Page images
PDF
EPUB

REVIEW OF FEDERAL STATISTICAL PROGRAMS

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1969

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC STATISTICS
OF THE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE,
Washington, D.C.

The Subcommittee on Economic Statistics met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 318, Old Senate Office Building, Hon. Herman E. Talmadge (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Talmadge and Miller; and Representative Conable.

Also present: John R. Stark, executive director; James W. Knowles, director of research; and Douglas C. Frechtling, minority economist. Chairman TALMADGE. The subcommittee will be in order.

In recent months there has been a great hue and cry about questions to be asked in the 1970 census. Members of Congress have received considerable mail protesting questions that will be asked in the census. Many of my own constituents have written to express their objections to such questions as, "Do you share your toilet?" and "How do you enter your living quarters?"

They are concerned about an invasion of their privacy, and the fact that a person who refuses to answer census questions may be faced with prison.

In view of all this interest I think it appropriate that we examine the 1970 census in some detail. We need to examine the census questions and determine whether they are justifiable as a valid governmental function. We must ask ourselves whether these questions are in fact an unjustifiable invasion of privacy.

It goes without saying that a Government as huge as ours cannot function efficiently without accurate statistics upon which public programs can be based. We must not, however, use the need for greater governmental efficiency as a justification for undue invasion of the right of privacy, or as a justification for harassment of the citizen who

wants to be left alone.

At this point in the record we will include the announcement of these hearings and list of scheduled witnesses:

MONDAY, APRIL 21, 1969.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES-JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC STATISTICS

SENATOR TALMADGE ANNOUNCES HEARINGS ON ECONOMIC STATISTICS

Senator Herman E. Talmadge (D., Ga.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Statistics of the Joint Economic Committeee, announced today that his subcommittee will open hearings on a wide-ranging review of our Federal statistical programs, with particular emphasis on the scope of questions asked in taking the census.

(1)

"The hearings will be conducted under the general heading, 'Progress Report on Key Areas of Federal Statistics to Meet the Needs of Public Policy.' The initial two days of the hearings, April 30 and May 1, will be devoted to a review of the status of the United States Census and to an inquiry into 'the nature and necessity of certain questions' asked on the census questionnaire," Senator Talmadge said.

"The Congress has received numerous complaints from the public about some of the questions people are asked during the census. There have been serious allegations of invasions of privacy and pertinent questions raised as to their necessity and propriety," said Senator Talmadge. "It shall be the purpose of these initial hearings to attempt to determine the purpose of such questioning and whether such personal inquiries are necessary and the extent of their intrusion into the private affairs of our citizens," he added.

In releasing a schedule of the upcoming hearings, Senator Talmadge stated: "Public programs to satisfy the manifest needs of our people and provide for the national defense cannot be carried out at minimum cost and in the most effective manner unless the Members of the two Houses of Congress, as well as the administrators in the Executive Branch, have complete, accurate, and timely information on the state of the Nation.

"This need was recognized by the founders of our country, when they provided in the Constitution for the taking of the census. It has been recognized since that time by extensions of our statistical system as new areas of policy concern created a need for more statistics. It was only three decades ago that the Congress-called upon to legislate a program for the recovery from the worst depression in our history-passed a Resolution providing that the Department of Commerce inaugurate a system of statistics, on a continuing basis, which became the present national income and product accounts.

"Since 1946, when the Employment Act was passed, the Joint Economic Committee and its Subcommittee on Economic Statistics have played a leading role in constantly surveying our statistical system, to probe not only its strength but its weaknesses from a standpoint of public policymaking. It is now time for a new review of these programs.

"We are beginning this review with a consideration of the United States Census. It is particularly timely that these hearings should open with a hearing on this subject of census-taking, since wide-range controversy has arisen in recent years concerning this particular operation.

"The subcommittee looks forward, also, beyond these two days to further hearings covering statistics on both prices and job vacancies handled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics; also the statistical sources of information on nutrition and hunger. Details of these hearings will be announced at a later date." Following is a schedule of the hearings to be held April 30 and May 1:

SCHEDULE OF HEARINGS

Wednesday, April 30, 10:00 a.m., Room 318 Old Senate Office Building (Caucus Room), Rep. Jackson E. Betts (R., Ohio); Hon. Maurice H. Stans, Secretary of Commerce; Hon. Paul W. McCracken, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers.

Thursday, May 1, 10:00 a.m., Room 3110 New Senate Office Building, Martin R. Gainsbrugh, Senior Vice President, National Industrial Conference Board; John Gunther, Executive Director, Conference of Mayors of the United States; Harold W. Watts, Director, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin.

Chairman TALMADGE. We are very fortunate in having as our leadoff witness Congressman Jackson E. Betts, who has led the fight to modify the census for some years.

We are honored to have you, Mr. Betts. You may proceed as you see fit, sir.

STATEMENT OF HON. JACKSON E. BETTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. BETTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to compliment the subcommittee for looking into this subject

and thank you for inviting me over here. I feel flattered to be asked to appear before your committee.

The fundamental issue in the controversy over 1970 census plans is whether this operation can or should be the principal source of basic demographic and economic statistics for our Nation.

As the initiator of legislation nearly 3 years ago to modify one feature of decennial censuses of population, I have had an opportunity to see the issue develop in a constructive way into the context of just what should the census be. Certainly I have advanced some definite ideas of what this activity should not be and that is why I welcome the opportunity to discuss the census before this subcommittee. Far from being a threat to those charged with the responsibility of gathering data needed to form public policy, I believe the present congressional inquiry into the census will have lasting beneficial results.

The decennial census has been described by the Director of the Census Bureau as a combined package program once every 10 years through which the Nation replenishes its supply of essential data.

It is a convenient vehicle upon which to secure statistics on a wide range of subjects. Congress has not closely examined the content, methodology, conduct or penalties attached to the decennial census since 1940. Today Government Printing Office presses roll producing the millions of forms, some containing as many as 86 questions, not to mention the subquestions and only lately have committees of the House and Senate begun to dig deeply into what is planned for April 1, 1970, Census Day, U.S.A.

Over the decades the census has been the calculator of the characteristics of the Nation's population, housing, employment, income and educational levels and so far has served us remarkably well. The short span of time between 1960 and the present finds a markedly different attitude of many persons toward the census. Even Director Ross Eckler acknowledges the Bureau anticipates greater difficulty in conducting next year's census. Why is this the case? This is manifested through the disaffection of many young people toward Government authority, the hostility of militant racial groups to the "Establishment," the resistance of public welfare recipients to another Government count of babies, income and housing conditions, and the fear by civil libertarian minded citizens to dossier centers. It is readily apparent that there are an increasing number of people generally disenchanted with the Federal Government.

Only if we come face to face with the changes in our countryespecially as they relate to compulsion, harassment and threats of punishment-can the full impact of amending census policies be appreciated. Before describing what I perceive to be the specific complaints of citizens against the decennial census, let me briefly look to the positive side of this controversy. Happily, the same technology that some fear as a depriver of privacy can serve as a buttress for the anonymity of sensitive facts about many persons. This is why I say there are several options open to Government which will yield more frequent and more accurate population and economic statistics.

The mobility of our citizenry and changing characteristics of several problems requires more frequent national censuses. A quinquennial census has been suggested as a first step. The use of sample household surveys, involving less than three million households conducted be

tween mid-decade and decennial censuses, is a further possibility. The overall use of scientific sampling procedures to secure a broad range of facts would lessen the dependence of so many Government and private users on decennial reports. A better utilization of existing data sources by the Census Bureau also must be explored.

Determining the proper balance between private rights and public needs is not a synthetic issue, Mr. Chairman. The widespread public outcry for reforms in the census, outpourings of editorial endorsement and 137 sponsors of measures identical or similar to H.R. 20 have a great deal of substance. Regrettably, the Census Bureau has resisted all requests to reexamine the essential purpose and conditions for the 1970 census. Rather, the Bureau has focused its attack alleging the unworkability of a mixed census, that is, some questions carrying a penalty for refusal to answer and others having a voluntary response. Every time the privacy issue is raised as an individual's right to be protected against compulsory intrusion into sensitve personal facts about himself, it is met by further pledges of confidentiality once such facts are extracted and stored in Government files. Preferences to the number and type of questions on the forms bring retorts that they have been there for many decades as though human values and Government needs are a static commodity.

When I have pointed to the offensive criminal penalties of 60 days in jail, a $100 fine, or both, under title 13, section 221, U.S. Code applied to all questions, I am told on the one hand the penalties are rarely used, and on the other the census would be a shambles without this form of intimidation.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to the fundamental question of what the decennial census should be, I will pose three further inquiries and comment on each.

(1) According to the constitutional purpose of the census, that being enumeration of population for congressional apportionment, is there not an inherent priority of counting people over bathrooms? In the 1960 census some 5.7 million citizens were missed by census takers, a 3-percent undercount nationally which I understand ran as high as 6 or 7 percent in some inner city areas. I have contended that unless we put the full weight of the Census Bureau behind an accurate headcount, especially due to recent Supreme Court decisions, the apportionment of Congress and allocation of over $17 billion in Federal grantsin-aid can be jeopardized. Another example of the problem of a complete headcount of all citizens is the inclusion of Americans overseas, particularly servicemen and their dependents who are out of the country at the time of the census. There were 1.3 million such individuals in 1960 and because of the overall problems of determining where all of these Americans might live, they were systematically excluded from the count of population in each of the 50 States by the Census Bureau. Here is a place that needs more time and effort by the Bureau, for to deliberately disenfranchise Americans overseas from congressional representation is unconscionable. Unless and until the early and complete count of people is accomplished, I challenge its use for other sundry purposes.

It would be interesting to know how great the statistical error becomes from the response to the first question on the form to the 117th. Mr. Chairman, I have prepared a list of each of the 117 questions

1

« PreviousContinue »