[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]











                  OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                            DECEMBER 5, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-139

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability





    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             


                                   _______
                                   
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
                 
57-719 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2025

                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, Carolina                  Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida               Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina      Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida

                                 ------                                
                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                James Rust, Chief Counsel for Oversight
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051



























                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page

Hearing held on December 5, 2024.................................     1

                               WITNESSES

                              ----------                              

The Honorable Robert L. Santos, Director, U.S. Census Bureau
Oral Statement...................................................     5

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witness 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

  * Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.

  * Report, The Heritage Foundation, ``Census Bureau Errors 
    Distort 
    Congressional Representation for States''; submitted by Rep. 
    Fry.

  * Article, New York Times, ``New York Loses House Seat After 
    Coming Up Short on Census''; submitted by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.

  * Letter, December 5, 2024, from National Urban League dated 
    12-5-2024; submitted by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.

  * Statement for the Record, Mayor Shepherd; submitted by Rep. 
    Ocasio-Cortez.

  * Questions for the Record: to Hon. Santos; submitted by 
  Chairman Comer.

  * Questions for the Record: to Hon. Santos; submitted by Rep. 
  McClain.

  * Questions for the Record: to Hon. Santos; submitted by Rep. 
  Suozzi.

The documents listed are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                  OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

                              ----------                              


                       Thursday, December 5, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in 
HVC-210, U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. James Comer, 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Comer, Jordan, Foxx, Grothman, 
Cloud, Palmer, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, Perry, Timmons, Burchett, 
Greene, Fry, Raskin, Norton, Lynch, Connolly, Ocasio-Cortez, 
Brown, Stansbury, Frost, Lee, Casar, Crockett, Goldman, Tlaib, 
and Pressley.
    Chairman Comer. The hearing of the Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability will come to order.
    We want to welcome everyone here to our new Committee room 
for the next, hopefully not more than 12 months, while our old 
Committee room is under construction.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare recess at any 
time.
    I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Welcome to today's hearing on the U.S. Census Bureau with 
Director Robert Santos. The Census Bureau conducts several 
surveys and statistical products, but none is more important 
than the Decennial Census of the U.S. population. Article I of 
the U.S. Constitution requires Congress to ensure a population 
Census is taken every 10 years to serve as the basis for 
apportioning representation in the U.S. House of 
Representatives and allocating electoral college votes. It also 
informs how Congress allocates funds and how Federal agencies 
achieve their missions for the American people.
    Today, we will examine the Census Bureau's ongoing planning 
and preparation for the 2030 Census. While this event is still 
5 years away, preparation for the 2030 Census has already 
begun. Counting more than 330 million people is a massive 
undertaking. It requires engagement with national, state, and 
local stakeholders to encourage full participation, and it also 
requires the Census Bureau to leverage lessons learned from the 
2020 Census. Unfortunately, the 2020 Census was flawed in ways 
not seen in prior Censuses. The Census Bureau's Post-
Enumeration Survey, which measures Census count accuracy, 
revealed significant errors in 14 states. Significant errors. 
These errors predominantly benefited Democrat-leaning states in 
the allocation of congressional seats and electoral college 
votes. In contrast to the 2020 Census, no states were found to 
have had such errors in the 2010 Census, but in 2020, the Post-
Enumeration Survey suggests there were overcounts in New York, 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Delaware, Minnesota, Utah, 
and Ohio, and there were undercounts in Texas, Florida, 
Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Illinois.
    Six of the eight states benefiting from overcounts tended 
to favor Democrats in awarding congressional apportionment and 
electoral college votes. Meanwhile, five of the six states that 
were unfairly penalized by undercounts tended to vote 
overwhelmingly Republican. These miscounts had a huge impact on 
representation. Small numbers of proportional differences in 
population between states can impact the apportionment 
calculation. In the 2020 apportionment, a difference of only 89 
people was the tipping point for New York being apportioned 26 
seats instead of 29, just 89 people--89 people--in the state of 
New York. Based on the 2020 Post-Enumeration Survey, it is 
likely that miscounts caused Colorado to gain a seat it would 
have not gained otherwise, and for Rhode Island and Minnesota--
Rhode Island and Minnesota--to each keep a seat they would have 
lost. Meanwhile, Texas and Florida likely should have gained a 
seat. If anybody has been to Texas and Florida lately and been 
to Rhode Island and Minnesota lately, I would beg to differ 
that there is a significant difference in the growth and 
population increases in those states.
    It is imperative that we understand what went wrong in the 
2020 Census and take action to mitigate the risk of those 
similar errors in the 2030 Census. Mitigating these risks is 
even more important because there are major demographic changes 
happening across the country as citizens of blue states flee 
from those high-tax sanctuary jurisdictions for red states to 
enjoy lower taxes, a safer environment, and to exercise more 
freedom. Finally, the Equal Representation Act, passed out of 
this Committee and by the House earlier this year, is critical 
to ensuring fairness in our electoral process. This legislation 
adds a straightforward citizenship question to the Decennial 
Census questionnaire to ensure accurate information. It also 
ensures that only U.S. citizens are counted for apportionment 
of congressional seats and electoral college votes. American 
citizens' Federal representation should be determined by 
American citizens only. We must get this bill passed by 
Congress and signed into law.
    I look forward to hearing from Director Santos today about 
the Census Bureau's efforts to prepare for the 2030 Census and 
ensure its success and accuracy. I now yield to the Ranking 
Member for his opening statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thanks 
to you, Director Santos, for joining us here this morning.
    The Census is an essential Decennial constitutional 
function insisted upon by the founders in designing a 
government of We the People, and the Census was conducted and 
designed in 2020 under the Trump Administration, not under the 
Biden Administration. And, of course, as the Chairman says, 
there is demographic movement in America, in a free society 
where people have a constitutional right to travel across state 
lines and to move. There is always demographic movement, and 
the Chairman suggests people are fleeing taxes in the blue 
states. I know there are people fleeing the anti-abortion 
restrictions in red states because I have met a lot of them 
over Thanksgiving, actually, young women who do not want to 
live in the red states under the new regime of state 
legislative theocratic control over the bodies of women, but in 
any event, that is all part of the normal course of demographic 
movement. Americans can decide to live where they want to live.
    Now the Bureau faced some giant and unprecedented 
challenges in conducting the 2020 Census. It took place in the 
COVID-19 global pandemic, which significantly complicated the 
work of Census staff as huge parts of the public were worried 
about contracting COVID-19. It severely affected the work of 
the Census. Many Census activities were suspended or shifted, 
and in many states and localities, lockdowns and travel 
restrictions stopped the Census Bureau from accessing entire 
communities and neighborhoods. A number of other problems 
caused by the pandemic further affected the count, such as 
double counting people who had temporarily moved in with their 
family or friends to try to survive the crisis, or college 
students being counted twice after being sent home from school 
mid-semester, or not being counted at all if they were missed. 
Overcounts can occur when members of a family with a second 
home list their primary address in different ways or when a 
landlord lists a tenant as living in an apartment, even if the 
tenant lists another residence as their primary address if they 
have gone to try to wait out the epidemic in a different place. 
Overcounts and undercounts are not a new problem. They are a 
traditional problem, a longstanding problem, as the GAO says, 
but there is always a new variety of challenges in different 
settings, and obviously the disastrous response of the Federal 
Government to COVID-19 deeply complicated the work of the 
Census Bureau.
    The Census also had to contend with hurricanes and 
wildfires affecting a number of different states, and it was 
conducted following limited tests because of substantial budget 
cuts that had taken place in the years before the Census. There 
is no reason to see these undercounts and overcounts as 
anything more than the normal kinds of errors made during 
exceptionally difficult circumstances. But the usual profusion 
of conspiracy theories have proliferated from people not 
interested in making the Census work better, but simply in 
scaring the public and dividing people along party lines.
    The Post-Enumeration Survey is only intended to measure 
accuracy for a subset of the population. For example, it does 
not include people living in college dorms or people living in 
military barracks. Moreover, it draws its conclusions from a 
very small survey of 170,000 housing units out of 145 million 
in the country. In other words, the Post-Enumeration Survey is 
a tool to help inform and guide future Census activities. It is 
not a recount of the Census, nor can it be or should it be used 
to supplant or alter actual Census data for purposes of 
apportionment and distribution of government funds.
    I appreciate the Chairman calling this hearing today 
because we should all want a complete and accurate 2030 Census, 
but the solutions to achieve it are not really a mystery. 
Instead of cutting funding for the Bureau, as House Republicans 
have tried to do this year and years past, we need to make sure 
it has the resources it needs to conduct the planning and 
preparatory work that are essential to a truly successful 
count. Instead of threatening to add a citizenship question to 
the Census, which experts have warned will depress 
participation, we should support the Census Bureau in 
fulfilling the clear mandate of counting the whole number of 
persons in each state set forth in the Constitution.
    The Census must be an independent, nonpolitical exercise 
conducted by statisticians and qualified professionals, not an 
arm of the political office of whichever administration happens 
to be in charge, and we must ensure that the Census never 
becomes an authoritarian tool of fear and control, which is 
what it is in authoritarian societies. The Census must always 
remain a tool to nourish and improve our democracy by 
empowering Americans through equal representation and equal 
access to resources and opportunity. The Census plays a 
critical role in our democracy, guaranteeing there will be a 
fair allocation of House seats in the country and House 
districts of equal population within each state. It also 
assures that government resources and benefits will be 
distributed fairly. It is not easy to count 334.9 million 
people in the world's greatest multiracial, multiethnic 
constitutional democracy, and the Census must constantly 
improve its methods. This should be the grounds for analysis 
and serious conversation, not partisan-motivated conspiracy 
theory and fearmongering.
    Thank you, Director Santos, for your hard work, and thank 
you, Mr. Chairman for calling this meeting, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Today we are 
joined by the Honorable Robert L. Santos, who is the 26th 
Director of the U.S. Census Bureau. Director Santos was sworn 
into his current role on January 5, 2022, and leads over 4,000 
staff members conducting the business of the Census Bureau. He 
joins us today with over 4 decades of experience conducting 
survey research, statistical design and analysis, and 
experience with executive management.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witness will please 
stand and raise his right hand.
    Do you solemnly 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?
    Director Santos. I do.
    Chairman Comer. Let the record show that the witness 
answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and you may take a 
seat.
    We appreciate you being here today, Director, and look 
forward to your testimony. Let me remind you that we have read 
your written statement, and it will appear in full in the 
hearing record. Please limit your oral statement to 5 minutes. 
As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in 
front of you so that it is on, and the Members can hear you. 
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn 
green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the 
red light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired, and we would 
ask that you please try to wrap it up.
    I now recognize Director Santos for his opening statement.

              STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT L. SANTOS

                                DIRECTOR

                           U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

    Director Santos. Good morning, Chairman Comer, Ranking 
Member Raskin, and Members of the Committee. I am honored to be 
here today to relay the importance of the Census Bureau's work. 
I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about the 
challenges and opportunities that we face. We embrace our 
public service role and our special mission to provide quality 
statistical data about our Nation's people, places, and 
economy. We very much appreciate this Committee's vital role in 
facilitating our mission as well as supporting our efforts.
    The Census Bureau applies the best science, the best 
methods, the best technology available to advance our mission. 
Our work remains and must always be nonpartisan. In fact, we 
take great pride in being a nonpartisan Federal statistical 
agency. Our core values are scientific integrity, objectivity, 
transparency, and independence, and we live those values in all 
we do. As Director, I focus on where we are going and how we 
can get there nimbly, effectively, and efficiently.
    The Census Bureau enjoys a legacy of innovation. It is a 
legacy we are proud of. We face challenges that range from 
rising data collection costs to diminishing public trust in 
government, and yes, those two are related, yet our staff 
possess the talent, the tenacity, and the creativity to address 
these challenges. And this brings me to today's moment. I will 
highlight some of the important areas of work at our Agency. My 
written statement covers these in great detail.
    With regard to the 2030 Census, our goal is to count 
everyone once, only once, and in the right place. Our strategy 
focuses on enhancing operations and technologies, on spurring 
further innovation through small-scale testing, and on 
expanding our systems and methods. Our upcoming 2026 test will 
assess our operational design. Design improvements from this 
test will then feed into our 2028 dress rehearsal, and the 
dress rehearsal then will represent a start-to-finish run of 
operations, and with that, we will be ready to launch in 
January 2030, as we always do, in remote Alaska.
    More broadly, the Census Bureau is transforming and 
modernizing into a 21st Century Federal statistical agency. We 
are leveraging non-survey data sources and blending them with 
survey data to produce accurate, timely, and actionable data 
products. Recent efforts include a new statistical products 
first approach that starts with the purposes and uses of 
statistical data that people and businesses need. We are also 
spearheading a multiyear effort to modernize the current 
population survey in partnership with the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics. This will ensure its long-term sustainability. We 
are launching an annual integrated economic survey which 
replaces seven independent economic surveys. It promotes 
efficiency and reduces respondent burden.
    We are expanding access to data tools and apps, like My 
Community Explorer and Census Business Builder and Community 
Resilience Estimates, among others, and we are deepening our 
engagement with American-Indian and Alaska-Native communities 
and tribal nations where Census Bureau statistics are critical 
to addressing the governance needs of the tribes. All the 
while, we are continuously seeking input from and engaging 
stakeholders and partners, including Congress. You see, 
providing the public with relevant data helps to motivate 
participation among people and businesses and our Censuses and 
surveys. After all, we cannot achieve our mission without 
public involvement.
    In closing, I wish to thank you for this opportunity, and I 
look forward to your questions.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you, Director. We will begin with the 
questions. The Chair recognizes Dr. Foxx from North Carolina.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director 
Santos, for being here today. As the Census Bureau notes on its 
website, our founders included the Decennial Census in the 
Constitution to ``empower the people over their new 
government.'' To achieve this, each person must be counted so 
that reapportionment can proceed and give each state the proper 
number of representatives in the House and the proper number of 
votes in the electoral college. It is concerning then that the 
2020 Census Post-Enumeration Survey found that certain states 
had statistically significant overcounts and certain states had 
undercounts. Can you explain how these undercounts tended to 
harm red states and the overcounts tended to benefit blue 
states?
    Director Santos. Thank you for that question, 
Congresswoman. I will start by saying that we are a nonpartisan 
Federal statistical agency, and we strive for perfection, 
although it can never be achieved. As I said earlier, we use 
the best methods, the best science, the best data, the best 
trained people and experts in order to carry out a Decennial 
Census.
    Ms. Foxx. So, you are telling us that, but what assurances 
do we have that the Census Bureau did not try harder to 
``find'' people to count in the states that saw overcounts? 
What proof do you have that that did not happen?
    Director Santos. We have the proof of independent 
assessments by places like the National Academies, by the 
Government Accounting Office, and our own extensive data-
gathering and quality analyses that demonstrate that we 
followed protocol in the midst of a pandemic. And so, we are 
confident that we did the best possible job, and we are very 
proud of the job that we did for 2020.
    Ms. Foxx. But it is rather unusual that this Census in 2020 
had such a deviation from past Censuses. Is that not correct?
    Director Santos. Thank you for that question. 
Interestingly, it was almost unusual that in 2010 there was no 
statistical significantly different coverage estimates for all 
50 states. Most Censuses have some states that end up being 
overcounted and some being undercounted. It is a byproduct of 
any manufacturing process. No manufacturing process is perfect.
    Ms. Foxx. So, for the 2030 Census, have you identified ways 
to minimize any overcount and undercount? What are you going to 
do in the new Census?
    Director Santos. Thank you very much for that question, 
Congresswoman. We take the role of counting everybody once, 
only once, and in the right place incredibly seriously. We not 
only conduct the Post-Enumeration study, which you have cited 
in the statistics on over-and undercounts of states, but we 
have several other assessments. We have a demographic analysis, 
we have administrative record checks and so forth, and what we 
are doing is we are identifying the populations that require 
additional attention. It turns out that, I would say, about 60 
percent of the Nation's population is relatively easy to count 
because they self-participate. The balance tend to be 
individuals that represent historically undercounted people, 
and so we are focusing our attention to engage, to create 
better participation among those populations.
    Ms. Foxx. Will you be using new technologies, such as 
artificial intelligence, in the 2030 Census, and how will those 
technologies be tested to make sure they provide accurate 
results and do not open new pathways for error?
    Director Santos. Thank you for that question. That is a 
very important question. We see, and have been using, 
artificial intelligence and machine learning in many of our 
operations for years. We have quality checks that assure that 
egregious errors do not occur, and we typically use the AI and 
machine learning to create efficiency and effectiveness by 
leveraging administrative data, by reducing the efforts in 
coding and software, and creating better systems.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was intrigued by 
something the Chairman had to say in his opening remarks where 
he said that the loss of 89 people or 89 people short on the 
Census in New York led to the reduction of the U.S. 
Congressional delegation from New York by three seats.
    Mr. Comer. I said one seat.
    Mr. Raskin. You may have misspoken because I looked it up, 
but in any event, it was one seat. New York lost a seat, and I 
found an article about that, August 12, 2021, New York Times, 
``New York Loses House Seat After Coming Up 89 People Short on 
Census.'' It is hard for me to see how if the Census Bureau was 
involved in some partisan plan to enhance representation in 
blue states, the difference of 89 people could not have been 
planted by a conspiracy theory, if there was one afoot, but 
there was not, but New York lost a seat. It seems like that 
example completely contradicts the thesis that there was some 
effort afoot to artificially inflate delegations in blue 
states.
    In any event, if we talk about what really happened in 
2020, and I understand you were not there. The Trump 
Administration was in control. You were not the Director at the 
time. Is that right?
    Director Santos. That is correct.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. But the Census Bureau, even under the Trump 
Administration, was facing very difficult odds and difficult 
challenges in trying to make an accurate count, and I wonder if 
you would just explain what was the consequence of COVID-19 on 
the work of the Census Bureau?
    Director Santos. Thank you for that question, Ranking 
Member Raskin. There was some uncanny, terrible timing to the 
tragic pandemic. On March 12, we announced the availability of 
online participation, March 12, 2020. We announced that online 
participation in the Census was now possible.
    Mr. Raskin. Was that the first time that it ever happened?
    Director Santos. It was the absolute first time. It was new 
technology that we were using and, in fact, I will go further 
to say that throughout the Census enumeration period, we never 
experienced 1 second of downtime with that online system.
    Mr. Raskin. But still, there were lots of people who did 
not go online, then you had to do it the traditional way.
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Mr. Raskin. Just quickly, if you would, what were the 
challenges posed by COVID-19?
    Director Santos. OK. Thank you. Society shut down. We had 
to literally stop all field operations for several weeks and 
nimbly reconstitute our operational plan for the remaining 
time. We had to find a million masks and other protective 
devices for our staff, instruct them and train them on how to 
do that. In the meantime, people were consolidating households 
with elderly upstairs with COVID who were most possibly dying. 
And so, this notion that folks would simply stop and say, oh, 
it is time to do a Census and run and complete a form----
    Mr. Raskin. What about all the wildfires in the West and 
the hurricanes? Were those also an obstacle for your work?
    Director Santos. Those exacerbated the impact of the 
pandemic. Louisiana experienced a horrible hurricane that wiped 
out housing units and communities. Wildfires were rampant. 
There were also floods and things of that sort, so those were 
challenges.
    Mr. Raskin. You know, I remember--I am certain other 
Members of the Committee remember--that the Administration 
tried to stop the count a month early and said it would cut it 
off when only 63 percent of the households had responded to the 
Census. What was the result of that confusion?
    Director Santos. Well, you probably would have to ask the 
previous Director for the details on that. What I can say is 
that would have been absolutely tragic to the Decennial Census 
because we still had a lot of work to do, and we were able to 
do it in that remaining month.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. The Post-Enumeration Survey is a useful 
tool that produces estimates of these net undercounts and 
overcounts, but we know it is limited because it is a limited 
size sampling, as I said before. It is not a redo of the Census 
in any way. And I know some of our colleagues actually sued to 
stop the Census Bureau from using sampling in apportionment 
decisions back in 1998, and now today, the suggestion is that 
this far more limited survey, using a sampling method, is 
somehow more accurate than the Census itself. What is more 
accurate, this technical sampling technique afterwards or the 
actual block-by-block Census approach?
    Director Santos. Well, that is an interesting question, 
Chairman [sic], so thank you for asking that. You know, we 
spent $13.8 billion to do a complete enumeration, and we used 
the best science, the best methodologies, the best people, et 
cetera. That provides some credence as well as the independent 
expert reviews by National Academies and such on the value and 
the accuracy and the fitness for use of the Decennial Census. 
The Post-Enumeration Survey is designed not to estimate over-or 
undercounts, but to find where are the weaknesses and strengths 
in the methodologies that we use so that we can plan for a 
better subsequent Decennial Census.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Palmer from 
Alabama.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You made the point 
that the 2010 Census was fairly accurate. Here I am, Director 
Santos. I appreciate you being here, by the way. What I would 
like to know is, this is somewhat out of character for our 
Census. They are never perfect, but they are generally pretty 
reliable, except for the 2020 Census. So, what I would like to 
know is how much of the survey is based on actual direct 
contacts versus estimates?
    Director Santos. I do not understand the question. Can you 
repeat it one more time so I can----
    Mr. Palmer. OK, I am not going to allow you to filibuster 
me. This is a fairly----
    Director Santos. No, I want to answer you.
    Mr. Palmer. This is a very direct question. How much of the 
Census survey was based on direct contacts or estimates versus 
estimates? Was it 80 percent direct contacts? Was it 10 percent 
direct contacts? Do you know that?
    Director Santos. We will have to take that as a question 
for the record, but allow me to simply say that direct contact, 
if somebody responds to an online, that is a direct contact, as 
opposed to----
    Mr. Palmer. That counts. I am trying to determine how much 
of the Census in 2020 was based on estimates.
    Director Santos. Oh, OK. You are talking about the 2020 
Census?
    Mr. Palmer. Yes, sir.
    Director Santos. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. The 
estimates, and you may be referring to----
    Mr. Palmer. No, you are filibustering. It is a simple 
question, and I am going to assume that a substantial part of 
it was based on estimate, OK? If it is based on estimates, then 
who does the estimate? Who is responsible for doing the 
estimates? Is it a group of individuals, one individual? How is 
that done?
    Director Santos. Well, to answer your first----
    Mr. Palmer. Now, give me a direct answer. I worked in 
engineering. I understand direct answers. I ask you a direct 
question, give me a direct answer. Is it one individual? Is it 
a group of individuals? Who does the estimates?
    Director Santos. We will get back to you as a question of 
record.
    Mr. Palmer. I am not asking for names. I am just asking.
    Director Santos. I do not----
    Mr. Palmer. OK.
    Director Santos. You know, if I knew the exact number I 
would give it to you.
    Mr. Palmer. Here is what I want to know. If it is based on 
estimates, when you do estimates, you have a basis for the 
estimate, documentation. Will you produce the documentation for 
the estimates?
    Director Santos. Yes.
    Mr. Palmer. OK. Mr. Chairman, he has agreed to do that. I 
would appreciate if you would do that before the end of the 
year. That would be very helpful.
    And I assume that you maintain these files for full 
documentation of these estimates. If you are using estimates, 
and we have always used estimates, I mean, that has been a part 
of it. How is it that the estimate undercounts were 
predominantly in the red states with only one exception, 
because when you are using estimates, if you are making 
mistakes, it should be broadly dispersed without regard of the 
geographic location of the state. So how is it, if you were 
doing estimates, that it was disproportionately red states that 
were undercounted?
    Director Santos. Thank you for the detailed question, 
Congressman. I am not familiar with the statistics.
    Mr. Palmer. You are a statistician, though. I looked at 
your background.
    Director Santos. Oh, absolutely.
    Mr. Palmer. OK. Statistically, when you have that 
significant an anomaly, how do you explain that?
    Director Santos. Well, there are 50 states.
    Mr. Palmer. I know, and that is the point. There are 14 
states where the counts were inaccurate. The ones that had the 
undercounts are disproportionately red states. That 
statistically is an anomaly. You should know that. This is why 
it is so important, and I am counting on accurate information 
on the basis for these estimates, that when you overcount New 
York by almost 700,000 people and you undercount other states, 
that is very problematic from a statistical perspective. So, 
how do you explain it?
    Director Santos. Well, thank you----
    Mr. Palmer. I know you are not thanking me for the 
question. You are filibustering. Give me an answer.
    Director Santos. Random processes. If you take the 50 
states and you randomly assigned 14----
    Mr. Palmer. It is not a random process when you have a 
statistical anomaly like we see here.
    Director Santos. All possibilities can occur in a random 
assignment of 14 to 50 states, including the one that was 
currently realized.
    Mr. Palmer. Are you going to tell me that the people who 
were responsible for the estimates in the red states were 
incompetent? Their data was flawed? Mr. Chairman, I am not 
satisfied with the responses that I have gotten from the 
Director. I think we may need to follow up on this. I am very 
anxious to see what they provide us in terms of the 
verification validation basis for how they did these estimates 
because I think it is problematic just on a statistical 
perspective, and he knows that. I yield back.
    Director Santos. Congressman, we would be more than happy 
to provide you and your staff and the Committee with a full 
briefing on these. We are confident that the methodology was 
solid and that there are no anomalies.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Palmer will submit questions, and we do 
that. We say that at the end of the hearing, we will submit 
questions and expect a response----
    Director Santos. Mm-hmm.
    Chairman Comer [continuing]. And that response will be 
published in our final Committee hearing report. So, we will 
make sure that we coordinate with that, Mr. Palmer.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. 
Norton from Washington, DC.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Santos, thank 
you for being here today. The Census plays a critical role for 
communities across the country. For example, in Fiscal Year 
2021, more than $2.8 trillion--that is trillion with a ``T''--
dollars across 353 Federal assistance programs were directed by 
Census data. Census data helps determine the Federal funding 
communities get for critical services, like hospitals, fire 
departments, and schools. Director Santos, in order to 
accurately understand the makeup and needs of our communities, 
do you agree that we need to ensure that as many people as 
possible respond to the Census Bureau's surveys?
    Director Santos. Yes, I agree with that.
    Ms. Norton. Director Santos, what effect can it have on 
communities when populations are undercounted?
    Director Santos. That can lead to underfunding.
    Ms. Norton. The Republican bill to fund the Census for 
Fiscal Year 2025 would require certain migrants be excluded 
from apportionment decisions based on Census data. In 2019, the 
Trump Administration tried to do this by attempting to add a 
question to the 2020 Census asking about citizenship status. 
Research has shown that adding a citizenship question could 
have led to 9 million fewer people completing the 2020 Census, 
and Census staff reported that just a debate over adding such a 
question in 2019 made people fearful to engage with the Census. 
Notably, we already have methods for understanding citizenship 
trends because of other Census Bureau surveys. Mr. Santos, 
isn't it true that the Census Bureau already asks about 
citizenship on the annual American Community Survey?
    Director Santos. That is correct.
    Ms. Norton. Were you finished?
    Director Santos. I said ``correct.''
    Ms. Norton. The American Community Survey was created to 
make the Decennial Census simpler to complete. This facilitates 
higher participation and preserves privacy. And better Census 
data, in turn, enhances that communities receive funding and 
support that align with their needs. Asking about citizenship 
status on the Census would discourage people from participating 
and undermine the constituently directed purpose of the Census. 
It would particularly impact minorities who are already 
undercounted in the Senate. I have introduced the Ensure Full 
Participation in the Census Act, H.R. 7911, to prohibit the 
Census Bureau from asking questions on the Decennial Census 
about citizenship, nationality, or immigration status. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in addressing this issue by co-
sponsoring my bill, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield 
back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Biggs from 
Arizona.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director. 
Just generically, is it correct to state that the purpose of 
the Census is to conduct a headcount, which is to be used to 
determine the apportionment of this body and of Presidential 
electors?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Mr. Biggs. And thus, inaccurate Census counts could lead to 
skewed proportional representation among states in this body 
and a misallocation of electoral college votes.
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Mr. Biggs. Has the Census Bureau--well, let me ask it this 
way. We have seen reports that statistically significant 
overcounts were identified New York, Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, Hawaii, Delaware, Minnesota, Utah, and Ohio. 
Conversely, statistically significant undercounts were 
identified in Texas, Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, 
and Illinois. And personally, even though this has never been 
reported, I always think Arizona got hosed on that as well. But 
anyway, is that accurate with regard to overcount and 
undercount?
    Director Santos. I did not compare it to the list I had, 
but I am sure that you are correct.
    Mr. Biggs. Also, in 2010 and 2000, there was also 
undercounts and overcounts in those Censuses as well?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Chairman Comer. OK. Because it is so vital, Congress has 
given authority for there to be penalties for failure to answer 
the Decennial Census, and that is a $5,000 fine. Is that fair?
    Director Santos. I am not familiar with the amount of the 
fine, but it is correct.
    Mr. Biggs. Do you know the last time somebody actually had 
that fine imposed for failure to respond to the Decennial 
Census?
    Director Santos. The Census Bureau is not an enforcement 
agency, and we----
    Mr. Biggs. I know. That is why I am just asking, do you 
know?
    Director Santos. Yes. So, I was continuing with, we have 
never prosecuted anyone for not participating.
    Mr. Biggs. So, to your knowledge, no one has ever----
    Director Santos. That is correct.
    Mr. Biggs. OK. You conduct other surveys, one of which is 
this document, American Community Survey, right?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Mr. Biggs. And it has a much more detailed set of 
questions, like whether the respondent's house, apartment, or 
mobile home has a sink with a faucet; the amount of money paid 
monthly for rent, electricity; highest level of educational 
attainment of respondents and their families; whether they have 
health insurance coverage; whether last week was this person 
temporarily absent from a job; what their wages are; amount of 
income from interest dividends or rental income; whether the 
respondent has difficulty concentrating because of a physical, 
mental, or emotional condition; whether the respondent has 
difficulty dressing or bathing; and the list goes on and on.
    Director Santos. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Biggs. In the American Community Survey, there are 
penalties for failure to respond to that as well.
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Mr. Biggs. What are those penalties?
    Director Santos. I am not familiar with those, but I expect 
that they would be similar to the Decennial because the 
American Community Survey is part of the Decennial Census but 
spread across time.
    Mr. Biggs. So, how many times has someone been prosecuted 
for failing to respond to a Census Bureau survey, including the 
Americans Community Survey?
    Director Santos. To my knowledge, that has never occurred.
    Mr. Biggs. But you have it on the survey, and it scares the 
holy crap out of our constituents, saying that if you do not 
file this, and, look----
    Director Santos. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Biggs [continuing]. My deceased father-in-law was 85. 
He had someone coming back every 3 weeks telling him that they 
were going to put him in jail if he did not answer this thing. 
I mean, this is the absurdity. I am not blaming you per se 
because it is Congress' fault, because I think the whole 
fricking American Community Survey should not be going forward. 
You got the Decennial Census. There is a purpose to that 
Decennial Census, and as you said, it is the apportionment. 
That is what it is about. But when we start saying, hey, you 
know, who all lives here at your house, do you got running 
water, and those types of things. I can tell you what, my 
constituents, they say. We just want to be left alone. Why is 
the Federal Government continuing to go on? We are happy to 
answer every 10 years the Census and say we got six people 
here, four people, whatever it is. And I have a major problem 
with this, and I have a major problem with the fact that we 
hold it over people's heads saying if you do not answer this 
monstrosity here, you have criminal culpability, and that is a 
huge problem. And the reason I say that I am not angry with 
you, I am angry with us, is because we are the ones who can fix 
that, and we need to fix it, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I 
will yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlemen yields back, and that is the 
purpose of this hearing to make sure the same mistakes do not 
happen in 2030. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lynch from 
Massachusetts.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Director. 
You know, the backstory on this is if you live in a state where 
the elected officials are telling you it is run by the deep 
state, do not give information, be fearful of the government, 
that might be a partial explanation as to why people are not 
filling out the survey. I agree, it is onerous and it asks way 
too many questions, but, you know, we can work on that and make 
it better.
    But I just want to push back on this. I hear people 
repeating this op-ed article about Massachusetts being 
overcounted. The mistakes on the last Census, Mr. Director, 
were bipartisan. It was a mess in Massachusetts. I know you had 
some excuses with COVID and all that, but I know my district. I 
know my district. We have about a half a million students in 
Massachusetts. I got 35 colleges just in my city of Boston, 35 
colleges and universities. We did nothing on counting those 
kids. I know a lot of them were back and forth. Some of them, 
you know, took a gap year or whatever. We did nothing on those. 
The disparity in my district between the affluent suburbs and 
some of the areas I represent, in urban areas, large minority 
populations, they are classified as hard to count. We did not 
do any door-to-door, totally undercounted. I had a 30-percent 
response rate in some of my urban areas where I grew up, and 
then I have a 70-percent response rate in some of my affluent 
suburbs. So, there are some real problems there with actually 
going out and counting people.
    So, what are you doing about that, about the hard-to-count 
population there and also the student population? My Secretary 
of State, Bill Galvin, does an awesome job and was all over 
this. He is the liaison from Massachusetts to the Census, and 
we could not get people to come in and do that work during the 
last Census, and he was all over this, and it was a very 
frustrating experience. So, what are we doing about that?
    Director Santos. Yes, we understand that there are 
historically undercounted populations in communities because of 
evidence, like low self-response rates, in particular 
communities. We believe that that is, in large part, due to 
distrust in government, and what we have done is launched a 
continuous engagement initiative where we are going out and 
putting a human face on the Census Bureau, providing the data 
to communities, and engage----
    Mr. Lynch. I appreciate that. Let me speak to that issue 
because in the past--I am not talking about the 2020 Census--
but in the past we have had trusted figures help locally with 
the Census. So, we have had pastors, some of the Black churches 
get involved, some of the community leaders get involved, 
elected officials get involved. We explain. I grew up in the 
housing projects. I explain. I go door-to-door in my housing 
project. I explain to people that Federal funding depends on 
our response, and that means for veterans, for housing, for 
healthcare, for daycare. There are trillions of dollars in 
Federal money that depends on the count of the Census, and when 
you explain that to people and when that is explained to people 
by people that they trust, people will fill out that Census 
form.
    Director Santos. Hear, hear.
    Mr. Lynch. Yes. So, what I am asking you is let us not let 
that happen again in the next Census. Let us get back--work 
with Secretary Galvin. He is one of the best. He is our liaison 
from Massachusetts. He is all over this. He knows the state, 
and I am just asking--let us get back to a granular level where 
people actually understand what the Census is for. Maybe we 
should work together on getting rid of some of the extraneous 
questions, you know, that people find off-putting and that 
anger them and cause them not to fill out the form. Maybe we 
get rid of some of those questions. I am for that.
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield for----
    Mr. Lynch. I will yield.
    Mr. Raskin. Are you aware there are 353 different programs 
where assistance depends on people completing the Census?
    Mr. Lynch. Right.
    Mr. Raskin. More than 300.
    Mr. Lynch. Trillions of dollars. It is a great point to the 
Ranking Member. Yes, thank you. My time has expired, but I am 
willing to work with you, Director Santos. We got to do a 
better job than we did last time. I yield back.
    Director Santos. I agree. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Perry from 
Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir, for 
being here. Sir, should people from other countries be counted 
for purposes of apportionment or voting in the United States?
    Director Santos. What----
    Mr. Perry. People that live in other countries that are not 
citizens of the United States.
    Director Santos. We count all residents of the United 
States.
    Mr. Perry. Residents of the United States, but my question 
is--I will be clear--should people that live in other countries 
that are not citizens of the United States be counted for 
apportionment or be approved to vote in elections in the United 
States?
    Director Santos. Approved to vote for elections?
    Mr. Perry. Yes.
    Director Santos. That is a policy decision.
    Mr. Perry. No, I am asking. I am asking. OK.
    Director Santos. Yes.
    Mr. Perry. So, is it the policy right now, the United 
States, that people that reside in other countries, that are 
not citizens of the United States, can be counted for 
apportionment and vote in elections in the United States?
    Director Santos. Yes to the first, and no to the second.
    Mr. Perry. People that live in other countries that are not 
citizens can be counted for apportionment. That is your answer?
    Director Santos. If they are permanent residents of the 
U.S.
    Mr. Perry. No. People that are residents of other countries 
that are not citizens of the United States.
    Director Santos. If you are a resident of another country, 
you should not be counted.
    Mr. Perry. Yes, I was going to say, I do not think this is 
a hard question----
    Director Santos. No.
    Mr. Perry [continuing]. But maybe it is.
    Director Santos. No.
    Mr. Perry. You should not be counted. Should you be able to 
vote?
    Director Santos. Correct. You should not be able.
    Mr. Perry. You should not be able. So, I agree with you on 
those two conditions. So, that is a matter of geography, right? 
You are living somewhere else, you are not a citizen of the 
United States, so you should not be counted. You should not 
vote. That is a matter of geography. But if you are still a 
citizen of another country, but you just come to the United 
States, should you be counted for apportionment, and should you 
be allowed to vote? The only thing that is different in that 
scenario is you are no longer in the other country. That is the 
only thing different. Should you be counted for apportionment? 
Should you be allowed to vote?
    Director Santos. Well, I just want to be clear that our job 
is to count all residents in the U.S. and provide the numbers 
to the President.
    Mr. Perry. All residents or all citizens?
    Director Santos. All people who are residents of the U.S., 
all persons in the U.S.
    Mr. Perry. And what is that based on? What is that based 
on?
    Director Santos. That is based on the 1790 Census Act that 
calls for the counting of all persons.
    Mr. Perry. And what about the Constitution? Is that based 
on the Constitution at all, Article 1, Section 2?
    Director Santos. It is in the Constitution.
    Mr. Perry. And the Fourteenth Amendment?
    Director Santos. Yes.
    Mr. Perry. Does the Fourteenth Amendment not say 
``citizens, notwithstanding?''
    Director Santos. I am not that familiar with that.
    Mr. Perry. I am sorry?
    Director Santos. I am not that familiar with the language.
    Mr. Perry. Well, my goodness, you ought to be. You are the 
guy that is counting, and you ought to know who you are 
counting and why you are counting them.
    Director Santos. Well, we absolutely know that we count all 
residents of the United States.
    Mr. Perry. All residents.
    Director Santos. Yes.
    Mr. Perry. So, I can be someone who is from a foreign 
country, not a citizen. I just come over here, and I move here 
and I am accounted to make decisions on behalf of the citizens 
of the United States.
    Director Santos. That is correct.
    Mr. Perry. So, let us just take another scenario. I come 
into your home. I am not a member of your family, I do not live 
there, but I come in and I take up residence in your garage, 
and I start helping you make decisions for your family. Would 
you see that as the correct way to do things or the incorrect 
way to do things?
    Director Santos. I think that is a decision for the family. 
If you are talking about families working with each other. I 
have no comment.
    Mr. Perry. I am talking your family. I do not know you. 
This is the first time we have met. You do not know me, right? 
We have not met before. So, I just move in. I squat in your 
home and I start saying, look, I think you ought to park your 
car outside the garage because I am living in here now. Is that 
going to be acceptable to you?
    Director Santos. It is actually irrelevant to why I am here 
today.
    Mr. Perry. No, what it is is ludicrous. It is not 
irrelevant because what you are saying is that is exactly what 
we are doing in the United States, and you agree with that, 
allowing people from foreign countries who do not have 
citizenship, who do not live here, who do not have any 
authority to be here, yet somehow are given the authority 
through your office to vote, make decisions, and be counted for 
apportionment of taxpayer dollars under your Census, under your 
counting. Do you consider yourself a statistical agency or a 
counting agency?
    Director Santos. We are a Federal statistical agency.
    Mr. Perry. No, you are a counting agency. I took 
statistics. I took probability. Your job is not statistics. 
Your job is counting. The Census is to do the count, not come 
up with statistics about how many toilets are in my home. That 
is not your job. Your job is to count, sir, and you should 
count citizens of the United States for apportionment and 
voting rights. I yield.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Connolly from Virginia.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr. 
Santos, and I do agree with my friend from Pennsylvania. None 
of us are interested in how many toilets he has in his home. 
Mr. Santos, your directive comes from the Constitution of the 
United States. Is that correct?
    Director Santos. That is correct.
    Mr. Connolly. So, like the Postal Service, it is a mandated 
activity by the Constitution of the United States. Is that 
correct?
    Director Santos. That is correct.
    Mr. Connolly. And the language in the Constitution says, 
does it not, that the Census is to count every person in the 
United States. Is that correct?
    Director Santos. That is correct.
    Mr. Connolly. It does not say ``resident.'' It says 
``person.''
    Director Santos. The Census Act includes----
    Mr. Connolly. No, no, the Constitution----
    Director Santos. OK.
    Mr. Connolly [continuing]. Does not say ``resident.'' It 
says ``person.'' Is that correct?
    Director Santos. All persons, correct.
    Mr. Connolly. It does not say ``American citizen.'' Is that 
correct?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Mr. Connolly. Why do you think the founders in writing of 
the Constitution used that language? Why wouldn't they just say 
count every citizen?
    Director Santos. I am not a historian, Congressman, so I 
would leave that to others to----
    Mr. Connolly. Well, you want to speculate with me? I mean, 
wouldn't we want to know who is living in the United States, 
who is here, whether they are citizens or not? Might that not 
be an important piece of information?
    Director Santos. Our job is to do a complete enumeration, 
and we do that.
    Mr. Connolly. But that is the mandate you have got, right?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Mr. Connolly. Right. So, I was listening to the Chairman, 
and he seemed to be suggesting we only ought to count American 
citizens. If I read the Constitution correctly, and I know my 
friend, the Ranking Member, is a constitutional scholar, if you 
want to change that, you got to change the Constitution. You 
have got to amend the Constitution. There have also been hints 
and innuendos, Mr. Santos, at some kind of conspiracy up there 
in whatever top management floor you occupy, a cabal that set 
about to deliberately skew the numbers, that we are going to 
overcount population in blue states and, coincidentally, 
undercount population in red states, thus favoring blue states 
for the electoral college and the apportionment here in the 
U.S. Congress. I want to give you an opportunity to confirm or 
deny that you headed a cabal in the Census Bureau to ensure 
that there was a favorable disposition toward blue states and 
an unfavorable disposition with respect to enumeration and 
counting of persons in red states.
    Director Santos. I wholly reject that claim.
    Mr. Connolly. You reject it.
    Director Santos. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. You did not do that?
    Director Santos. We did not do that.
    Mr. Connolly. Did you have subalterns who did it?
    Director Santos. No.
    Mr. Connolly. In doing the count, do you train Census 
enumerators to wink and blink and have a bias toward a 
particular political persuasion when they are doing the count?
    Director Santos. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Connolly. And let me ask about other factors that might 
affect the count. Let us take money. In the 10 years prior to 
the 2020 Census, were there budget cuts to the Census Bureau's 
budget?
    Director Santos. My recollection is that there were.
    Mr. Connolly. There were. Could those budget counts 
conceivably have an impact on your ability to do the 
enumeration you are required to do by the Constitution, and 
could that, in fact, even affect the accuracy of that 
enumeration?
    Director Santos. Yes. In fact, the budget cuts, they led to 
a cutback in the extent to which we could test the operation 
leading up to the 2020 Census, and that, in turn, raised the 
risk that things could go wrong.
    Mr. Connolly. And in March 2020, was there some kind of 
nationwide, in fact global, health tragedy that cost 1.2 
million American lives and might have affected the ability to 
recruit Census enumerators, let alone knock on doors and try to 
get information for those who did not go online in answering 
the Census?
    Director Santos. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. What was that health crisis?
    Director Santos. What was that? Come again? What was what?
    Mr. Connolly. It was COVID-19?
    Director Santos. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. And was that the first such pandemic in the 
United States and the world in over a hundred years?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Mr. Connolly. So, combination of the budget and your 
ability to recruit and do your work based on the worst pandemic 
in a hundred years, might have conceivably affected both 
accuracy and your ability to do the count, though you, in fact, 
completed the Census. Is that correct?
    Director Santos. That is correct, and we are proud of the 
job we did.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Jordan from Ohio.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, did it take 
a constitutional amendment for the Census Bureau to be able to 
ask Americans whether you rent your home or own your home?
    Director Santos. No.
    Mr. Jordan. Mr. Connolly said you cannot ask if they are a 
citizen unless we change the Constitution. I understand the 
Constitution says you have got to count persons and that is 
what you do, but you ask a lot of other things. You find out a 
lot of other information: do rent your home, do own your home. 
You ask if they are deaf or if they are blind in this American 
Community Survey that comes from the Census Bureau. You ask if 
they got any mental illness. So, you can do that, but you 
cannot ask sort of the fundamental question that applies to how 
we apportion seats for the U.S. Congress, whether you are a 
citizen or not? You cannot do that?
    Director Santos. We can do whatever we need to do----
    Mr. Jordan. Exactly.
    Mr. Santos [continuing]. Yes, according to whatever the----
    Mr. Jordan. We just need to tell you to do that, but 
Democrats do not want to do that, do they? We want you to find 
out how many citizen, how many persons are in the country 
because that is what the Constitution says. We passed 
legislation on this Committee--we want you to also ask the 
question how many citizens are there in the country. Are you 
opposed to doing that?
    Director Santos. I am opposed to not providing Congress 
with the information that it needs.
    Mr. Jordan. I understand that. I am asking do you think it 
is a good idea for Congress or the policy-makers to put on the 
survey, on the Census, asking that question, are you a citizen 
or not?
    Director Santos. We will do whatever the mandates are.
    Mr. Jordan. I am asking your opinion. You are the guy who 
does it. What do you think you think? Do you think that would 
be good for us to do?
    Director Santos. I think that we would need to take a very 
careful look because there is evidence that adding a 
citizenship question to the Decennial Census would dampen 
participation.
    Mr. Jordan. Is there any evidence when you ask an American 
citizen, if we ask you if you got a mental illness, that that 
might discourage participation? Did you get any evidence on 
that?
    Director Santos. That is part of the American Community 
Survey, and we ask it, and we get great participation on that.
    Mr. Jordan. So, you can ask people whether they have got a 
mental problem, but you cannot ask whether they are a citizen 
or not. The mental problem, that is going to be fine? They are 
going to participate?
    Director Santos. In fact, we ask citizenship in the 
American Community Survey.
    Mr. Jordan. Oh, then why don't you do it in the main one 
then?
    Director Santos. Well, I think we have a responsibility 
making sure we understand the risks and benefits of adding any 
question to the Decennial Census. In this case, in the case of 
the citizenship question, there would be a risk of exacerbating 
undercounts due to dampened self-response, while at the same 
time, richer data, more valuable data exists with the American 
Community Survey. When you combine citizenship question with 
all these other socioeconomic variables, where the geography, 
you can get estimates down to a relatively small geographic 
area.
    Mr. Jordan. Do you think by not asking that, that in any 
way impacts how the congressional seats are, in fact, 
apportioned around the country? Do you think there is an impact 
by not knowing specifically the citizens in respective areas? 
Do you think there is an impact there?
    Director Santos. I think I missed the point of the 
question, please.
    Mr. Jordan. Do you think by not having that information, 
that districts can be apportioned to the respective states in a 
way that does not reflect actual citizenship in those states?
    Director Santos. Actually, I do not have an opinion other 
than to say we are obliged to count everyone, provide the 
counts to the President----
    Mr. Jordan. Yes.
    Mr. Santos [continuing]. Who gives it to Congress, and it 
is a policy decision then----
    Mr. Jordan. OK.
    Mr. Santos [continuing]. For Congress to decide how to 
redistrict, how to use those numbers.
    Mr. Jordan. My guess is you go talk to most people on the 
street, go talk to people who live in the 4th District of Ohio 
and say, do you think we should ask on the Census if you are a 
citizen of this country, I think most people would say, well, 
yes, aren't we doing that already? And the fact that we are 
not, they think, well, that is just the dumbest thing in the 
world. So, I think that is just sort of common sense, and yet 
we have this big push against doing it, which surprises me 
because we can do both. It is not an either/or, as Mr. Connolly 
tried to frame it. We can do exactly do what the Constitution 
says, find out how many people are in the country, but I do not 
know why we cannot find out how many of those people are 
actually citizens of this great country. I just do not get 
that.
    And again, I think you talk to any American anywhere, and 
they are going to be like, yes, aren't we doing that already? 
And you guys are like, no, we do not think we should do that, 
even though we can ask what you drive to work, how much you 
work, are you getting welfare, do you work for the government, 
don't you work for the government, do you got a mental illness, 
are you deaf, are you blind, what is your race, what is your 
sex. You can ask all those questions, but the one question that 
might--let us just say might--have an impact on how we 
apportion congressional seats, we cannot ask that one. Oh, that 
seems stupid. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. At the request 
of the witness, we will take a short 5-minute bathroom break.
    Pursuant to the previous order, the Committee stands in 
recess for just 5 minutes.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will come back to order. The 
Chair now recognizes Mr. Frost from Florida for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. First off, I 
want to say, like many hearings we have on this Committee, it 
was started with a lot of falsehoods. We heard, and I do not 
know if you misspoke, Mr. Chair, you had brought up that states 
like Florida and Texas did not gain seats when they did gain 
seats. My state gained a congressional seat. I think these 
facts are really important as people are asserting that there 
is some sort of grand conspiracy here with the Census Bureau. 
The other thing I want to do is thank you for coming to Central 
Florida. You met with my staff and community leaders in Orlando 
and really appreciate you doing that.
    My Republican colleagues have called this hearing out of a 
concern about errors resulting in some overcounting in the 2020 
Census. However, Florida had one of the most harmful 
undercounts in the country when we talk about Black and Brown 
folks specifically. Director Santos, Florida had a roughly 3.5 
percent undercount. Can you put that into terms of how many 
households were impacted?
    Director Santos. One more time?
    Mr. Frost. We had a 3.5 percent undercount.
    Director Santos. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Frost. Can you put that in terms of how many households 
were undercounted?
    Director Santos. I actually cannot without some mechanical 
help. Sorry.
    Mr. Frost. There is something that was going on in 2020 
that might have made the counting uniquely challenging. What 
was that?
    Director Santos. There were actually some, I believe, 
natural disasters?
    Mr. Frost. Yes, natural disasters, and there was another 
big thing going on.
    Director Santos. The pandemic.
    Mr. Frost. The global pandemic, COVID-19. I know, I want to 
forget about it. COVID-19 was going on, but not just that, but 
Florida, in part because of the climate crisis, has had 
increasing extreme weather events across the entire state, 
hurricanes included. So, we have hurricanes, wildfires, a 
public health crisis, and political interference in what was 
going on as well. And by political interference, I am talking 
about situations where special interest groups are pressuring 
officials to change questions on the Census or end outreach 
prematurely. For Black and Brown communities, being 
underrepresented in the Census, especially in Florida, it is 
nothing new. It has been going on for a long time. In fact, the 
House version of the budget for the Census blocks the Census 
Bureau from reaching out to anyone more than twice, which is 
funny because some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who would agree with blocking you all from reaching out 
to people more than twice, I bet some of their constituents 
would like that limit when they are campaigning as well.
    Director Santos, if Black and Brown communities are 
regularly uncounted, this means that resources are directed 
away from these communities. We know this worsens the problems 
of affordable housing, transportation. What other problems does 
it expand or create?
    Director Santos. What other problems?
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    Director Santos. Does what----
    Mr. Frost. Undercounting of----
    Director Santos. Oh, undercounting, yes. Not only are there 
impacts with regard to Federal funds allocations, but we do not 
get as accurate a picture of the communities as we should, and 
that can impact everything from economic development, a 
manufacturer coming in to see if they have a sufficient labor 
base--well, if there are undercounts, there may not be 
sufficient adults or whatever--to community needs assessments, 
to infrastructure assessments, whether to put in new roads, new 
bridges, things of that sort.
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    Director Santos. So, there are expansive--business 
communities also, whether to put in retail shops.
    Mr. Frost. It really impacts everything.
    Director Santos. It impacts all of society.
    Mr. Frost. I think that is right. And this harm, which goes 
back far longer than a decade, is being made worse, especially 
in my state, by our Governor, Ron DeSantis, who went out of his 
way to veto the Republican-made political maps in Florida and 
demanded that his racist version of the map, which Florida 
Appeals Court confirmed was racist, be accepted. So, I just 
think it is interesting to me that some of my colleagues want 
to assert that you are part of some grand conspiracy to 
undercount Republicans when my Republican-run state of Florida 
received an extra congressional seat. Why? Because of the 
fastest-growing demographic in the state of Florida, people of 
color, then use that opportunity of the new seat to actually 
gerrymander it and get rid of two Black access seats in the 
state of Florida. We have got to do a lot better, especially as 
it relates to these counting errors.
    Just really quick with the last bit of my time, as I see 
the 2030 Census needs to have contingency plans for major 
disasters, political interference, and reaching undercounted 
communities, can you talk a little bit about efforts you have 
been making to focus on those things, especially natural 
disasters?
    Director Santos. Yes, certainly. We are absolutely 
leveraging as many of our administrative records from different 
data sources to help out, clarify, and improve the counts, not 
only in disaster zones, but in other areas, and so we are doing 
that type of work. Also, in our upcoming 2026 test, we will be 
visiting areas that were subject to some severe natural 
disaster areas, like parts of North Carolina.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Grothman from 
Wisconsin.
    Mr. Grothman. Yes. First of all, we are going to give you a 
quick quiz because I used to collect stamps as a child. I know 
here we have, what is this person's ancestry? You put down Cape 
Verde. I forget, where is Cape Verde?
    Director Santos. I wish I knew. I do not. I am sorry.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. OK. We got to look that up afterwards 
because I----
    Director Santos. Yes, question for the record.
    Mr. Grothman. It is a strange country to pick out of the 
blue and list as one of the alternatives. We have covered on 
here already, you do not ask whether somebody is a citizen or 
not, correct?
    Director Santos. If you are speaking of the Decennial 
Census, that is correct.
    Mr. Grothman. Any census?
    Director Santos. We have three censuses. We have economic, 
government, and population.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. When you do not use it, why don't you use 
it? It seems to me that is the first question I would ask. 
Because if you are not here as a citizen, much more likely to 
be transient, much more likely to return home, that sort of 
thing, something I would like to know, and if we have a 
difference on some of these questions, you know, education or 
bedrooms or whatever, I would kind of like to know how 
different our immigrants are living compared to the native born 
and how different people who are not here legally are. Why, 
with all these obscure questions on here that I do not know 
what we are going to get out of, why do you leave that off 
again?
    Director Santos. We do not leave the citizenship question 
off of the American Community Survey, which has education and 
housing, many variables, socioeconomic----
    Mr. Grothman. The general Census, every 10 years, you leave 
it off, right?
    Director Santos. There are 10 questions for 10 minutes. We 
try to keep the respondent burden down to increase the level of 
participation.
    Mr. Grothman. That is why we do not ask people because we 
are afraid a question, are you a citizen or are you not, is 
going to burden people and they are going to----
    Director Santos. We are looking to ask whatever the 
Secretary of Commerce says should be on the questionnaire for 
the Decennial Census----
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    Mr. Santos [continuing]. And historically, we have used the 
10 questions for quite a while.
    Mr. Grothman. Now my colleague, clearly, I do not like to 
define people by where they are from, much less their race, but 
nevertheless, on here we do have a question listing where your 
background is from, what country? That is where we picked up on 
this Cape Verde stuff. Could you elaborate on that a little 
bit, a person's ancestry or ethnic origin? I would think over 
time, most people have a little bit of several--a little bit of 
Polish, a little bit of German, a little bit of Italian, maybe 
a little bit of African. What are we trying to get out of this, 
and given that, I would think, most Americans by now are a 
little bit of a variety of countries, how they are supposed to 
respond to that survey?
    Director Santos. Thank you. What we are seeing is that as 
society evolves with technology, and we have DNA testing and 
genealogical websites, and things of that sort, people are 
becoming, in society, very interested in who they are and where 
they are from. And we are allowing, through a race/ethnicity 
question, people to tell their stories.
    Mr. Grothman. Well, what does that mean? Say, I have not 
taken one of these tests, but I know a lot of people who have.
    Director Santos. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Grothman. You know, it is not unusual to come up with 
five or six different things on the thing, right? I am a little 
bit of African, I am a little bit German, I am a little bit 
English. What are we getting at there?
    Director Santos. Information is power and allows us to 
serve communities better.
    Mr. Grothman. How would it affect any decision that 
government makes at all?
    Director Santos. Oh, so for example, in South Texas, I am 
familiar with the Rockport area. We have a vibrant Vietnamese 
community. Rather than simply saying there are Asians there and 
having----
    Mr. Grothman. I guess what I am pointing out is----
    Mr. Santos [continuing]. And not knowing what type of 
questionnaires to put out, we would have----
    Mr. Grothman [continuing]. I think over time, as we have 
more intermarriage--I am trying to think--I think all we are 
going to get out of here is trouble, but people do get these 
ancestry things and they do take them out. I am just afraid 
there are people in this society who are up to no good, who are 
trying to have people permanently defined by their ancestry. 
And then we have this rather odd question with rather obscure 
countries on here--Cape Verde, geez--asking on here, and I do 
not know why we are asking or how it would change public policy 
at all other than for people who are fanatics about forever 
viewing people by where their great, great grandparents came 
from. Like I said, what difference does it make if I am one-
eighth Polish? How is that ever going to come into play on 
anything?
    Director Santos. Is that a question?
    Mr. Grothman. Yes.
    Director Santos. Allowing a culture, and a culture of 
Polish and other cultures that are gathered, can impact how do 
can impact----
    Mr. Grothman. How do Hispanic or any----
    Director Santos. It can impact how we approach people.
    Mr. Grothman. It might be even the culture. Even that is a 
little bit discriminatory. I can imagine if I was born in 
Poland, I might carry some of the Polish culture. I would think 
the vast majority of people today say in Wisconsin, a lot of 
Polish people probably immigrated here six generations ago. I 
do not think it has anything to do with anything. But 
nevertheless, it seems like we are trying to create this idea 
in which forever--like my colleague over here--forever identify 
by an ethnic group, which is kind of a dangerous thing. And 
people who want to, I think, destroy the country like this idea 
of forever people around hanging with this ethnic group, even 
though until they took an ancestry test, they might not even 
know they had any of this ethnic group in them. So, it is just 
an odd question and potentially dangerous question.
    So, I am going to ask you one more time, what difference 
does it make whether I am Norwegian or Polish? What possible 
difference--or Mexican--I might not even know I was part 
Mexican--what difference does it make? What are we getting at?
    Director Santos. It allows us to serve society better.
    Mr. Grothman. How?
    Director Santos. Because it allows us to tailor programs, 
to tailor schooling, education, et cetera.
    Mr. Grothman. If I am one-eighth Mexican, how does it 
affect anything the government does or should do?
    Director Santos. We use that information in order to help 
determine how many different languages and the types of 
approaches we make to the doorstep?
    Mr. Grothman. No, I am one-eighth Mexican. I have never 
spoken a word of Spanish in my life. How----
    Director Santos. We do not necessarily use the one-eighth 
Mexican, and we do not gather that granularity of information. 
We collect multiple races and ethnicities and use that 
information to tailor and fine tune outreach for our censuses 
and surveys. But then communities can use that to better 
address their specific communities' concerns.
    Mr. Grothman. You are going down a dangerous path in which 
forever you want people identified where their ancestry comes 
from, even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with their 
life today, right? You know, if am one-eighth Norwegian and I 
never met my Norwegian great grandma and I never knew a word 
Norwegian, it has nothing to do with anything, but you are 
trying to make it part of something. Thank you very much, my 
Chair.
    Chairman Comer. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you for indulging me.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Lee 
from Pennsylvania.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. When it comes to the Census, 
many people think it is just a boring form that we do every 10 
years. As I was listening to some of my colleagues speaking 
out, I think it is more important than ever that we talk about 
the actual importance of the Census. I think particularly about 
the fact that, you know, we had people talking about what is 
the importance of race in the country that relegated people to 
one drop. One drop of Black ancestry determined whether or not 
they had different outcomes by the government, by government 
mandate, by government policies, and those things are not 
necessarily a race simply because of the Civil Rights Act, for 
instance, but neither here nor there.
    Fun fact, I was actually a Census enumerator in one of my 
lives, so I have actually lived on the other side of the Census 
count, and I can actually, and will later on in this question 
line, speak to specifically how difficult a job it is to 
actually extract this type of information that is crucial and 
critical. We are talking about information that is used to 
determine where and how, when we build roads or bridges, 
funding for schools that we see really need to be opened and 
libraries, or deciding where to put fire departments, or 
hospitals. The Census data is the starting point for so much. 
Director Santos, is it true that the Federal Highway 
Administration, for instance, uses Census data to decide which 
road and bridge improvements get prioritized?
    Director Santos. That is correct.
    Ms. Lee. What about low-income housing projects? Is it true 
that HUD uses Census data to figure out where a project is 
going to be built?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Ms. Lee. Is it true that Census data is used to make sure 
that the Voting Rights Act is enforced?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Ms. Lee. Is it used to decide which areas get Title 1 
grants for their schools?
    Director Santos. Yes.
    Ms. Lee. Or Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, Pell Grants, the 
National School Lunch Program--all uses Census data, correct?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Ms. Lee. It is staggering, isn't it? A single form filled 
out by millions shape 353 programs to provide $2.8 trillion in 
Federal funding for communities across America, and that was in 
2021 alone. I would actually like to thank my Republican 
colleagues for bringing up undercounts because here is the ugly 
truth. In 2022, the New York Times reported that the 2020 
Census undercounted the number of Hispanic, Black, and Native-
American residents, even though the overall population counts 
were largely accurate. These are the same groups that have been 
historically undercounted. These are people, families, 
communities, the very folks most dependent on the funding 
Census data helps allocate, and many of those funding programs 
are looking at more than general population numbers. They are 
looking at demographics, income levels, age and education 
levels, data that cannot be figured out with just estimates. 
The George Washington Institute of Public Policy estimates the 
value of each completed Census form at more than $4,000 a 
person. That is the value of a single Census form. Multiply 
that by thousands or millions, and we are talking about a 
catastrophic loss for the people who have already had the deck 
stacked against them. Unfortunately, there are no do-overs for 
the Census, and it is something that we just cannot 
procrastinate on improving as we prepare for the 2030 Census.
    So, back in 2010, when I was a Census enumerator counting 
in my own community, obviously overwhelmingly Black, I can say 
firsthand that we did not have the right tools to do the job. 
And you spoke to how difficult it can be when the questionnaire 
is too long, to get people to open up to share basic 
information about themselves, and when they admittedly have 
fears, concerns, and apprehension about the motive of people 
who work in government. And after listening to this testimony 
today, we probably should not be surprised if more people are 
more fearful of providing that sort of information. The 2020 
Census had a tough time also between the pandemic, Trump 
stopping the count early, major hurricanes and wildfires, as we 
heard from our colleague from Florida. And looking forward, we 
need to make sure that the work is being done now to make sure 
that the 2030 Census is as accurate as possible. We all agree 
with that.
    Director Santos, can you tell us more about some of the 
ways you are working to improve Census data collection to make 
sure that the count is as accurate as possible across the 
country?
    Director Santos. Yes, I can. We are expanding our use of 
online participation with the addition of the broadband 
programs that extend access to the internet. We are going in 
and testing out culturally relevant messaging and contacts 
throughout our test sites to make sure that the messaging we 
provide resonates with the participants. But at the same time, 
because there is a mistrust in government, we are leveraging 
and building a network of local community groups across the 
Nation who can work hand-in-hand with us so that they can be 
the trusted messengers, and we can use multiple angles in order 
to bolster the messaging and have individuals more engendered 
to participate.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you so much for that. As somebody, again, 
who did the Census in my own community, I truly believe that 
some of those fixes will be helpful, they will be meaningful, 
and I look forward to a 2030 Census where communities like mine 
in the Mon Valley, and those areas of Pittsburgh, for instance, 
are not undercounted. I thank you so much, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Mace from 
South Carolina.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 
Santos, for being here with us today.
    The U.S. Census Bureau carries out the important 
constitutional duty of conducting the Decennial Census as 
required in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, as you 
very well know. The Census has far-ranging consequences, 
determining the apportionment of congressional seats, electoral 
college votes states receive, and the flow of hundreds of 
billions of dollars in Federal funding to states and 
localities. The Census Bureau's Post-Enumeration Survey for the 
2020 Census identified serious over-and undercounting issues 
which the Bureau has acknowledged are worse than previous 
censuses. Even more troubling, the Census Bureau's report 
acknowledges a statistically significant overcount in liberal 
northeast states and a statistically significant undercount in 
conservative southern states. The 1790 Census Act, which the 
left likes to use as an excuse to count illegals and residents 
and whatever the heck you want to call people in this country 
who are not citizens, that women were counted but they could 
not vote. No, they could not vote, but women were citizens of 
the United States. So, the left, that is their reasoning for 
counting illegals in the Census and that sort of thing.
    So, I have a series of questions for you, Mr. Santos, that 
are ``yes'' or ``no,'' and so I would ask that you use ``yes'' 
or ``no'' when I ask these questions. Did the U.S. Census 
Bureau do anything to identify the immigration or citizenship 
status of individuals surveyed during the 2020 Census? Yes or 
no.
    Director Santos. No.
    Ms. Mace. Are illegals counted in the Census? Yes or no.
    Director Santos. Yes, if they are permanent residents, if 
they reside in the U.S.
    Ms. Mace. OK. So, when you are doing the Census with folks 
and asking the question, you are not asking if they are a 
citizen. Do you ask if they are a permanent resident?
    Director Santos. We ask folks to list everyone who lives at 
that residence.
    Ms. Mace. OK. But you are saying you are only counting 
illegals if they are a permanent resident?
    Director Santos. Well, if they live at that residence. It 
is the interpretation of the instructions for the person.
    Ms. Mace. So, your definition of ``permanent residents'' is 
that they live at a place in the U.S., at a U.S. address.
    Director Santos. Yes. I believe I misspoke because there is 
a legal definition to permanent----
    Ms. Mace. Oh, you definitely misspoke.
    Director Santos. Yes, to permanent resident.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    Director Santos. It is someone who usually lives at that 
address.
    Ms. Mace. So, I am going to ask the question again. Are 
criminal illegal aliens, the people that break the law coming 
into our country when they enter in the door illegally, are 
they counted in the U.S. Census? Yes or no?
    Director Santos. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you. All right. Are there political 
implications for congressional apportionment and the electoral 
college when we are counting non-citizens, when we are counting 
criminal illegal aliens in the Census? Yes or no?
    Director Santos. I am sorry. I missed the first part of the 
question.
    Ms. Mace. Are there political implications for 
congressional apportionment and the electoral college when you 
are counting criminal illegal aliens in the U.S. Census?
    Director Santos. I do not know.
    Ms. Mace. Oh, you absolutely know because apportionment is 
based on what? Is it based on, what, population?
    Director Santos. Yes.
    Ms. Mace. Population based on counts in the what, U.S. 
Census?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Ms. Mace. Right. You are the Director of the U.S. Census 
Bureau, correct?
    Director Santos. Mm-hmm. Correct.
    Ms. Mace. Why is this so difficult for you to answer 
honestly?
    Director Santos. Well, no, it is what it is.
    Ms. Mace. What is what it is?
    Director Santos. So, if there is more population, then you 
get----
    Ms. Mace. What is what it is? You just said you did not 
know if there are political implications for congressional 
apportionment in the electoral college when you are counting 
illegals.
    Director Santos. Well, in all honesty, I am not a 
politician. I am a scientist, and so we do our counts according 
to the Constitution.
    Ms. Mace. OK. Mr. Science. Mr. Science.
    Director Santos. Sure. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Mace. When you are doing apportionment, when you are 
doing congressional seats based on population that includes 
illegal aliens, does that have a political impact in campaigns 
when you are drawing those lines and having people vote in 
those elections?
    Director Santos. They are counted in apportionment, yes.
    Ms. Mace. OK. You are not being honest this morning, and I 
think it is a slap in the face to the American people. If 
apportionment of congressional seats is based on the Census and 
roughly 750,000 people per congressional seat in this country, 
would that unfairly impact how congressional seats are drawn? 
Yes or no?
    Director Santos. I am sorry. You are speaking too fast for 
me. Can you slow down a little bit?
    Ms. Mace. No, I cannot. The answer is yes. In California, 
in Valadao's district, where 750,000 people live in that 
district, 167,000 people voted in that election. I would 
imagine, and No. 1, Gavin Newsom is probably still counting 
because the guy cannot do math, 3 weeks, 4 weeks into post-
election, but 167,000 people out of 750,000 population. In my 
district, 390,000 people voted. We do not have the number of 
illegals that California has statistically, scientifically, Mr. 
Science. That is just the math. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 
yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Ms. Crockett from Texas.
    Ms. Crockett. It is interesting that we are having this 
hearing, and I know one thing that I have learned so far is 
that, while freshman orientation just ended, we need a course 
on what the Census is for because we have people sitting in 
Congress and have no idea what the Census is for. And so, I do 
appreciate that you have talked about what the funding is for, 
but it seems like my colleagues really want to zero in on 
southern states, so let us talk about Texas for a second, and 
let us deal with them and their concerns about their districts, 
and let us also talk about the citizen situation.
    So, I do not know how much you have paid attention to the 
election, but we do have an incoming administration, and we 
have a border czar who has said that they are going to deport 
everyone that is here and is not a citizen. They are planning 
to do mass deportations. In fact, in the state of Texas, our 
commissioner has offered up land so that they can put these 
camps there and send people out of our country. Now, if you 
start asking people, are you a citizen or not and they are 
living in a home, and somebody is threatening to go in and raid 
homes and take everybody out and send them back to wherever 
they came from, I mean, I would imagine that that may make 
people say, never mind, I am not going to fill this out, but, I 
mean, has that been your finding or no?
    Director Santos. We have conducted research that shows that 
there can be selective inclusion of individuals who reside in a 
residence because of----
    Ms. Crockett. Exactly, because you have got the Federal 
Government that is asking this question, and it is the same 
Federal Government that is threatening to go and yank people 
out of their schools, their homes, and things like that. And 
then we just had a conversation where we were talking about how 
many voters. Listen, when you are counting people, you are not 
just counting voters. You count children, don't you?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Ms. Crockett. You count a lot of people that are not 
necessarily voters, and I want to make sure that we really get 
to the nitty gritty on Texas because this is hilarious to me. 
Texas added two seats. In 2020, according to the Census, and we 
know that there was a significant undercount specifically in 
Texas, for a combination of reasons, but we know that, 
specifically, Texas added 4 million people. Of those 4 million 
people, do you want to take a guess at how many were Anglos? 
Just a guess.
    Director Santos. I would say a majority.
    Ms. Crockett. A hundred and eighty thousand, that is it, of 
4 million, 95 percent of the people that were added. And we 
know that when it comes to minority populations, they tend to 
be undercounted. So, get this. We added 4 million people. They 
were people of color. Texas got two new seats, so they took 
those Black and Brown and Asian bodies, and guess what? Do you 
think that we got a new Black, Brown, or Asian seat? Somehow 
the way that they do their Republican math in the state of 
Texas, that amounted to two new white seats. Guess what? White 
Republican seats. We got two new Republican seats out of 4 
million people of color. So, let me tell you, they love to use 
our bodies to apportion us in an inaccurate way, all right?
    So, when we talk about our districts, I also want to talk 
about something that Texas has taken advantage of that I have 
worked on a lot, in fact, I did legislation on. It is called 
prison gerrymandering. I do not know if you are familiar with 
it.
    Director Santos. I am familiar.
    Ms. Crockett. But here is the reality. The numbers show 
that in rural Texas, they were constantly bleeding population. 
Urban Texas was growing exponentially. But what they do is they 
count inmates where they are imprisoned instead of counting 
them where it is that they will return to. So, their family 
members that are in Dallas, Texas or Houston or wherever, their 
family members, when they need something, they call us, even if 
it is relating to that inmate. But somehow rural Texas is 
getting better roads than they probably deserve because they 
are counting those inmates that are not driving on those roads, 
they are counting those inmates that are not using their 
hospitals, they are counting those inmates whose children are 
not attending their schools because of prison gerrymandering. 
So, again, Republicans are really good about using Black and 
Brown bodies. But, I can also tell you that the numbers are 
clear that we have a Black and Brown incarceration issue, not 
just in Texas, but in this country. And in fact, the state of 
Texas incarcerates more people than any other independent 
democratic country. That is how bad our incarceration is just 
in the state of Texas, and I have got so many great colleagues 
on this Committee that actually benefit from being able to do 
things like that.
    So, listen, this is about resources. It is about putting 
the resources where the people are. And I am curious to know, 
for whoever goes next, do you ask your constituents when they 
call your office, are you a citizen or not? Because at the end 
of the day, I have to handle immigration cases as well in my 
office. We are elected to represent the people regardless of 
their citizenship, and we have to help them because they reside 
in our districts. Thank you, and I will yield.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields. The Chair 
recognizes--before I recognize Mr. Burchett, do you seek 
recognition, Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. I know that people back home have been 
waiting, so I will tell them, when they decide to pick Cape 
Verde, Cape Verde is a little island country off the West 
African coast----
    Chairman Comer. Got it.
    Mr. Grothman [continuing]. Who they felt they should 
include in the Census, so.
    Chairman Comer. All right.
    Mr. Grothman. I know people back home are waiting to find 
out.
    Chairman Comer. Very good. Thank you. The Chair recognizes 
Mr. Burchett.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Santos, are 
illegal immigrants counted in the U.S. Census?
    Director Santos. Yes.
    Mr. Burchett. Why?
    Director Santos. They have a usual residence in the United 
States.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Is that data collected by the Census used 
to decide how many congressional districts and electoral 
college votes a state gets?
    Director Santos. It is.
    Mr. Burchett. And it is true that states with high numbers 
of illegal immigrants, like California or New York, are 
typically Democrat states.
    Director Santos. Correct, as is Texas.
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir. By counting illegal immigrants, 
these states receive more electoral votes and seats in 
Congress. Doesn't that mean that Democrats benefit from illegal 
immigration? You are a scientist.
    Director Santos. I am a scientist. That is the way the math 
works out.
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir. OK. Do you believe illegal 
immigrants should be counted in the Census?
    Director Santos. I believe we should count according to the 
Constitution, yes.
    Mr. Burchett. Do you think generational Americans are 
negatively impacted by counting illegal immigrants in the 
Census?
    Director Santos. I have no comment on that.
    Mr. Burchett. Can you explain which states had overcounts 
and which states had counts in the 2020 Decennial Census?
    Director Santos. Certainly. Would you like me to read the 
list?
    Mr. Burchett. Yes.
    Director Santos. Thank you. In terms of--let us see--
undercounts, there was Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, 
Florida, Illinois, Texas; overcounts were Ohio, Massachusetts, 
Utah, New York, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Hawaii, 
according to the Post-Enumeration Survey.
    Mr. Burchett. Why do you believe that was the case?
    Director Santos. The Post-Enumeration Survey does not tell 
us why. It tells us how much.
    Mr. Burchett. What is the Census Bureau doing to mitigate 
errors and reduce the risk of miscounts in the 2030 Census?
    Director Santos. We are rethinking how we go about going 
after historically undercounted populations and making sure 
that to make sure that everybody gets counted once, only once, 
and in the right place, and we have both technological and sort 
of sociological, in terms of contact, and other types of 
approaches. In the field, we are optimizing field work to make 
sure that if we knock on doors for folks who have not 
participated, they can have a chance to participate and so 
forth. We are also using administrative records from a variety 
of sources both at the Federal level and state level, when we 
can get ahold of those, to find the gaps in case maybe a 
household did not completely enumerate everyone. If we have 
several different sources of administrative records that 
indicate that there might be a missing person, then we can go 
back and correct that.
    Mr. Burchett. Do you feel like this is the best way to 
correct those errors, or is there something else that you would 
rather see done?
    Director Santos. What we would rather see done is everybody 
participate, that the self-response rates are a hundred 
percent, and we are doing everything that we can to engender 
and to improve the propensity for somebody to respond.
    Mr. Burchett. OK. Explain. What is your definition of 
``engender?''
    Mr. Burchett. To get folks to want to do something.
    Mr. Burchett. Motivated?
    Director Santos. Yes.
    Mr. Burchett. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes 
Mr. Casar.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you, Chairman, and to the point that my 
distinguished colleague from Tennessee just made, the most 
immigrant states by far in the country with most immigrants, 
documented and undocumented, are California and Texas. 
Virtually no other state comes close, California being, of 
course, under unified Democratic control, Texas statewide under 
unified Republican control. The next state that comes somewhat 
close, but not really, is Florida, of course, also under 
unified Republican control. The question of whether to count 
immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, was decided by 
the U.S. Congress back right after the Civil War. So, this was 
decided. It was debated in these same halls, and that Congress 
and the states decided to end the three-fifths compromise, 
which is when enslaved people were counted as three-fifths of a 
person when we did counting of people. Now that seems like the 
worst way to do it. And so, they said let us count every person 
as one person, and the Congress decided to do that.
    Not just with all due respect, just to my colleague who 
spoke before me, but to everyone in the Congress, I still do 
not get why we would rehash and rehab that debate after the 
Civil War. I think after that amount of bloodshed, that amount 
of terror and horror, we would look back at the congressional 
record and say, yes, it probably makes sense that we say we are 
going to stop counting half people and three-fifths people and 
say we are going to count the number of people in the country. 
Whether they vote or do not vote, whether they are citizens or 
not citizens, whether they are kids or seniors, we are just 
going to count every person as one person.
    I could not disagree more with this really kind-of wild 
Republican idea of the so-called ``Equal Representation Act,'' 
which would only count certain in this country in complete 
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, again, a post-Civil War 
amendment. I do not know anybody here that wants to go back to 
sort of pre-Civil War times or pre-Civil War Constitution. My 
office, just like every office here, when somebody calls, you 
do not ask, hey, are you a citizen. You ask, are you a 
constituent, how can I help you? We need every single person 
counted and, in fact, if there is a citizenship question on the 
Census, we then would be admitting that we want to undercount 
people because all the data points to the idea that this 
undercounts people. And the point of the Census is to follow 
the Constitution and count the number of people. It is not to 
figure out who is a citizen or a non-citizen. It is to find out 
by the Constitution how many people live in each state. And, 
Mr. Santos, isn't it correct that the Census plays a role in 
counting the number of people for electoral purposes, but then 
also counts the number of people to determine how many Federal 
dollars go into a state?
    Director Santos. That is correct.
    Mr. Casar. And so, if a state has a falsely low Census 
count, that could result in those states getting fewer Federal 
resources for things like food for the hungry, hospitals, 
education.
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Mr. Casar. And so, a state like Texas, having had an 
undercount, could result in fewer dollars coming to my state 
for people that pay their taxes and might need those dollars.
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Mr. Casar. And so, if we ask a citizenship question when 
the Constitution says that we need to count the number of 
people, not the number of citizens, then it could result, in my 
state that was already undercounted, getting further 
undercounted, and could result in places like Texas getting 
fewer Federal resources.
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Mr. Casar. What I do not get is in the Federal Government's 
nearly $1 trillion in assistance--so all of the people that 
work in this country, they send their hard-earned tax dollars 
here, then we send back about a trillion dollars back to the 
states--I do not understand why my Republican colleagues would 
want states like Texas to get less help because of adding an 
unnecessary question. What I think I hear is some sort of 
conspiracy theory that Democrats want there to be more 
immigrants so that we can have better shots in elections, which 
is just nuts. And frankly, the people who have immigrated this 
country and then decide to become citizens and are given a 
chance to become citizens, they actually listen to their 
leaders just like any other voter, and they decide how to vote. 
There are plenty of people in my district that vote for me or 
vote against me who were born in this country and who were not 
born in this country.
    And I think that at the end of the day, it is so important 
for the American people to understand and hear that this idea 
of a citizenship question would undercount people, would result 
in fewer Federal resources come into places like Texas. So, 
Texans on the Republican side that are for this bill are just 
basically saying, send your taxpayer dollars elsewhere. And 
third, it would take us back to a pre-Civil War reality, and 
that is just a shameful thing from the Republicans. Thank you. 
I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Greene from 
Georgia.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hello, Mr. Santos.
    Director Santos. Hello.
    Ms. Greene. Thanks for coming to talk with us today. There 
has been a lot of discussion back and forth today about 
reapportionment and how districts of Congress are drawn. There 
is also a lot of discussion going on about how much Federal 
dollars goes to different states based on the number of people 
that are counted up in the Census and assigned to these states 
and districts. It is extremely concerning, though, for most 
Americans that the 2020 Census was found to have several 
miscounts, and you have been asked about this today in this 
hearing. Even more concerning is the fact that most of the 
miscalculations either benefited blue states with overcounts or 
harmed red states with undercounts. As you have already told 
us, eight states were overcounted in the 2020 Census, six of 
which were blue states, six states were undercounted, five of 
which were red states.
    Mr. Santos, understanding that you were not the Director 
yet in 2020, why do you think these miscounts happened?
    Director Santos. The miscounts occurred just as a matter of 
course of any decennial census. No census has ever been 
perfect, but they have always been good enough for the purposes 
that they are intended, so this is simply how things shook out. 
There was absolutely no consideration of red, blue, purple, or 
whatever. We simply stuck to our mission to do a complete 
count, we did our quality checks, and we published the data to 
the President.
    Ms. Greene. And, Mr. Santos, you have described yourself as 
a scientist today. Isn't it important to be accurate in your 
science, so to speak, and in counting? Also, there is an actual 
law, Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, that really is your job to 
fine people $5,000 for refusing to answer questions on the 
Census. Was this a law that you enforced? Did you enforce this 
law in states that were overcounted and states that were 
undercounted after the Census?
    Director Santos. Yes, we are a statistical agency, not an 
enforcement agency, so we have never enforced that.
    Ms. Greene. So, no one was fined. So, there were 
overcounts, there were undercounts, and no one was fined 
according to the law, and the numbers shook out and were 
accepted. Many of my colleagues have brought up the fact that 
Article I of the Constitution requires a census every 10 years 
to determine how many congressional seats and electoral votes 
states receive. This is incredibly important. In Congress, with 
close party margins, this apportionment can be the difference 
between being in the Majority and being in the Minority. In 
tight Presidential elections--thankfully this one was not tight 
at all, President Trump overwhelmingly won--but it can 
determine the winner, these apportionments can. In other words, 
the Census is more than a mere survey of the demographics of 
the citizenry. It directly affects election integrity.
    Mr. Santos, do you believe it is important that our 
elections be secure and that only legal voters be counted for 
apportionment purposes?
    Director Santos. That is a policy question of who should 
vote and who should not. We are a statistical agency. We are 
nonpartisan, and so I will leave it at that.
    Ms. Greene. Right. Well, hopefully in this next Congress 
and under the next President, we can make a change. We have a 
bill, H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act. This bill would 
statutorily add a citizenship question to the Decennial Census 
for 2030 and beyond, and it will exclude aliens from the 
apportionment base. The Senate has not taken up this bill yet, 
but hopefully they will next session, and this way there will 
be a citizenship question and non-citizens will no longer be 
included in the count for reapportionment when that is done. 
This certainly would change the makeup of Congress.
    But let us also talk about some of my colleagues across the 
aisle have brought up that Black and Brown voters were not 
counted in the Census as well. One of my colleagues from Texas 
was saying that this led to two more White representatives 
being sent to the House of Representatives. I think it is 
important to note that Black and Brown people can vote 
Republican as well, and they do not have to vote Democrat every 
single time. Mr. Chairman, I have run out of time. Thank you. I 
yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Brown.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 
Director Santos for taking time to be here today.
    Supporting children and families is one of our most deeply 
held American values. It is a reflection of our collective 
commitment to helping one another, particularly in times of 
need. To uphold this principle, accurate Census data plays a 
critical role in ensuring vital Federal resources are allocated 
where they are most needed. The Census Bureau work directly 
impacts effectiveness of programs families rely on every day, 
programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 
the WIC Program, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 
known as TANF, provide critical lifelines ensuring parents can 
put food on the table and care for their children. Meanwhile, 
the National School Lunch Program helps eliminate hunger as a 
barrier to learning, giving children the opportunity to focus 
on their education instead of their next meal. Without accurate 
Census data, these programs cannot be funded or distributed 
equitably, risking the well-being of millions of families. This 
data ensures no child or family is left behind and our shared 
resources are directed toward building a stronger, more 
compassionate Nation.
    Director Santos, can you explain how population data 
collected by the Census Bureau, including during the Decennial 
Census, is relied upon by the Federal Government in carrying 
out programs like SNAP, WIC, TANF, and the National School 
Lunch Program?
    Director Santos. Certainly, and thank you for the question. 
The information captured in the Decennial Census feeds into how 
we conduct all of our other 130 surveys that are conducted--
pretty much every day of the year we are out collecting 
information on behalf of the American public. That information 
ends up being used in pretty much most policy development and 
implementation, whether it is in transportation, whether it is 
in labor, in education, in natural disaster planning, in a 
whole variety of ways, not to mention business, business, 
business. The corporate world, the business world, our economy 
cannot survive without accurate data from the Census Bureau 
that starts with a Decennial Census count and then feeds into 
the other programs.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you. Each month, nearly 1.5 million 
Ohioans and over 150,000 people in my district receive SNAP 
benefits, and in 2022, Ohio received over $720 million in TANF 
funding. Because of Census data, every student who attends 
Cleveland Public Schools is afforded a free breakfast and lunch 
without the hassle of paperwork. To get these resources to 
people in Ohio, the Federal Government must accurately assess 
who is in need and where they live. So, Director Santos, would 
you agree having complete, accurate population and demographic 
data is essential in allowing policy-makers to direct funding 
in a fair and equitable way?
    Director Santos. I agree.
    Ms. Brown. And Director Santos, what expertise does the 
Census Bureau rely on to collect population and demographic 
data?
    Director Santos. We have expert scientists who access both 
administrative records, you know, births, deaths, as well as 
other sources of Federal data, as well as our massive data 
collection operation to conduct the surveys and the economic 
census and the census of governments and such. So, we have this 
expansive ability to capture petabytes of information that are 
used to make society better.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, and given the role the Census Bureau 
plays in collecting this data, which is the foundation of 
programs so many families rely on, it is critical this work is 
guided by data, statistics, and expert analysis. It should not 
be fueled by politics. We do not and must not prioritize 
recipients or anything else based on political ideology. Yet 
President-elect Trump's playbook for his second term, Project 
2025, includes a section specifically on the Census Bureau, 
which calls for it to ``execute a conservative agenda.'' As we 
have heard here, this work is too important to be caught up in 
political games. This Project 2025 proposal is dangerous and 
threatens to hurt families across Ohio and the country. The 
Census Bureau must not be turned into an ideological and 
political arm of any agenda, and I am committing to ensuring 
that it does not. And with that Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Fry from South Carolina.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Santos, thank 
you for being here today.
    The Census Bureau is charged with a constitutional mandate 
that impacts every single American: ensuring fair 
representation in Congress and Census results that allocate 
critical resources across our states. Unfortunately, the 2020 
Census, as has been highlighted before, revealed significant 
flaws in its execution with miscounts that unfairly shifted 
congressional representation and distorted the allocation of 
electoral college votes. States like Texas and Florida were 
undercounted while states like New York and Rhode Island were 
overcounted. The discrepancy disproportionately harmed 
Republican-leaning states, as Ms. Greene talked about, while 
benefiting Democrat-leaning ones.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record a 2022 Heritage Foundation report that highlights the 
multiple miscounts of the 2020 Census.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you.
    According to this report, the 2020 Census miscounting 
errors had far-reaching consequences: distorting congressional 
representation, reallocating electoral votes, and misdirecting 
over $1.5 trillion over 10 years in Federal funding. These 
resources were unequally distributed with overcounted states 
benefiting at the expense of the undercounted ones.
    Director, I want to ask you, the 2020 Post-Enumeration 
Survey identified significant overcounts in states like New 
York and undercounts in states like Texas. What specific 
factors contributed to these discrepancies?
    Director Santos. If you take a look at some of the data, 
there tended to be higher concentrations of Latinos and African 
Americans in some of the states that were undercounted.
    Mr. Fry. Were these errors more pronounced compared to 
previous censuses, and why?
    Director Santos. If you go back enough censuses, they were 
relatively comparable. There are always some--there typically 
are states that were overcounted or undercounted.
    Mr. Fry. You know, the Heritage Foundation report that I 
talked about earlier highlighted that $1.5 trillion in Federal 
funds could be misapplied because of these miscounts. How is 
the Census Bureau addressing these financial consequences?
    Director Santos. Well, what we are actually doing is trying 
to make sure that folks understand that vehicles like the Post-
Enumeration Survey and the demographic analysis, as well as the 
actual decennial censuses are basically glimpses at what the 
perfect truth is. So, even the Post-Enumeration Study that we 
conducted was subject to the same challenges, perhaps even more 
so, than occurred in the 2020 Census. The PES, while it 
estimated and we stand by the overcount and undercounts, it is 
a glimpse of what occurred. There are natural error bands 
around that, so we do not know what the truth is. If you assume 
the PES is the absolute truth, then, yes, those conclusions can 
be made, but the reality is it could be anywhere within those 
margins of error.
    Mr. Fry. You would agree with me that the miscounts 
impacted congressional apportionment across the states?
    Director Santos. They can, relative to the truth, but no 
one ever knows what the truth is.
    Mr. Fry. Well, that is kind of the role of the Census 
Bureau, quite frankly, but it would, and it did, have an impact 
on what states got however many seats--is that correct--from 
the 2020 Census?
    Director Santos. Yes. The 2020 Census determines 
congressional apportionment.
    Chairman Comer. OK. And the miscounts had a direct impact 
on some states not getting a seat and other states retaining a 
seat that they otherwise would not have?
    Director Santos. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. OK. How does the Census Bureau plan to 
prevent these errors from 2020 in the Census of 2030?
    Director Santos. Yes. We, basically, are taking an approach 
that we need to identify the populations and communities that 
contributed most to these challenges of counting everybody 
once, only once, and in the right place, and are doing specific 
testing and developing methodologies and leveraging technology 
and administrative data and such, so that we can go into those 
communities and get better counts through better participation. 
A lot that involves a recognition of trust issues in local 
communities, and so we are actively engaging in a continuous 
contact and engagement with local communities, with elected 
officials, et cetera, which is why we have been very active 
since 2022, and even before, in terms of doing that type of 
outreach, talking to communities, getting to understand their 
concerns, and then working with them toward 2030.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you. Does the Bureau acknowledge that 
including noncitizens in apportionment unfairly dilutes 
representation for U.S. citizens?
    Director Santos. We simply provide the numbers, 
Congressman, and that is the best answer I can give to that.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see that my time has 
expired, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes Ms. Tlaib. And I apologize for skipping--that is 
what it says here. If I pick, let me think. Tlaib.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Comer. Tlaib. That is what my list says, ``Tlaib.''
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Director, for 
being here. I do not know if you know, but I grew up in the 
most beautiful, Blackest city in the country, the city of 
Detroit, and you know there has been outdated methods right now 
impacted by our Census, and that is probably why our city filed 
a lawsuit. I think it is important for folks to know. Is it 
true that, I think it is like, long vacant homes are subtracted 
from our population count?
    Director Santos. Thank you for the question. That is an 
issue that is currently under litigation, so we cannot comment 
on that.
    Ms. Tlaib. But currently, you cannot even talk about the 
fact that right now----
    Director Santos. Correct. Correct.
    Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. Like, an abandoned home is 
subtracted from the population.
    Director Santos. I am simply following the advice of 
general counsel.
    Ms. Tlaib. Well, that must be true then. OK. So then how 
are we counting rehabbed/reoccupied? So, we have 6,000 homes 
that are now reoccupied, been rehabbed beautifully. How do we 
count those in the Census?
    Director Santos. Rehabbed homes? We count them.
    Ms. Tlaib. You do count them.
    Director Santos. We send individuals.
    Ms. Tlaib. No, no, what we understand is----
    Director Santos. Our protocols----
    Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. Six-thousand homes that were 
previously vacant, are now been rehabbed, that they were not 
being counted properly or maybe put into the method.
    Director Santos. Congresswoman, if I may, if you can 
provide the question in a more generic national context, I can 
answer. If you are specifically talking about Detroit, I am not 
allowed to answer.
    Ms. Tlaib. OK. Without updated methods, which we need to 
update some methods--you know this, it is not just Detroit--
many communities because of these policies, it is guaranteed 
that they will be chronically undercounted.
    Director Santos. We use actually some very good methods to 
ensure that any housing unit that is occupied gets counted.
    Ms. Tlaib. Mm-hmm. So, it is not just new construction.
    Director Santos. It is not just--it is hidden housing 
units. It is units on tribal lands that are hidden without 
mailable addresses----
    Ms. Tlaib. Formally vacant----
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. Abandoned homes, then they are 
reoccupied.
    Director Santos. We even go out to the homeless and look 
for people living out of cars and dilapidated RVs.
    Ms. Tlaib. OK. So, directing in a different direction, I 
also have one of the largest concentration of Arab Americans, 
as you know, and it is not fair not to ask you the same 
question I asked the previous Director of the Census. Do I look 
white to you?
    Director Santos. Yes, I would say no.
    Ms. Tlaib. OK. Well good. That was a better answer than the 
previous one, but I am really glad to see that MENA--the Middle 
East, North-African category--is going to be included in the 
next Census. Is that correct?
    Director Santos. That is correct.
    Ms. Tlaib. One of the things regarding implementation 
matters, as you know, how is the Census Bureau making sure that 
MENA communities at risk of being left out of data collection 
due to lack of visibility on collection forms, such as 
Armenian-American community as well as the Afro-Arab community, 
are properly accounted for?
    Director Santos. Well, we have a process that actually 
involves community engagement. As you may know, we have been 
not only visiting all communities in the U.S., specifically, I 
have made multiple trips to Detroit to speak not only to the 
African-American communities, but to the business communities, 
to the Arab-American communities and such. So, we are using 
those processes to help address that.
    Ms. Tlaib. OK. Director, one of the things that is 
important, and I worked at a nonprofit organization, I felt 
like I needed to answer a lot of the questions that were asked 
by my colleagues because the Census numbers impact even how we 
look at breast cancer among women, you know. I look at the high 
rate of breast cancer increasing among, you know, Arab-American 
women and how we are doing research around that. And again, we 
have been invisible for so long, decades long been invisible to 
our own Federal Government, being labeled in a way, tucked in, 
and kind of hidden. But one thing that I hope we are doing in 
the implementation process, Director, is the work underway with 
the Federal agencies to implement these new standards and data 
collection--how are you prioritizing the collection reporting 
of that data beyond the minimum reporting categories?
    Director Santos. Yes. We look to implement the directives 
of OMB on how to capture race and ethnicity according to the 
regulation. Our starting point is to have as much 
disaggregation, as much detail in different races, ethnicities, 
multi-race, multi-ethnicities, and tribes as possible so the 
American public can actually understand who we are as a Nation. 
We are basically doing our due diligence to make sure that we 
can provide that data.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Director. I yield.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields. I will now recognize 
myself for 5 minutes, and, Director, my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have consistently said that the Census Bureau 
should not be partisan, it should be nonpartisan. I agree 
completely. And they say it should not be political. I agree 
with that. The problem is the mistakes that were made in the 
last Census have huge political consequences. By looking at the 
undercount in the red states and the overcount in the blue 
states, it is very safe to say that between three and four 
congressional seats were distorted because of the mistake of 
the Census. I am a hundred percent confident those three or 
four seats would have been Republican based on the voting 
patterns in the last election in those states and the margins 
of victory for Trump and defeat for Harris.
    When you are talking about three or four seats in Congress, 
that is the margin of this Congress. That is everything. That 
depends on who is chairman of the committee and the policy and 
the direction. It is of the utmost significance to the whole 
political system in America. And I know you were not Director 
during the last Census. The last Director was Steven 
Dillingham, and I was on this Committee. This Committee, by the 
way, has legislative jurisdiction over the Census, and I 
publicly made Statements of my concern about how the Census was 
being conducted because we did have the COVID pandemic.
    And I guess my question is, I am still trying to 
understand, during a normal year of census, you have all these 
Census workers. I have friends that used to work part-time for 
the Census. If someone did not fill out their application, 
then, let us say in 2010 or in the previous a hundred years, 
someone from the Census would knock on their door and help them 
fill out their form. How was that conducted during COVID? I 
would assume that there were a significant number of doors that 
were never knocked on because of COVID than there were 
estimates that were made, right? Can you briefly explain how 
that worked? I mean, do you have any idea, certainly what 
percentage of homes were never contacted, what percentage of 
the homes, that did not fill out the Census forms or the online 
form or whatever, were never contacted?
    Director Santos. To my knowledge, if a home was sent a 
mailable address, and----
    Chairman Comer. That is always the way it has been done, 
and there are always a significant number that do not fill them 
out, and then someone from the Census would knock on their 
door, but they did not the last time because of COVID 
restrictions. Is that correct?
    Director Santos. That is not correct.
    Chairman Comer. If you are saying every house in America 
got knocked on----
    Director Santos. That is not correct. I am saying that we 
had a protocol that sent out a multiple mailings. People either 
respond, self-respond, or they did not. If they did not, that 
kicked in the next phase called the non-response follow-up, and 
it is that subset of houses that gets knocked on.
    Chairman Comer. And every person that did not respond was 
greeted by a Census employee----
    Director Santos. Every household----
    Chairman Comer. Every household?
    Director Santos. To my knowledge.
    Chairman Comer. How then was there such a mistake in the 
Census? Many of us believe that the Federal agencies are 
populated with hyper-partisan, left-wing extremists and just so 
many mistakes that are made, big mistakes, in this town always 
just mysteriously benefit Democrats at the expense of 
Republicans. So, the purpose of this hearing is we are going to 
be watching the Census and we expect it to be pretty accurate. 
You mentioned technology--you use technology in helping to 
count. How many employees, full-time, right now are in the 
Census?
    Director Santos. Full time? I am guessing around 10,000 
because----
    Chairman Comer. Ten thousand.
    Mr. Santos [continuing]. Not only do we----
    Chairman Comer. I know that does not count how many you 
hire part-time during in the Census here, but 10,000.
    Director Santos. We have six regional----
    Chairman Comer. You mentioned the adoption of technology 
and AI and all of that. Do you still need 10,000 employees or 
because of technology, can the Census get by with less 
employees?
    Director Santos. Well, keep in mind, Congressman, that we 
have three different censuses. Two of the 3, we do every 5 
years, economic census and----
    Chairman Comer. Are they any more accurate than the last 
one? And let me say this, according to recent projections, the 
states that voted for their electors for Kamala Harris are 
poised to lose as many as 12 seats. If the projections 
continue, you would assume more people are probably going to 
move out of New York, and more people are going to move to 
South Carolina and Florida and some of other states. More 
people are moving to Arizona, Montana, the Dakotas, out of 
California, so it is of the utmost importance that we have 
confidence in the Census. And I will be honest with you, I did 
not have confidence in the Census the last time, and that was 
not under you and that was in the Trump Administration. We are 
trying to determine now whether we are going to have confidence 
in the Census moving forward. And I just think it is very 
important that every one of those 10,000 employees in the 
Census understand that we are watching the Census and we expect 
with the technology, with the massive budget you have, with all 
these Federal employees, we expect a better product than what 
we got in this last Census because this last Census was not 
acceptable. It was political, and we were very disappointed in 
the Census Bureau.
    So, with that, the Chair now recognizes Mr. Goldman.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would warn you not 
to sleep on New York, but I do want to address one thing that 
you just said that I found interesting. Mr. Santos, does the 
Census count determine the House districts in each state?
    Director Santos. No, it does not.
    Mr. Goldman. No, it does not. So, when the Chairman says 
that 100 percent of the three or four seats that were 
miscounted would be Republican, that is not based on the Census 
numbers, right?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Director Santos. No, that is based on Republican 
gerrymandering. And I raise North Carolina as just one example. 
If you want to talk about the difference in the Majority in the 
House, North Carolina is pretty much a 50/50 state. And yet, 
this past cycle, the North Carolina legislature gerrymandered 
North Carolina to remove three Democratic seats and make three 
Republican safe seats, to go from a seven-seven split to a 10-4 
split. Now, I think the Chairman would agree with me that three 
seats flipped right there make the difference in the Majority 
in the House. And it is, in fact, just an assumption of the 
Chairman that Republican states, where the Republican-
controlled legislatures, would automatically make additional 
seats Republican, even though, as my colleague from Texas 
pointed out, the vast majority of new residents in Texas are in 
urban areas which traditionally vote Democratic rather than in 
areas that traditionally vote Republican. So, it is noteworthy 
that the assumption that, A, the Census was politically 
motivated, is based on nothing, and then the assumption that 
the results hurt Republicans, of course, is based on the 
assumption and expectation that Republicans would use 
gerrymandering to favor themselves.
    I want to focus briefly on another issue that has been sort 
of percolating in this hearing, which is the issue of 
citizenship, and I believe you have said you have done some 
research on the impact of a citizenship question on the Census. 
Have you or your Agency estimated the number of people who 
would not respond if there were a citizenship question?
    Director Santos. We have done research that gives those 
estimates. I would like to use that as a question for the 
record. We have the research, we are happy to provide.
    Mr. Goldman. Well, I have seen numbers of 9 million, which 
is quite significant, and am I correct that the Census, of 
course, is not just about apportionment, right? It determines a 
lot of different things. Am I correct?
    Director Santos. That is correct.
    Mr. Goldman. And in fact, in 2021 alone, there were 353 
Federal assistance programs that used the Census data to 
distribute $2.8 trillion to communities across the country, and 
those programs obviously go to services, regardless of whether 
someone is a citizen or not. In fact, some of the Census data, 
am I correct, was essential in deploying recovery funding in 
the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Mr. Goldman. Now putting Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s views to 
the side, did the COVID virus ask people whether they were 
citizens or not before it infected them?
    Director Santos. No.
    Mr. Goldman. No. The bottom line is we have heard voter 
fraud, which is, effectively, not a problem, and we have also 
heard a lot of misinformation coming from Mr. Trump about the 
purpose of immigration to increase voting and increase 
Democrats voting. In fact, Elon Musk has been a big, big 
believer in this bogus theory about how Democrats, I think he 
said, are deliberately doing voter importation to swing states 
and fast tracking them to citizenship. Are you aware of how 
long it takes for someone to get citizenship?
    Director Santos. I am not aware of the specific, but I know 
that it takes many years.
    Mr. Goldman. Yes. On average, it often takes a lot more 
than 10 years. In fact, I was talking to some of my Republican 
colleagues who were citing examples of 13 and 14 years, and 
that was someone who was married to a naturalized citizen. So, 
this notion that there is some nefarious purpose to increase 
Democratic voting when, of course, voting requires citizenship, 
not being counted in the Census, is completely bogus, and we 
ought to debunk it right here, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. At the request 
of the witness, we will take a short 5-minute bathroom break, 
and pursuant to the previous order, the Committee stands in 
recess for 5 quick minutes.
    Director Santos. Thank you.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will come back to order.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Timmons from South Carolina.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Director 
Santos, for being here today.
    The Decennial Census is absolutely critical to the 
functioning of our Federal Government. It determines how 
resources are allocated and how congressional representation is 
distributed across the country. As we look toward the 2030 
Census, I am increasingly concerned about the impact of the 
policies from this Administration on its accuracy and fairness. 
Over the past 4 years, we have seen policies that, if left 
unchecked, could seriously distort the results, leading to 
skewed congressional apportionment. Today, I want to focus on 
how the Biden Administration's handling of the Southern border 
could undermine the integrity of the 2030 Census. It is 
essential that we take the necessary steps now to ensure a fair 
and accurate count in 2030.
    Director Santos, while the number is likely drastically 
higher, can we at least agree that 5 million people have 
entered the country illegally in the last 4 years?
    Director Santos. Thank you for the question, but I do not 
have access to that type of information.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. NPR says 8 million. A lot of other think 
tanks go far higher, some as high as 15 to 20, so I mean, that 
is enough to fill a dozen plus congressional districts. So, do 
you think it is a problem if we are counting 10, 20 million 
people in the Census that are in this country illegally? Do you 
think that that is a challenge to achieving your objective of 
an accurate count for purposes of apportioning Federal dollars 
and reapportioning congressional districts?
    Director Santos. It is certainly a challenge from the 
perspective of getting folks to participate in the Decennial 
Census, yes.
    Mr. Timmons. What is the purpose of the Census?
    Director Santos. It is to count everyone once, only once, 
and in the right place.
    Mr. Timmons. To then apportion Federal tax dollars----
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Mr. Timmons [continuing]. And to redistrict congressional 
districts.
    Director Santos. Yes.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. So, do you think that we should give 
people in this country illegally Federal tax dollars, and 
should they be given sway over how we reapportion our 
congressional districts?
    Director Santos. That is a policy question that I will 
leave to the policy-makers. We simply focus on our mission to 
enumerate the entire population.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. I think most Americans, the overwhelming 
majority, would think that if you are in this country 
illegally, you should not be getting Federal dollars, and 
currently, under the rules that we have in place, that is not 
happening because they are included in the Census, whether they 
are in this country legally or not. They are also receiving 
representation in Congress, skewing the results of the 
individuals that are legally allowed to vote, which, in turn, 
reduces American citizens' effective representation in Congress 
because they are getting a reduced benefit for being here 
legally and following the rules. So, it seems like a problem.
    Director Santos. That is not for me to determine. We simply 
focus on our mission.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. So, if we added additional questions 
regarding whether the individual was a citizen, whether they 
are born here, whether their parents are born here, 
naturalized--it would probably be helpful to know if they were 
a lawful permanent resident or a visa holder or whatever--that 
would give us an additional data point to then achieve the 
objective of the Census, would it not?
    Director Santos. The objective of the Census is to count 
all people----
    Mr. Timmons. For purposes of apportioning Federal tax 
dollars and redistricting.
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Mr. Timmons. So, again, it seems kind of silly that we are 
sitting here talking about whether we should achieve the 
purpose of the Census or some other purpose, because we are not 
achieving the purpose of the Census if we are not getting that 
additional data point. We have been fighting about this for 
years, and there has been little cooperation from across the 
aisle. In 2019, President Trump tried to add the citizenship 
question to the Census to better understand this issue. It was 
blocked by congressional Democrats. In May of this year, the 
House passed H.R. 7109, which would statutorily add a question 
to the Census, and 7 months later that bill is still sitting in 
the Senate under Majority Leader Schumer's control awaiting 
action. This is going to be addressed next Congress, if not in 
the next few months, but this should not be an issue.
    I have heard countless arguments and rebuttals from my 
colleagues across the aisle regarding the citizenship question 
that we have been advocating for since 2017. It just seems 
bizarre to me that we are still having this conversation when, 
if you are in this country illegally, you do not deserve the 
benefit of Federal taxpayer dollars, and you do not deserve the 
benefit to reduce the effectiveness of a citizen's vote.
    I am running out of time. Are you planning to use AI in the 
next Census? There are a lot of different data points that you 
could use to more accurately reflect the true count. Is there 
any way that you are going to be using new technology to 
address that?
    Director Santos. We are going to be using new technology to 
improve counts, yes.
    Mr. Timmons. I am out of time. Thank you very much. I yield 
back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Ocasio-Cortez 
from New York.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. You 
know, there is a lot of hay being made in this hearing about 
undercounts, overcounts, but importantly, and attribution of 
motivation around differences in counts. Director Santos, thank 
you so much for being with us here today. First and foremost, 
undercounts and overcounts are standard in every Census to any 
degree, correct?
    Director Santos. That is correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. We have a massive undertaking of trying 
to count and fulfill our constitutional responsibility of 
counting what we now know is over 300 million people in the 
United States, correct?
    Director Santos. That is correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, of course, there is going to be some 
parents that maybe have a kid in college and they count them as 
part of their household, that kid in college, they want to be 
counted as their own adult, and so sometimes you will have some 
doubling up, and very casual situations like that, correct?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And then it is the Census' 
responsibility to try to mitigate some of that and sort all of 
that out, correct?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Now there is so much being made about 
the fact that there were some overcounts and undercounts in the 
2020 Census. I have one pretty simple question for you. Who was 
President in 2020?
    Director Santos. Donald Trump.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Donald Trump was President in 2020, and 
yet there seems to be some suggestion that there was some 
political motivation to somehow help Democrats in the 
administration of the Census. Now, given that Donald Trump was 
President, I find that odd, but let us approach this deeper 
suggestion, that I will just say it, what I have seen an 
allusion to is that there was some deep state conspiracy to try 
to somehow change or manipulate the U.S. Census counts. But we 
were here, I was here with the Chairman during that time as 
well. There was a pandemic going on, and I have reporting here 
on a letter from senior Census officials at that time, 
identifying, in fact, the opposite, attempted political 
interference of crucial aspects, technical aspects of the 
count, and political pressure to take shortcuts to make the 
count worse.
    Now, Director Santos, that aside, you are a nonpartisan 
member of the government, but I do have a question. Is it 
accurate to say that the Administration during President 
Trump's presidency did push to try to cut the Census short, a 
shorter timeline than typical, before the count was completed?
    Director Santos. That is my understanding.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, the count was cut short. President 
Trump decided to shorten that Census count. And, you know, when 
we talk about areas that may have been undercounted, including 
some, what we see now, Republican-leaning areas, a lot of times 
those can be rural areas, correct?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, we have rural areas, and that 
oftentimes requires more time to accurately count, and to the 
Chairman's question, having door-to-door canvassers in a rural 
area, it takes more time to canvas a rural area, correct?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Because you have people who live miles 
apart as opposed to an urban area where multiple people live in 
the same building, correct?
    Director Santos. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, cutting a Census short, when the 
Trump Administration pushed to cut the Census count short, he 
was hurting areas that were rural and happen, as we know, may 
vote with him, but that is separate from a political 
determination on the Census, correct?
    Director Santos. Correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, this brings me to what we often know 
as Hanlon's razor, which is to not ascribe to malice what can 
be more easily attributed to stupidity and a lack of proper 
governance. And when President Trump decided to cut the Census 
short and make a decision that hurt his own political 
constituency, I do not think that that is something that can be 
ascribed to the nonpartisan public servants who simply have to 
carry out his own orders, correct?
    Director Santos. I am not quite sure what the question was.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. Let me restate this. Would you say 
that the Census Bureau was following President Trump's 
Administration's, his orders, and following his guidance on the 
timeline of the Census, and basically had to do their best with 
the limited resources they were given?
    Director Santos. We followed the rule of law, and we did 
the best we could with our resources, yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much, and to that, I 
yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. It does not 
appear there are any other questioners here. We are waiting for 
Ms. Pressley.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask 
unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from 
National Urban League; a statement by the Honorable Mark 
Shepherd, Republican Mayor of Clearfield, Utah; and questions 
from Representative Thomas Suozzi.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Perfect. Thank you very much.
    I would also like to seek to enter into the record articles 
from the New York Times on ``New York Losing House Seats After 
89 Short on the Census.''
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Stansbury from New 
Mexico.
    Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, good afternoon, everyone. 
Thank you to Director Santos for your diligence in spending the 
day with us, answering questions about the United States 
Census.
    I am proud to represent New Mexico's 1st Congressional 
District, which includes Albuquerque and 10 counties in Central 
New Mexico, and the United States Census is absolutely 
essential to my communities and an accurate count is very 
essential to my communities because we are tribal communities, 
we are rural communities, we are low-income communities, and 
the Census is essential for not only capturing, of course, who 
is there, what their backgrounds are, where they live, but it 
is absolutely essential for all of the Federal services that 
our communities depend on to survive, everything from housing 
programs to food programs, to roads, you name it, the United 
States Census is how we make sure that there is a fair 
assessment.
    And as has been noted this morning, the impact during 2020 
of having the pandemic happen in the middle was, in many ways, 
very catastrophic, not only obviously for the fact that many 
people got sick, but because it happened at the most critical 
moment that we were trying to assess what was going on in our 
communities. And, you know, I for one, want to say thank you to 
all of our Census workers out there, not just the enumerators 
that were hired to go out there and to work with the Fair Count 
organizations that stepped up to the plate, but to the people 
who do the hard work behind the scenes.
    Many people know this about me because I say it almost 
every time here in the Oversight Committee, but I am a former 
OMB employee, and OMB plays a critical role also in managing 
the Census and making sure that the way in which we structure 
the Census makes sense, reflects our most contemporary ideas 
about the purpose of the Census. But I think it is important, 
and I know a number of folks here today have pointed out that 
the real purpose of the Census, which goes back to our founding 
as a country, goes back to the Fourteenth Amendment of the 
Constitution, where it states very clearly that the 
apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives is based 
on a count of the whole persons in each state. And we conduct 
censuses to really just understand where are the humans? And, 
you know, there has been some rhetoric here this morning about 
should we count immigrants, should we count people who are from 
somewhere else?
    And, you know, I think it is important to maybe, like, step 
back and take a moment because unless you are indigenous, 
unless your people have lived on this continent for thousands 
of years, of which we have many, many people, your families are 
immigrants. And when your people came to this country, whether 
they came of their own accord or because they were brought 
here, they were counted because we had censuses and they 
appeared in censuses. And for my colleagues across the aisle 
that do not realize this, I really encourage you, go on your 
own genealogical journeys, find your ancestors. For me, many of 
my ancestors are Irish, and looking at the Census records, it 
is amazing. You find your immigrant family is born in Ireland 
in X County and came here in 1851. We do that. That is a record 
of the humans that are in this country and how they got here.
    So, the arguments that we are hearing here this morning 
that immigrants should not be counted is un-American. It is 
literally un-American. It is really about sowing a narrative, a 
political narrative that is being propagated for political 
reasons. We know that in the wake of this election, Donald 
Trump has promised that he wants to do a mass deportation 
scheme. During his last presidency, he tried to force Federal 
workers in the United States Census to add a question about 
citizenship that was not for the purposes of just good 
government and making sure that folks would, you know, be 
counted. It was for the purpose that people could be identified 
and targeted should they actually carry out some of their more 
nefarious mass deportation schemes.
    So, I think it is really important that people understand 
this is not good government arguments. This is based on a 
political desire, one, to identify immigrants in a time and a 
place when immigrants are being targeted by the incoming 
election and the incoming administration and that they are 
talking about, like, transforming the Federal Government. And I 
just heard some language here a few moments ago from some of my 
friends across the aisle where they said, we want the Federal 
Census employees to know we are watching you. That should be 
chilling. We are the Oversight Committee, and our job is to 
conduct oversight, but it is not to intimidate Federal 
employees, and that is wrong, and we are going to fight it. So, 
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity, and I yield 
back.
    Chairman Comer. Maybe we just let them work from home. The 
Chair recognizes Ms. Pressley from Massachusetts.
    Ms. Pressley. Director Santos, thank you for being here 
today.
    The work of the Census Bureau is essential to our 
democracy. I often remind people that if you are not being 
counted in the eyes of the Federal Government, you do not 
count, but, of course, this work is far more than simply 
counting people. By providing comprehensive and accurate data, 
it gives us the tools necessary to ensure the Federal 
Government truly serves all communities. We rely on this data 
to be responsive to issues experienced by everyone who calls 
this country home, ranging from policy enactment to resource 
allocation. For example, the data from the Census Bureau on 
religious affiliation was critical to ensure our Jewish and 
Muslim siblings receive support during moments of heightened 
antisemitism and Islamophobia.
    Director Santos, you are constantly improving the Census 
survey and data analysis. How have the recent updates to race, 
ethnicity, and sexual orientation impacted our understanding of 
disparities across policy areas, like healthcare and housing?
    Director Santos. Well, thank you very much for that 
question. With regard to the revised race and ethnicity 
standards, they are still in the process of being implemented. 
However, having said that, in the 2020 Census, we were able to 
capture additional granularity on multiple races and 
ethnicities. So, if the line said, are you African American or 
Black, you could check ``yes,'' and underneath it would say, 
and what else? And you could record Latino or Asian or 
whatever. And so, we have some very rich data on over 300 
races, ethnicities, and mixtures of multi-races, multi-
ethnicities, multi-race ethnicities, as well as over 1,200 
individual tribes. So, we have very granular data that can 
really paint the portrait of who we are as a Nation.
    Ms. Pressley. Well, before I move on, speaking of 
granularity, is that true for the AAPI community as well 
because there has long been an effort to have that in more of a 
disaggregate.
    Director Santos. Yes, it is.
    Ms. Pressley. OK.
    Director Santos. The current regulation for race and 
ethnicity includes disaggregated.
    Ms. Pressley. OK, wonderful. I mean, again, at a time when 
diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are under 
coordinated and unrelenting attacks, including from some in 
this room, the importance of the Census Bureau's mission really 
cannot be overstated enough, but it is under threat and with 
what was once called Project 2025 is now simply Trump's agenda. 
Extremist conservatives are trying to weaken the Census. 
Director Santos, what are the potential harms of not collecting 
accurate and detailed racial data?
    Director Santos. By not accurately collecting that 
information, we are then at a loss to be able to help 
communities in all aspects of policy-making and service, 
whether it comes to which routes to have for public 
transportation, to the types of schooling and what languages 
would be provided at schools, at health centers. Public health 
is a huge issue. Public safety would be a huge issue, 
infrastructure, all aspects of society.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you. And so, bearing that in mind, how 
is the Bureau safeguarding against actions or policies that 
could undermine the diversity and inclusivity of Census data?
    Director Santos. Well, we basically are hyper-focused on 
our mission to collect the most accurate statistical data and 
provide it to the public. And we live our values of scientific 
integrity and independence and objectivity and transparency, 
and by living those values, that is a very powerful mechanism 
by which we can prevent against any meddling as we have seen in 
the past.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Director. Every community deserves 
to be seen, heard, and invested in, and there should be no 
erasure. We have a moral responsibility to ensure that the 
Federal Government does not forget the people it serves, and 
that means ensuring everyone can identify themselves fully and 
authentically. And I will just take a note of personal 
privilege to say, I continue to be incredibly frustrated at the 
injustice that we have incarcerated individuals being counted 
according to where they are being warehoused instead of being 
counted according to the communities that they are from, 
destabilized and communities that have been divested from and 
underfunded, which often led them to a pathway to 
incarceration. So, I just wanted to say that, but again, thank 
you, and I yield back.
    Director Santos. Thank you.
    Mr. Comer. The gentlelady yields back. That appears to 
conclude the questioning for today. Director, we appreciate 
your attendance here today, and I know Representative Palmer 
and maybe a few more Representatives had some follow-up 
questions for you.
    So, with that, and without objection, all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to submit materials and 
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be 
forwarded to the witnesses.
    If there is no further business, and I might add that we 
will be in communication throughout the next Congress because, 
again, this Committee has legislative jurisdiction over the 
Census. And as you can see today, there is a lot of concern 
moving forward to ensure that there is an accurate count, and 
there will be an emphasis on every government agency to ensure 
that taxpayer dollars are being spent correctly, wisely, 
efficiently.
    So, if there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]