percent or more levels.
These disparities varied more in 2020 than in 2010. So
people of color are at higher risk of undercounts than in
previous Censuses. Yet, this is just one of many risks that
this 2020 Census endured.
Besides the overarching pandemic, others included the
citizenship question fracas, massive population movements,
scheduling disruptions, natural disasters, and, of course, a
shortened data processing period. Each exposes, or each poses,
their own threat to Census accuracy.
But collection is done, so what's next? Well, we need
transparency. The Census Bureau should release data needed to
assess the quality of the counts by adopting the
recommendations of the American Statistical Association and the
Census Bureau's own Scientific Advisory Committee.
In closing, I commend the Census Bureau career staff for
their dedication, scientific integrity, and oath to uphold the
Constitution. They're esteemed and should be allowed to do
their jobs unfettered with all due diligence.
Thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Salvo, you are now recognized. Mr. Salvo?
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH SALVO, CHIEF DEMOGRAPHER, POPULATION
DIVISION, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
Mr. Salvo. Good morning, Chair Maloney, and members of the
committee. On behalf of the mayor and the nearly 8.5 million
people in the city of New York, I thank you for having me here
today.
As New York City's chief demographer, my message today is
twofold: One, the schedule for the decennial Census must
provide the Census Bureau professional staff with enough time
to do their jobs well, and in accordance with the rigorous
statistical standards we expect.
The Census Bureau, two, must be transparent by releasing
key indicators and giving Americans confidence in the Census.
The Census has been presented with challenges in the past,
but few have been as formidable as those posed by the 2020
Census. Among the challenges we have faced, the most pressing
has been the toxic mix of fear among many immigrants and their
families, combined with the devastating pandemic.
Thus, the challenge of overcoming this fear in many
immigrant communities has been hampered by the very absence of
physical, on-the-ground outreach that has been shown to
encourage response, especially self-response.
In an effort to cope with these extraordinary
circumstances, the Secretary of Commerce and the Census Bureau
leadership wisely reset the schedule for the 2020 Census last
April. This provided more time for the all-important
nonresponse followup, or, as demographers refer to it, NRFU,
when Census workers knock on doors in order to enumerate those
who did not respond on their own.
Unfortunately, this revised schedule was upended this past
summer, greatly abbreviating the time the Bureau had in the
field for NRFU and the time to process the data on the back
end.
Why should we be concerned?
First, the very definition of usual residence was likely
upended for many because of movement due to the pandemic, many
persons who were not enumerated at their usual residence as of
April 1, 2020, but in other locations--some students and
others, for example--in temporary locations with family members
or friends, or in second homes. For those whose usual residence
was in New York City on April 1, the Census Bureau needs time
on the back end to adjust their residence, as defined by the
Census Bureau.
Moreover, such confusion among respondents over where they
were supposed to be enumerated in the middle of a pandemic is a
virtual guarantee that large-scale duplication of responses
will occur. Deduplication, using data on forms that sometimes
lack important basic information, such as a person's name, is
laborious with substantial time required for successful
completion of the process.
Second, to increase response, the Bureau allowed
respondents to write in their addresses without a Census ID.
This is fine for those who have regular known addresses that
can be easily linked to the Census Bureau's master address
file, but not for those who have irregular addresses, where
apartment numbers do not formally exist.
The Department of City Planning worked for more than two
years identifying these addresses, by assigning them apartment
designators and getting them on the Bureau's address list. But,
without a Census ID, the Bureau needs to conduct additional
work in the field during NRFU to match these irregular
addresses to their master address file.
With less time in the field as a result of the abbreviated
schedule, it is very likely that many of these cases need to be
resolved by the Bureau as part of back-end processing, which,
as we all know, has now--has been truncated.
Third, there is a serious concern about how the Census
Bureau, in the midst of a pandemic, achieved a 99-plus percent
completion rate in parts of New York City where self-response
over a period of five months was less than 50 percent, given
this shortened NRFU timetable.
The answer is that, ``completed,'' in quotes, or
``resolved,'' again in quotes, does not necessarily mean--and I
quote, ``enumerated by a household member,'' close quote.
But what does it mean? It could mean that the enumerator
determined the unit to not exist. It could mean that the unit
was deemed to be vacant. The cases could have been resolved by
contact with a proxy respondent, or by our administrative
records, such as tax returns, Social Security records, or the
final determination could be an outright refusal or no
determination could be made for what was believed to be an
occupied unit.
The Census Bureau needs the time to assess these cases, to
evaluate the use of administrative records, or to assign a
count to households known to exist using a procedure called
statistical imputation.
Moreover, metrics need to be produced that reflect how this
Census was actually completed. For example, what was the level
of deduplication? How many persons needed to be reassigned to
their April 1 residence?
To conclude: One, the schedule for the decennial Census
must provide the Census Bureau professional staff with enough
time to process, evaluate, and correct what we all suspect will
be an increased volume of problems with this Census due to the
pandemic.
And second, the Census Bureau must be transparent by
releasing key indicators endorsed by the Census Quality
Indicators Task Force of the American Statistical Association.
Moreover, these metrics have to be provided for small
geographic areas, sub-state geographic areas, Census tracts,
the building blocks of New York City's neighborhoods.
This will not only provide data users with confidence in
the quality of the data, but will allow the Bureau to maintain
its credibility as the Nation's premier statistical agency.
I thank you, and I look forward to questions.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Landry, you are now recognized. Mr. Landry?
STATEMENT OF JEFF LANDRY, JEFF LANDRY (MINORITY WITNESS),
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Landry. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member
Comer, and members of the Oversight and Reform Committee. It's
a privilege to be with you here today.
Where we'd be productive today would be for every member of
the committee to stipulate that they are in full support of
legal immigration. It would be a great place to start.
If we can start from that premise that all of us support
legal immigration, then we can proceed to deal with immigrants
that, for whatever reason or circumstance, are in this country
illegally. From there, we would move to what the definition of
a citizen is, because to have a Nation, we must have citizens.
To be a citizen means to belong to a sovereign and be
bestowed with all of the rights, privileges, and protection of
that sovereign, like being eligible for the draft; serving in
the military; standing on a jury; voting; contributing to
Social Security and other safety net programs; having the
allegiance to our country. As the attorney general and citizen
of this country, I take special interest in this issue.
This committee is aware that the Constitution requires a
count of persons living in the United States every 10 years for
the purpose of representative reapportionment, and it places
the responsibility with Congress to direct the count by law.
To that end, Congress, you all, gave the Secretary of
Commerce broad discretion to determine the form and contents of
each Census. It similarly charged executive with reporting
those results of the apportionment determinations to Congress.
An example of the Secretary's broad discretion can be seen
in apportionment of overseas servicemembers. Depending on
several characteristics of their service, they are counted
either at their usual place of residence, or at their military
installation. Foreign nationals, tourists, and corporate
entities are excluded from the count and apportionment, even
though they are technically persons under the law.
These alterations come from policy directions of the
Secretary, and they are consistent with the language of the
Constitution and the goal of promoting equality. They ensure an
accurate Census and a fair apportionment, as the law requires.
This was President Trump's goal when issuing his memorandum to
the Commerce Secretary.
The President's memorandum relies on the powers granted to
the executive branch of government by you all, by Congress, and
the Constitution. Its aims are simple: to restore equality in
voting power by excluding illegal immigrants from the
reapportionment base. This is not a difficult fix, certainly
not as drastic as, say, adding another State to the Union.
The fate of three seats does not upend the balance of
power. We should always seek to ensure the balance of power,
and recognize that an illegal immigrant's presence should not
give one state power over voters in another state.
By counting illegal immigrants in the reapportionment base,
the Federal system incentivizes states to work against that
system, and against each other. Sanctuary policies that entice
illegal, entry enshield wrongdoers from justice, undermine
community safety, and the rule of law. But those states and
cities implementing these policies also see increased power on
the Federal stage, thus disenfranchising other states.
In this cycle alone, illegal immigrants are projected to
grow in giant states like California, Texas, and New York,
while states like Ohio, Alabama, and Minnesota, would each lose
congressional representation. To reiterate, people unlawfully
in this country are causing long-standing changes in our
democracy by simply being counted.
As the Supreme Court has recognized, few interests are more
vital to a state than the extent of its representation in the
House. Allowing illegal immigration to distort congressional
apportionment works an injustice to every state, not just to
those bound to lose seats.
Illegal immigrants must be excluded from the
reapportionment; otherwise, they disenfranchise other states by
unfairly distorting the apportionment of House seats in favor
of states with higher concentrations of illegal immigrants.
When determining the appropriate balance of power amongst those
that wield it, the Constitution demands that all votes be given
equal weight. We cannot achieve that precise balance until we
adopt policies laid out by the President.
I thank the committee for this time, and I'm happy to
answer any questions.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
We're having some connection issues and, with Mr. Landry's
presentation, he was wrapping up his presentation, so I feel
that I now recognize myself for five minutes.
I'd like to begin by asking about the new internal
documents obtained by the committee. These documents describe
at least 15 different problems the career professionals at the
Census Bureau have identified in the data.
They also show that career staff have warned the Trump
administration that complete and accurate data will not be
ready until late January or early February. As I explained
earlier, the Trump administration did not want us to see these
documents, but we were able to obtain them nevertheless.
I understand that our witnesses have now had an opportunity
to review these documents, so I'd like to start with a simple
question, which I hope you can answer with a yes or no:
If the administration disregards these data problems and
rushes to submit Census data before these problems are fixed,
would you have a high level of confidence that the data is
complete and accurate as required by the Constitution?
Mr. Salvo, yes or no? I can't hear him.
Mr. Salvo. No.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. Mr. Santos, yes or no?
Mr. Santos. No.
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Mihm, yes or no?
Mr. Mihm. Not until they're fixed, no, ma'am.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. Mr. Santos, I'd like to ask about a
specific problem described in Document 1, No. 1. In this
document, career staff identified a data error that could
result in skipping records for people who are counted in group
quarters, such as college dorms, nursing facilities, and
military barracks. Career staff warned that this impacts more
than 16,000 records, and if not corrected, quote, ``may result
in undercounted persons,'' end quote.
Mr. Santos, why is it a problem to undercount people in
group quarters? What is this about?
Mr. Santos. Well, group quarters are--represent individuals
in situations like nursing homes, college dorms, homeless
shelters, and the sort. It's important to count them, because
they are residents of the United States, and the Constitution
requires the Census Bureau to count individuals who are
residents.
And, with that, it's not surprising that the Census Bureau
has encountered a problem with group quarters since the group
quarters enumeration was disrupted during the pandemic.
So I am not surprised at all that, roughly, perhaps half of
the list of problems that have been revealed thus far are
related to group quarters.
Undercounting results in underrepresentation. It results in
fewer Federal fund allocation. It results in an inability to
properly plan in urban and rural areas. So we simply can't let
that happen, and I encourage the--that the Census Bureau, as I
said, be allowed enough time to sort all of this out, and to do
the best job it can to come up with the most accurate counts
that it can.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Salvo, also in Document 1, career officials identified
another error affecting about 46,000 records from people who
filled out paper questionnaires in nine states. The career
staff wrote, and I quote, ``if this error isn't corrected,
demographic data for persons will be missed and may impact the
final compilation counts,'' end quote.
So, Mr. Salvo, what could the impact be if final state
population counts and demographic data are not accurate?
Mr. Salvo. My main point would be----
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Salvo?
Mr. Salvo. Yes. The Census Bureau in, those documents,
talked about how maybe the problems that they were discussing
affected maybe seven-tenths of a percent of the population. The
important point to make is that that is not evenly distributed
over the geographic areas of the country, and that there are
some areas that will be more greatly affected than others.
Anything that compromises the content of the decennial Census
will be felt more in some areas than in other areas, and it's
important to note that.
And, if I may, Chairwoman Maloney, comment on the group
quarters? Can--would I--can I comment on that, please?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes.
Mr. Salvo. OK. The Census Bureau, because of the truncation
of the schedule, they stopped an external review of the group
quarters facilities that would be included in the Census. They
truncated it greatly. That's the first point.
And the second point is there are some jurisdictions in
this country with large numbers of GQs, or group quarters, that
define who they are. And it's a distribution that affects some
areas much more than others.
But, insofar as your question on content goes, we are very
concerned that the truncation of the schedule, less time in the
field to get those answers, has caused the Census Bureau to
push their enumerators to a point where, frankly, we've
compromised the data itself.
And that's what the metrics that the American Statistical
Association has promoted. That's what it gets at. And that's
not in the memo, OK? That's not in the memo. We need to go
beyond the memo, the quality of the data that they have, quote,
``corrected.''
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Mihm, let me ask about the last page of Document No. 1,
where it lists considerations and risks. In the final bullet,
the career staff set forth a stark warning. They explained that
they are working on a comprehensive patch with more than a
dozen individual patches to address all these problems. But
then they say this, and I quote, ``if the sequencing of patch
deployment isn't executed properly, it may result in other data
anomalies,'' end quote.
Mr. Mihm, in other words, if they try to rush this, they
could aggravate the process and result in even more problems.
Is that right? Mr. Mihm?
Mr. Mihm. Yes, ma'am. There is two actual concerns that we
have, and I think that are shared by the Census Bureau. One is
the rushing, as you mentioned. These patches have to be put in
place, they have to be tested, and then you have to see whether
or not you have to do the comprehensive fix to see whether or
not they all work together.
And we're still talking about the first stage of the data
processing. There is other stages yet to come before the
apportionment data comes out. The Bureau is certainly going to
be looking at that. We know from history that there will--they
can expect that there will be additional anomalies that will
show up there. The expectation, of course, based on history, is
that they will be fewer and less significant, but we're not
certain of that.
And I--and if I would say, if there is something that is
probably keeping the Bureau up at night as they process it,
that is probably it. What is going to be the second round, if
any, of anomalies, how big will they be, and will they be more
than historically expected?
Chairwoman Maloney. And could that lead to less accurate
data and even more delays, correct? Mr. Mihm?
Mr. Mihm. It could certainly lead to more delays. And, you
know, the important thing to--as a number of people have
already pointed out, is that what we are dealing with, with
relatively small numbers, in a country of, you know, 330, 340
million people, yet the small numbers are what turned the last
congressional seat.
In 2000, for example, the last seat was determined on a
population difference of less than 1,000 people. In 2010, it
was less than 16,000 people.
Now, you know, I don't want to imply that all of these
problems are that, you know, concentrated, that they're going
to turn one seat. But, rather, it's--you know, small numbers
are--do have a big impact at this point in the Census.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Clearly, the data errors in these internal documents are
significant and widespread, affecting all 50 states. They must
be fully addressed by career experts, and our committee must be
given the documents we requested in order to verify that these
errors have been fully addressed.
I thank all of the witnesses, and I'd now like to call on
Mr. Massie. You are now recognized for questions. Mr. Massie?
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I'd like to ask Attorney General Landry if he could go
through again for us how the counting, or the Census counting
of illegal immigrants, unfairly biases representation here in
Congress for certain states. And if he could explain to us
which--how that's going to affect apportionment coming up in
the next cycle. I believe you're on mute.
Mr. Landry. Sorry. Thank you.
Sure. So, if you take states such as rural states with
large--larger populations of, say, senior citizens, or states
with large populations of African-Americans or poorer states,
those states should be apportioned equally, right, and they are
all citizens in the country and should be counted.
Those states, such as California, that embrace the
sanctuary city policies and basically attracts illegal
immigrants to those cities, are then unevenly weighted, and so
those citizens in other states are, therefore, disenfranchised
when we reapportion the seats in Congress.
And so, that's exactly what the President was recognizing.
He wanted to make sure that all citizens were represented
equally in the country in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. Massie. So, if California gets an extra seat, or two
extra seats, because we're counting illegal aliens in
California, those--there are only 435 seats in Congress. That
means that some state, or states, somewhere, are going to lose
representation. Is that correct?
Mr. Landry. That's correct. So, right now, based upon what
we're seeing, you would think that--what we're seeing is that
Minnesota, Ohio, and Alabama, may be losing a congressional
seat. So, therefore, African-Americans in Minnesota, Alabama,
in Ohio, senior citizens in those particular states, are,
therefore, going to be disenfranchised at the expense of
illegal aliens in California.
Mr. Massie. And then, this sets up a perverse incentive for
states to--if they want to get another representative in
Congress, to incentivize illegal immigration into their states,
doesn't it?
Mr. Landry. That's correct. It's going to create basically
a competition between states to try to attract illegal
immigrants in their states rather than, the way that Ronald
Reagan always said, that people can vote with their feet, by
basically going into states--citizens moving from one state to
another based upon, say, economic means or opportunities.
It was interesting that we heard from one of the witnesses
when he talked about the amount of resources that could be
restricted to, say, minority communities or, again, to senior
citizens. Again, counting illegals in that basically, again,
take resources away from minority communities in other states,
like Minnesota, Alabama, and Ohio.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Attorney General. You know, I'm glad
we had a chance to discuss this issue in this hearing, because
a lot of my constituents are incredulous when they find out
that the Census actually counts illegal aliens who are in this
country, and that apportionment is therefore--is then based on
that. They don't even believe that that's actually happening,
but it is happening.
So, I think it's--I think it's good that we had this
hearing for that reason. But there are other hearings we should
be having that we're not having, Madam Chairwoman. For
instance, you know, this stimulus bill that we passed, the
$1,200 checks, we just found out a billion of those, $1 billion
worth of those--I'm sorry, over $1 billion of these stimulus
checks went to deceased individuals, and the check says
``deceased'' on it. I'd like to have a hearing on why are we
sending $1,200 checks to deceased people?
Also, it just came out in an NPR article that the IRS
admits that they are sending $1,200 stimulus checks overseas to
non-Americans. Why are we sending--when we have Americans in
need, why are we sending $1,200 stimulus checks to non-
Americans overseas?
I had a Norwegian who sent me a copy of his father's check.
The man's lived in Oslo since the 1970's. He's a Norwegian
citizen, not a dual citizen, received a $1,200 check, does not
file a U.S. tax return. Can we please have a hearing on the
waste, fraud, and abuse--and I've just scratched the surface--
that's gone on with this stimulus program?
Adding insult to injury, I know hundreds of my
constituents, many of them in the military, who still haven't
received the $1,200 check. I think it's an insult to our
soldiers serving overseas, that, you know, I know it's hard to
get people to respond to the Census sometimes, but we know
every member of the military. We tell when to get up, what to
eat, when to go, yet we can't find them in order to send them a
$1,200 check, and we're sending them to rich Norwegians
overseas. I think this is a problem, and it deserves a hearing.
And I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. I thank the gentleman for his
questions, and the GAO did, in fact, do a report on checks
going to deceased persons and pointed out ways to stop that.
There is legislation in the--before Congress right now that
would stop that process from going forward. We will have a
hearing on it and followup on it.
And I now recognize Ms. Norton. Congresswoman Norton?
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thank you
for this hearing. I think it's very important that we get
beneath the surface, and this hearing is doing that.
Now, I have a particular question, because I was a
professor of law at Georgetown Law School before I was elected
to Congress, and I even continue to serve--that is, to teach
one course at the law school, after coming to Congress.
So, I'm particularly interested in students, because I
recognize that they present a major challenge. After all, they
often have what amount to two addresses. They live at home, and
they live off campus. Yet, they are supposed to be counted in
their off-campus, or house--dorm housing. But, of course, COVID
now complicates matters, and many of them have been forced to
go back home.
Mr. Mihm, I'm concerned about counting these students,
particularly since, even before the virus, the Department of
Commerce Inspector General found that the Census Bureau had
been undercounting off-campus student households.
Now, that's--I guess that's before we got into the present
complications. They said that the Bureau's efforts to collect
data on off-campus students from college and university
administrators--and here I'm quoting them--will not mitigate
the risk of an inaccurate count because the Bureau has not--
does not have a final plan in place to use off-campus student
data.
Now, when you consider the complications of the virus, that
really concerns me, Mr. Mihm.
Are you concerned that college students who live on off-
campus will be undercounted, and what do you think we should be
doing about it, especially given what the Census Bureau had to
say about this matter, that this report was issued on August
27?
Mr. Mihm. Ma'am, your concern is very, very well-founded,
and what's interesting is that, historically, college students
living at school have been among the most overcounted
population--that is, double-counted, that they are counted both
at their university, usually where they should be, because it
is their usual residence, and they find that their family will
also count them back at home. You know, and so it's typically
been in the other direction.
The Census Bureau did work very hard with universities to
try and get an accurate count of the students in--both in their
dorms. That was an easier kind of lift for the Census Bureau to
work with the universities who would have been there. The much
more difficult one, as you're pointing out, is for students
that were living in off-campus housing.
In some cases, the universities had that information and
shared it. In many cases, they didn't have the complete
information of students living off campus. And, in some cases,
they were reluctant to share that information with the Census
Bureau.
The basic procedures that the Census Bureau would use in
those circumstances are consistent with what you would use in--
to enumerate any other unit, using proxy data, other
administrative data when they could, and, in the end, if they
have to, using imputations. But your question is very--the
concern is very well founded, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Yes. Mr. Mihm, many students--according to
information I have--what I heard them say, that many
universities provided data to the Census Bureau about students
in campus housing, but--and what I don't understand is they
have not cooperated with requests to help count students who
live off-campus. Why weren't they cooperating with these
requests? They should have had that data.
Mr. Mihm. Yes. In cases where they did have that data and
weren't willing to share it with the Census Bureau, ma'am,
frankly, it's not clear why, or at least I don't have a good
explanation so that I could, you know, inform you on that. You
would think that they would be willing to do it. It would
certainly be in the best interests of the university and the
local community where that university resides to make sure that
there is an accurate count in that community.
Ms. Norton. I'm going to ask the chair to look into the
matter of what the Congress can do to make sure that
universities do, in fact, cooperate in the future, because I
don't see any reason for that. I don't see any reason for that.
Is my time expired?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, it has, and thank you for raising
it, and we will look into it and get back to you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. I now recognize Mr. Gosar. You are now
recognized for your questions.
You're still muted. You're still muted.
Mr. Gosar. Can you hear me now?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes. Now we can hear you.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Well, I don't know how many times I can say it. It's ground
hog today once again in the Oversight and Reform hearing today.
How many times can we waste American taxpayer dollars to sit
here for the Democrats' conspiracy theories? But here we go
again.
When it comes to misrepresenting the data, the majority
here has been all too happy to undermine the integrity of the
Post Office, Postal Service--we'll keep that in mind--and the
Census Bureau, to the American people to score cheap political
points, only then to turn around and to critique their
Republican colleagues for requesting hearings regarding
integrity of the election because of reelection censorship and
irregularities in the vote count. But apparently, even assuring
integrity in the people's government has become a partisan
issue.
But, since we are here, let's get to addressing these
problems.
Mr. Mihm, thank you again for appearing before this
committee and the several reports your team has issued on the
Census. In September, when you were last here--appeared, I
asked you about this unprecedented Census, and how technology
and excellent field work by Census workers overcame the
challenges posed by COVID and weather barriers.
In your team's December GAO report, is it true that you
confirmed that the Census Bureau accounted for 99.98 percent of
all households in America?
Mr. Mihm. Yes, sir. And, Mr. Gosar, it is a pleasure to see
you again, sir. Yes, they--of their households, they've--
overall, they've done very well----
Mr. Gosar [continuing]. For the Bureau to tally the Census.
Your report raises concerns of the amount of time it has to
complete an accurate Census. I'm sure it would have helped if
the Census were allowed to end its data collection phase on the
September 30, like it was supposed to. But, instead, liberal
lawsuits granted in liberal Federal courts, which halted the
ending of the Census by 15 days.
There seems to be excuse after excuse to move the goalpost,
whether it's COVID, lawsuits, or even weather, all in the
concerted effort to have final counts to be done past
inauguration in the hopes of having it out of the hands of the
Trump administration.
Thank you, Mr. Mihm, again, for you and your team's work,
and thank you for our Census workers and the technical support,
which has allowed for an unprecedented response rate and
tabulation, which means to ensure that the American people are
counted accurately and in a timely fashion.
Attorney General Landry, in a democratic society, ``one
person equals one vote'' is a fundamental notion. The inclusion
of illegal aliens in the apportionment count dilutes this
principle, however, because it grants states more seats in the
body than they have legal voters. In the followup on this
election, ensuring that each vote is counted and recorded
properly, is something--is there something we must ensure, and
that starts with granting all Americans an equal vote in the
Congress?
I want to take issue of the vote dilution one step further.
One strength we had in the Census is its accuracy, which I have
previously mentioned. Yet, every day, hundreds of Americans
leave states like New York, Illinois, California--[inaudible]
Mr. Connolly. I can't hear anything.
Chairwoman Maloney. Wait. We're having some connection
issues. We're going to go to Representative Connolly for his
questions, and back to Mr. Gosar if he needs more--to complete
his question. Mr. Connolly--Representative Connolly, you are
now recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Can you hear me?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, we can.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. And first of all, let me begin by
thanking you. You have been a stalwart on the on whole issue of
the Census, and your leadership matters a great deal, and I
salute you and thank you on behalf of my constituents for your
advocacy of an accurate but careful Census. And thank you,
Madam Chairwoman, for that.
Mr. Mihm, the internal documents obtained by the committee
explain that the Bureau will, in fact, not finish fixing the 15
anomalies it has identified and verifying the final Census
count until late January or even possibly early February. How
important is it that the Bureau correct these data anomalies
before moving on to the next step in data processing and
completing the Census count?
Mr. Mihm. Mr. Connolly, the Bureau believes that it is
absolutely vital that they be corrected before they go on.
These 15 are what the Bureau has referred to as the critical
anomalies, and critical isn't a function of size. It's those
that are directly centered on the apportionment counts. And so
they can be small. Some of them, of course, are quite large.
They need to be fixed before you move on to the second stages,
and so that's--and that's in the Bureau's view and, obviously,
we would share that view with the Bureau.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
According to the Bureau's internal documents again, the
time needed to correct those anomalies, which you say is
essential before proceeding, include the need for preparation,
development, testing, and implementation of fixes. Would you
agree that there is just no plausible way to rush or shortcut
that collection process without further compromising the
quality of the data itself?
Mr. Mihm. Well, certainly, sir, rushing or shortcutting
would just be an enormously risky situation, and that's what we
are focused on with the Bureau. We have asked them for quite a
bit of documentation. We haven't received it yet. It's being
reviewed by the Department of Commerce and general counsel over
there.
So we want to see what is the critical path. What is
actually, you know, their timeline that is going to get them to
delivering the apportionment counts. We've heard, as many
others have, they don't have a firm date. They are looking to
get it in January at some point.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. And I think it is important to remember
that with respect to apportionment, I mean, you know, this is
really life or death for many, many communities, whether a
state has--loses a Representative or could have gained one but
for the lack of accurate data does not, let alone the
allocation of Federal resources.
So, I mean, the stakes are very high for communities all
over the country that we get this right, that we take the time
to make sure we get it right.
Mr. Santos, you are president elect of the American
Statistical Association, an organization that seeks to promote
and practice the profession of statistics, a really engaging
process.
Do you believe outside experts should have the opportunity
federally to review the Census data before apportionment count
is finalized? And, if so, why?
Mr. Santos. Absolutely. I am actually a big believer in
community-engaged research. Oftentimes folks and programmers
running diagnostics to find errors don't realize that they have
missed something that's crucial, and the only way that that can
be uncovered is by becoming transparent and allowing
researchers outside of the Census Bureau access to those data
so they can see if basically it passes the laugh test in their
local community.
I've heard instances where prisons ended up having a zero
population because they were allocated by mistake to the
counting next door. Those types of small changes may not affect
a state count, but they certainly will affect Federal funding
and planning, and so forth, within a state. And I'm very
concerned about the within state population accuracy.
Mr. Connolly. Final question, and maybe to you, Mr. Mihm,
again, but there are states that have statewide elections next
year. You know, many of us focus on, you know, the other 40-
something states that have elections coming up in 2022. But,
frankly, this Census data traditionally has been made available
early to Virginia and New Jersey and Kentucky, I believe, but
certainly New Jersey and Virginia because we have gubernatorial
and statehouse elections next year, and so we have got to have
the reapportionment data to be able to reapportion in time for
our elections next November, less than 12 months away.
How might the documents we have uncovered with respect to
the Census, internal Census deliberations, and the possible
delay of that data until January or February, how might that
affect states that have early elections and are desperately in
need of early Census data in order to do their reapportionment
before every other state?
Mr. Mihm.
Mr. Mihm. Well, Mr. Connolly, as a fellow Virginia
resident, I am well aware of what you're referring to there.
The biggest risk would probably be the knock-on effect for
redistricting data. As you know, that comes a few months after
the apportionment data, and if the Census Bureau runs into
challenges with--further challenges that delay substantively
the apportionment data that then have a knock-on effect for re
districting data they take that into the later spring, my
understanding is, you know, from all that we have seen, that
that could put some pressure on the states that do need to
redistrict for legislative races this fall.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
And Mr. Gosar still is not ready to complete his
questioning. All right, we are having difficulties connecting
with him.
Mr. Hice, you are now recognized for questions.
Mr. Hice.
Mr. Hice. Can you hear me?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, we can.
Mr. Hice. OK. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Just going back and looking at some stats from the past, in
the 2000 Census, under Republican control, two years before the
2000 Census, there were 18 hearings. The 2010 Census,
Democratic control of the House, two years prior before the
2010 Census were 11 hearings.
The years four and three prior to this Census, under
Republican control, we had nine hearings regarding the Census.
Now the two years prior to this one we have had only five
hearings. And I must admit the biggest bulk of the five
hearings that we have had over the last couple of years have
been simply hearings to bash the President and the
administration, not there were not some legitimate questions on
the hearing--on the Census, there were; but, by and large, we
were attacking the citizenship question and attacking Secretary
Ross, and so on and so forth. But we have only had five
hearings, and now today we don't even have representatives from
the Census here with us again.
The Census is counting every person in the country as they
are required to do, but the President is right by insisting
that only those who are here legally be included in the process
by which we as a Nation determine our governments.
And yet, here again, Democrats are intent on ensuring that
they tie up this process in order to get a desired outcome,
which, in essence, is to make sure that states with the largest
number of illegal immigrants are actually rewarded with extra
representation that they don't deserve.
So let me go--Mr. Landry, thank you for being here. I would
like to ask you as I get started here, regarding the temporary
restraining order and then the preliminary injunction from
Judge Koh, that ignored the Secretary's obligation by law to
meet the December 3l deadline to submit a final report to the
President.
Do you agree with that?
Mr. Landry. Yes.
Mr. Hice. OK. So was that then, in essence, compelling the
Secretary to ignore or perhaps even break the law?
Mr. Landry. Yes. Yes, it was.
Look, the whole topic here is that California was basically
hoarding resources of the Census Bureau when those resources
were needed in other states in order to complete the Census
count on time.
Mr. Hice. Well, so let me ask you, just in your experience,
for judges to order illegal action, is that a common practice
by judges?
Mr. Landry. In the Federal courts, in the liberal courts,
yes, it is, unfortunately; but it shouldn't be. The judges
should be bound to apply the law and the facts.
Mr. Hice. So you described in two different amicus briefs
how the residents of your state stand to have their right to
equal representation diminished by these two really perverse
legal efforts: One compelling the law to be broken; the other
counting illegal aliens in the apportionment which actually
rewards breaking the law.
Is that----
Mr. Landry. That's correct, yes. I got a little confused
between the two cases. We filed amicus in an intervention in
California in one case, and then the New York case that you may
have been talking about earlier was where the
[inaudible] were trying to basically ensure that we did not
count illegals for reapportionment, in order to reapportion the
House districts.
Mr. Hice. Right. And both of those have had--stand to have
a negative impact on your state.
I go back, and I just think of the Democrats in this
community, I go back to April, and in this committee, with
COVID as it was at that time--of course, April was a very
insecure time. No one knew what was going on. But in this
committee the Census stated in April that they were going to
need a four-month delay. But I would also remind everyone that
it was also in April that the Postal Service announced that
they were going to be insolvent by September.
Of course, that did not happen. There was a lot of
uncertainty going on in April, and as was brought up here a
little while ago, the Census met with us in August of this year
saying that they were going to be able to meet the December
deadline.
So things that were predicted, that were feared just simply
never happened.
Mr. Mihm, what was the enumeration rate at the end of the
2010 Census? Do you remember?
Mr. Mihm. The enumeration rate done--I'm sorry, sir. Do you
mean the undercount from the 2010 Census or----
Mr. Hice. Yes, the enumeration rate. I mean, you said
awhile ago that the one this year is 98.98. What was it in
2010? Do you remember?
Mr. Mihm. I'm sorry, yes. It's a little bit of an apples
and oranges, but what this is is when the Census is all done,
they do a major coverage measurement effort in order to assess
the quality in the Census.
The 2010 Census continued a pattern of improvement over
prior censuses and had a net overcount of about .01 percent. As
was mentioned earlier by Mr. Santos, that was different,
though, by demographic groups. You did have a net undercount of
non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics and American Indians living
on reservations. But the overall with a .01 percent overcount.
Again, that----
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired, but
the gentleman may answer the question.
Mr. Hice. He did answer the question, ma'am. I would just
like to conclude by saying I would love to be able to ask some
of these questions to Census, but, obviously, I can't because
they were not even invited to be here today. Hopefully, we will
be able to speak to them in person in the future.
And I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, I do want to say that some of my
colleagues have complained that officials from the Census
Bureau or the Commerce Department are not here today. Well, let
me just say that nothing is off the table going forward. We can
invite them.
This hearing was called because the Trump administration
refused repeatedly to share information that the Oversight
Committee requested over and over with our committee. We had to
learn about major problems not from the Census Bureau but from
the press. And then, finally, we got more information from
alternative sources that brought the information to us and felt
that we should have it.
I must say that we have invited--we ask for information
from Secretary Ross and from Director Dillingham, and they
refused to give us the information. That is why we are now
discussing the information that we got from an alternative
source.
We can certainly have Mr. Dillingham and Mr. Ross back to
another hearing next week. If you would like to request it, we
will certainly grant that to you.
Mr. Hice. We have----
Chairwoman Maloney. And the current status is--excuse me.
The current status is that we wrote to Secretary Ross
yesterday, and we gave him one week to complete--a complete
amount of documents that are unredacted, a set of documents we
requested last month, and if he does not, then he could very
well face a subpoena.
And I will also consider whether we need to hold another
hearing to hear directly from him and Secretary Ross. And if
you request it, Mr. Hice, we will certainly do it. And I hope
that he cooperates voluntarily.
Now, I have to announce that we have to take a very brief
recess because we have a vote----
Mr. Comer. Madam Chairwoman----
Chairwoman Maloney.--the caucus meeting right now, and I
want to give all of our members the opportunity to vote.
The committee stands in recess for five minutes.
[Recess.]
Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will now come to order.
The Chair now recognizes Congressman Raskin. You are now
recognized, Congressman Raskin.
We can't hear you yet.
Mr. Raskin. Can you hear me now, Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, we can. Thank you. We can hear
you.
Mr. Raskin. Good. Thank you very much.
Mr. Santos, is there any statistical benefit in requiring
the Bureau to deliver apportionment data by the end of the year
despite having been forced to suspend field operations for
three months? Shouldn't the Bureau actually have been given
more time than usual to finish its work rather than less?
Mr. Santos. I concur with that statement. As far as risks
of accuracy of counts are concerned, the shorter amount of time
that the Bureau has to produce quality data, the higher the
risk that something is going to go wrong.
Mr. Santos. OK. Do you agree with this decision to rush the
count and data processing could affect the quality and the
accuracy of the data assembled?
Mr. Hice. I cannot see Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Mihm. Yes, sir. Thank you.
From the data processing standpoint, it does have risk. The
initial plan from the Census Bureau--this is all pre COVID--was
to have 150 days of data processing. That then went down to
about 90 days, and now it is down to 77 days.
And so, it does put more pressure on them to both be able
to identify anomalies and then properly be able to address
those anomalies that they do identify.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Thank you.
Madam Chair, am I visible now? I was being told I wasn't
on.
Chairwoman Maloney. You are now visible.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Thank you.
So, Madam Chair, I heard some of our colleagues refer to
wild conspiracy theories, but they never got around to the
major one emanating from the President of the United States
today who invites us to believe that somehow there is a
conspiracy of dozens of Republican and Democratic election
officials and Secretaries of state around the country, Federal
and state judges around the country, all of whom have rejected
his ridiculous and nonsensical attacks on the election.
So just as the President has been waging sabotage on the
American electoral process, he has been waging sabotage and war
on the Census, which is, of course, central to the success of
the electoral process in America.
The administration tried to impose a citizenship question
on the 2020 Census completely outside of lawful channels and in
a way designed to distort and depress Census participation. It
refused to back off this plan until the Supreme Court struck it
down as arbitrary and unlawful.
Then when coronavirus hit and forced delays in the Census
and Secretary Ross and Director Dillingham originally tried to
do the right thing by seeking a 120-day extension to deliver
the apportionment counts to the President, then politics took
over again and the President reversed course.
And in September the administration abruptly forced the
Bureau to shut down data collection a month early and insisted
that it still produce the final results by December 3l.
So, he we are just seeing a series of outrageous attempts
to undermine and subvert the 2020 Census, just like the
outrageous attempts to undermine and subvert the 2020 election
by the President. And now, of course, they want to ignore the
plain text of the Constitution and overturn centuries of
governmental practice by not counting all of the persons in the
United States as clearly directed by the Constitution.
And, Mr. Mihm, let me come to you on that. Is it not the
case that there has been an unbroken practice of more than two
centuries of counting every person as commanded by the
Constitution?
Mr. Mihm. Mr. Raskin, that is my understanding. What I can
speak of from experience is I've been working on Census issues
since the 1990 Census. In 1990, 2000, 2010, I don't recall this
as being a topic even of minor conversation in any of those.
Mr. Raskin. The 14th Amendment says Representatives shall
be apportioned in several states according to their respective
numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state.
And there are a number of occasions in the Constitution where
the word ``citizens'' is used very deliberately and other
occasions when the word ``persons'' is used.
And the reason why we have this unbroken practice going
back to the very first Congress is because it is very clear
that the Constitution said that when we count, we count the
whole number of persons.
And let me ask you, if you were to follow the President
down this particular primrose path, do we even have a way of
counting people in different citizenship and immigration
categories? Is there a data base in the Federal Government that
states with accuracy the citizenship status of every person who
is in the country?
Mr. Mihm. Mr. Raskin, unfortunately, I am not able to be
overly helpful on that. That is not something that we have
looked a lot at. I know that the Census Bureau is looking at
literally dozens of different Federal data bases. The overall--
the individual and collective accuracy of those data bases is
not something that I can speak to, sir.
Mr. Raskin. OK. And all of that is to say we are not set up
to do this because it is not what the Constitution calls for.
This is yet one more effort by the administration to politicize
and destabilize and disrupt the Census in violation of the
Constitution, the laws that we passed in Congress to implement
the Census in more than 200 years of unbroken precedent.
I yield back to you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. Your time has expired.
We will now go back to Mr. Gosar, and we will set the clock
at two minutes and 30 seconds.
Mr. Gosar, you are now recognized.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you. And sorry for the inconvenience,
Madam Chairwoman.
I would first like to address the previous gentleman, my
colleague from Maryland, in regards to his comments in regards
to the election. I want to remind this committee that it is
none other than the gentleman from Maryland that had some
disbelief in regards to the voting machines that were utilized
in 2016 and the fraud that was in that election.
In fact, the gentleman actually introduced legislation to
actually--to have Federal oversight over the machines. So let's
be careful what we ask for. And I think I would be watching
Arizona as of yesterday and today in regards to what the
machines have done and that has been picked up on. So I think
all of us want a fair election. One legal vote is cast for one
legal individual.
Attorney General Landry, I want to get back to you. You
know, you were talking about the migration of votes from blue
states to red states like mine. Do we have the means to track
these migratory patterns to ensure that Americans count in,
say, California several months ago who have since moved to
Arizona are currently apportioned to their current location,
not their former residence? Do we have the means to do that?
Mr. Landry. I'm sure we have of the means to do that, yes.
I would believe that the Federal Government would have the
means to track that.
Mr. Gosar. And shouldn't that be part of the anomalies or
the final dictation? Because we are seeing--I mean, my
understanding is it is being reported almost 800 people a day
leaving the New York state for Florida and southern states. So
it seems like that would be a very valid number to follow,
would it not, Attorney General Landry?
Mr. Landry. It would be an interesting number, and I would
guess that the U.S. Postal Service would be able to provide
that information to the Census Bureau based upon the fact that
those people that would migrate from, say, a state like
California and New York, when they would go and seek residence,
say, in a state like Florida or Georgia or North Carolina would
be changing their address.
Mr. Gosar. Something like what we have seen Democrats
actually do in Georgia is say, come and register in Georgia for
this next election? Is that something----
Mr. Landry. I'm sorry, the question broke up. Could you
repeat it?
Chairwoman Maloney. Can you repeat the question, Mr. Gosar?
You broke up.
Mr. Gosar. Can you hear me, Madam Chairwoman?
Chairwoman Maloney. Now we can hear you, but we couldn't
prior.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Landry, we have seen Georgia Democrats
actually ask people to come and vote in Georgia----
Chairwoman Maloney. We can't hear you now. We are having
connection issues.
Mr. Gosar. I will submit my questions for the record. I
yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. Mr. Grothman, you are now
recognized. Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman, would you please unmute?
Mr. Grothman. Can you hear me now?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, we can.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Good. Couple of questions.
First of all, with regard to immigrants, as I understand it
right now, are there immigrants in the United States,
particularly from Mexico, who are voting in Mexican elections,
as I understand that? So we can go with Mr. Landry, but
otherwise someone else can answer it too.
Mr. Landry. Could you repeat the question, sir?
Mr. Grothman. As I understand it, there were articles a few
years ago that Mexican immigrants in the United States, and
particularly illegal immigrants, but Mexican immigrants are
voting or vote in Mexican elections. Is that true?
Mr. Landry. I don't know that to be an accurate fact. But
you can presume that if someone entered the country illegally
and is still a citizen of Mexico, then they could either return
to Mexico and vote----
Mr. Grothman. Do any of the other three people want to
answer that question? I mean, I found out, you just Google it
and it shows up. I was right in remembering that happens, that
efforts are being made by Mexican politicians to get people in
America to vote in the Mexican elections.
Any of the other three of you folks have a comment on that?
Mr. Santos. I would say it is safe to presume it is true if
you have a question following that.
Mr. Grothman. Well, it is true. I mean, you just Google it,
and you will find out that it is true. And I guess I think that
is a little unusual. Is it then--I wondered if that is true
where they register in Mexico--I assume they must have a
permanent residence--and, if so, are they being counted for
Census purposes in Mexico as well?
Anybody know?
Shouldn't we know that? We have four experts here. Are
people who are here illegally in this country, are they being
counted? I mean, I would assume within America--well, I will
ask another question then.
If I am an American citizen and I want to spend three
months, taking a student, spend three months in Great Britain
as a student for the fall semester, am I then counted for the
U.S. Census or not counted for the U.S. Census if I am actually
going to be there for a year or less than a year? What happens
there?
Mr. Mihm. Sir, Chris Mihm here. All I can speak to is what
the residency rules that the Census Bureau uses or the U.S.
Census Bureau is and that they would----
Mr. Grothman. Well, my question is--see, it is highly
relevant because we don't count people in two places, OK. If I
live in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, and I am a student at the
University of Wisconsin at Madison, it was earlier said that we
have a problem here because a lot of people double count,
right? Mom and dad think Missy is a Fond du Lac resident, but
maybe Missy is filling out her own form at the dorms in
Madison. And we don't want her double counted.
I think it is highly relevant as to whether people who are
in this country are being counted twice, in this country and in
other countries as well. Does anybody know that? You are all
experts on Census.
Mr. Santos. I can say definitively, based on Census Bureau
research, that 8.5 million people were duplicates in the 2010
Census, and I expect that to be much greater this time around.
Mr. Grothman. What percentage?
Mr. Santos. It was 8.5 million people were duplicate
records, erroneous records that were included in the counts of
the Census in 2010. And they, plus some erroneous inclusions,
ended up counterbalancing the 16 million people that were
totally omitted, missed from the 2010 Census. And that is the
only reason that the Census in 2010 was hyper accurate.
Mr. Grothman. OK. So you believe this time as well it might
be counting 8 million, 10 million people twice, be they college
students----
Mr. Santos. I think the duplication problem is going to be
on steroids and it's going to be much greater.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Well, that is reassuring.
Is any effort being made to make sure that if people are
saying their residence in Mexico, let's say, or any other
country, that they aren't also residents here? Does the Census
Bureau do anything about that?
No? We don't care? Or all of a sudden we don't worry about
accuracies? We are so accurate that we have 99.98 percent of
the addresses, we are doing something with them, but we have
got millions and millions of people who might be double counted
in this. And when you give me these double counted numbers, is
that just people that are double counted living in this country
or does that mean double counted like you are counted in the
United States and in another country?
Mr. Santos. It's a combination of things. It includes the
college students counted in college town, as well as home. It
includes divorced families, each parent of which wants to claim
their own kids. And it includes a lot of folks that have second
homes. So if you live in Minnesota and like to spend your
winters in the Rio Grande Valley, you can end up showing up
twice because you filled out the form in each location.
Mr. Grothman. Well, that is reassuring. We found something
new today.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank
you very much.
And we now recognize Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Sarbanes, you are
now recognized.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Can you are
hear me OK?
Chairwoman Maloney. We can. Yes, we can.
Mr. Sarbanes. Great.
Mr. Santos, I wanted to get your thoughts on a few things.
You co-chaired the Task Force of Census Experts at the American
Statistical Association, and you have said in your capacity as
co-chair that because it is data, our foundation for our
democracy, commerce, and everyday lives, the Nation deserves
publicly available indicators to assess the credibility of the
final counts.
And I appreciate your testimony here today reinforcing this
notion of accountability, of transparency, the accuracy of the
data, and the importance of bringing in outside experts who can
give the public more confidence that the Census is being
conducted in an accurate fashion.
Are you satisfied that the Census Bureau has provided all
the data that you and other experts need to assess the quality
of the Census count?
Mr. Santos. Frankly, that simply has not occurred. We want
very much for there to be more transparency. We've outlined in
our document, in our work force report, the indicators that we
know exist and could be easily generated and put out to the
public and to researchers so that we could establish for
ourselves independently the quality of the Census counts.
There's no question that there are going to be strengths
and blemishes to the Census counts. There are in any Census.
However, this time, because of COVID and all of the challenges
that I reviewed, I and others reviewed, over the course of our
opening statements, we think that there is a severe risk for
there to be highly differential quality aspects to the counts
across the country.
Mr. Sarbanes. I want to ask you about two relatively
specific components of the data. One is getting these measures,
these quality measures, assessed at the Census tract level. I
would like you to speak to why that is important.
And then the second has to do with the nonresponse followup
classes, and I understand those numbers sometimes can be put
inside of the overall percent completion rate at the state
level, but it is important to break out the nonresponse
followup and understand exactly what has happened with that.
So, if you could speak to those two particular issues, I
would appreciate it.
Mr. Santos. Sir, it is, as actually Joe Salvo has
indicated, incredibly important to get detailed quality
indicators down to the Census tract level because we need to
know whether some communities--Census tracts basically are
neighborhood level types of indicators. We need to know the
extent of which there are real problems, not just knowing the
total number of people there, but knowing their makeup so that
we can plan for things like schools and fire stations, and
things of that sort.
Not to mention--or not only that, but in terms of political
representation, if you have a collection of Census tracts that
is undercounted whereas the other, say, suburban Census tracts
are overcounted, you are going to set up the inequality that--
and inequity that we have heard throughout this hearing thus
far, where individuals end up getting less representation and
Federal funding than they deserve while others get more than
they deserve.
Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate that. And I want to emphasize
what you just said because, fundamentally, the Census is about
giving every person in this country the opportunity to stand up
and to be counted, and if you don't have that kind of accuracy
at the Census tract levels, you just indicated you can have a
situation where some--the voice of some people in some
neighborhoods, in some communities is being given more weight
than the voices of other communities and other individuals in
our country.
And so, you can perpetuate some of the unfairness and
imbalance distribution of sort of political power and voice
across the country that already exists in so many ways. The
Census ought to be combating that unfairness, making sure that
everybody's voice is given equal weight. So, I appreciate you
emphasizing that.
And that is why it is so critical, Madam Chair, that the
accuracy and transparency and integrity of this process be
protected, and I appreciate the opportunity to have us address
that today in the hearing.
And with that, I would yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Palmer, you are now recognized for questions.
Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
This is a rapid response question. It is a yes or no, so if
you would answer yes or no.
General Landry, should we allow noncitizens, regardless of
their legal status, to run for office in the United States?
Mr. Landry. Could you repeat that again, Congressman?
Mr. Palmer. I said should we allow noncitizens, regardless
of their legal status, to run for office in the United States?
Mr. Landry. Oh, no, sir.
Mr. Palmer. OK. Mr. Mihm, same question; yes or no.
Mr. Mihm. Sir, that's not something as a support agency to
Congress that I can offer an informed view on.
Mr. Palmer. Sure, you can. It is the law. I assume you are
familiar with the law. It is a yes or no.
Mr. Mihm. To the extent it is consistent with the law, I
would agree; but beyond the policy concern, that is not
something I can speak to.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I am not asking you a policy question. I
am asking you a question as to whether or not noncitizens,
regardless of legal status, should be allowed to run for office
in the United States.
Mr. Mihm. OK----
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Salvo, yes or no?
Mr. Salvo. I would say, based on the law, that would guide
my judgment.
Mr. Palmer. Well, it is a yes or no.
Mr. Salvo. If the law does not permit it, the law does not
permit it.
Mr. Palmer. So your answer is no?
Mr. Salvo. My answer is, if that is the law of the land,
that is indeed the law of the land. I would have to respect the
law of the land.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I am going to take that as an unmitigated
you don't want to answer.
Mr. Santos?
Mr. Santos. Actually I very much resonated with Mr. Salvo's
response. If the laws--if that is the law, then we should
follow it.
Mr. Palmer. Then we shouldn't allow them--should we allow
them to make financial contributions or in kind contributions
to candidates?
General Landry, yes or no?
Mr. Landry. No.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Mihm?
Mr. Mihm. Well, sir, the law should be followed on this,
whatever the law will be, and it is beyond my knowledge of the
precise requirements here.
Mr. Palmer. The law says no.
Mr. Salvo?
Mr. Salvo. If the law says no, I would respect that.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Santos?
Mr. Santos. Consistent with the law, I would say no.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you.
Should undocumented residents, regardless of their--well,
should noncitizens, regardless of their legal status, be
allowed to vote in our elections?
General Landry?
Mr. Landry. No.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Mihm?
Mr. Mihm. Again, it is whatever, sir, whatever the legal
requirements are, we would believe the legal requirements
should be followed.
Mr. Palmer. I will take that as a no.
Mr. Salvo?
Mr. Salvo. I would conform with the rules of the law. If
the law--whatever the law says, I would respect that.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Santos?
Mr. Santos. What Mr. Salvo says, I would say no.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I am--given those answers, should votes
cast in this last election by noncitizens, including people
residing here illegally, be counted and allowed?
General Landry?
Mr. Landry. Is that a yes or no?
Mr. Palmer. Yes or no?
Mr. Landry. No, they shouldn't be counted.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Mihm?
Mr. Mihm. Votes should be counted consistent with the law,
sir.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Salvo?
Mr. Salvo. Same. Votes should be counted consistent with
the law?
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Santos?
Mr. Santos. No.
Mr. Palmer. OK. Here is my point. Obviously a couple of you
would like to equivocate on this a bit, but we really--we
should count everybody, but not everyone should be counted for
apportionment purposes.
And one of the reasons that that is the case is the
transient nature of a lot of the people who are residing here
as noncitizens. About a third of the people who reside here
will not be here for the next Census. So it makes no sense to
count noncitizens for apportionment purposes particularly when
about six states account for over half of it.
General Landry, are you concerned about the fact that there
are states that have declared themselves sanctuary states, in
violation of Federal law, to protect people who are residing in
the country illegally?
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired, but
the gentleman may answer the question.
General Landry.
Mr. Landry. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Yes, I'm extremely concerned. I've been concerned about it
now for five or six years and have expressed and documented
well known statistics that show how unsafe these communities
are and that it is a public safety crisis.
Mr. Palmer. Madam Chairman, I couldn't see the clock, and
that seemed like a quick five minutes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Your time has expired.
OK. Ms. Kelly----
Mr. Palmer. All right. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Ms. Kelly, you are recognized for
questions.
Ms. Kelly.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn't know I was
next, OK. Sorry.
I want to ask our witnesses about what goes into fixing the
data problems that career Census Bureau staff identify in the
documents obtained by the committee. Document No. 1 includes a
slide on page four entitled ``Comprehensive Patch Development
Test and Computation Strategy.'' This slide lays out a detailed
11-step process that the Census Bureau will follow to try to
correct these errors. It includes developing patches to fix the
errors, testing those packages----
Ms. Lawrence. Hello, Madam Chair. Can you hear me?
Ms. Kelly [continuing]. And then verifying that they solved
the problem.
Mr. Mihm, why is it important for the Census Bureau to go
through each of these steps when fixing the 15 different data
problems they discovered?
Mr. Mihm. Well, thank you, ma'am, for the question.
The importance of this is that each of these 15 critical
anomalies, as they refer to them being critical, has its own
set of root causes, its own set of problems, and they need to
make sure, as your question implies, both that they get the
individual fixes right, but then the comprehensive patch, make
sure that it all works together, that it can all come together
again and provide an accurate count.
Again, this is just the first step or one of the early
steps, I should say in, the data processing. They have more to
do but even after the comprehensive patch is put in place and
successful.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Let me turn to another slide in the same document. Slide
seven is entitled ``Considerations and Risks.'' The fourth
bullet states, ``If the sequencing of patch deployment isn't
executed properly, it may result in other data anomalies.''
Mr. Mihm, why is it critical that the Bureau properly
sequences the steps to fix each of the data problems they
discovered?
Mr. Mihm. Because the key point there is that subsequent
data processing is dependent upon the earlier steps, and so
there is a critical path. In some cases, they can do
processing, you know, simultaneously, different types of
things. They're now at the point that they cannot move forward
or largely cannot move forward to a subsequent step until they
have fixed everything, all preceding steps. And that's the
concern that they have now.
Ms. Kelly. OK. The three documents the committee obtained
lay out the Bureau's detailed step-by-step timeline to fix
these data problems. If the Bureau was forced to shortcut that
process in the middle, could that impact the accuracy of Census
data, Mr. Mihm?
Mr. Mihm. The short answer to that, ma'am, is yes. And I
think that the Census Bureau professionals would certainly
share that view as well.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Document one also warns on page seven that more data
problems could still be discovered. It states--and I quote--if
anomalies are identified, they will be checked, assessed, and
additional time may be required for comprehensive relief.''
Mr. Mihm, given that at least two new data problems were
discovered in the last two weeks, do you think it is possible
that the Bureau will discover additional problems over the next
month that will take more time to fix?
Mr. Mihm. I'd go beyond that, ma'am, and say it's not just
possible, it's probable. And the Census Bureau actually expects
that there will be some additional anomalies, but they're
hopeful--and that's based on history in 2010 and earlier.
What they're hopeful is that these will be manageable and
relatively small, in which case then they think they can
maintain a schedule. Where they would get problematic for the
Census Bureau is if there are many of them or, you know,
depending on the significance of those anomalies.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much.
It sounds to me like this is a process that cannot be
rushed. The Bureau can fix these data errors, but that process
must be done deliberately and carefully.
With that, I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Higgins, you are now recognized for questions.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding this hearing.
I appreciate the witnesses for appearing before us today,
especially my dear friend and Attorney General from Louisiana,
Jeff Landry.
My colleagues have stated again and again during this
hearing and others that we need to get this right, we need to
get it right, the Census. I would agree.
But the most significant identifier for getting it right
for the American people is the question of, after this Census,
what will happen with apportionment regarding congressional
representation in our representative republic as that relates
to illegal residents present here in American, counted for the
Census but used for the purpose of apportionment.
May I say that Americans, by and large, that I speak to
across my district and across the country, are shocked when
they are advised that this Census could result and likely will
result in the reapportionment of congressional representation
at the expense of legal rural Americans, state by state--
several states could be impacted--to the benefit of illegal
residents in densities of populations in states that are
identified as sanctuary states.
It's shocking to Americans to think that their Congress,
their Congressman or their Congresswoman, could be districted
out, that their state could actually lose a seat so that
California could get another seat because of illegal residents
being counted for the purpose of apportionment.
Attorney General Landry, you and I have had long
conversations about the Constitution. Our Constitution begins
with ``We, the people, of the United States.'' It does not
begin with we, the people of the world, or we, the people of
the United States, plus whoever happens to be here illegally.
For the purpose of apportionment, sir, can you explain how
allowing illegal residents to be counted for congressional
representation apportionment, how that would impact America?
As a former Congressman yourself, and you continue to serve
honorably, the entire Nation, I thank you, Attorney General
Landry, please give America an overview of just how potential
this problem and the reality of this is and what will happen?
Where will these seats go? There are only 435 congressional
seats.
Tell America, Attorney General Landry, what will happen if
illegal residents are counted for the purpose of apportionment
in this Census.
Mr. Landry. Well, to start off with, thank you,
Congressman, I appreciate it. To start off is to recognize what
the goal is in reapportionment, and that is for everybody's
vote to be counted the same, to have equal weight across the
country in the House of Representatives.
And so when you have a state with larger populations of
illegal immigrants like, say, California, who can't even vote
in those congressional--or are not supposed to vote in those
congressional districts, but then you count them in the Census,
you amplify the citizens who can vote, the legal citizens, in
that congressional district against, you disenfranchise them.
You disenfranchise citizens, say, in Louisiana, right,
because you are amplifying the votes of those citizens against
the votes of citizens, say, in Louisiana, and, therefore, you
are diluting those citizens in Louisiana whose votes are not
being granted equally, say, to those votes in California. And
that's the problem.
We should only be counting American citizens in the country
in terms of reapportionment, so that as we apportion
congressional seats across the country, American citizens are
granted equal weight across the country in representation in
the House of Representatives.
Again, you disenfranchise, say, African Americans in
Alabama, Minnesota, Ohio this year who this decade may lose
representation in those particular states because we are
including illegal immigrants, illegal aliens in the Census
count for reapportionment.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Higgins. Madam Chair, time has expired. I thank you
very much and God bless you, ma'am, for holding this hearing.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Mrs. Lawrence, you are now recognized for questions.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
As you know, I represent the city of Detroit. And, Mr.
Joseph Salvo, in your testimony you recognize how important it
is, first, that it is enough time to deal with the problems
caused by this pandemic and, second, that the data is
transparent, detailed, and high quality enough.
In spite of extraordinary efforts, Detroit final self-
response was barely over 50 percent. I fear too many households
were counted using less reliable methods. Example: Examining
administrative records, interviewing neighborhoods and
landlords, and so on.
Is my concern legitimate? And, if so, what could that mean
for the accuracy of our final numbers?
Mr. Salvo. Your concern is very legitimate, Congresswoman.
Like in New York, we have many neighborhoods where self-
response was very low. And as I have indicated, the Census
Bureau has taken steps to close the gap, and in many cases
those steps may not have resulted in actual contact with a
household member.
We need to know so that we can have confidence in the
Census and what they've done. We need to know how much of that
happened. We need to know how many housing units were declared
to be vacant, how many might have been deleted from their list.
We need to know how many proxy responses were used. All of
these will give us a gauge so that, frankly, we can have
confidence that the career professionals have done what they
need to do.
Mrs. Lawrence. I also want to state that an undercount in
Detroit likely will cost the city 1.3 million CDC grants to
help prevent childhood lead poisoning, which is an issue in our
city. The money could have helped the city test more kids for
lead.
Knowing this and what might be the effects of the anomalies
on historically undercounted groups, specifically young
children, low-income families, Black and indigenous and other
communities of color, I want to know what can--how can we
provide a guess on what kind of anomalies might come up in the
next stage of data processing?
Mr. Salvo. I want to go to something that Mr. Santos said
earlier about duplication, about the idea that the Census
Bureau needs to get a handle on how many people were living as
of April 1 in the city of Detroit, for example, or the city of
New York. There was considerable dislocation. A lot of it we
believe is temporary, but it caused a lot of confusion.
People may have answered in two different locations. The
Census Bureau needs time to sort this out. If they do not sort
it out properly, the number of people that would be, for
example, put back into Detroit as of April 1 because they may
have left or put back into New York City as of April 1 will be
smaller than it needs to be.
I want to mention something earlier that has not come up,
which is on the Census form itself, they ask if you have
another residence or if you live someplace else, you lived
elsewhere. It takes time to get that information, to look at
administrative records, to look at all of the sources. Maybe
they don't have a name on the questionnaire.
The Bureau needs the time to figure it out. If they don't,
we could get hurt, the city of Detroit, the city of New York,
and the funds that go with that will also take a hit.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you so much.
Mr. Salvo. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back?
Mrs. Lawrence. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The chair now recognizes Mr. Keller.
You are now recognized, Mr. Keller.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all
the witnesses for being here today.
The Census is an incredibly important topic, and this
committee's work on the matter has been essential for the hard-
to-count people, like the rural parts of Pennsylvania's 12th
congressional District. We need to ensure the Census Bureau has
the resources and support it needs to successfully complete
this work.
By all accounts, Director Dillingham and the Census Bureau
are on track to deliver a complete and accurate count.
Anomalies being brought up during this hearing affect less than
63 one-hundredths of a percent of the data being processed, and
the director himself has said that these types of anomalies
have occurred in past Censuses.
While I appreciate the chair holding this hearing today,
the President's executive order on apportionment should not be
controversial. Since we do not use data about the number of
people visiting this country for the purpose of determining
congressional districts, by that same logic, we should not use
the number of illegal aliens either.
Mr. Landry, what kind of discretion does the executive
branch have to promote equity when determining apportionment
numbers?
Mr. Landry. Well, first and foremost, Congress has granted
the executive department tremendous amount of discretion in
order to conduct the Census count, and--and so they're--and, of
course, they have to comply with the Constitution as well. And
so, the Supreme Court has said so much in a case called
Franklin v. Massachusetts.
So there is no question that excluding illegal aliens from
apportionment promotes equality, because it prevents voter
dilution. It's interesting that many of the witnesses today,
especially Mr. Santos, has consistently reiterated--and I agree
with him--that people of color are being disenfranchised, but I
would submit that they're being disenfranchised because we're--
we are including illegal aliens in the count for
reapportionment.
Mr. Keller. And you actually mentioned the Supreme Court
decision. I believe that was Franklin v. Massachusetts. Could
you elaborate on the importance of that decision with respect
to the apportionment?
Mr. Landry. Yes. So, in the Franklin case, the Supreme
Court considered whether to allow Federal employees serving
overseas to be counted for the purpose of their home state's
apportionment, and the Supreme Court said yes, that basically
the Secretary had the discretion under which to determine
whether or not they wanted to be counted or not.
And they specifically said that--the Court specifically
said that the Secretary wielded a very broad authority to
conduct the Census in a way that promotes equality, and so that
grants the Secretary a broad amount of discretion.
Now, it's important to recognize that it's Congress--it's
you all that gave the Secretary that wide discretion.
Mr. Keller. Thank you. And I just want to followup on
another thing. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution uses
the term ``whole persons'' with respect to apportionment.
Can you clarify the difference between whole persons and
all persons?
Mr. Landry. Yes. You know, they--look, if you take Justice
Scalia's comments where he warned against what basically is
wooden textualism when interpreting statutory text. The statute
should not really be interpreted strictly or loosely, but
basically, it should be interpreted reasonably.
So let's say no one has ever interpreted the phrase ``whole
number of persons'' to include every person in the country,
because we don't count tourists. We don't count corporations,
but yet, corporations are persons as well.
So, again, it just goes back to emphasizing the fact that
Congress has granted the Secretary broad discretion in
determining how to define that and who exactly to include and
not include.
Mr. Keller. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Gentleman yields back.
Mrs. Plaskett, you are now recognized. Congresswoman
Plaskett?
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you so much, Ms. Chairwoman. Thank you
for holding this hearing.
As you may be aware, to any of the witnesses, the American
Community Survey, in the small area of income and poverty
estimate of the Census are not inclusive of the territories of
the United States, even though these areas of the United
States, nearly 4 million U.S. citizens, are included in the
decennial Census. A parallel version of the American Community
Survey exists for Puerto Rico, but not all of the other
territories.
In all of the territories, including Puerto Rico, some of
the highest poverty areas in this country, are not included in
the small area income and poverty estimates of the Census. I
have been on record in favor of including all of these
territories in the Census surveys and data.
Are any or all of you familiar with those surveys, both the
American Community Survey, or the small area income and poverty
estimates, and would any of you be able to briefly describe
what each of them does briefly for us?
Mr. Salvo. Yes. I work a lot with the American Community
Survey. It is the basis for the description or picture--drawing
a picture of the socioeconomic characteristics of the Nation.
Information that used to be captured on what was called the
U.S. Census long form, but the Census long form stopped in
2000, and we--in 2005, we had the first American Community
Survey.
It is a very large sample of the Nation's population, and
it is used as the basis for all kinds of work: school planning,
I can tell you from my agency, my position, that we use it for
everything. Again, education, income, how people travel, get to
work, all kinds of information that is very, very useful for
city planners, for example, or for rural planners, or for
anyone who is interested in the characteristics of the
population.
Ms. Plaskett. Or for us as, legislators, to be able to
utilize that information to show why our areas need funding or
don't need funding. So thank you very much, Mr. Salvo.
One of the things I'm concerned with is, because the
territories are not included and because we are some of the
highest poverty levels in the country--that's not a--that's not
an estimate, that is a fact. And the primary reason we've been
told that we have not been included is the lack of the
territories have been around insufficient funding, or lack of
availability of funding.
In any of your opinion, what would be the benefit of
including the territories--that's 4 million--for all of my
colleagues, these are American citizens, not just residents,
citizens, fighting our wars, a part of the draft. What would be
the benefit to us of being a part of the Census--of those other
surveys that are done?
Mr. Salvo. You would have a picture of the social and
economic characteristics of the areas you're talking about. My
knowledge of the Puerto Rico Community Survey, in that case,
it's actually very thorough. And, again, with a substantial
sample, and provides you probably with the basis for the
statements that you made earlier.
As far as the outlying areas are concerned, that is a
matter of policy, and it is a matter of funding that has to be
determined within the Congress, and an appropriation needs to
be made for that purpose.
But there is no question that it would benefit from
understanding the characteristics of the population. That
actually is a benefit to the rest of the Nation.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. May I just ask: The natural
disasters, how has--how might that have affected Census taking
and the Census count in, areas like the Virgin Islands and
Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas, that have not, in any way,
nearly recovered from natural disasters in the past three
years?
Mr. Santos. I can--sorry. I--it crippled the ability of--to
take the Census in those areas. There is no infrastructure. The
people are still suffering to this day. And so, it's tough to
motivate them to participate, even if you can send enumerators
out there. So, there is going to be a lasting impact on the
inability to properly account for the citizens of Puerto Rico
because of the disasters and the impact on the ability to take
the counts.
Chairwoman Maloney. Your time has expired. I now recognize
Mrs. Miller. You are now recognized for questions.
Representative Miller. We can hear you.
Mrs. Miller. OK. Good. I'm glad. Thank you, Chairwoman
Maloney and Ranking Member Comer.
And I appreciate you all being here today as witnesses.
As the Census nears its conclusion in these coming weeks, I
want to commend the work that has been done by the Census
Bureau to complete this year's count, given the difficult
circumstances that have been created by the virus and the
pandemic.
West Virginia could have easily been one of the most
difficult states in the Nation to complete this year's Census
count. But, instead, it appears that it's going to be a
resounding success, and I would like to thank the Census Bureau
for their diligent efforts during this time.
I strongly support the President's action to protect the
sanctity of our constitutionally mandated apportionment
process, so that all American citizens are represented fairly
and accurately. I get disappointed when I think about the fact
that my colleagues across the aisle and the media cheerleaders
spent the last four years covering conspiratorial actions and
ideas, instead of really working on what we should be working
on.
And the Supreme Court is hearing argument right now on the
case that will decide the apportionment, and the Census Bureau
will be delivering their completed product within the next
weeks.
Attorney General Landry, how will states like West
Virginia, who abide by Federal immigration laws, be negatively
impacted by unfair apportionment policy?
Mr. Landry. Thank you. Yes. As I explained earlier, when
you include illegal aliens in the Census count for the basis of
reapportionment, states like West Virginia, who may have a high
population, say, of senior citizens, those American citizens
are then disenfranchised by states like California that
incentivize illegal aliens to reside and protect them in their
particular states, and so basically, those illegal aliens are
drawn to California.
And then, when we count them for reapportionment, the
congressional districts are then weighted toward California at
the expense of states like West Virginia.
Mrs. Miller. Exactly. Can you explain why Federal law does
not prohibit the excluding of illegal aliens from congressional
apportionment?
Mr. Landry. Well, the Federal law would allow us to.
Congress has granted the Secretary great discretion in order to
apply those types of facts. In fact, I explained earlier, on a
case that the Supreme Court had issued in--under which the
Supreme Court said that the Secretary was granted wide
discretion as long as it passed the two-prong test, and that
was--No. 1 of that is that it ensures equality.
And, of course, when you basically weight those who are in
the country illegally, and you grant them greater weight
against American citizens, that certainly would not pass the
equality test, and would grant the Secretary the ability to
exclude them in the reapportionment numbers.
Mrs. Miller. Is there Supreme Court precedent that shows
the Secretary of Commerce has broad discretion to determine the
policy when it comes to the Census and the apportionment?
Mr. Landry. Yes. In the case of Franklin v. Massachusetts,
the Supreme Court reinstated the fact that Congress has
granted, or delegated that authority to the Secretary of
Commerce, and that that authority was broad.
Mrs. Miller. Could you explain how counting illegal aliens
for purposes of the apportionment base actually creates
incentives that encourage states to subvert enforcement of
Federal immigration laws so that they can be awarded greater
representation in the House of Representatives?
Mr. Landry. Yes. As I explained again earlier, what happens
is, is that states that have large immigration--illegal alien
populations will be granted greater power on the Federal stage.
Greater resources will then basically go to those states at the
expense of rural states that either have large senior
populations, or large minority populations.
So, again, you take a state under which--say, Minnesota.
African-Americans in Minnesota will be disenfranchised at the
expense of California, which has a greater illegal alien
population.
And so, again, it creates this system under which states
are incentivized to go against the system, to basically
encourage illegal immigration in those particular states rather
than to abide by Federal law.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. I wanted to hear you say it again.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mrs. Miller. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
Congresswoman Pressley, you are now recognized.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, for convening
this hearing, and with the urgency that it truly deserves. We
cannot risk endangering the livelihoods of millions of
Americans by compromising the integrity of our Census.
The United States of America needs a complete and accurate
count of all people. That is what the Constitution demands.
That is what my colleagues and I are required in order to do
our job effectively. As lawmakers, we rely on population data
to inform our policymaking, and to ensure that our communities
get the fair share of more than $1.5 trillion in funding to
support everything, from our transportation systems, to
education and healthcare infrastructure, to small businesses,
and to nonprofits.
For example, look at SNAP, our Nation's most impactful
antihunger program. Census data informs how to allocate its
budget of more than $60 billion. Across the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, SNAP helps one in 10 residents. And, in my
district, one of the most diverse and unequal, the
Massachusetts 7th, nearly one in five households receive SNAP
benefits.
Food pantry lines in east Boston and Chelsea have been
growing even longer over the past few months, underscoring why
SNAP funding is so important. SNAP puts food on the table for
our elders, supports our working families. It ensures that our
children don't go hungry.
The Census Bureau must take appropriate steps to process
and tabulate the final Census count to ensure that social
safety net programs, like SNAP, reach the people who need it
the most. The ongoing pandemic has proven that these government
programs are popular, and absolutely essential.
So, as we chart a path for COVID recovery, the Census count
will serve as a critical data source to ensure the hardest-hit
communities receive their equitable share.
Mr. Mihm, how important is the accuracy of the 2020 Census
in ensuring a fair distribution of Federal funding?
Mr. Mihm. Well, ma'am, I think you laid it out just exactly
right. It is that it's instrumental. Hundreds of billions of
dollars--in fact, estimates have been over $1 trillion that
we've seen over the next decade will be driven--of Federal
funds, will be driven, in whole or in part, by Census data.
And that's not just the counts, but it's also, in some
cases--with some programs, demographic breakdowns, whether it
be by age or gender, you know, depending on the type of the
program.
So, we need to have a full and complete count, and we need
to have that count be accurate in terms of the demographic
characteristics if we're going to adequately and sufficiently
allocate very scarce Federal resources.
Ms. Pressley. And, Dr. Salvo, how much of your professional
work occurs at the municipal level? Can you elaborate on that,
and how issues like housing and employment are impacted by an
inaccurate Census count?
Mr. Salvo. Yes. All of my work--virtually all of my work is
done in the neighborhoods of the city, and I can give you a few
illustrations, one that is very close to my heart.
Ms. Pressley. Please.
Mr. Salvo. When a school has to decide to redraw a boundary
around it, the Department of Education would come to us and ask
us, how best do we draw this boundary?
So, we take data for Census tracts in small geographic
areas, and we assemble it, and we look at the number of
schoolchildren, OK? We supplement that, of course, with the
American Community Survey data that was shown earlier to try to
figure out how many of those children are in need, OK? How many
of those children are below the poverty line?
And we create a picture for the Department of Education
that allows them to figure out how to optimize the drawing of
that district.
Now, if those children are not enumerated, and are not
accounted for in the Census and the American Community Survey,
which is based on the Census, does not show those children to
be present, we make decisions in the absence of information, in
essence, and it handicaps us.
So, I can give you a number of illustrations like this, but
this is just one way that it really matters at a local
geographic level what the Census Bureau has done. We need to
understand it.
For example, how many of those children were--were missing
or not missing? One of the reasons why I ask this is because,
as was alluded to earlier, omissions and duplication are not
generally in the same place. Neighborhoods do not generally
have this offsetting influence where you could, in essence, end
up with the correct number by virtue of errors in either
direction, OK? Areas with large numbers of omissions tend not
to be those areas with a large number of what we call erroneous
enumerations.
So, all of this needs to be taken into account. We need to
understand what the Census Bureau did, OK, in order to inform
our strategies.
Thank you.
Ms. Pressley. And, Dr. Santos, so it's fair to say that,
you know, for those communities historically marginalized and
under-resourced stand to be disproportionately impacted, those
that have been historically hard to count, Black and Latino
neighborhoods, immigrant communities. My district is 40 percent
foreign-born residents, and 53 percent people of color. Almost
40 percent of our households are single-female headed. So, if
we don't get this right, it sounds like what we will see is a
tsunami of hurt across this issue.
Mr. Santos. Not only that. We will be----
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired. And
you may answer it briefly. We've been called for a vote.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Mr. Santos. Yes. It will continue for 10 years, and
basically reinforce inequities that were preexisting for the--
like I said, for the next 10 years. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired.
We've been called for a vote, but I now recognize
Representative Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. We can hear you.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Before I begin my question, let me say this: I do
appreciate your and your members' sincere desire to ensure the
integrity of the Census, and I appreciate your willingness to
hold additional hearings on that.
I wish you all had the same sincere desire to ensure the
integrity of the 2020 election, because a lot of Americans
expect Congress to at least hold some hearings to see what went
wrong, and ensure that, moving forward, we don't have any
doubts about the integrity of our election.
That's the role that this committee can play. That's your
decision. And I strongly encourage you, once again, to allow us
to have a hearing as soon as possible on the integrity of the
2020 election.
Having said that, I want to thank Attorney General Jeff
Landry for testifying today about a topic that's very important
to his state and all of our states. I hope that his testimony
in the committee today helps everyone have a better
understanding of the President's action on apportionment, and
excluding illegal aliens from the apportionment count.
Attorney General Landry, on Monday, the Supreme Court heard
oral arguments in New York v. Trump case. You filed an amicus
brief on behalf of your state and several others. Is that
correct?
Mr. Landry. That is correct.
Mr. Comer. And can you explain why you decided to file an
amicus brief in that case, why it's so important to Louisiana
and other states involved?
Mr. Landry. Because what we want to ensure is that
everyone--every American, or every--yes--every American citizen
and every American citizen in the state of Louisiana and other
rural states around the country, that their votes are not
diluted.
And by, again, counting illegal aliens for the purpose of
reapportionment disenfranchises minorities in Louisiana, it
disenfranchises senior citizens in Louisiana, and it can
restrict the amount of Federal resources to those communities
who need them the most in those particular states, and that
those resources will then gravitate and migrate to states that
embrace sanctuary city policies defined in Federal law.
Mr. Comer. Each state's Member of Congress has their voice
and their vote in Washington, and I know you agree with that.
Giving a voice to individuals not lawfully present dilutes
citizens' voices. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Landry. That is correct.
Mr. Comer. Why does including illegal immigrants in the
apportionment base throw a wrench into the machinery of
congressional apportionment as you describe it in your brief?
Mr. Landry. Because, again, what happens is, is that, if
you count illegal aliens in the country, what you will find is
that those populations have swelled in states that have
embraced sanctuary city policies. States like New York and
states like California, they will gain additional congressional
representation at the expense of states like Minnesota,
Alabama, and Ohio.
And so basically, you're, creating congressional districts
that represent people who came into the country illegally, and
do not enjoy the rights--the complete rights and privileges of
American citizens, but yet, they will have representation in
the House of Representatives.
Mr. Comer. So you agree that a voter's vote in one
congressional district should be worth equally as much as any
other person's vote in any other district?
Mr. Landry. That's correct. And what----
Mr. Comer. Go ahead.
Mr. Landry. And what's more absurd is that--so let's take,
for instance--we all recognize--and it's not disputed by any of
the members--that the Secretary of Commerce has excluded
foreign tourists, people who are here in the United States on
tourist visas, from being counted in the Census. Yet, if that
person, under their theory, by counting them, then stays in the
country past the point of their visa, they, for some reason,
are now counted. Again, it leads to absurd consequences.
Mr. Comer. And wouldn't you agree that apportioning
according to the whole number of persons in a state can
reasonably be interpreted to exclude illegal aliens who are
residing in a state unlawfully?
Mr. Landry. Absolutely. In the Supreme Court precedent, the
Secretary has broad discretion to determine that.
Mr. Comer. And let me conclude my questioning by saying
this: I think an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with
everything you said, Mr. Attorney General. That's the position
that the Republicans on this committee have taken, and
hopefully, the Supreme Court and the Trump administration will
be able to do the right thing on congressional reapportionment.
Thank you again for your testimony here today.
Mr. Landry. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. Ms. Tlaib, you are now recognized
for five minutes. Representative Tlaib.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Thank you all so much for being here.
I want to make sure to share with all of the folks
testifying today our letter--the letter that I sent, along with
Congresswoman Lawrence on this committee, to Director of the
Census Bureau, about some of the really great unbelievable
concerns and allegations that we've seen come out in regards to
the 2020 Census in Michigan.
In Detroit, the overall self-response rate was about 51
percent, which is lower than any other large city in the
Nation, with some tracts as low as 4.4 percent.
Mr. Mihm, you know, one of the things I wanted to explain
to folks, what does it mean when you say self-response? Does it
mean personally getting the form and responding directly?
Mr. Mihm. So, this time, it's been a combination of that,
ma'am. It's been that--the paper form, but it's also been a
huge internet response option. This was an option that they had
this time. And, in fact, almost 80 percent of the responses
that they got of self-responses came through the internet.
Ms. Tlaib. So, in absence of self-response, the next
strategy for the Census, am I correct, is to employ, you know,
other processes, protocols, and things like that, so that they
can get a more accurate count. What are some of those other
processes they have in place if self-response is low?
Mr. Mihm. Well, the first big step was then to hire several
hundred thousand Census takers to go out and actually knock on
the doors. If they were successful, and then meeting with a
member of that family to--or the member of the residence,
rather, to then enumerate it, they would then complete the case
there.
If they were unsuccessful--and the rules, you know, are a
little bit different--they would either use a proxy--that is, a
knowledgeable person, a neighbor, you know, that could complete
that for them. They also supplemented that with administrative
records.
And then, at the end, if neither of those worked, there
would be a very small category left over in which they'll use
statistical imputation.
Ms. Tlaib. For all the panelists, you should know, given
the low self-response numbers in Detroit, the process needed to
count by 100,000 nonresponding households, and so, that means
organizing boots on the ground and doing that stage that Mr.
Mihm talked about.
The Census Bureau, under-resourced, of course, as we all
know, closed outreach offices, multiple kinds of outreach
programs. In Detroit, multiple Census enumerators actually have
come forward--to Director Mihm and everybody on the panel,
they've alleged that the Bureau did not follow proper protocols
or provide them with necessary supports to count every person.
I was there when one U.S. Census enumerator, Mr. Benson,
had publicly said that he was a Census worker in Macomb County,
which is a nearby county to my district in--which I represent
Wayne County. The Census in Macomb County was being handled
extremely well.
He said that additional work was needed in Detroit. He
specifically said, ``What I found was,'' quote, ``when I
reached out to people, I knew working the Detroit Census, they
had not even started yet.'' He also said, ``They are waiting on
work and haven't received any cases.''
Again, these are Census workers in Detroit, that was
assigned to Detroit. One Detroit Census captain, Ms. Foster,
also indicated shortcomings, she said, quote, ``As far as
proxies, it was unsafe and unorganized. Some days, I didn't
even get cases until 5 p.m., where I would put in my time from
10 a.m. until 8 p.m.''
Given that there are around 100,000 nonresponding Detroit
households that needed to be contacted, there was no reason for
the Census enumerators to not have work to do.
So, Mr. Salvo, why is nonresponse followup so important
when there are low self-response rates?
Mr. Salvo. The self--self-response provides the best data.
The research clearly shows this--Census Bureau's own research.
Once enumerators go into the field, as was indicated just now,
there are a whole number of options that can rule the day, so
to speak. For example, use of administrative records to
determine whether a unit is occupied or not, looking at Postal
Service Records.
Ms. Tlaib. Can I interrupt you?
Mr. Salvo. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. I know what you mean, but, like--it is important
for accuracy, and I think that's what you're trying to say, and
these are the processes, but what if the processes weren't
followed? I mean, I know of our mayor in the city of Detroit,
myself and many others, are looking to see what the final
number is. But, I mean, you know, this means a community like
mine are going to get undercounted, because, obviously, they
didn't deploy the same standards in Detroit that they did in
the nearby Macomb County area that what--you know, again, is
not, you know, a number of communities of color like it is in
Wayne county.
Mr. Salvo. Low self-response does lead to a higher
probability of undercount, no question. That is--has been
established. And what we have to figure out, though, is
whether--every Census has people who come forward. The metrics
that were mentioned before that they're endorsed by the
American Statistical Association, by Census Advisory Committee,
will give us a look into that world. It's called paradata is
what it's referred to, data about the process.
That information will give us a glimpse to what you're
talking about. That is one of the reasons why we have to get
it, because, if we're going to have confidence that Detroit was
properly enumerated, we need to get our hands on that
information, and that will tell us----
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you.
Mr. Salvo [continuing]. The story.
Ms. Tlaib. Also, Chairwoman, if I may--I know we have to
go. I would love to work with you directly in making sure,
again, the information is going to come out. It looks like Mr.
Salvo is waiting for that information to come out. I really
urge our committee to play a very, very key leadership role,
because I do think what happened in Detroit was intentional on
the part of this administration, and not doing it properly, and
having enough folks on the ground to be able to get folks
work--again, 51 percent nonresponse rate, and for them not to
have enough work, or have enumerators sitting around for hours,
Madam Chair, I just do think that we need to fully investigate
that so it's not repeated again.
Chairwoman Maloney. That's a good point. The gentlelady's
time has expired.
Our last questioner is Vice Chair Jimmy Gomez. You're now
recognized.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I really appreciate that we're having this hearing. The
Census is something that we cared about since--since I got to
Congress and something we've been working on, and a lot of my
worst fears came true.
My district, it's the 34th congressional District in
downtown Los Angeles, east side, lowest response rate of any
congressional district in California, lowest one, and it's
probably one of the lowest ones nationwide.
So, we have been concerned, and we've been asking for
documents from the Census Bureau, or the Commerce Department
time and time again. And, to get the documents and hear about
the issue from the press is really disheartening.
So, I have some questions that I want to kind of get into
regarding--from a GAO perspective.
So, Mr. Mihm, has the Census Bureau provided all the
information to GAO that you requested about the data anomalies
discovered by career staff at the Bureau?
Mr. Mihm. No, sir, they have not. It's the--and it's not so
much the Census Bureau. Our understanding from senior Census
officials is that it's under review by the general counsel at
Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice as being
bound up with the litigation.
Mr. Gomez. Has the Bureau provided details about the
number, type, and complexity of the problems that they have
identified?
Mr. Mihm. No, sir, they have not, for--again, for those
same reasons.
Mr. Gomez. Is this the first time the Census Bureau or, you
know, Department of Commerce has withheld information or
declined to answer questions from GAO about the 2020 Census?
Mr. Mihm. There is always back and forth between GAO and
the agencies about what's pre-decisional and all the rest. This
has certainty been--what I can say is that it has gotten more
problematic in recent months and, certainly since the middle of
the summer, been very difficult to get information.
We have not been flat-out denied anything, but things are
taking an extraordinary amount of time. For example, the re-
plan that was announced in August, we're still waiting for
detailed information on that.
Mr. Gomez. On the re-plan of which part? The----
Mr. Mihm. I'm sorry. The decennial, and, in particular, how
the Census Bureau was going to be able to take what had
originally been a 150-day planned processing, then went down to
90, and now, if they meet the statutory deadline, will be 77
days. And we just wanted to say, How are you going to be able
to do that? And we're waiting for that information as well.
Again, that's not the Bureau.
Mr. Gomez. So you're----
Mr. Mihm. That's with the Commerce.
Mr. Gomez. So you're awaiting for information on the plan
that was supposed to--they were supposed to explain it ahead of
time, right, before they did it, and they never provided--it's
over, right? The count's done, and you still haven't received
any of that information?
Mr. Mihm. Right.
Mr. Gomez. I find that----
Mr. Mihm. Sir, I'll give you one particular example that's
important for us, is that, you know, the Census Bureau has
state subject matter experts that review the Census data each
decennial. Last time, they--on the basis of these reviews,
every single state had to have their numbers rerun. And that
doesn't mean that there were errors in every one, but they
identified questions or things that they--that were of
sufficient concern that they reran the numbers.
The time available for these internal Census state-level
experts has been reduced this time around. We want to know
what, if anything, has been cut out of that, or what are they
doing to make sure that it will still be a quality review?
Again, we're waiting on the Department of Commerce.
Mr. Gomez. I'm glad you brought it up, because some folks
in my state have--California have mentioned that state review
by the demographers, and they're really concerned about how
that's going to impact. So, thank you for bringing that up.
And we know, in the past, GAO has provided recommendations
to the Bureau to help the Bureau better address their
workflow--workflow schedule, transparency, and prioritization.
Over the past few years, how many recommendations has the GAO
given to the Census Bureau?
Mr. Mihm. Yes, we've had over 120 recommendations just on
the decennial Census, sir.
Mr. Gomez. OK.
Mr. Mihm. I'm happy that the great majority of those have
been accepted by the Census Bureau, and we've been able then to
make some substantive improvements as a result of that. And
that's the point to the--you know, getting us access to the
information. It's helpful to us. It's good from a transparency
standpoint, but it also helps us identify targeted and specific
improvement opportunities, which our experience has shown leads
to an improved Census.
And so, this isn't just kind of geeky access kind of
issue----
Mr. Gomez. Right.
Mr. Mihm [continuing]. Between, you know, or an Article I,
Article II issue. This helps us actually help the Bureau
improve the undertaking of the Census.
Mr. Gomez. And you mentioned they accepted--do you know how
many--do you have a rough number they have accepted and
implemented of your recommendations?
Mr. Mihm. Of those 120, over 90 of them have been accepted,
and there is a number of them that are outstanding. That is--
the report that we're issuing today that talks about the need
for the transparency on the data that we've been discussing all
throughout this hearing. That's one where the Commerce
Department has accepted that recommendation, and so, we're
hopeful that it will be implemented as well.
Mr. Gomez. Yes. Well, thank you so much. And I know GAO
doesn't do--investigate just to cause problems or to play
gotcha, it's to improve the process. So, I want to thank you.
I also applaud the chairwoman's efforts to obtain the
critical documents from Department of Commerce. I would also
like to ask if the committee could send a letter requesting
information that GAO is seeking as well. There is no reason
whatsoever that this committee should not know exactly what's
going on within the Census Bureau's data processing operation,
as well as the state demographers when it comes to their
request for information and how that's impacting, how much
information they've gotten, what has been cut out.
Madam Chair, we know that Secretary Ross was withholding
the documents from us, and he basically admitted that they are
concealing them from the judiciary. So now we are also hearing
that it is withholding some documents from GAO. I think we need
more transparency. I applaud, once again, the chairwoman's----
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman is out of
time. The gentleman's time has expired, but, before we go to
close, I want to give Mr. Comer a chance to offer any closing
thoughts. Mr. Comer, you are now recognized.
Mr. Comer. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, it's always our responsibility to hold hearings to
ensure the integrity of the 2020 Census. It's unfortunate that
we didn't have any witnesses from the Trump bureau, current
staff, employees of the Census Bureau. I think that all the
data that we've been given proves that everything is going
according to plan.
And I applaud Director Dillingham. I think he's been
transparent with both the Democrats and Republicans on the
committee. I look forward to getting that Census data, and
hopefully, we'll be able to do what a majority of Americans
want. We'll have a true, accurate count of every single person
in America, and we will have a count that is used for
congressional reapportionment that excludes all undocumented
immigrants.
That's what the American people want. That's what our
position is as a minority on the Oversight Committee, and I
hope that we will be able to achieve that.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The message from today's witnesses is loud and clear. The
2020 Census is in grave danger. Census experts testified today
that data errors identified by career officials at the Census
Bureau are serious and must be fixed. They warn that if the
Trump administration cuts short the process to fix these
problems, the Census count risks being inaccurate and
incomplete.
We called this hearing because the Trump administration
refused to share information with this committee about these
critical data errors.
We had to learn about these major problems from reading the
newspaper. When we asked for documents about these problems,
the Commerce Department blocked them. Thankfully, we were able
to rely on other sources to get at least some of these internal
documents.
So just to recap, we went to Secretary Ross yesterday, and
we gave him one week to produce a complete and unredacted set
of documents we requested last month. If he does not, then he
could very well face a subpoena.
As I said earlier, we hope he complies voluntarily, but I
am open to calling Secretary Ross to testify under oath before
this committee if he does not produce the documents that we
requested.
In closing, I want to thank our panelists for their
remarks, and I want to commend my colleagues for participating
in this important hearing.
With that, without objection, our members have five
legislative days within which to submit additional written
questions for the witnesses to the chair, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you
are able.
This hearing is adjourned, and we are off to a vote. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]