volved in a Federal computer center which would have all this information so readily available. I have the very strong feeling, which I think you have also, from your statement, that we should not be surprised by the abuse of power we place in the hands of Government on occasion when it is found useful for their purpose. We should be condemned for giving them that power and making it possible for them to abuse it. I think this is the function of Congress. I think you share that feeling. There is a statement at the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2 of your prepared statement that I think perhaps could be taken out of context. After hearing your statement and your discussion, I am sure I would not read it that way, but I think for the sake of the record it should be made very clear that you do not intend to imply by the fact that this has become voluntary that it necessarily then becomes identifiable and public information attributable to that individual. Is that not correct? The census information would still remain confidential. Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes. Census information does remain confidential. Mr. McCLURE. You would intend that that be so, even though it be voluntary? Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, by all means. Mr. McCLURE. Do you have any feeling that there is a danger of false information being given to the census? Mr. GALLAGHER. I think there is a danger of false information being given by individuals to the census, but I think the system itself is sufficiently efficient to purify the answers. I think they can arrive at what they feel are bona fide answers to the collective problem, whereas individuals may, for whatever reason, falsify the information they may give. Mr. McCLURE. If there were a concerted effort by a group of people who would have a motive or a reason for falsifying information, would it not be quite possible for a large group of people in a large area, confined to a particular interest, to give misleading information on a rather concerted effort basis? Mr. GALLAGHER. I think that would be possible, yes, sir. Mr. MCCLURE. The only way we could get to that would be to provide penalties for giving false information. Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir. Mr. McCLURE. Would you be willing to take such a step? Mr. GALLAGHER. I provide for penalties. My idea would be that, rather than send people to prison for this sort of thing, we ought to have a mandatory fine. I think we are living in an age when we can upgrade this concept a little bit. Mr. MCCLURE. Do I understand you, then, that the penalty which you are referring to is not merely aimed at the failure to provide the information, but also aimed at those who willfully give false information? Mr. GALLAGHER. I would have to give a lot of thought to that, Mr. McClure. The penalty is for refusing to answer. I think for various reasons people might be hesitant to give the kind of information the Government requires of them. I think it would be a matter that would have to be considered on an individual basis. A person may consciously or unconsciously give wrong information. I think if a person unconsciously gave wrong information, I would not like to see a penalty imposed. Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you very much. Mr. GREEN. I shall yield briefly to Mr. Thompson, of Georgia. Mr. THOMPSON. I would like to thank Mr. Gallagher, also, for appearing. Basically, your concern is that questions that are posed do not probe too deeply into the private life of the individual, into matters which he may consider to be of an intimate nature. You realize there are certain needs of government, and this is the purpose of the census, but basically you are concerned about threatening the privacy of the individual through the questions that are posed, and you feel Congress should act as a screening body in determining this? Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. I would like to follow further the thought that Congressman McClure expressed. It appears to me in listening to the colloquy between you and he that much more harm could be done if a person gives false information than if a person simply refuses to give information. If there is a concentrated effort by certain people to give false information, then possibly we should give some thought to requiring that the answers be truthful. To the best of my knowledge, there in no penalty for a false answer. The only requirement is that a person does answer the question. If there is a willful intent to deceive, then I certainly feel, to my way of thinking, this is a more serious offense than simply refusing to give an answer. But an unintentional false answer certainly should carry no penalty whatsoever. Mr. GREEN. I want once again, Congressman Gallagher, to thank you very much. I deeply appreciate your coming here this morning. Your reputation and concern in this area are nationally known. Certainly this member of the committee has a very high respect for your thoughtful judgment. I think you have pointed out the heart of the problem to us when you say in your statement that the real question is how much information the Government needs to function effectively without undue intrusion into the private lives of our citizens. I want to say to the other witnesses, that I am very sorry that we will be unable to hear your testimony because it is almost noon and this hearing must adjourn. We will continue these hearings and I would like those of you who wish to testify to come back at that time. Meanwhile, I will be happy to include in the record, without objection, statements received regarding the subject of these hearings. And as I said, if any of you would like to come back in the future, we would be most appreciative of the fact that you did and be most happy to welcome you. Mr. MCCLURE. If there are persons who, under that last remark, should submit statements, I wonder if we might be informed so we would be advised that such statements have been filed. Mr. GREEN. They will be a part of the record. Without objection, the reports received from the Department of Commerce; the Bureau of the Budget, with enclosures; and the Department of Justice, will be made a part of the record at this point. Thank you all very much. The hearing is now adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the subcommittee adjourned.) (The reports referred to are as follows:) GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Hon. THADDEUS J. DULSKI, Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views of this Department concerning H.R. 10952, a bill "To amend title 13, United States Code, to limit the categories of questions required to be answered under penalty of law in the decennial census of population, and housing, and for other purposes." The Department of Commerce recommends against enactment of the legislation. From the first census of the United States, in 1790, until the present, the Congress has determined that the information collected in the Census of Population and related census is to be secured under the provision of the law which provides a penalty for a failure to respond to a questionnaire. The information to be collected is of such importance in the public interest that it has been felt necessary to require all persons in the United States to participate in supplying basic information. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, administratively to carry out the census under the conditions which would be created if this legislation were enacted. To conduct a census, a part of which is on a mandatory basis and another part of which is on a voluntary basis, would seriously affect the quality of the information which is collected. Further, the complications that can be foreseen by having certain answers on a schedule to be voluntary and others not voluntary when coupled with a mailout/mail-back census would raise so many problems of incomplete returns, respondent confusion, and problems of follow-up that not only would the cost of the census be greatly increased, but the resultant delay would affect the publication of tabulations and reports upon which so many programs depend. The results of a census are used by the Congress, by the Executive Branch, by State and local governments and community organizations, and by the business and academic communities, all of whom depend upon accurate and timely statistics. The Bureau would have no assurance that its reports would have accuracy or completeness if respondents were permitted to determine whether or not they wanted to answer certain questions. While the number of questions on a census schedule may seem burdensome, all questions are placed on a schedule only after intensive screening by advisers working closely with officials of the Executive Branch. To reduce the burden, a great number of questions are asked as a sample of the population, rather than from all respondents. Of course all information collected from individuals in the census is confidential and can be used only in the preparation of statistical summaries. The list of questions set forth in H.R. 10952 to be answered or with a penalty for a refusal implies that the collection of other census data is not important. The same implication might be improperly assumed that data collected on a sample basis is not as important as that collected on a 100% basis. Other than the fact that certain data must for apportionment purposes be collected on a 100% basis, such assumption is incorrect. All of the census questions are important. Some of the most important questions are on a sample basis. Certain questions are collected on a 100% basis because the resulting statistics are needed for very small areas, even for city blocks. The data needed for Congressional districting must also be available for very small areas. Some other data are not needed for such small areas; for these it has been determined that a sample of the order of 20-25% is adequate. In some cases, a 5% sample is adequate. By collecting this information on a sample basis it is possible to reduce the burden on the public, reduce the costs of collecting and processing the data, and reduce the amount of time required to process and public the results. The fact that a question is asked on a sample basis is no indication of the importance of the questions; it simply reflects a decision as to the size of the areas for which the data are required. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of our report to the Congress from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, JAMES L. PARRIS, Acting General Counsel. Hon. THADDEUS J. DULSKI, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., October 17, 1967. Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 10952, a bill, "To amend Title 13, United States Code, to limit the categories of questions required to be answered under penalty of law in the decennial censuses of population, unemployment, and housing, and for other purposes." The Department of Commerce in a report to your Committee on this bill recommended against enactment of H.R. 10952. We have asked other agencies that make extensive use of census data for their views on this bill and the Commerce report thereon. Without exception, these agencies agree with the Commerce position, and some of them cite additional reasons for their opposition to the proposed legislation. We are attaching copies of their replies to us, since they may be of interest to your Committee. In view of the foregoing, the Bureau of the Budget recommends against enactment of H.R. 10952. Sincerely yours, WILFRED H. ROMMEL, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS, Mr. WILFRED H. ROMMEL, Washington, D.C., September 1, 1967. Assistant Director for Legislative Reference, DEAR MR. ROMMEL: This is in response to your request for our views on H.R. 10952, a bill "To amend title 13, United States Code, to limit the categories of questions required to be answered under penalty of law in the decennial censuses of population, unemployment, and housing, and for other purposes" and on the Commerce Department report on H.R. 10952. The Council of Economic Advisers is in complete agreement with the Commerce report and would strongly oppose H.R. 10952. The data provided by the decennial censuses are of crucial importance to our continuing efforts to understand the structure of the economy and to pinpoint the areas and extent of necessary social and economic progress. Data provided on a voluntary basis would obviously be more expensive, less complete, and far less reliable. Progress toward economic and social goals would be severely frustrated under the provisions of H.R. 10952. Sincerely, GARDNER ACKLEY. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, Hon. CHARLES L. SCHULTZE, DEAR MR. SCHULTZE: This is in response to your request for our views on H.R. 10952, a bill "To amend Title 13, United States Code, to limit the categories of questions required to be answered under penalty of law in the decennial censuses of population, unemployment, and housing, and for other purposes." There are numerious categories of information collected in the census-taking process which are essential in the transportation planning carried on by both government and industry. We agree with the Commerce report that restricting mandatory response to the seven categories named in the bill would affect the reliability of data gathered outside those categories and thus adversely affect the planning process. At the same time, we do not consider the kind of information elicited to be of such a personal nature that it would be unreasonable to require that it be given. In fact, the information is gathered to provide a basis for programs which are designed for the ultimate benefit of the very persons asked to provide the information. Since H.R. 10952 would create a detriment to transportation planning without providing an overriding benefit to anyone, we believe it should be opposed. Sincerely yours, JOHN L. SWEENEY. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. CHARLES L. SCHULTZE, DEAR MR. SCHULTZE: This letter is in response to Mr. Rommel's request of August 21, 1967, for a report on H.R. 10952, a bill "To amend Title 13, United States Code, to limit the categories of questions required to be answered under penalty of law in the decennial census of population, unemployment, and housing." The bill specifies a few categories of questions which would have to be answered under penalty of law, and allows other information to be solicited only on a voluntary basis. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare recommends against this legislation for two basic reasons: 1. We are convinced that separation of the census questions into those which must be answered and those which need only be answered on a voluntary basis would have deleterious effects on the quality of all of the information received. We are convinced that not only would the non-response rate for voluntary questions be high, thereby making data tabulated from those questions unreliable and suspect, but also that the incidence of non-response and inaccurate response on mandatory questions would be increased. 2. Many of the programs of this Department are contingent on accurate and precise data based on questions which would be voluntary should the bill be enacted. No information on income, sources of income, employment, and education would be mandatory. It would thus be difficult to properly administer programs which are contingent upon accurate information with respect to these facts (as, for example, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 under which funds are distributed on the basis of data on number of children in families with incomes below specified limits). In addition, it would be difficult for this Department to carry out its responsibilities with respect to monitoring progress in American society and proposing action based on such studies. For example, it would be difficult to monitor progress being made by members of minority groups in improving their status by moving into different kinds of jobs, and changing employment patterns. Sincerely, WILBUR J. COHEN, Under Secretary. SEPTEMBER 5, 1967. Hon. CHARLES L. SCHULTZE, (Attention of Mr. James M. Frey.) DEAR MR. SCHULTZE: This is in reply to your request of August 21 for our views on H.R. 10952, a bill "To amend Title 13, United States Code, to limit the categories of questions required to be answered under penalty of law in the decennial censuses of population, unemployment, and housing", and the report of the Department of Commerce on the bill. The bill would provide that only certain questions (relating to the population) asked by the census takers would be required to be answered subject to the existing criminal penalty for failure to answer. Other questions, such as those designed to obtain information on the housing inventory and the residents of housing, could be asked but the replies could be on a voluntary basis rather than being required. This Department objects to the enactment of the bill and it concurs in the report of the Department of Commerce opposing its provisions. The conduct of a census partly on a mandatory and partly on a voluntary basis would be extremely difficult if not administratively impossible. Furthermore, the quality of the information collected would be of much less value. |