STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. BROOMFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

I speak in support of H.R. 405, a measure I am sponsoring to limit the Department of Commerce and the Bureau of the Census to seven basic questions to which answers legally may be required. It is identical to legislation introduced by my good friend, the Honorable Jackson Betts, and by many other distinguished Members of Congress.

As one who has been deeply concerned for many years about the encroachments on individual freedom and privacy from all directions. I am impressed and encouraged by the great number of census limitation bills pending before the 91st Congress and this subcommittee. They reflect the intense interest of the American people in this fundamental issue. I commend the subcommittee for its recognition of this concern and for its thorough and careful consideration of the alternatives before it.

The conflict between our need to preserve a maximum of individualism and personal privacy and our need to efficiently operate an increasingly complex and impersonal society poses one of the basic challenges of our time; and is at the heart of this debate.

That essential conflict is reflected in each of our daily lives and in the newspaper headlines that confront us every morning. It is a causal factor in the strife at our universities, street crime, of disorder in our cities and in virtually every physical aspect of the urban crisis-housing, transportation, air and water pollution, and education.

Historian and former White House adviser Arthur Schlesinger summarized the dilemma this way:

"We require individualism which does not wall man off from community; we require community which sustains but does not suffocate the individual." As the world shrinks and population grows, drawing the line between the legitimate needs of the community and the rights of the individual becomes an increasingly important and difficult task.

No thinking person can dispute seriously the contentions of population planners, social scientists, urbanologists, and every other technician concerned with human and community problems that accurate and complete statistial information is essential to developing solutions.

I am certain that none of the queries in the Census Bureau's so-called long form were devised frivolously. Each of the questions is representative of careful recommendations by some of the world's foremost experts in census taking and statistic gathering.

From their expert vantage, there are no excess or inefficient questions.

There is no doubt in my mind that problem-solving specialists can make convincing arguments about the emergency need for even greater amounts of statistical material in every field of human and community concern.

I understand their needs and I respect their sincerity.

They are properly and legitimately carrying out their professional and social responsibilities.

Nevertheless, the understanding of their needs and concerns does not dispose of the real and growing crisis we all face in preserving a maximum of personal freedom and privacy.

It does, in fact, increase substantially the threat to the maintenance of those concepts.

The housing expert, the population planner, the transportation engineer, the community health specialist are not concerned primarily with the sanctity of personal privacy; nor should they be.

But it is the proper responsibility of Congress to recognize fully this potential threat, to consider safeguards, and to act to insure their creation.

I was pleased and encouraged last month at the announcement of the Honorable Maurice H. Stans, the Secretary of Commerce, that the number of persons who would be asked to respond to the longer census forms would be reduced by about 10 million. That is a substantial and significant modification.

Equally encouraging were the Secretary's post-1970 census proposals for submission of future census questions to Congress at least 2 years in advance; for an increase in the general public's representation on advisory committees which

28-685-69-pt. 1- -15

contribute to the formation of census questions; and, for creation of a "blue ribbon" commission to fully examine proposals for modernizing and improving the operations of the Census Bureau and the essential question of whether the decennial census can be conducted on a voluntary or partially voluntary basis. These modifications demonstrate the Secretary's awareness and understanding of the fundamental issues at stake and the deep concern of Congress and the American people.

But I do not believe we can afford to wait until after the 1970 census to act. The census and the controversy that swirls about it are manifestations of a more elemental concern each of us has for the vast and uncontrolled array of statistical gathering agencies and complicated forms with which we are bombarded. In the course of our lives, each of us establishes a long trail of records. Beginning with a birth certificate we acquire educational records, aptitude and achievement scores, personality evaluations. We register with Selective Service, obtain a driver's license, purchase a marriage license, establish court records, charge accounts and credit ratings.

As the magnitude and scope of this recorded data grows so does the number and sophistication of agencies, both governmental and private, seeking to acquire and organize it.

In addition to the decennial census and continuing surveys of the Census Bureau there are regular polls by other branches of the Commerce Department. The Bureau of Labor Statistics makes regular inquiries, as does the Agriculture Department, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and virtually every other Government agency.

Without ever being asked if he has a preference every American is increasingly forced to divulge more and more of his personal life to the multifaceted Federal Government. Add to this the proliferation of forms and surveys from State and local government as well as from private institutions involved in education and credit reporting and it is clear that our freedom of choice and our privacy already have been limited substantially.

It is my belief that this subcommittee, other appropriate committees of Congress, and the administration should immediately begin a careful and thorough evaluation of this fundamental threat and of ways of minimizing and controlling

it.

The Census Bureau quite properly cites the urging of the Preamble to the Constitution to "promote the general welfare. . ." as the authority and purpose for its survey.

But the same preamble maintains that it is Government's responsibility to "secure the blessings of liberty. . . ." One of the most cherished of those blessings, now none too secure, is the preservation of individual privacy.

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD G. BROTZMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to present this statement to the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics. This is especially so since I have long felt that a reappraisal of our census practices is overdue.

While I have been critical of certain aspects of the census as presently structured, I want to assure the distinguished members of the committee that I have done so because of a sense of concern that this mechanism be as valid as humanly possible and this will be true only if the American people hold the census in high regard as a tool for better Government.

There can be no doubt but that the census is in the American tradition. It was considered a high priority item even in 1789 when it was written into the Constitution.

I might add that today we find the necessity for an accurate headcount has increased at least tenfold due to the many ways we utilize the official population count in apportioning Federal assistance and Congressional representation among the States.

With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully urge the committee to include in its report to the House the substance of three bills I have introduced. My first bill would recognize the growing dissatisfaction among the American people with regard to the highly personal and potentially embarrassing questions that now carry a fine and imprisonment for failure to answer. It would remove the criminal penalties for failure to answer all but the basic headcount

questions of the census. These would include name and address, relationship to head of household, sex, date of birth, marital status, and whether respondent is a resident or a visitor in a household. In addition, the 60-day jail sentence would be removed as a penalty for failure to answer; the $100 fine would be retained so that the Bureau of the Census would have legal recourse to back up its gathering of those statistics which are essential to the Nation for planning

purposes.

My second bill would increase the penalty for wrongful disclosure of individual census returns by Bureau of Census employees.

The current penalties, established in 1909 are a maximum of $1,000 and 2 years in prison. With the dramatic increase in pressure upon these people by the growing number of data banks in the Nation, I feel that sharper teeth may be in order.

My bill, H.R. 10331, would raise the maximum penalty for wrongful disclosure to $5,000 and 5 years imprisonment.

The third bill that I would respectfully urge be included in the census legislation reported by this committee is the mid-decade census.

As the population of the United States continues to grow and increase in mobility, the figures from a census taken more than 5 years before become meaningless benchmarks that actively distort decisions based upon them.

The misallocation and waste in Federal programs that are based on census figures is at least matched by the added cost to State and local governments who need up-to-date information upon which to base plans for schools, police, fire protection, highways, and municipal services.

I believe the pressing need for a national head count every 5 years was expressed with particular clarity last month in an editorial by an outstanding daily newspaper in my district, the Longmont Times-Call. The editorial said: "A recent Supreme Court ruling is causing concern in Colorado over the apportionment of the congressional districts.

"The court has ruled that in Missouri, the State must "make good faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality" in congressional districts.

"Further, the court ruled, "The State must justify each variance no matter how small.'

"This decision was handed down where there was a spread of 24,802 people from the largest to the smallest district-a total difference of 5.96 percent.

"In a companion ruling, the court also turned down a New York apportionment law. It is of no great secret that the four districts in Colorado have greater variation than either of the two the court ruled against.

"The court's ruling caused Justice Abe Fortas to picture legislators drawing a district line down the middle of the corridor of an apartment or even dividing a duplex in an effort to get equal districts.

"In dismay, he said the court appeared to be rejecting every possible type of justification that could be advanced to differences in population of districts.

"The situation in Colorado is certainly awkward. The city and county of Denver composes one district. The second district is a donut-shaped area surrounding Denver. Then the southeast part of the State makes up the third district.

"The fourth district encompasses all of the Western Slope, including the Four Corners area and swings back into the San Luis Valley to Alamosa. Then it extends east to Julesburg and the northeast corner of the State. It contains about 60 percent of the land area of the State-104,000 square miles. "Officials hope they can get by until after the 1970 Federal census before drawing new district boundaries. Whether they will or not is still to be seen. "The situation points out one pressing need-for more frequent national censuses. A census every 10 years was established in the Constitution when the country was young, small in land area and with few inhabitants.

"With the population soaring to more than two hundred million people, the census is still taken every 10 years. Congressional districts have been based upon this census figure. The court says, however, that the State must be divided equally into congressional districts.

"With the 10-year census, how can the State determine what the actual population of a district is to be sure there is the balance required by the Supreme Court?

"An actual count of people is necessary if a State is to divide a district into exactly equal districts.

"Under the present census method, the Federal Government counts people, but it seems more interested in determining everything possible about individuals such as the income, education, marital status, employment, military history, number of bathrooms, kitchen facilities, value of property owned, rent paid, list of household items, and where a person is born.

"Such questions are invasions of privacy of individuals. We must rebel against them in order to protect ourselves.

"In the meantime, the Census Bureau should get busy counting people. By taking the money it will spend prying into personal affairs, the Federal Government could make a head count at least every five years-which would help States in drawing up congressional districts."

During the last Congress the mid-decade census received the unanimous support of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee and was passed by the House. I think the need today is no less great.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that the enactment of these three measures would go a long way toward restoring the traditional confidence of the American people in the census and at the same time make it a much more effective tool for better government.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE Bush, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your informing me of these hearings so that I might comment on makeup of the 1970 census.

I think that the bill, which I cosponsored, to limit the mandatory subjects in the decennial census to six, is a tremendously important piece of legislation because it comes in response to a feeling on the part of many people that the census form is just too long, too cumbersome, and too personal.

I think that the hearings this committee is now holding emphasize recognition of this feeling. The Nixon administration recognized this trend when the Honorable Maurice H. Stans, Secretary of Commerce, announced revisions in the census procedures.

With Secretary Stans' revisions in mind, I still feel that there is a great deal that Congress can do. The Secretary said that after the 1970 census a "blue ribbon commission will be appointed to fully examine a number of important questions regarding the Census Bureau, including whether or not the decennial census can be conducted on a voluntary or a partially voluntary basis." Frankly, I feel this is an area where Congress can and should act this session. The hearings of this committee should provide adequate data upon which to base congressional judgment of an essentially political question.

Furthermore, it seems to me that Congress has an obligation to the American people to see that an accurate count is obtained because upon it will be based the representation of the House of Representatives something that will affect the future of this country for the next 10 years. Like it is our responsibility to be responsive to our constituents, it is also our responsibility to see that the House reflects shifts in population.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on further about the tremendous problems the members of my committee, Ways and Means, are faced with in attempting to obtain an accurate count of those persons eligible for medicare when the undercount from 1960 is substantial for this age group. But, I'm sure others more qualified than I have given you the benefit of their knowledge and experience. Thank you again for allowing me to express my views.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD R. COLLIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to comment upon the form which the Bureau of the Census proposes to use for the 19th decennial census of population that will be taken next year.

Although many of the multitudinous activities of the National Government, including some of the most expensive, are either extraconstitutional or unconstitutional, the taking of a census of population is specifically provided for by the Constitution of the United States. It is, in fact, mandatory, inasmuch as the apportionment of the House of Representatives is based on the census, the House

representing the people, while the Senate represents the States. This means that, while the other body is composed of two Senators from each State, the popular body consists of delegations of many different sizes, due to the great variations in populations of the 50 members of the National Union.

The third clause of section 2 of article I of the Constitution provided that "Representatives *** shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within 3 years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of 10 years, in such manner as they shall by law direct." Following the abolition of slavery, the first sentence of this clause was superseded by section 2 of amendment XIV: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

The electoral college, the mechanism through which the President and the Vice President of the United States are chosen, is based on the sizes of the two houses that make up our national legislative body. The statistics that result from a census of population will therefore affect the next two or three presidential elections, as well as the next five congressional elections. For example, the census of population that will be conducted next year will determine the number of electoral votes that each State will be entitled to cast in the elections of 1972, 1976, and 1980, as well as the number of representatives that the voters of each State will be entitled to vote for in the five congressional elections that will be held before the census of 1980 takes effect.

During the 18 decades that have elapsed since the first census was conducted in 1790, the Congress has from time to time enacted legislation authorizing the Bureau of the Census to require all persons over 18 years of age to respond to questions concerning their personal and economic affairs. While this goes beyond the constitutional requirements, it is justified as a means of securing information that will assist the Congress in legislating intelligently. Unfortunately, the lists of interrogatories have become longer and longer as the decades have gone by.

What are some of the questions that will be asked next year and to which someone in each family will have to respond? Besides the obvious ones relating to name, relationship to head of household, sex, race, age, and marital status, others concern the value of the family's property if the family owns it or is purchasing it, the type of kitchen and bathroom, and whether the family shares the latter with one or more other families. Still further questions cover such subjects as air conditioning, clothes washing machines, clothes dryers, dishwashers, and battery-operated radios. Yet other interrogatories cover such matters as employment history and status, occupation, income, education, marital history, and military service.

Mr. Chairman, in his letter of April 17, the Secretary of Commerce advised me that the number of individuals who will be asked to respond to the longer census forms will be reduced substantially. The Secretary stated that approximately 3 million households that had been designated to receive a 66-question form will instead receive one containing 23 questions.

I commend the Secretary of Commerce for cutting the number of questions that these people will have to answer to one-third as many. The fact remains, however, that a good many other people will have to answer 66 and still others will have to respond to 73. A few will have to answer 89 questions.

Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues on the subcommittee are no doubt familiar with the forms that were used by the enumerators who took the 14th census of population back in 1920. While they contained numerous questions, they were actually fairly easy to fill out.

For example, a census taker used four lines to record the data for Mr. and Mrs. John Doe, their son, and their daughter. Some of the data could be entered without asking questions, such as that pertaining to sex and color. If the enumerator already knew the Does or if introductions had been exchanged, he could fill in the question about their marital status without further ado. Obviously he would know that a babe in arms did not attend school and could neither read nor write. Questions such as those about homeownership would be asked but once-not four times.

Today the amount of data that was required for the census of 1920 could be put on one side of a card and used for a census to be conducted by mail.