House Judiciary Committee Hearing: 'Why Inaccurate Census Results Hurt American Citizens'

[14:12] The subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a [14:16] recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the accuracy of the census. [14:21] I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. And before I begin, I no doubt [14:26] believe there'll be some different conclusions and views on this from a partisan perspective, [14:30] as there always are. But I do think there are some areas here where we can all agree that there [14:34] are ways to improve the census process. And I do hope we'll be able to have conversations along [14:38] those lines where there can be some bipartisan agreement that there are things we might be able [14:42] to do better for future census activities. So look, it is one of the Constitution's simplest commands. [14:52] Article 1, Section 2 states that an actual enumeration of the American people shall be conducted every 10 [14:57] years. The decennial census of Americans, though it sounds mundane, is a core pillar of our democracy. [15:03] It determines how many people represent each state in Congress, how many electoral votes each state [15:08] gets in our presidential elections, informs the drawing of district lines for state and federal [15:12] offices, and affects how much money each state receives from the federal government. [15:16] Simply put, it's important that the Census Bureau gets the count right. And in 2020, it seems that it [15:23] failed. Indeed, the 2020 census should be called the sanctuary census. Just like sanctuary jurisdictions, [15:30] the 2020 census unconstitutionally put illegal aliens ahead of American citizens. Under Section 2 of [15:35] the 14th Amendment, known as the Apportionment Clause, the census must count, quote, [15:39] the whole number of persons in each state. At the time of the amendment's ratification, [15:43] the term persons was understood to refer only to members of the American political community, [15:47] citizens and permanent resident aliens who had been lawfully admitted to the country. Just as the [15:52] Supreme Court has held that jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means, quote, not merely subject in some [15:57] respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political [16:01] jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance, end quote, when determining who is a U.S. [16:06] citizen who is born to illegal alien parents. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized a similar [16:11] principle, noting in 1992 that constitutional language governing the census contemplates more [16:16] than mere physical presence and some element of allegiance or enduring tie to a place. [16:22] It is unthinkable that the 14th Amendment's framers sought to reward states that harbored [16:26] illegal aliens with additional congressional representation. Yet that is exactly what happens [16:31] now. After the 2020 census, states with more illegal aliens, often because of a conscious policy [16:37] choice to hamper federal law enforcement and welcome immigration lawbreakers, get more seats in [16:43] Congress, more electoral votes and more of your federal tax dollars. A lot of them, in fact. [16:49] The leading study found that if congressional seats were properly apportioned based on the number of [16:53] citizens, Republican states would gain between 10 and 12 seats in the House of Representatives and [16:58] votes in the Electoral College. That's right. Illegal aliens and non-citizens have at least 10 seats in the [17:04] U.S. House of Representatives and the Electoral College. And that was before Biden administration's [17:09] policies welcomed 10 million more illegal aliens into our country. During its disastrous four years, [17:15] how many more seats will that give Democrats in the 2030 census if nothing changes? Counting of illegal [17:21] aliens in the census and as part of the apportionment base also violates the core constitutional principle [17:26] of one person, one vote. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that state and federal legislative [17:30] districts must be roughly equal in population so that each citizen's vote is roughly equal in power. [17:35] The 2020 census undermined this principle by counting illegal aliens in the apportionment base. [17:40] Today, a voter in a congressional district with 730,000 citizens and 30,000 illegal aliens has a [17:48] stronger say in the election of his representative than a voter in a congressional district with 760,000 [17:52] citizens and no illegal immigrants. Shockingly, though, the problems with the 2020 census did not [17:58] stop there. Beyond the manifest unconstitutionality of including illegal aliens, the Census Bureau failed at its [18:05] simplest task, accurately counting the legal population of the United States. The Census Bureau's own [18:12] after-action report found that it significantly undercounted the population of six states, [18:17] five of which, including my home state of Texas, are predominantly Republican. In fact, [18:22] in addition to Texas losing a seat, Florida lost out on two additional seats, Colorado gained a seat that [18:27] it did not deserve, and Minnesota and Rhode Island each maintained a congressional seat that [18:31] should have been lost. Conversely, the Census Bureau found that it overcounted in eight states, [18:36] seven of which are predominantly Democratic. Estimates show that these errors, which were [18:41] unprecedented in the recent history of the census, cost Republicans six seats in the House. Six seats [18:47] just from miscounting, and that's on top of the 10 to 12 extra seats Democrats have from counting illegal [18:52] aliens. What's more, because the Census Bureau used a technique called differential privacy to scramble the [18:58] data underlying the 2020 census, these errors are impossible to correct without an entirely new [19:04] census. We have witnesses here today who can explain the technicalities. As our witnesses will highlight, [19:10] the practice of differential privacy was derided by outside groups across the political and ideological [19:15] spectrums, calling for the use of it to end. In fact, a 2021 Harvard study on differential privacy's [19:21] effects on redistricting noted that, quote, it has a tendency to transfer population across geographies [19:29] in ways that artificially reduce racial and partisan heterogeneity, which makes it impossible to follow [19:36] the principle of one person, one vote, as it is currently interpreted by courts and policymakers. [19:41] Together then, the 2020 sanctuary census denied Republicans 18 seats in the U.S. House, 12 by counting [19:48] illegal aliens and another six by counting inaccurately. More importantly, it costs law-abiding citizens [19:54] in states across the U.S. their equal say in Congress and in presidential elections. Congress must act [20:00] to ensure that at the very least that illegal aliens are not counted for the purposes of apportionment. [20:05] Let's follow the Constitution. Let's stop enabling policies that encourage illegal immigration. [20:10] Let's stop weaponizing the census for political gain. And let's find bipartisan ways to improve the [20:15] census. And let's understand the technicalities that we're going to hear about today that we think have [20:21] bipartisan agreement create problems in terms of the estimating procedures that are used in census. [20:27] And let's put the American people first. The People's House, the Electoral College, and all the [20:32] elections and policies that flow from that should be representative of the American people. [20:36] I now recognize the ranking member, Ms. Scanlon, for her opening statement. [20:40] Good morning, and thank you to all of our witnesses for being here. I look forward to hearing from you. [20:46] As our founders recognized, the census is fundamental to our democracy, [20:51] playing a critical role not just in governance, but in shaping decisions made by organizations and [20:57] institutions across American life. An accurate census is essential for a fair distribution of political [21:03] power here in Congress and for the equitable allocation of billions of dollars of federal funds [21:09] to states and communities, including for programs like Medicaid, free and reduced school lunches, [21:14] head start snap. Its data is used by businesses and nonprofits to determine where and how to operate, [21:21] and by state and local governments to decide where to invest in public infrastructure like roads and [21:27] hospitals and schools. But the census is not just some mathematical equation to distribute congressional [21:34] seats and taxpayer dollars. It's deeply rooted in our founders' vision of what a government [21:40] by and by and for the people should be. Alexander Hamilton is on record saying during the Constitutional [21:46] Convention in Philadelphia, there can be no truer principle than this, that every individual of [21:53] the community at large has an equal right to the protection of the government. Ultimately, [21:58] the census is a national snapshot we take every 10 years that helps us understand and define who we are, [22:05] how to govern, and undermining that process in ways that distort that picture will harm all of us. [22:11] That's why Democratic and Republican administrations alike have historically tried to protect the [22:16] census from political interference and partisan pressures. But this president and his MAGA allies are [22:23] deviating from that precedent, once again trying to rig things in their favor. Now, these efforts aren't new. [22:30] They began under the first administration when they tried to add an unprecedented citizenship question [22:37] to the census. This was a blatant attempt by political appointees to exclude non-citizens from our [22:44] count, which they expected to, quote, benefit Republicans and non-Hispanic whites, end quote, and which was [22:51] ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court. And those efforts continued with the development of the right-wing [22:58] Project 2025 Manifesto, which, as predicted, has become a playbook for the Trump administration. [23:05] It devotes a whole section to plans to appoint political appointees loyal to the White House to [23:10] lead the census in order, quote, to execute a conservative agenda, end quote, which includes [23:17] trying to add a citizenship question again, focusing census engagement on conservative groups, [23:24] and limiting efforts to engage historically marginalized and undercounted groups. Then, [23:30] earlier this year, President Trump reinstated a memo to the Commerce Department ordering that the census [23:36] not count undocumented immigrants when determining each state's share of congressional seats. And, [23:43] you know, we've just heard a little bit of that rationale, which really conflates [23:47] the idea of who is in this country legally, not legally. I mean, we constantly hear from our [23:54] colleagues here about illegal aliens not understanding that fully 44 percent of immigrants in our country [24:02] are citizens, that another 26 percent are legal permanent residents, that another 5 percent are here on [24:10] visas. So, the vast majority of immigrants in our country are, in fact, here legally, as opposed to the [24:17] constant refrain we hear from the other side of the aisle. So, at any rate, the Constitution's command [24:24] is that the, quote, whole number of persons be counted. You know, the President has also posted on his [24:33] social media that he wants his administration to start work on a new census. And in a common theme of this [24:40] administration, it blatantly ignores the fact that the Constitution gives Congress, not the President, [24:46] the authority to connect the, to conduct the census. Our Constitution's framers understood the importance [24:53] of having an accurate and comprehensive population count. That's reflected in the fact that Article 1, [25:00] Section 2, Clause 3, the Enumeration Clause mandates that representatives be apportioned among the [25:06] states according to the whole number of persons in each state using an actual enumeration. Later on, [25:14] the drafters of the 14th Amendment, excuse me, kept this phrasing while amending the clause to account for [25:21] the end of slavery, reiterating that a state's representation in Congress must be determined by [25:27] counting the whole number of persons in each state. So, it really couldn't be clearer. The census must count the [25:34] whole number of persons, not just a subset of persons, living in the U.S. The Constitution's drafters [25:40] could have used a narrower term like citizens or voters or something else, which they did, [25:47] for example, in other parts of the 14th Amendment. But they purposely used the broader term persons in the [25:53] apportionment provision, making it clear that all people count, including women who could not yet vote at [26:00] the time of that drafting, children, indentured servants who were often immigrants and former [26:06] slaves. And they rejected proposals that would restrict the census to voters. Additionally, [26:13] the requirement of an actual enumeration has never meant that census takers are only required to count [26:20] only those who they can reach directly or in person. We know that the effort to count every person, [26:25] every decade has never been perfect. And that's why there have been continual improvements over [26:31] times. And that's for a variety of reasons, chief among them being that certain populations are difficult [26:37] for census takers to reach. Renters are harder to reach than homeowners. Children are particularly tough to reach, [26:45] especially if they are not reading and writing yet. But the Constitution does account for this. The Supreme Court made clear [26:52] in Utah versus Evans that the Constitution doesn't specify exactly how the census should be counted. [26:58] As the court noted in that case, census takers implementing our very first count in the late 1700s were [27:04] only required to report the names of household heads, which is very different from our system now. Our framers knew [27:10] better than to try and anticipate the technology or methodology that America would need to conduct the count in the future, [27:17] one that must capture the hundreds of millions of people living in the country today. Instead, [27:22] the constitutional North Star they gave us for the census is simply that it be accurate. These ongoing [27:29] efforts to cast doubts about the results of the 2020 census, the census that was conducted, I might add, [27:35] while Donald Trump was president, are part of a larger scheme. One mega extremists have designed to [27:41] redraw maps mid-decade in a blatant power grab so that Republicans can win more seats in Congress [27:47] and keep their majority despite the increasing unpopularity of their project 2025 agenda. In effect, [27:54] they're seeking a pre-gerrymander even as they attempt other gerrymanders. The ongoing lawsuit in [28:00] Florida which seeks to overturn the 2020 census by challenging some of its counting methodologies fits [28:07] right into this scheme. The suit filed against the Trump administration that's presumably sympathetic to [28:13] the plaintiffs may be just the pretext this administration is looking for to push for a census [28:18] redo. But if their efforts succeed, Americans will suffer. Undercounts and other counting errors [28:25] particularly hurt vulnerable and hard to reach populations, including young children, racial and ethnic [28:32] minorities, the transient and homeless, those in non-traditional housing arrangements, and those living in [28:38] very rural or very dense urban communities. In other words, people living in America who patronize its [28:44] businesses, drive on its roads, attend its schools, and use its essential public services, people who we [28:51] need to have included in the count. If these lawsuits by plaintiffs get their way and the methods used to [28:58] account for these populations are prohibited or limited, essentially putting the federal government's head in [29:03] the sand, we'll only move farther away from not closer to an accurate and complete count. Federal funds will [29:10] be misdirected. States, local governments, businesses, nonprofits, and others will make less informed decisions, [29:17] inadvertently depriving people of what they need to live and thrive in our communities. And that is [29:22] devastating for millions. Of course, we all want, as the chair suggests, our census picture to be fuller and [29:29] more accurate. It's what our democracy demands. And we should all strive to improve our data collection [29:35] and prevent undercounts as we look forward to the scheduled regular 2030 census. But to make that a [29:41] reality, we should be talking about reforms that limit the executive branch's ability to interfere in the [29:47] account for political purposes or reforms to ensure that the Census Bureau has adequate funding and [29:53] flexibility to do the job right. We shouldn't try to curtail or ignore scientific methods which are [30:01] available to complete such a huge undertaking or consider changes that make people trust this process [30:07] less and rather than participating in it more. The Census and its results are too consequential for [30:14] that. So I look forward to hearing our discussion today and I yield back. I thank the ranking member [30:20] and I will now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Roy. I [30:26] appreciate it. The call for a census in Article I of the Constitution plays an essential role in our [30:32] democracy, guaranteeing for centuries that there will be an appropriate allocation of house seats [30:38] and districts of equal population within each state. President Trump's extraordinary mid-decade [30:44] partisan gerrymander offensive has hit major roadblocks recently in California, in Utah, [30:51] and in federal court in Texas. But his forces have continued on their path of destruction and are [30:57] now targeting the 2020 census itself as a way to tear up the political map of the country. This week, [31:04] President Trump released this telltale statement on social media. This all began with the rigged census. [31:10] He said, we must keep the majority at all costs. Republicans must fight back. So what a syllogism [31:17] were offered because Trump must keep the majority at all costs. Therefore, the 2020 census was rigged. [31:26] This is lunacy. It's like saying because Trump had to win the 2020 election. He really wanted to win it. [31:32] Therefore, the election was rigged and he won it. And that's just derangement. The 2020 census was not [31:40] rigged. A 2024 report by the Government Accountability Office reviewing the accuracy of the census found that [31:49] the accuracy of the 2020 national population count was consistent with the previous census, [31:55] while the Bureau's post enumeration survey estimated statistically significant net coverage errors [32:02] in certain regions and states. The accuracy of the count was overall consistent. And overcounts and [32:13] undercounts at the margins are nothing new. The sentence census was not rigged. The actual institutional [32:20] weakness of the census, as the GAO reported, is the chronic undercount of communities of color, [32:27] which persisted through the 2020 census. In 2020, quote, in 2010, black or African American and [32:34] Hispanic persons, young children and renters were systematically undercounted, while non-Hispanic [32:39] white persons, adults over 50 and homeowners were overcounted. Are we going to have a hearing planned [32:45] on that? Maybe on the same day, we're going to be hearing with the Epstein victims. I don't know. [32:51] The Census Bureau faced unprecedented challenges in conducting the 2020 census because of the raging [32:57] global pandemic and the government's inadequate response to it. COVID-19 significantly complicated [33:05] census activities, many of which were suspended or delayed. In many states and localities, [33:11] lockdowns and travel restrictions stopped the Census Bureau from accessing communities entirely. [33:18] The Bureau also had to contend with natural disasters in a number of states, [33:21] as well as a planning budget that had been dramatically cut by the first Trump administration. [33:27] These two are the real problems that we should be discussing today. Instead, [33:32] we seem to be wasting our time on a long list of fanciful, self-pleading theories that have no basis [33:38] in law or history and that fly in the plain text of the Constitution. Before we assign blame for any actual [33:44] or imagined inaccuracies in the results of the 2020 census, let it be clear that it was the first [33:51] Trump administration that was responsible for preparing the 2020 census. And the greatest obstacle [33:57] to an accurate 2020 census count was President Trump himself. He repeatedly sought to undermine the [34:05] accuracy of the count by adding a citizenship question, which experts warned would dramatically [34:10] depress participation, including by American citizens, and skew the results for Democratic and Republican [34:17] states alike. Thank goodness that the Roberts Court thwarted that effort when it found that Trump's [34:25] process was completely contrary to law and the president's pretext for adding the blatantly political [34:32] citizenship question was, quote, contrived. The Trump administration told the court that they needed [34:38] the citizen question to help enforce the Voting Rights Act. And then after oral arguments, evidence [34:43] came to light indicating that the request of the administration, a GOP redistricting expert, [34:49] had provided an analysis showing that the addition of a citizenship question to the census and the use of [34:55] citizen-only data for redistricting would politically benefit Republicans and the white community. The [35:02] Supreme Court found the administration's formal excuses completely unbelievable, calling them contrived. [35:09] Now, in a second term, Trump and his allies are once again seeking to weaponize the census [35:15] in an unlawful way and undermining its accuracy. Trump instructed the Commerce Department to exclude [35:21] undocumented immigrants from the census counter policy that one three-judge panel said, quote, [35:26] has already been rejected by the Constitution, the applicable statutes in 230 years of our history. [35:33] The Constitution makes clear that the census includes, quote, the whole number of persons in each state [35:38] to ensure a complete picture of who resides in the country. As Republican Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan [35:44] stated during its introduction of the 14th Amendment in 1866, quote, the basis of representation [35:50] is numbers. That is the whole population numbers, not voters numbers, not property. That's the theory of [35:58] our Constitution. In the face of this overwhelming textual and historical evidence telling us that every [36:03] person must be counted. Some state officials have filed meritless lawsuits against the Commerce Department, [36:10] challenging the constitutionality of the Census Bureau's longstanding, constitutionally mandated [36:15] practice to count all persons who reside within the U.S., regardless of their citizenship status. [36:22] Right-wing legal activists in Florida have also filed suit against the Commerce Department, [36:26] claiming that the census's use of group quarters count imputation and differential privacy violated the [36:32] Constitution and the Census Act and call the accuracy of the census into question. Don't let the jargon or these [36:39] tortured arguments fool you. The lawsuits are part of a coordinated strategy to give covered to this [36:46] mid-decade attack on the 2020 census's apportionment count ahead of the midterms. Our democracy and our [36:53] society cannot afford our constitutional census being turned into a constant instrument of partisan conflict, [37:02] division and advantage. Let's reject this dangerous direction. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you. [37:08] Well, I thank the ranking member. Without all – without recognizing that Mr. Jordan is not here, [37:17] without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. We will now introduce [37:22] today's witnesses. I'm going to start with Mr. Mayfield. Mr. Mayfield is a member at Chalmers, [37:29] Adams, Backer and Kaufman, where his practice includes complex commercial litigation, constitutional law [37:35] and administrative law. Prior to that, Mr. Mayfield was a partner at a boutique litigation firm, [37:40] an assistant United States attorney, and served as counsel to the director of the United States Census [37:46] Bureau. Next, Mr. J. Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez is an assistant attorney general in the office of the [37:53] Kansas Attorney General. He primarily works on cases involving constitutional issues and was the [37:58] attorney of record on behalf of the Kansas Attorney General in Louisiana v. Department of Commerce. [38:05] Mr. Wade Miller. Mr. Miller currently serves as a senior advisor at the Center for Renewing America. [38:11] Wade is a combat veteran who served in the United States Marine Corps as an infantryman, [38:14] deploying into combat theaters three times in Iraq and the Horn of Africa. He has significant [38:19] experience and involvement in campaign activities, conservative grassroots movement, [38:23] and the public policy development. And for the record, he also served in my office [38:28] in my first term in Congress as my chief of staff. And Mr. Yang. Mr. Yang is the president and [38:35] executive director at Asian Americans Advancing Justice. AAJC works to eliminate discrimination [38:41] against and to advance the civil rights of Asian Americans. We thank our witnesses for appearing today [38:47] and we'll begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right hand? Do you swear [38:56] or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best [39:01] of your knowledge, information, and belief? So help you God. Witnesses answered in the affirmative. Let the record [39:08] reflect that they have. Thank you. Please be seated. Please know that your written testimony will be [39:13] entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony in five [39:19] minutes. I'm going to start on the right here with Mr. Mayfield. You have five minutes and you may begin. [39:24] Thank you, Chairman Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and members of the committee for inviting me here [39:39] today to discuss issues related to the 2020 census. My name is Trey Mayfield and I served as counsel to the [39:44] director of the Census Bureau at the end of the first Trump administration, during which time many legal [39:49] issues concerning the methodology, accuracy, and use of the 2020 census were raised. Our Constitution [39:56] is largely concerned with structuring our form of government and placing textual limits on power. [40:00] The decennial census is one of the very few specific exercises of power mandated by the Constitution. [40:06] The census clause is firmly lodged in Article I of the Constitution. It is, for constitutional purposes, [40:13] a congressional responsibility. In order to apportion members of the House of Representatives [40:17] among the several states so that House membership proportionately reflects each state's population, [40:23] Article I, Section II, Clause III mandates that there be, quote, an actual enumeration, unquote, [40:28] every 10 years. Section II of the 14th Amendment reiterates that requirement. When interpreting the [40:34] Constitution, we must look to its text using the commonly understood meaning of the words at the time [40:39] it was ratified in 1788. The Constitution requires the actual enumeration. Not surprisingly, [40:45] dictionaries from the time demonstrate that an enumeration requires an actual counting and not [40:50] just an estimation of numbers. The founders were well aware of the opportunities for fraud to inflate [40:57] or deflate a given state's population in order to alter representation in the House. For that reason, [41:03] the federal government was charged with conducting the census and doing so by actually counting, [41:08] not estimating, how many people were living in the United States. Since 1790, Congress has [41:14] consistently reaffirmed in census-authorizing legislation that statistical adjustments are [41:19] prohibited in determining our national population for apportionment purposes. To be sure, census data [41:25] is used for many purposes other than apportionment, including dispersing federal funds to states and [41:30] localities, obtaining demographic data, and ascertaining the state of the nation in such ways as the [41:35] Congress and President deem appropriate. Some kinds of statistical adjustment are permissible in [41:40] performing those functions, but not for enumeration. Congress has mandated the census, quote, [41:46] be as accurate as possible, unquote, and banned the use of statistical adjustments for enumeration [41:51] because it, quote, poses the risk of an inaccurate, invalid, and unconstitutional census. Within those [41:57] limitations, Congress has delegated responsibility for implementing the census to the Secretary of Commerce [42:02] and the Census Bureau. Congress also requires the President report to Congress the total population of [42:08] the nation, each state, and the number of representatives to which each state is entitled. [42:13] There is no law, however, prohibiting the President from reporting additional information to Congress [42:18] in that report, such as the number of illegal aliens in the count and what results of the count would be [42:23] in their absence. Congress has also prohibited the release of any census data whereby the person who [42:29] provided the data could be identified. Purportedly to meet this requirement, civil servants at the Bureau [42:36] applied methodology to the 2020 census called differential privacy. It violates the Constitution's [42:42] actual enumeration requirement and the congressional prohibition on the use of such methods. They [42:47] refused to allow their method to be peer-reviewed or to disclose the data upon which they concluded [42:52] the differential privacy was needed instead of the method the Bureau had previously used known as data [42:58] swapping. Using differential privacy altered both the count and the characteristics of individuals [43:05] and households reported at the region, district, town, and census block level. In essence, the Bureau's [43:11] reported population moved people around within states. For instance, when testing differential privacy [43:18] using the data from the 2010 census, the population of Port Royal, Virginia was artificially increased [43:23] 87 percent, while the population of Stony Creek, Virginia was decreased by 43 percent. In other words, [43:31] differential privacy results in people from larger subgroups and geographic units [43:35] being moved to smaller ones. Opposition to differential privacy was unanimous among census stakeholders. [43:42] Every letter the Bureau received from outside scientists and statisticians came to the same [43:47] conclusion. Differential privacy is illegal, it is data corrupting, and it addresses a non-existent [43:53] problem. It was also opposed unanimously by governmental actors and interest groups for reasons as [43:59] straightforward that using fake population data makes it difficult for governments to carry out core [44:04] responsibilities, such as drawing district lines and determining where to locate bus stops in schools [44:10] and how to allocate welfare. Studies since the 2020 census have confirmed that this is exactly what [44:16] differential privacy does. It adds fake people to where they do not live and subtracts real people [44:22] from where they do live. Thus, all of the reported enumeration census data from 2020 below the state [44:28] level is false. I welcome the committee's questions. Thank you, Mr. Mayfield. I'll now recognize Mr. [44:36] Rodriguez for five minutes. Thank you, Chairman Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and members of the [44:43] committee. I'm an assistant attorney general in the Special Litigation and Constitutional Issues Division [44:49] of the Kansas Attorney General's Office. And in that role, I'm leading a multi-state federal lawsuit [44:56] against the Department of Commerce challenging its practice of counting illegal aliens in the census. [45:01] Mr. Rodriguez, can you move a little closer to your microphone or ensure that it's on? [45:04] Sorry, is that better? That's better, yes. When illegal aliens are counted, it inflates the count [45:10] for a few states with high numbers of illegal aliens and gives those states more political power [45:16] and representation at the expense of states with smaller numbers of illegal aliens. That violates the [45:21] Constitution, which requires an actual enumeration of inhabitants to be used for apportioning house [45:26] seats, and it violates the principle of equal representation by making votes in some states count less [45:32] than votes in others. The census comes out of Article I, Section II of the Constitution. It requires Congress to [45:39] conduct an actual enumeration to be used in the apportionment of representatives and electoral college [45:44] votes according to the respective numbers in each state. In the founding era, numbers referred to [45:49] inhabitants, which meant someone with a fixed and permanent connection to the place and some legitimate [45:55] tie to the political community. Under that definition, illegal aliens are not inhabitants. They're present in the [46:02] U.S. illegally, subject to removal, and their residence is therefore temporary and contingent. [46:08] They're not bona fide members of the state, so they should not be included in any enumeration for purposes [46:14] of apportionment. Historically, Congress has delegated its constitutional authority over the census to [46:19] the Secretary of Commerce under the Census Act, and the census is conducted according to the rules [46:24] promulgated by the secretary. Every census and apportionment, including the most recent one in 2020, [46:30] has counted illegal aliens at their usual residence, although it's only in the last few decades that the [46:35] scale of illegal immigration has significantly affected apportionment. In the Supreme Court, [46:41] there are two broad categories of cases that are relevant to these issues. The first concerns equal [46:46] representation or the principle of one person, one vote. Starting in the 1960s, the Supreme Court [46:52] found that debasement of votes or vote dilution is a justiciable injury. And when state voting districts [47:00] are unequal in population, it means that votes in less populous districts count more than votes in more [47:05] populous districts, which violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Apportionment Clause. [47:11] And the court has held that districts must be equal in terms of total population, not in terms of the [47:16] number of eligible voters. But in these cases, the court set the lower boundary of who should be counted. [47:23] It hasn't set the upper boundary. Even though total population we know is more than just eligible voters, [47:29] we don't know that it must include illegal aliens. The second category of relevant cases concerns the [47:36] conduct of the census. For example, in Department of Commerce versus New York, the court held that [47:42] asking a question about citizenship was permitted by the enumeration clause given Congress's [47:48] quote, unlimited discretion to conduct the census. But including the question violated the Administrative [47:55] Procedure Act. Without an APA violation, a citizenship question could likely be included in the next [48:02] census if it was produced by a reasoned decision-making process. And in Trump versus New York in 2020, [48:11] the court heard a challenge to a Trump administration memo which planned to exclude illegal aliens from [48:16] the already completed census to the extent feasible. The court dismissed the case for lack of standing, [48:22] since there was no certainty that anyone would actually be removed from the census pursuant to the memo, [48:27] but it did not rule on the legality of excluding illegal aliens from an actual enumeration. [48:33] So the census cases show that Congress has broad authority over what information is collected in [48:39] the census and that counting illegal aliens remains an open question. The court has not said whether the [48:46] Constitution requires counting illegal aliens or prohibits it, or whether Congress has discretion to [48:52] decide one way or the other. So the future of the census will be decided in the courts and in Congress. Thank you. [48:59] Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. I'll now turn to Mr. Miller. You have five minutes. [49:07] Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify about the serious [49:11] flaws in the 2020 census caused by the Census Bureau's first-ever use of differential privacy. [49:16] Differential privacy is an algorithm that deliberately injects noise and plain English false data into census [49:24] results below the state-level data, all the way down to individual blocks. It alters racial and household [49:29] composition changes population counts and even shifts those fabricated numbers to entirely different [49:36] neighborhoods, cities, or counties. Census employees will say they are statually required to protect [49:42] privacy as justification for choosing differential privacy to achieve that goal. [49:46] Under differential privacy, the Bureau insists that state-level totals remain accurate, [49:50] but everything below that level is intentionally distorted. The amount of distortion is top secret. [49:55] Only a handful of Bureau officials know the true unaltered numbers. The consequences are severe and [50:01] criticism is bipartisan. Harvard data scientists found that differential privacy artificially reduces [50:06] racial and partisan diversity, making it impossible to achieve genuine one-person, one-vote equality. [50:12] The Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund and Asian Americans Advancing Justice concluded that [50:19] the data altered by this method are too inaccurate to satisfy the Voting Rights Act or the equal [50:24] population requirements for redistricting. Rural and low population areas suffered the greatest [50:29] proportional harm, distorting the partisan makeup of Congress and potentially affecting billions in [50:34] federal funding. Differential privacy also has three fatal structural flaws. One, it renders the count [50:40] question resolution process meaningless. Localities can no longer tell whether a number is wrong because [50:45] of an actual counting error or because the Bureau intentionally falsified it. Two, it injects distorted data into [50:51] every state's redistricting process, casting doubt on the legitimacy of district lines. Three, it effectively [50:58] gives bureaucrats a permanent tool to obscure non-citizen and illegal immigrant populations, nullifying any [51:03] future citizenship question and shifting political power away from American citizens. Some limited analysis [51:10] suggests an estimated 2% movement of numerical population data, but some reporting has suggested that upwards of [51:16] 20% movement is allowable. Either way, this poses serious constitutional concerns. Compounding these problems, the 2020 [51:22] census was the most inaccurate in modern history. The Bureau's own post-enumeration survey admittedly admitted [51:28] statistically significant undercounts in six states, mostly red states, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, [51:35] Tennessee, and Texas, and overcounts in eight states, mostly blue states, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, [51:41] New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Utah. Those errors alone shifted at least six congressional seats and [51:48] electoral votes to the wrong states. Those errors all benefited Democrats. When you combine known [51:54] political imbalances in the raw count with an opaque algorithm that deliberately moves and alters [51:59] population data, and all of those problems coincidentally mathematically tend to benefit the left, [52:05] it is reasonable for Americans to conclude that the 2020 census was weaponized, if not intentionally, [52:10] through malpractice. Public trust in the Census Bureau has been badly damaged as a result. [52:16] Restoring that trust is simple. Congress and the current and next administration must correct the errors committed [52:22] by the Census bureaucracy leading up to the 2020 census and permanently prohibit the use of differential privacy. [52:29] Differential privacy policy for the purposes of satisfying statutory privacy requirements [52:34] is insufficient as a justification. Statutory privacy requirements cannot serve as grounds for ignoring the [52:40] constitutional requirements that flow from census data. The 2030 census returns need to be accurate, [52:46] transparent, and politically neutral the way the Constitution demands. Thank you. I look forward to [52:52] your questions. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I'll now turn to Mr. Yang, and you have five minutes. Thank you. Good morning, [52:59] Chairman Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, Committee Chair Jordan, and Ranking Member Raskin. Thank you for inviting [53:05] me to testify here today. My name is John C. Yang. I'm the President and Executive Director of Asian [53:09] Americans Advancing Justice, AAJC. AAJC is part of a national network that includes independent affiliates [53:15] in Atlanta, Chicago, and Los Angeles, as well as 37 community partners in 37 different states, [53:22] as well as the District of Columbia. We have served on numerous advisory committees for the Census Bureau, [53:27] including the most recent 2030 Census Advisory Committee. We maintain a permanent census program that [53:33] monitors census policy, educates policymakers, and conducts community outreach and education. [53:38] I appreciate this opportunity to testify before all of you on the importance of the accuracy of the [53:43] census. An inaccurate census hurts everyone in this country. Over $2.2 trillion in federal funding [53:50] is allocated based on census data. State and local governments decide where to build hospitals, [53:56] where to build schools, how to widen highways based on the census data. Businesses decide where to put [54:02] new stores, what inventory to include in those new stores, based on demographic data provided by the [54:08] census. That's why every administration going back to 1790, whether Republican, Democrat, Whig, Federalist, [54:15] Democratic, Republican, has supported policies and supported a budget to fund an accurate census. [54:21] Traditionally, ensuring accurate census has been a bipartisan endeavor, and it has been about science, [54:27] and it has been about statistics. Under the Constitution, the census requires the counting of the whole number of [54:32] persons. The Supreme Court, as well as the text and history of the 14th Amendment, makes clear that [54:37] apportionment is based on total population and not subsets. Arguments about counts based solely on [54:43] immigration status or eligible voters have been repeatedly rejected by Congress and the courts. [54:49] Any attempt to add a question concerning citizenship or immigration status will only make the census [54:55] inaccurate. Studies have repeatedly shown that questions such as the citizenship question only cause [55:00] people to decline to participate in the census. To be clear, those persons are not limited to [55:06] non-citizens, but also include households that include both citizens and non-citizens. Such inaccuracies [55:13] will mean that resources will not be distributed appropriately throughout the country. It also contradicts [55:18] the Constitution's edict to equal representation for all. The Census Bureau is committed to producing and [55:25] disseminate objective, credible, and useful statistics to support the decision-making of governments, [55:30] businesses, philanthropy, and social service organizations. Although the total population [55:35] count of the 2020 census did not see a significant overcount or undercount, we did see that specific [55:41] populations did have undercounts. The 2020 census showed an undercount for children under four of [55:46] over five percent. Of rural areas were undercounted by around four percent. The Hispanic community was [55:52] undercounted by over five percent, the African American community by around three percent, and the American [55:57] Indian tribal population by over five percent. Now, two common reasons exist for undercounts. First is [56:04] anti-government sentiment and privacy concerns are causing people to resist sharing information with the [56:09] government. Less than a third of the U.S. population have trust in the federal government. Accordingly, [56:15] the Census Bureau takes its responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of the information [56:21] very, very seriously by ensuring that personally identifiable information is not shared or distributed [56:27] to any other government or any other agency at any level. Now, differential privacy is simply one [56:33] means for accomplishing that confidentiality. Basically, it creates statistical noise to mask personally [56:38] identifiable characteristics that could be revealed when census data is overlaid against other publicly [56:44] available data. Now, to be clear, and everyone has agreed, differential privacy is not used at the state [56:49] level and therefore has no effect on apportionment. Now, the second common reason for undercounts is a [56:55] lack of a robust get-out-the-count program, especially for communities that are traditionally undercounted or [57:01] difficult to count. States that invest in their census outreach and invest in their operations are more [57:06] likely to have accurate counts when compared to states that did not invest in their populations. A state's [57:11] lack of investment in their census therefore not only results in a potential loss of representation in [57:16] Congress, but also in a loss of resources. For example, many experts expected that Alabama would lose [57:22] the congressional seat in the 2020 census. The state, however, invested in get-out-the-count operations [57:28] at an early stage and Governor Ivey was very vocal in pushing Alabamans to participate. As a result, [57:34] the state did not lose a seat. In conclusion, it is clear that calling all persons, not just citizens or [57:41] legal residents, is a constitutional requirement that is also critical for determining the allocation of federal [57:46] funds and for making data-based business decisions. Rather than seeking to exclude certain classes [57:52] of people from the count, policymakers and the Census Bureau must do everything they can to ensure [57:57] that everyone is counted. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to questions. [58:02] Thank you for your opening statement, Mr. Yang. We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with [58:07] questions. The chair recognized the gentleman from North Carolina for five minutes. [58:12] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing on this very important matter. [58:17] And thank you all on the panel for your presence today and for your expertise that you bring to [58:22] the table. I want to take just a moment to talk about the importance of including a citizenship question [58:29] in our census. And I want to come to you, Mr. Miller. Should the census include a citizenship question? [58:37] Yes, I would argue that it is constitutionally mandated in terms of what the census is seeking to [58:45] produce from a constitutional perspective. So knowing citizenship or residency status, lawful permanent [58:51] residence status or otherwise is important in understanding how all of the total population fits [58:58] into what you must do with that data. Thank you. And has the census ever included a citizenship question? [59:06] That's a good question historically. I think it has historically, but it has not recently. They tried to [59:12] get that going last time and ran into APA violation issues and so it was not included. And I kind of [59:18] follow up to that because I think it has. And why was the question removed? That would be the real [59:24] question here. Are you asking me to speculate? So I suspect that it was an attempt to try to increase [59:34] population levels in ways that would help certain states because they're now counting [59:42] illegal immigrants for the purposes of apportionment and illegal immigrants and legal immigrants for the [59:47] purposes of redistricting. Okay. And what are some of the effects of leaving a citizenship question [59:53] out of the census? If you don't know accurate citizen status, then if you if you're if your argument [1:00:02] is that it is that constitutionally you should only be creating political districts with [1:00:07] those are here lawful permanent residents and citizens or just citizens, then you need to know [1:00:14] that data in order to create political maps that reflect that data set if that's your objective. Sure. [1:00:20] So the result of our census not only controls how congressional and state districts are drawn, [1:00:26] but it also directs the flow of federal dollars. I mean, we talk about Medicaid, [1:00:31] highway funds, education, SNAP benefits, all use population and demographic data from the census [1:00:39] to award funds. And so when we don't distinguish between citizens and non-citizens when determining [1:00:45] our population, it incentivizes states to mass import illegals through sanctuary policies. Now, [1:00:53] we just went through the Big Beautiful Bill or Working Families Tax Act and we made an effort [1:00:58] to ensure illegals are not accessing welfare programs. But I'm worried that when we allow them [1:01:04] to be considered for purposes of determining benefit formulas, it undermines that purpose. So, [1:01:10] Mr. Miller, do you agree that including illegal aliens in population totals for federal programs [1:01:16] undermines the recent reforms to prohibit illegal aliens from taking benefits away from Americans? [1:01:23] Certainly. So there's two questions here. Should you count them? And then how should that data be [1:01:30] used and for what purposes? But certainly if you are counting illegal aliens and you don't know their [1:01:35] location and the location of those illegal aliens because of differential privacy is being moved around, [1:01:41] that would have significant impacts on every single federal funding formula assuming that memorandums [1:01:46] of understanding are not being properly submitted to the census to ascertain accurate information [1:01:52] on ways to disperse those federal funds. Agreed. And I would submit that when we allow illegal aliens to [1:01:57] be counted toward the total population for the purposes of determining welfare award numbers, [1:02:03] it distorts the proper amount that should be given to that community and that ultimately puts a further [1:02:09] strain on the federal budget. Mr. Mayfield, let me ask you real quickly in the last moment I have, [1:02:15] I'm very grateful to be serving in the House of Representatives, which is a democratic body, [1:02:20] but I worry that the errors in the 2020 census undermine this institution and its purposes, [1:02:26] which is to represent the American people. Can you, Mr. Mayfield, explain how the way in which [1:02:33] the 2020 census was conducted undermined the representation of the American people? [1:02:39] Thank you for that question, Congressman. It's important in asking that question to make [1:02:46] a distinction between two things, the gathering of the data, the collection, [1:02:51] and the processing of that data. The gathering of the data by the census in 2020 was exemplary. [1:02:57] As your colleague, Mr. Raskin pointed out, the COVID pandemic made things extremely difficult. [1:03:03] There were also hurricanes that affected, in particular Alabama and Louisiana, [1:03:07] and so the collection was delayed. The collection was tied for the most successful census in history. [1:03:14] We had a 99.98 household contact rate. I say we, I had nothing to do with that. The bureau did. [1:03:22] There were three primary reasons for that success. Number one, President Trump insisted that the census [1:03:28] follow regular order and not make shortcuts in the census. Number two, the census had done a good job [1:03:35] over the previous decade implementing technology and cutting out many, many layers of needless follow-up, [1:03:42] including using administrative records, such as the postal service. And three, as you may recall, [1:03:47] the census lockdown day was March 18th. A chance would happen it. Census day is April 1st. So [1:03:54] virtually everyone was in their home. Once they got done watching Tiger King, they decided to fill out [1:03:59] their census forms. The problem that the people here have spoken to here today comes in the census is [1:04:05] data processing. The largest problem was differential privacy, which as several speakers have alluded, [1:04:10] moves people around in the modeling prior to the census that was done in the University of Virginia [1:04:16] under a census contract. It basically, I'm summing, summing this up, move people from urban areas [1:04:21] to rural areas where they did not exist. You can all discern from that if that's true what the political [1:04:28] modeling would look like. Another major problem in- Mr. Manfield, you can wrap this up. Sure. [1:04:34] We're a little over time. Group quarters was a problem because colleges in particular and other [1:04:40] large quarters were double counted. The census went back and changed the data to assume that [1:04:44] people were where they thought they were instead of just where they were when they answered the census. [1:04:48] Thank you. I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Manfield. Thank you, [1:04:53] gentlemen of North Carolina. I'm now going to recognize the gentleman from Maryland, [1:04:56] the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Raskin. And thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. [1:04:59] Mr. Yang, first of all, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states that all persons born or naturalized [1:05:05] in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. And then [1:05:09] in Section 2, it says that representatives shall be a portion among the states according to their [1:05:15] respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state. So obviously the framers of [1:05:21] the 14th Amendment understood the difference between citizens and persons, and they used [1:05:25] citizens when they meant citizens. They used persons when they meant persons. Doesn't that pretty much [1:05:31] settle this bizarrely lingering question of whether or not we should be counting [1:05:38] all persons or just citizens when we perform the census? That's absolutely correct. Thank you for [1:05:44] that question. If you look at the text of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, it counts all persons in [1:05:49] the state. And frankly, some of the history, both of the 14th Amendment and going back to the founding of the [1:05:54] Constitution illustrate that they wanted to count the entire population and not simply voters, not [1:06:00] simply landowners. And obviously, at that point, women could not vote. Obviously, children could not vote. [1:06:06] So they want to include the entire population. Frankly, this debate also came up in 1929 during what [1:06:11] was called the Apportionment Act. That was the only time in Congress after 1920 census where we did not have [1:06:18] an apportionment. And in that debate, part of the debate was whether certain people should be counted. [1:06:23] And during that debate, the end of the debate, everyone decided that it is still based on all [1:06:28] population. But during that debate, some argued that people should not be counted. Specifically, [1:06:32] one representative argued that the accounting, it should count only voters or citizens because [1:06:38] otherwise it would include the thousands of unnaturalized aliens. Another representative [1:06:43] say that they didn't want to count thousands of Mexicans and Oriental aliens and that those people [1:06:48] would end up somehow giving extra seats to California in that particular case. When they talk about Oriental [1:06:53] aliens, I will take that personally because at that time, there was a Chinese Exclusion Act, [1:06:57] which meant that that Chinese were not citizens. Nevertheless, during that time, it was settled [1:07:03] that it should still be all population for purchase of the census. Right. And of course, at various points [1:07:08] in American history, the determination to count just voters would have excluded women, Native Americans, [1:07:16] today children still. Right. So will you explain this controversy around differential privacy, [1:07:23] which seems to be a new one? Will you explain what that means, what the practice is and then what your [1:07:28] response is to your your fellow panelists there? And specifically, if you would address Mr. Mayfield's last [1:07:34] point that I think this is inflating the population of rural communities by falsely attributing people from [1:07:43] urban communities to rural communities, which which would seem to me to be inflating the numbers in red [1:07:50] districts. But no, thank you for that question. Again, the starting point is that differential privacy was [1:07:55] not used at the state level. So it is for sure. So differential privacy is basically the notion that you [1:08:02] will inject some call it statistical noise, but masking data in the census data, you typically you would take [1:08:10] a certain piece of data and transfer it to another individual so that you can't identify individual A is [1:08:17] concerned with big tech now with big data, individual A, if you have enough information, both from the census [1:08:23] and what is available on the web, you know, you might be able to identify that person or that must be so and so [1:08:28] who lives on this block. So the concern was we needed to devise a system that would take some of [1:08:34] the data, switch it around so that you can't identify that individual. But again, it was not used at the [1:08:40] state level. So any argument that somehow a state got less seats or state got more seats because of it, [1:08:46] because of it, it's just not. So where was it used? So it was used certainly at the lower levels. [1:08:51] What do you mean? You mean at the county or municipal levels? Right. So at what's called the census block [1:08:55] level census track level? It was used there. And I agree that there could be concerns about how you [1:09:02] use that. But at the end of the day, everyone that's been doing redistricting still uses that [1:09:07] data, that data that's available, what's called PL. When the Trump administration administered that [1:09:12] or implemented that in the 2020 census, was that the first time it was ever used? Yes, that was the [1:09:17] first time that it was ever used. Okay. And so, Mr. Mayfield, your point that we shouldn't be using that [1:09:24] anymore, even if it doesn't affect congressional reapportionment, it affects local apportionment [1:09:29] in like city council races, county council, things like that. To clarify, Congressman, [1:09:34] it affects all redistricting within a state. So my friend's point is that if Indiana has a population, [1:09:41] say of three million, that's probably correct within the normal parameters of accuracy. But how Indiana's [1:09:48] nine congressmen, I apologize if I got that wrong, are allocated is going to be incorrect and down to the [1:09:53] legislative and district and town levels. That error will permeate within each state below the state [1:09:59] level. When he refers to apportionment, he means the number of representatives that are allocated to [1:10:04] each state after the census. With your indulgence, Mr. Chair, if I could just ask him to finish this [1:10:09] point. So why was this differential privacy thing adopted? What problem was it addressing? And what [1:10:16] would the alternative be to the problem of not being able to get in particular people's houses if they [1:10:21] don't open the door or whatever? Sure. Well, differential privacy has nothing to do with [1:10:25] collection. It has to do with ensuring that Section 9 of Title 13 is adhered to. And that Congress has [1:10:32] prohibited the release of personal information based on using the data. So in other words, we don't [1:10:38] release the raw data, the short form that everyone fills out. That data is very basic. There are basically [1:10:43] nine questions, name, phone number, address, racial characteristic, your relationship to the household head, [1:10:48] your gender. The only real personal information on that is name, address, phone number. And so [1:10:57] census has always kept the granular data out of the public eye. So you don't, you can't get census data [1:11:04] that's actually collected. In the past three censuses, 2010, 2020, sorry, 2010, 2000, and 1990, the Bureau used [1:11:15] what's called data swapping. And so imagine you have a block. There are five houses on each side of the [1:11:21] block because the smallest unit of data that is public releases at the block level, the Bureau scrambles [1:11:30] that data. So you don't know if there's a 20 year old living on this side, a young daughter living on [1:11:35] this side. But that was always used. There was never a problem with it. And no one outside of the people [1:11:41] driving differential privacy thought there was a problem. And they advocated for continuing to use [1:11:46] that method. I thank the ranking member for his question. And I'm going to use a little [1:11:55] prerogative because there's some technical stuff here, particularly when it's a nonpartisan [1:11:59] point. So I don't mind it going over on either side because this differential privacy is highly [1:12:05] complex. And I do think this committee on a nonpartisan basis, we need to understand it and [1:12:11] understand it fully. So I'll try to allow some of that explanation as necessary, kind of on both [1:12:17] sides where it's appropriate. With that, I would be recognizing the gentleman from California, my friend, [1:12:23] Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez, if the 14th Amendment actually confers automatic [1:12:30] citizenship to anyone who's born here, as the Democrats contend, seems to me it would have said [1:12:36] all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States, period. That's [1:12:41] pretty clear. But as you know, that's not what it says. It says all persons born or naturalized in [1:12:47] the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. Well, [1:12:53] what does that mean? Well, the courts have interpreted subject to the jurisdiction thereof [1:12:59] in other contexts for purposes of due process or equal protection. And it's certainly been broader than [1:13:08] naturalized or legal residents. But has the Supreme Court ever rendered a decision on whether it applies [1:13:20] to those who are illegally in this country, who have never sworn allegiance to it, and have defied its [1:13:28] laws to be here in the first place, and under its laws, are subject to deportation as soon as encountered? [1:13:34] I realize that the ARC decision was rendered 127 years ago, but that applied to legal immigrants who [1:13:43] accepted the jurisdiction of the United States by obeying our immigration laws, and who had taken up [1:13:49] legal permanent residence subject to a treaty ratified by the Senate. Right. There seems to be no [1:13:57] directly on point Supreme Court decision that says that the children of illegal immigrants are or are not [1:14:05] citizens. So perhaps we're due to have that at some point decided by the Supreme Court, decided by the [1:14:12] people through constitutional amendment or statute. Am I correct? It does seem like it will be heard [1:14:18] in the near future. Mr. Mayfield, it seems to me that a census is neither science nor statistics. A census is [1:14:25] counting real people. People have names, dates of birth, addresses, and other identifying information. [1:14:36] How can it possibly be that we include in our census any count without names and such identifying [1:14:45] characteristics? If you don't have a person, they shouldn't be counted in a census of people. [1:14:51] How did we deviate from this simple principle? If I understand your question, Congressman, [1:15:01] the first aspect of the census is voluntary compliance with it. Every American is required [1:15:08] to answer it by law. But the deal that Congress has made is that that information will not be disclosed. [1:15:14] In fact, it cannot even be subpoenaed by a court. That's just how tight the information is kept. [1:15:19] So approximately 67 percent of Americans voluntarily filled out the short form, which is, [1:15:26] what is your household data as of April 1st, 2020? So for the remaining third of the country, [1:15:31] the census endeavors to learn that information. And so it does. [1:15:35] You knock on the door, you get a count of the people who actually live there. You enter them on [1:15:40] the census register. That's been done since time immemorial. But I'm reading now of statistical errors [1:15:47] that shifted the apportionment of congressional seats away from Republican states toward Democratic [1:15:57] states. Now, how can that be if we're actually counting real people? [1:16:01] It's important to remember, Congressman, that several members have alluded to so-called errors [1:16:08] after the fact. The census does what's called the post-enumeration survey. That is modeling. That is [1:16:13] statistical guess. How did we reach a point where we're guessing in the census? Either you're a real [1:16:21] person or you're not. If you're not, you don't belong in the census. If you are, we count you. [1:16:26] Well, as Justice Scalia pointed out in Department of Commerce versus House of Representatives, [1:16:31] it's imperfect science enumeration, but it's better than anything else we've got. [1:16:35] It's not science. It's the matter. It's a simple matter of counting real people. [1:16:40] Well, Congressman, there are many people who are very hard to reach. For instance, [1:16:43] homeless people, which the census works very hard to count. There are people who are mobile. [1:16:47] So you work very hard to find them. But if you can't find them, you don't make them up. [1:16:51] That's not a real census. That's that's guesswork. Mr. Miller, any thoughts? [1:16:55] Yeah, it is extremely important that the data that is collected, at least the sensitive top secret [1:17:03] version of this data be highly accurate and that we don't just invent people because like former [1:17:09] processes have just swapped people. The new process literally deconstructs a person and every [1:17:14] characteristic and then just in the aggregate creates them elsewhere and a whole bunch of [1:17:18] different profiles all over the map. It's a complete mess. There's all sorts of constitutional [1:17:23] problems with the way we've done it that have impacted redistricting. And there there are some [1:17:27] arguments that if you want if you don't want to count illegal aliens for the purposes of apportionment [1:17:32] because your argument is that they are not under the political jurisdiction of the United States [1:17:35] of America at the time of birth, that that would impact apportionment because if you're using [1:17:43] differential privacy, you may not know. We don't know what they're doing with that characteristic [1:17:48] data. Is it actually adding up all the way to the top accurately or not? And the biggest problem [1:17:52] with all of this is we assume it is. It may not be impacting apportionment, but it's all top secret. [1:17:57] We don't have eyes on it. We can't verify it. No one can go right now and say that 100% yes, [1:18:03] all of this data, even the characteristic data, let alone the population data, is accurate. And that's [1:18:08] a huge problem. Thanks, gentlemen from California. I will now recognize the general lady from Washington, [1:18:15] Ms. Jaipal. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I think we all agree on the importance of [1:18:20] accuracy in our census results. I am concerned about some of the actions that are being advocated for [1:18:28] as actually undermining some of that accuracy. And I want to turn to the citizenship question first [1:18:33] and put aside the Constitution, which is a strange thing to say in the Constitution subcommittee, [1:18:40] but to not necessarily look at what the Constitution says, specifically persons rather than just citizens, [1:18:47] and actually talk about how adding a citizenship question would make the census less accurate. And [1:18:56] so I'm going to come to you, Mr. Yang, because there is a lot of data that shows that communities of color, [1:19:04] including American citizens, have been historically undercounted. And this undercounting question [1:19:14] is directly related to what might happen if a citizenship question was added to the census. [1:19:21] And so can you speak to how adding a citizenship question actually hurts us in terms of accuracy and [1:19:31] and increasing undercounting? Thank you for that question, Representative. The bottom line is we [1:19:36] want an accurate census. All the studies that we have seen, including by the Census Bureau, show that [1:19:42] the addition of a citizenship question will undermine the accuracy of the census, not only for [1:19:48] immigrants, but for all Americans, because there's a hesitancy about how that data is going to be used. [1:19:54] So in and that was documented, especially in even going up to the 2020 census, even after the Supreme [1:20:00] Court decision that said that we cannot have the citizenship question, there are still people that [1:20:04] were concerned about whether that question appeared. That is part of the reason why many believe that [1:20:11] Hispanic Americans were undercounted by over five percent. The other thing that we should remember [1:20:16] about this is actually so there is a citizenship question on what's called the long form, the American [1:20:22] community survey of the of the of the census. Now, that is a form that contains 50 questions. It has [1:20:28] been tested in terms of how we can do that in a way that captures the data accurately. So again, the bottom [1:20:34] line is accuracy. So let me go to the question of undercounting. If if there is undercounting, [1:20:39] substantial undercounting, how does that undercount harm American citizens in terms of how the census is [1:20:46] utilized? Well, the undercount affects American citizens then because we will have areas where there's more [1:20:51] population than it was expected, even though the roads are not wide enough, even though the schools are [1:20:55] not big enough, even though the public services are not big enough. And let's be clear, right, highways, [1:21:01] public services aren't dependent on immigrant status. It's dependent on the actual residents that live in [1:21:07] that community. And so give me some of the other reasons for anyone that's listening to this debate and [1:21:13] trying to understand it for why non-citizens should be counted. And again, you know, we're clear about what the [1:21:19] constitution says, but go ahead. Again, why non-citizens should be counted is because they [1:21:25] are part of the entire community that we're talking about. When we first we break it down in terms of [1:21:30] non-citizens, obviously that that would include people that are legal permanent residents. That [1:21:35] would include people that are refugees. It includes a large body of communities that participate in that [1:21:41] community that deserve to have a voice in that community and nevertheless have not yet attained this [1:21:46] notion of citizenship. And historically, that's been part of the debates that we've had, whether it [1:21:51] was for the 14th amendment, the original founding of the constitution, or as I pointed out in the 1929 [1:21:56] Apportionment Act. And we've always agreed with the general principle that we should represent the [1:22:01] entire population and not just a small subset of that population. Yeah, and I think that's very real that [1:22:07] we have many, many mixed status families in this country. And so, you know, if you insert fear into one [1:22:12] group of people, it certainly affects the entire family's trust in government. I appreciate that [1:22:17] you bring up the notion of mixed status families. What that means is you have a family that has some [1:22:22] citizens, some non-citizens, maybe even someone that is undocumented. In that situation, that citizen in [1:22:28] that household would not get the services that they would be entitled to because of the fact that they [1:22:33] are not being counted correctly. I wanted to go back to differential privacy because as the chairman knows, [1:22:38] this is an issue where we all have a lot of concerns about surveillance. And I guess I want to [1:22:42] understand why we would want to eliminate that ability to really mask, you know, the characteristics [1:22:53] so that we can we can get accurate assessments. So I wonder if you want to speak to that. Yeah, [1:22:59] and I think the bottom line here is how do we guarantee confidentiality for the community so that the [1:23:03] community can can trust that when they are responding to the census, their identity will not be will not be made [1:23:10] public. And the reason this differential privacy policy was developed was because of the advent of [1:23:16] big data. Now you are able to get so much more information about individuals off of the internet [1:23:22] so that what might have been unidentified before by simply swapping data at that block level is not going [1:23:27] to be enough. So that is why this is developed. I agree that we all have concerns. We've asked questions [1:23:33] about how this is implemented, and perhaps some fine tuning is appropriate. But that that is a proper [1:23:39] source of inquiry. But the notion of disregarding it all together, I think would be would and what [1:23:44] would be the fine tuning? I think this is where we all need to continue to work with the Census Bureau [1:23:49] to see what worked, what didn't the Census Bureau, when they said that they were announcing this [1:23:53] differential privacy policy, among other things, they said that for 95% of the jurisdictions, [1:23:57] they expected error rate of under 5%. So in that context, then you start to understand, okay, [1:24:03] this should this this data at these levels still should be accurate. Now, I would agree, [1:24:08] we need to test that. And to see where those 5% did not work, what that actually looks like. I think [1:24:14] that's an appropriate area for inquiry. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:24:18] Thanks, gentlelady for her questions. I will now represent Mr. Onder. [1:24:22] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I couldn't agree more with President Trump that we need to [1:24:28] restore the integrity of our Census. And that begins with refusing to count illegal aliens in [1:24:34] our Census. For too long, sanctuary states have openly defied federal laws and been rewarded with [1:24:43] more political power, more congressional seats and more influence. This is unacceptable and it's [1:24:48] undermining the very foundation of equal representation. Meanwhile, states like Missouri, [1:24:54] that I represent that follow and respect the law have a deluded voice in Washington. And not because [1:25:01] we have done anything wrong, but because other states have chosen to disregard federal immigration law, [1:25:07] and they benefit politically by doing so. Mr. Rodriguez, you know, doesn't this mean that sanctuary [1:25:14] policies, if we count illegal aliens in the Census, have the effect of giving Democrats an unfair [1:25:21] advantage in Congress, in the Electoral College, and in federal funding? To some extent. I don't [1:25:28] think it's entirely partisan, though. There are red states like Texas, which also have disproportionate [1:25:37] levels of illegal aliens in their state, and they also benefit. But I'm sure California has been the [1:25:44] state that has benefited most from this policy. Yeah, but Texas does not have a sanctuary state policy, [1:25:49] of course. Of course. So if illegal immigrants are excluded from apportionment accounts, wouldn't [1:25:55] we see some shift in political power back to states that follow the law? Yes. And because census results [1:26:04] also determine how literally trillions of dollars of federal dollars are distributed, [1:26:09] are my constituents in Missouri subsidizing sanctuary states with large illegal alien populations? [1:26:17] They likely are. And it's important to note that under federal law, the personal responsibility [1:26:25] and work organization reconciliation act of 1996 prohibits illegal aliens from receiving federal benefits. [1:26:34] So calculations for federal benefit purposes that are based on illegal alien populations are wrong under [1:26:42] the law. And so again, we know that looking back on the 2020 census, it is clear that [1:26:49] the Census Bureau has admitted that there were errors in states in the counting of states and five of the six [1:26:57] states that were undercounted were red states and seven of the eight states that were overcounted were blue or swing states. [1:27:05] Mr. Miller, can you explain how how these inaccuracies in the 2020 census occurred? And [1:27:12] you know, and what can be done differently in in the 2030 census? [1:27:19] So the census, excuse me, the Census Bureau would argue that these were difficulties that they encountered [1:27:25] due to COVID. And that that was kind of a historical, unprecedented event that occurred during a census, [1:27:32] at least in modern times that I'm aware of. I think that that's excuse me if I interrupt. It seems like [1:27:38] everything is blamed on COVID, right? Supply chains of COVID, educational lack of educational attainment, [1:27:44] COVID, workforce COVID. What what specifically how did how did fighting this virus lead to these [1:27:52] inaccuracies? Well, that's why it just doesn't make much sense to me because the states that were [1:27:56] undercounted were generally more open and people wearing gloves and masks and not able to write out [1:28:01] properly. I don't know. Yeah. And the states that were overcounted were the ones that were locked down and [1:28:05] closed more so than so. I just don't understand the whole COVID logic. I'll take them at their word. [1:28:10] But it's it's certainly a strange outcome. Yeah, maybe everyone at the Census Bureau working from [1:28:16] home and not actually out counting counting persons. Do we really know the full extent, [1:28:23] Mr. Miller, of the 2020 census censuses inaccuracies? I mean, if they admit to this is [1:28:29] No, they have admitted to major miscounts. We do not know the extent to which differential [1:28:35] privacy has had an impact because the tiger file that all of this exists at the Census Bureau is [1:28:39] top secret. Only a few people have access to it. And this is an oversight problem that [1:28:44] we we really need to get some data statisticians in there to really analyze with clearance to analyze [1:28:50] the impacts, because whether it's urban to rural or rural to urban, there has been a lot of population [1:28:55] movement. And I've seen studies arguing both sides of this. But there are big problems with this on a [1:28:59] variety of fronts. And again, remind us of the what's the alternative to the differential privacy [1:29:05] scheme? Well, there can be a lot of these. IPAMS has a really good analysis that on how to address [1:29:12] this past practices of use swapping, limited swapping. I think one solution is just turn off [1:29:17] characteristic data until you get to a statistically significant level where you numerical data available, [1:29:23] but turn off all the characteristic data until you're up at like the census track or county level. [1:29:27] And that way, it's really hard to reverse engineer the algorithm at that with population numbers [1:29:32] that strong makes perfect sense. Thank you so much. I yield back. I think gentlemen, I will now represent [1:29:41] the gentlelady from Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the witnesses. I appreciate your time. [1:29:48] This is a hearing about the census. So essentially a hearing about counting people or put another way, [1:29:54] determining who counts and who doesn't. And President Trump has made clear that he feels that birthright [1:30:01] citizenship is not constitutional. He feels that non-citizens should not be counted in the census. [1:30:06] He has made clear that he views the 2020 census as illegitimate. But the truth is the president can [1:30:12] feel any way he wants. The courts have spoken birthright citizenship is the law of the land. [1:30:17] The census counts for everyone. And the 2020 census was as accurate as the 2010 census. And yet here we are [1:30:24] again in a hearing to make these claims, these nonsensical legal theories, more legitimate by [1:30:33] holding hearings about them. And more broadly, I think this hearing props up baseless legal theories [1:30:38] that undermine the census and threaten our representative democracy. And I want to associate [1:30:44] myself with the remarks of my Democratic colleagues. But I'd like to take my time to go in a little bit [1:30:50] different direction here. I want to spend my time getting to the heart of this question of who counts [1:30:56] and who doesn't count in the eyes of this administration, who is seen as a real American and who is not. [1:31:03] An investigative report by ProPublica has found that more than 170 American citizens have been detained [1:31:10] by immigration agents. They've been dragged, they've been kicked, they have been detained for days [1:31:16] at a time. These are U.S. citizens. They are our fellow Americans. And yet top Trump administration [1:31:22] officials keep denying that U.S. citizens have been arrested or detained at all in the immigration [1:31:28] raids that are taking place across this country. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem [1:31:34] has repeatedly falsely claimed that no American citizens have been arrested or detained. So there are [1:31:40] two reasons that we have that she could be doing this. One is that she is blatantly lying to the [1:31:46] press. That is one option. Another is that she doesn't know what is happening under her own [1:31:52] leadership. Either option is deeply disturbing to me. We have so much evidence that what Noem has [1:31:59] been saying about this is untrue. Many news outlets have confirmed these arrests and have spoken directly [1:32:05] to U.S. citizens who have been arrested or detained by immigration agents. They have gathered these [1:32:10] disturbing stories about how our own citizens are being treated by this administration. We have the [1:32:17] evidence. There's the case of American citizen George Raytes, an Army veteran who was pulled out of his [1:32:23] car by federal agents who were raiding a farm north of Los Angeles. In his words, they sat me down on the [1:32:29] dirt with my hands zip-dyed behind my back. I told them I was a citizen. I told them I had ID. They didn't [1:32:35] care. They never asked me for it. This U.S. citizen was held for three days before finally being released. [1:32:42] He was never charged with a crime. And he's just one of many U.S. citizens that we can document who [1:32:50] have been detained or arrested. Again, we have the proof, and yet Secretary Noem continues to spread [1:32:56] false information. Then there's the case of Jason Bryan Gavidia. Jason is a U.S. citizen who worked at a [1:33:04] tow truck yard when Border Patrol agents stormed in. Jason was handcuffed as he pleaded with the agents. He said, [1:33:11] let me show you my ID. Let me prove my status. He said they didn't care. All they cared about was [1:33:17] the fact that I was brown and I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that's not right. [1:33:22] We're in America. That's not right. The point is that the only people who seem to count as Americans [1:33:29] to this administration are the people who look American. And any of us sitting here in this room, [1:33:38] regardless of party, would be shocked, would be outraged, would express righteous indignation [1:33:44] if we were detained based on our physical appearance or on our profile alone. Regardless [1:33:50] of what we believe about this president, I would hope that we would agree we would howl [1:33:57] at our due process rights being denied. [1:33:59] Would the general lady yield for a quick question? I will. [1:34:01] What does it mean to look like an American in 2025? [1:34:04] Yes, thank you very much. It seems clear to me that looking like American is somebody who does [1:34:10] not have brown or black skin. And sounding like American is someone who does not have an accent. [1:34:16] That seems like that's been established. And I just want to end with this. There is nothing [1:34:22] more important than a person's liberty. Nothing. And I would hope that we could all agree on that. [1:34:30] And we should all be standing up to our government when it is arresting and detaining citizens illegally [1:34:36] and then lying about it. Citizenship in this country is not based on the color of your skin. [1:34:42] It is not based on the accent that you have. And based on the actions of this administration, [1:34:47] I'm not confident that it believes this. And I find this deeply chilling. Before I yield back, [1:34:54] I have several unanimous consents that I would like to enter into the record. First being ProPublica, [1:35:01] immigration agents have held more than 170 Americans against their will. NPR fact checks [1:35:08] Kristi Noem on ICE detaining U.S. citizens. And an article in the Journal of Policy Analysis and [1:35:17] Management, citizenship question effects on household survey responses. And also an October 2015 report by [1:35:26] the Congressional Research Service entitled Apportioning Seats in the U.S. House of [1:35:30] Representatives using the 2013 estimated population, concluding that excluding noncitizens for [1:35:36] apportionment apportionment purposes likely requires a constitutional amendment. I yield back. [1:35:43] Without objection, those four will be entered into the record. I will now recognize the chairman of [1:35:47] the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayfeld, we've asked it before, haven't we? [1:35:54] We've asked the citizenship question on the census before, haven't we? That's correct, Congressman. [1:36:00] From 1820 to 1950, we asked that question. That's 130 years. From 1970 to 2000, another 30 years, [1:36:08] so 150 years, we asked the question. That's correct. And the previous speaker just said, [1:36:13] if we ask the citizenship question, it's going to threaten democracy. Well, it didn't hurt democracy for [1:36:18] 150 years. In fact, I would bet, I would bet if you, I'll use my, I'll use our district, [1:36:26] you go to Urbana, Ohio, our hometown. I bet if I went to Urbana, Ohio, I'd walk to the post office, [1:36:30] walk anywhere, any store, walk in, I see someone I know, Mr. Smith, do you think on the census, [1:36:36] you know what the census is, of course? Oh, sure. Every so often we find out how many, [1:36:40] we count the number of people in the country. I said, Mr. Smith, do you think when we're counting [1:36:45] the number of people in this country, it's appropriate to find out how many are citizens? What do you think [1:36:49] he would say? What do you think the average person would say? I suspect the answer would be yes, sir. [1:36:54] It would not only be yes, they'd say, well, aren't you already doing that? That's pretty stupid if [1:36:59] you're not. That's where the American people are. The everyone's for counting it. We did it for 150 [1:37:05] years of our 250 years as a country, or since we declared independence, 249, almost 250 years now. [1:37:12] We've done it for most of our history. Everyone thinks we're doing it. Everyone thinks we should do it, [1:37:17] except Democrats in Congress. It was interesting to Mr. Yang's testimony. He said, oh, if we ask the [1:37:25] question, we'll get inaccurate counts. And then he went on for the rest of his five minutes and talked [1:37:30] about all the inaccuracies in the recent sentences where we're not asking it under counts, over counts, [1:37:36] rural America, Hispanic Americans went pointing out all the problems and we're not asking the question. [1:37:40] But somehow if we ask it, oh, it might get worse because we have some study. He even said, like, [1:37:46] people thought it might be on the on the census questionnaire and it wasn't. And that hurt the [1:37:50] count, which makes no sense to me. It wasn't on the it wasn't a question. So I think this is so darn [1:37:56] simple. Count the persons. That's what the Constitution says. Count the number of people. [1:38:01] And while you're doing that, find out how many are citizens. What's wrong with that might actually help [1:38:06] policymakers when we're determining policy. If we know those two numbers, that's all we need to focus on. [1:38:12] And I'll go to Mr. Miller, if he's got any comments about what I commented on on the last part. I [1:38:20] absolutely agree. And so it's it's there is some question on who to count. I think that this if you [1:38:26] get into it technically, the answer is you can count everyone. You just need to know certain population [1:38:32] numerical data and then residency status, because that could bleed into policy questions later. And I [1:38:37] think that that's an important distinction to know that you can use different data sets within the [1:38:42] totality of that data for different purposes. Of course. And that's it. That's useful information [1:38:46] for policymakers. That's why we do it that way. I mean, I get that. Let me ask you this question, [1:38:50] Mr. Miller. Do you think finding out asking a citizenship question on the census is any way [1:38:55] a threat to democracy? I do not. I think it's constitutionally mandated. Mr. Rodriguez, [1:39:00] you think a constitutional scholar here, do you think that's somehow a threat to democracy? If we [1:39:05] ask how many people are here and how many citizens are here? No, it's entirely consistent with [1:39:09] Congress. Mr. Mayfield, do you think that's a threat to democracy? [1:39:12] The census has no effect on democracy, Congressman. Exactly. Mr. Yang, [1:39:17] do you think asking a citizenship question while you say it might impact the accuracy? I don't know [1:39:22] that I agree with that. I frankly disagree. Do you think that might threaten democracy in some [1:39:27] some manner? It's a threat to accuracy, which means that it would be a threat to how we allocate funds [1:39:31] in the United States. That's not what I asked you. I said, do you think it's a threat to democracy? [1:39:35] Because that's what my Democrat colleague said just four minutes ago. How people are being represented [1:39:39] and the funding that they get would be a threat? Yes. You think asking a citizenship? So the [1:39:44] Democrat witness thinks asking a citizenship question on the census is a threat to democracy. [1:39:49] You think that's true? As currently constituted, it could be. Well, that's amazing. That's amazing. [1:39:54] Finding out the number of people and the number of citizens in our country is somehow a threat to [1:39:57] democracy. That's what the Democrat witness said in a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the [1:40:03] Constitution said. That is amazing. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary [1:40:11] Committee. I will now represent the gentlelady from California. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And apologies [1:40:18] if this question has already been asked. But I like to hear things with my own ears. So Mr. Yang, can you [1:40:28] what is the census sort of used for? What's why do we conduct this onerous process? [1:40:36] The principle used for the census is twofold. One is for the apportionment of Congress, [1:40:42] the apportionment of seats in Congress. And the second is to get an accurate count of the population. [1:40:46] So when we're distributing funds, whether it's 2.2 trillion in federal funds or state and local funds, [1:40:51] that we're distributing in the right way. What that means literally is where roads are built, [1:40:56] where schools are built, you know, what services are needed in different communities. For businesses, [1:41:01] what that means is what stores get built and what you stock in those shelves of those stores. [1:41:06] I live in Fairfax County. The fact that our Costco has approximately seven different [1:41:13] seven different types of rice is a reflection of the fact that Fairfax County is about 20% Asian American. [1:41:17] Mm-hmm. Thank you for that. So, you know, I would agree with that, right? Someone who lives in, [1:41:25] you know, a city, a county, a state, we're always fighting to get the resources that we need. And it's [1:41:31] important to know how many people, regardless of where they come from, regardless of who they are, [1:41:37] what they look like, right? What language they speak, what rice they like. It's important to know [1:41:43] how many people are in a place. So you know, how many hospitals to have, how many schools to have, [1:41:50] how many parks to have. Am I missing something here? [1:41:53] It is as very basic as that. And again, the point is to get an accurate count. One of the things that [1:42:00] we've been talking about here is sort of what affects accuracy. And we've talked specifically [1:42:05] about Texas and Florida as some as being inaccurate counts. Well, I would point out that in the case of [1:42:11] Florida, the federal, the state government only allocated $300,000 to the account for the entire [1:42:16] state compared to the state of Alabama, much smaller state, which allocated $1.2 million to the count of [1:42:22] their of their residents. So how you do your get out the count operations will translate into how [1:42:28] accurate the results will be. There is a correlation there. And I do understand that it seems like my [1:42:34] Republican colleagues want to get rid of every single foreign born person, you know, in this country, [1:42:41] as I boggles the mind because I would object. I think that that is attacking. It's the I think [1:42:48] that that is attacking my time. I'd like to have my time. I think that that is attacking individuals. [1:42:52] Mr. Chairman, could you restore the order if you would? I made an opinion. I can have an opinion. [1:42:57] Is the gentlelady asking to strike? I am. I'm asking to strike those words, accusing us of that level of [1:43:02] racism. It's not racist if you think it. I mean, it's my opinion. I think I have a right to an opinion. [1:43:08] We'll suspend for one second. Well, the gentlelady, uh, expressed the specific words you're asking [1:43:17] to be. Specifically what she stated was that the people on the other side wanted all foreign [1:43:21] people to be removed from the country. And that's absolutely true. As I mentioned, [1:43:24] Mr. Chair, it's my opinion. I have a right to my opinion. I said, I am tired of the allegations [1:43:30] of racism. Mr. Chairman, that's not. I didn't use race at all. Let me just suspend for one moment. [1:43:37] Mr. Chairman, if I could, that's not engaging in personalities. It's not an ad hominem attack. [1:43:40] Yes, it is. She disagrees. She can, she can use her own time to explain why she disagrees. [1:43:45] Everyone suspend for one moment. Gentlelady from Wyoming, are you withdrawing the request to [1:44:12] strike the, the words from the gentleman? Yes. Just want to point out the allegations are [1:44:16] absolutely, uh, unsubstantiated and it is, uh, ridiculous. Chairman, could you instruct her to [1:44:21] point it out on her own time? Reclaiming the time, but the gentleman from California, please, [1:44:26] please proceed. We'll, we'll restore the clock. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I, I don't want to use my [1:44:33] own time saying, but I guess now perspectives and opinions are no longer, um, important here in [1:44:38] this committee. That seems like it would be a shame. Mr. Yang, we're talking about the census and, and [1:44:44] the question is, it kind of doesn't matter where you come from. If you're someplace, if you're using [1:44:52] resources, it would be important for that jurisdiction, for that municipality to know that you are there. I [1:44:58] mean, where I come from, um, if you get sick, you should go to the hospital and the hospital's not [1:45:06] supposed to say, well, who are you? Let me see all of your paperwork. I think the doctors take a [1:45:11] Hippocratic oath to help anyone who's coming in bleeding, who would be wanting to need or use the [1:45:18] resources that are available to them in that hospital. Do you understand sort of the question [1:45:23] that I'm asking about why it's important just to know who is in a particular place? That's absolutely [1:45:30] right. With respect to public services, with respect to roads, that immigration status does not matter [1:45:37] when it comes to the need for good roads, the need for good public services, and that making sure we have [1:45:43] an accurate count of our entire population. And again, if you even go to Supreme Court President and [1:45:48] even well, they recognize that you should be doing total population counts, whole population counts, [1:45:54] for purpose of apportionment. The history on this has been very clear that the census is designed to [1:45:59] count the entire population. Thank you for that. You know, as I look at all my questions, not one word [1:46:05] in any of these questions is the word race. But so Mr. Yang, Assistant Attorney General Rodriguez says [1:46:12] in his written testimony that apportionment should not account for those in a state unlawfully. [1:46:18] What would be your response to that? Well, I don't see anything in the Constitution that makes any [1:46:24] sort of distinction. Rather, what the 14th Amendment provides in the census in terms of apportionment [1:46:30] in Article 1, Section 2, with respect to census, is the counting of whole persons. And it makes no [1:46:35] distinction. Now, in the written testimony, it makes reference to the fact that somehow they should be [1:46:40] part of a political community. But the notion of political community does not exist anywhere in the text [1:46:45] of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, or the Apportionment Act. And certainly, even the [1:46:50] contemporary dictionaries that he cited, except for a reference to parish law, did not make any reference [1:46:55] to being part of a political community. Rather, simply, a resident is someone that has a normal [1:47:01] place of domicile. Now, to be clear, there are rules that the census has with respect to people that [1:47:07] are transient, with respect to people that have tourist visas, for example, should not be counted [1:47:11] in the census. There are residency rules with respect to the census as to what is considered a resident. [1:47:16] So, you mentioned a whole person in the Constitution. I said the constitutional framers use the phrase [1:47:25] whole number of persons, rather than citizen or voter. And why do you think they did that? Because, [1:47:33] of course, when you say whole person, and of course, I think, and this time I'm going to use race, [1:47:37] but I'm going to talk about myself. There used to be a time when a black person was not even considered [1:47:43] a whole person. It was like three-fifths of a person. So, I'm getting a little triggered by that, [1:47:47] that phrase. Can you explain sort of why the framers used that phrase? [1:47:51] You're correct, Representative. Unfortunately, when the Constitution was first adopted, slaves were not [1:47:57] considered citizens, but for purposes of the census was considered three-fifths of a person, [1:48:03] as it distinguished from a so-called whole person. And it wasn't until the 14th Amendment that [1:48:08] citizenship was given to slaves, anyone born of slaves, and that sort of in making clear that when we [1:48:15] are counting, we're still counting all persons in the state. [1:48:19] So tell me again, can you reiterate for the folks that can't seem to maybe hear what you're saying [1:48:24] about why it's important to have an accurate count when you were doing the census? [1:48:29] Well, having an accurate count for purposes of data allows us to make sure that we have the services [1:48:34] that we need in the United States for everyone. We need a society that has infrastructure for [1:48:39] everyone. It is true for immigrants, non-immigrants alike. Certainly, there can be policy debates around [1:48:45] different aspects of that, but at least having the set, accurate data that all of us can work from [1:48:51] is critical to how this nation functions. Thank you, Mr. Yang. Mr. Chair, I yield back. [1:48:56] Thank you, General Lady from California. I will now recognize the General Lady from Wyoming. [1:49:01] Well, first of all, I disagree with the idea that there's a constitutional requirement [1:49:07] for conducting a census so that we can have different varieties of rice at Costco. I almost [1:49:15] want to say that almost all countries conduct a census. Mr. Chair, that's racist. Does the [1:49:24] General Lady from Wyoming have a response? Rice or hamburger or any other food stuff, that isn't why [1:49:39] we conduct a consensus. Mr. Chairman, those words, as ill-advised and foolish as they were, were probably not [1:49:49] engaging in personalities. So I think we can let that go and call it even. [1:49:53] Yes, Mr. Chair, I'll withdraw. I was using the terminology that Mr. Yang used, if you weren't listening. [1:49:59] I was listening, but I was also getting your vibe. The General Lady from Wyoming will proceed. [1:50:08] Almost all countries that conduct a consensus [1:50:12] actually have a citizenship question, and the U.N. says that it is a best practice [1:50:18] to include a citizenship question on these censuses. Countries that ask about citizenship are Canada, [1:50:25] Australia, Ireland, Germany, and Mexico. The source of this is the New York Times. [1:50:32] Mr. Mayfield, I'd like to focus on the Census Bureau's decision to utilize the differential privacy [1:50:39] methodology for the first time in the 2020 census. I am incredibly concerned that intentionally creating [1:50:46] structural inaccuracy in census data collection at the lowest unit has impacted the reliability of [1:50:53] nationwide census counts, congressional reapportionment, assignment of presidential [1:50:57] electors, redistricting, and federal funding allocations. In light of these concerns, could you [1:51:03] briefly explain the steps that the Census Bureau took when adopting and implementing this differential [1:51:10] privacy within the 2020 census? To put it in shorthand, Congresswoman, this was done at the civil servant level [1:51:21] without any legal opinion being obtained. The decision was made by John Aboud, who is the director of privacy [1:51:28] and statistics, and a small group of people working with him. There was actually opposition from some [1:51:34] other parts of the Bureau because the test repeatedly demonstrated that it would falsify data, including [1:51:43] the block level that you mentioned, but anything below the state level. They proceeded with that because [1:51:51] they wanted to do differential privacy, not because there was any need for differential privacy. Data swapping, [1:51:57] which was the method used in the previous three census, had always been adequate, and to this day [1:52:01] there is still no problem with it. There is a 2023 study by researchers from Harvard, NYU, and Columbia that [1:52:07] finds that data swapping is just as good as differential privacy, but it doesn't alter the data. There was no [1:52:15] reason to do this. Now to give you an example of just how bad it is, again this is post-use of differential [1:52:20] privacy. That study found that the use of differential privacy, for instance, if you had three Hispanics on [1:52:26] one block could create a variance anywhere in the state of zero Hispanics or six Hispanics. In other [1:52:32] words, a 100 percent difference either way. All of the data, as Mr. Miller alluded, below the state level [1:52:39] has been subjected to differential privacy. Because of the way the algorithm works, it's a top-down [1:52:43] algorithm, none of the data can be released in unaltered form. You cannot actually get the results [1:52:50] of the survey below the state level. So you may know there are 9 million people in Indiana, but you don't [1:52:54] know how many people there are in Muncie. You don't know how many people there are on Mayfield Street [1:52:58] in Muncie. They cooked the books and they did so intentionally. Is that a good way of describing it? [1:53:03] That is accurate. All right. So they didn't follow the Administrative Procedures Act. They didn't put [1:53:09] this out for notice and comment. They didn't solicit information from people, from statisticians or [1:53:15] economists or even states or local governments about how best to do the census of counting their people [1:53:22] as to do as Mr. Yang says, which is to know how many people live in our country. They didn't do [1:53:27] any of that. It's even worse than that, Congressman. Congresswoman, excuse me. [1:53:32] They didn't do notice to comment. There's a debate about whether or not that's required. But there are [1:53:37] numerous committees to allude to something that Congresswoman Scanlon mentioned in her opening [1:53:41] statement in which the census interacts with consumers of census data and partners, including state [1:53:46] and local governments, including interest groups. Every single statistical group objected to this by [1:53:51] letter. Every single state, the National Conference of Legislatures objected. Maine objected. It's a blue [1:53:56] state. Utah objected, a red state. The city of Alexandria, just across the border, very blue, objected. [1:54:02] Maricopa County, very red, objected. The House Progressive Caucus, they were right. They objected. [1:54:08] The Mexican American Legal Fund, they objected. The Native American tribes, objected. Everyone knew [1:54:13] it was well known that this would not work. And the census civil servants, a small group of them, [1:54:19] went ahead with it because they wanted to do it, not because there was any need and disregarding [1:54:24] the fact that it made the census inaccurate at the enumeration stage. [1:54:27] They did it because they wanted to cook the books and they wanted to manipulate the data [1:54:31] to have the outcome that we actually had, which is over counting people in six blue states or liberal [1:54:37] states and giving them additional members in the House of Representatives. Is that fair? [1:54:42] If I might respectfully disagree with that poor part. I believe it was done out of professional pride [1:54:49] because there was an obsession with using differential privacy. Several other speakers [1:54:53] have alluded to the use of Internet data and supercomputers, which is what John Abad mentioned. [1:54:59] Congress does not exclude the use of outside data. If anyone here wants to grab census data [1:55:04] and buy something from the Internet or buy a credit card company's data and combine them, [1:55:08] that creates no violation. There is no problem with doing that. Section 9 of Title 13 bars only the [1:55:14] disclosure of personal data. In other words, your census form that you filled out for your house. [1:55:20] The errors that have been attributed with respect to the number of people are based on post enumeration [1:55:26] surveys. In other words, the census does quality checks after the census, but those are models. [1:55:31] They are not themselves enumerations and they are no good or no better than the models and the data [1:55:36] that's put in them. There are errors after every census that are believed. So what you do is you use that [1:55:41] data to try to focus your next census and all your other data collections to make sure that you don't [1:55:47] miss other people, that you don't over count them. So it may be an educated guess that some states [1:55:53] received more people and some states receive fewer, but it is a guess and it is certainly no better than [1:56:00] the modeling that the people in the bureau did. Okay, and I know that I am out of time. What I hope [1:56:05] comes out of this hearing, however, is that we have solutions of what Congress can do to make sure that [1:56:11] these inaccuracies are addressed and that we never have this kind of a mess again. And I also would [1:56:18] ask unanimous consent to submit into the record what you need to know about the citizenship question [1:56:23] in the census July 2, 2019 by the New York Times. Without objection, I'll be entered in the record. [1:56:28] I thank the gentleman from Wyoming and I now recognize the ranking member, Ms. Campbell. [1:56:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, all of our witnesses, because I think there's a lot to dig into here. [1:56:41] It's been a really, excuse me, interesting discussion. Um, I guess a couple points of [1:56:48] clarification. Mr. Yang, do you think there's general agreement that the purpose of the census [1:56:54] clause is to get an accurate count of all persons? Certainly that has been the history. [1:57:01] Uh, it has been nonpartisan that it is the purpose of the census as defined in the constitution, [1:57:06] defined in the 14th, and then the 14th amendment for purpose of apportionment is to count all persons. [1:57:11] That is the literal text. And they, we have considerable constitutional history and court [1:57:17] opinions saying they did not choose to say inhabitants. They did not choose to say taxpayers. [1:57:23] They did not choose to say citizens or voters. It's persons. That is correct. And this came up in [1:57:29] the context of a Supreme Court case called Evenwell, where an argument was made that apportionment should [1:57:35] be based solely on legal voters. The court, the Supreme Court in that case rejected that approach and said that [1:57:41] we should be using total population, total population, whole population for purposes of apportionment. [1:57:46] Sure. And that case was in 2016. So it was only 10 years ago, five, nine years ago. [1:57:51] So of course, there's been a lot of discussion about what questions should be on the census or not be on the [1:57:56] census. And I heard my colleague across the aisle talk about it being a good thing to put a citizenship [1:58:03] question on the census. Although I think context is important when we're talking about Canada or Ireland [1:58:11] or some of the other states, nation states that were mentioned, they certainly do not have [1:58:17] administrations that are actively engaged in hostility towards immigrants. So I think that's an important [1:58:23] distinction. But when you were testifying, you talked about the two biggest things that undermined [1:58:29] accuracy in the census. And one was privacy concerns and anti-government sentiment. And the second was [1:58:37] a lack of robust get out the census, get out the count efforts. I certainly participate in count efforts [1:58:45] in my home state. With respect to the privacy and anti-government concerns, I wish Mr. Massey were here [1:58:53] because I know it's a big interest of his. But in an era where we've got Doge kind of trolling through [1:59:01] everyone's social security and snap records and voting records and everything, can you talk a little [1:59:07] bit about how those privacy concerns might be heightened right now? Well, this goes to thank you [1:59:12] for that question. I think this goes to the decreasing trust that Americans have in America and U.S. [1:59:17] government, which is unfortunate, but that is the case. And that is because of whether we want to talk [1:59:23] about Doge or the Representative Vellant talked about immigration enforcement, certainly that also [1:59:29] breeds distrust within certain pockets of our community, whether it's the Hispanic community, [1:59:34] the Asian community. So when we're trying to determine accurate census, all of that context [1:59:42] matters. And simply citing the history of how the census has been used in the past when there might have [1:59:46] been more trust in the government is different than what we are looking at today. Yeah, and I certainly [1:59:51] hear from my constituents that they're very, very concerned about these efforts to troll all of the [1:59:56] federal data. And certainly the census would provide another opportunity to do that. We also have in your [2:00:02] testimony on page five information about which groups were over counted or under counted in the 2020 census. [2:00:12] And I would note that non-Hispanic whites were over counted, but there were some pretty serious [2:00:17] under counts, as you've mentioned before, among Hispanic or Latino, blacks, children, etc. So it does [2:00:25] seem important that we try to have more robust counting in those areas. That's correct. And to be clear, [2:00:34] Representative, overall, the census was accurate. When compared to the 2010 and 2000 census, they were [2:00:43] within, they were all considered statistically insignificant with respect to over count or [2:00:47] under count. Certainly when you compare it to the 1990-1980 census, we did much better. That said, [2:00:54] we recognize that there are over counts and under counts. We all, I think we all agree we should [2:00:58] continue to work on figuring that out and how best to do that. Certainly for my community, the Asian [2:01:03] community, part of this is outreach. Part of it is part of it is also language barriers that people make. [2:01:08] Part of it is distrust of the government. So making sure we address all of these barriers for rural [2:01:12] communities, it's internet access, especially in this notion age now where the census can be [2:01:17] conducted by the internet. So we should be thinking about those barriers to make sure how we get an [2:01:21] accurate count. And last thing I might add quickly is that also I would ask members of Congress to fully [2:01:27] fund the Census Bureau. The budget right now, I think the request is around $2 billion by our community [2:01:32] or $1.8 billion. Right now, I think the funding is at $1.35 billion. If we want to address a lot of these [2:01:38] technical issues as well as to figure out how to do it right to get an accurate count, robust funding [2:01:42] as necessary. Yeah, and the last question I had was with respect to some attempt to conflate the [2:01:47] undercounting which was admitted of certain Republican-led states, conflating that with some [2:01:53] kind of political animus as opposed to being undercounting relating to these already marginalized [2:02:00] populations. Is there anything that you've seen to indicate that it was based on political [2:02:05] motivation as opposed to those states just having marginalized populations which have been under [2:02:12] counted across the board? Thank you for that question. We have the honor of working with the [2:02:17] Census Bureau and they're dedicated civil servants. They're trying to get this right. They recognize [2:02:22] that they did make mistakes and there were certain undercounts and overcounts. The reason is complex, [2:02:26] like we've talked about. Part of it is distrust. Part of it is underinvestment by certain communities [2:02:31] in making that count happen. So when you look at it in this aggregate, especially when you look [2:02:37] at where the overcounts and undercounts occurred, it's not fair to say that it only occurred in red [2:02:43] states or only a clear blue states. It occurred in a lot of different states, but it also was overall [2:02:48] pretty accurate. So we should kind of think about all of these in that context before making any snap [2:02:54] judgments. Well, I appreciate the chairman calling this so we can work on continual improvement [2:03:00] of the process. Thank you. I thank the ranking member and I will now represent the gentleman [2:03:06] from Wisconsin. Thank you for being easy going on five minutes. That's what I do too. Okay, first of [2:03:14] all, Mr. Yang, I just got to interject myself in here on something that you said that was, I thought, [2:03:19] offensive. There is a three-fifths clause in our original constitution that was the result of a compromise. [2:03:27] I suppose it could have been 100%, but the reason it wasn't 100% is the freedom-loving people did not [2:03:36] want to give the slave states too much power in Congress, okay? You imply that the reason it wasn't [2:03:44] 100% was because people were trying to say black people are less than white people. That wasn't the point [2:03:58] at all, you understand. The point is that the free states, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, [2:04:06] those states did not want to give too much power to the slave states. So it was not done to punish [2:04:17] slaves. It was done to looking down the road. Eventually you had a civil war anyway, but it was [2:04:22] looking down the road to make sure that the slave states did not have too much power. Okay, you [2:04:30] understand that. I hope you understand that, but you just explain the three-fifths thing in a way to [2:04:41] make America look worse in the eyes of the young people. So I do not appreciate that. Now, [2:04:47] question for Mr. Miller. Has the census ever— Mr. Chairman, just a quick point of order. Would it be [2:04:54] possible for me, after the gentleman speaks, to just respond to that just because of the profundity [2:05:00] and the depth of the statement he just made, I think? It's a gentleman from Wisconsin's time. [2:05:06] I don't mean it exactly. I don't want to detract from his time. I'm wondering if maybe we could go [2:05:10] for a second round just to explicate that. You and I can talk offline. We'll let the gentleman from Wisconsin [2:05:15] continue his questions. Okay, very good. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Miller, has the census ever included a [2:05:20] citizenship question? Yes, historically it has included the citizenship question. Okay. Why was [2:05:27] it removed? That's speculative. I think that there were motives for that. You know, states would be [2:05:36] motivated by it if they get more money from the federal government. There's partisan reasons why [2:05:40] you would want to do it. There's a lot of reasons, and it's probably fairly complicated. Who was the [2:05:44] president at the time it was removed, you know? The last one was 50, is what we said, 1950, so. Truman. [2:05:53] Okay, assuming you're right. Has the Supreme Court ever held that it's illegal to include [2:05:59] this question? No, I don't believe the Supreme Court has ever weighed in to say that you cannot [2:06:03] ask the citizenship question. Could President Trump and Commerce Secretary Lutnik add a citizenship [2:06:09] question to the 2030 census? Yes. Okay. Could you give me some benefits? I mean, I'm shocked that it's [2:06:19] not on there already, but do you want to speculate on some benefits we get if we added such a question? [2:06:24] Well, I mean, it would impact, especially if you got rid of differential privacy. You could know [2:06:30] how to allocate federal funding formulas more accurately to make sure that it's going to citizen [2:06:36] or lawful permanent resident populations that legally qualify for them. If you want to have this [2:06:41] impact redistricting and you want to argue on a constitutional basis that political districts [2:06:47] should only represent citizens or citizens and lawful permanent residents, that you would need to know [2:06:52] that data and that would have a massive impact on how political maps are made and who is in Congress. [2:06:58] Couldn't we also assume that people who are not here legally probably aren't going to be hanging [2:07:02] around that much longer? I mean, I don't know. I mean, a lot of them have been here for a long time. [2:07:08] Some of them are seasonal workers and leave after a couple of years. So it's hard for me to answer [2:07:13] that precisely with such a large population. Okay. Not across the board, but wouldn't one expect that if some [2:07:20] people were here illegally or on a temporary visa that they weren't going to be here for the whole 10 [2:07:25] years or maybe even? That's correct. There's a lot of movement of that population both into and out of [2:07:30] the United States of America. Okay. Could you explain the differential privacy [2:07:37] controversy, I'll put it? Yeah. So basically, you know, you have data and there's been previous methods [2:07:43] of keeping that basically recognizing data privacy laws. And so there was different methods of [2:07:51] protecting privacy. And this is a new method, but it's highly flawed because it scrambles all of the [2:07:57] data. It literally deconstructs an entire person, reconstructs them in the aggregate all over the [2:08:02] place. There's arguments that will disproportionately help urban areas. There's arguments that will [2:08:06] disproportionately hurt rural areas. There's racial issues here. But basically, it's fake data [2:08:13] below the state level. And it's really hard to create political districts that are accurate and [2:08:19] representative of the voting population, especially when you don't have accurate numerical population [2:08:26] data at a granular, semi-granular level. Would you support returning to what we call swapping for the [2:08:34] 2030 census? I think there's several other proposals. That is one combined with the ability to turn off [2:08:41] characteristic data until you're at statistically significant levels. There's other methods that [2:08:46] are in strategies that are multi-tiered that are mentioned by entities like IPMs that I think would [2:08:52] work. So essentially, yes. Okay, thank you. Would the gentleman? I think the gentleman from Wisconsin [2:08:59] would regarding. Well, I was just wondering if you I just wanted the opportunity to respond to Mr. [2:09:06] Grothman's intervention. It's the gentleman's time, but out of courtesy to the ranking member, I'll give [2:09:10] the gentleman like 30 seconds. Okay. I just want to say that the analysis he advanced is historically [2:09:18] obtuse and morally disoriented. The slave states took the position that the enslaved African Americans [2:09:26] should count 100 percent for the purposes of reapportionment. But for those purposes only, [2:09:32] they didn't have any civil rights. They didn't have any voting rights. They couldn't run for office. [2:09:35] They had no civil liberties. They were property. The northern states said they should not count at all. [2:09:39] Reclaiming our time. They should count zero. And they arrived at the three-fifths. [2:09:42] Reclaiming the time. We're going to have a history lesson here. The gentleman from Wisconsin [2:09:48] was making a point with respect to the oft-used three-fifths reference. I was trying to explain [2:09:54] what the historical genesis of it is. And the history of it, the gentleman from Wisconsin [2:09:58] characterized it from his perspective. And I think it was important for me to put that on the record. [2:10:03] And I think it's been asked and answered, and we don't need to have a history lesson on it. So [2:10:06] I'm going to go ahead and proceed with my questions. This hearing I think has been illuminating on a [2:10:13] number of different levels. And I would like to ask just sort of a simple question for the panel [2:10:19] generally, which is very specifically, was the 2020 census accurate? Mr. Mayfield. [2:10:29] At the state and national level, it was within the margin of error for modern censuses. Below the state [2:10:36] level, it was not. Mr. Rodriguez. Considering that it counted illegal and non-immigrant aliens, [2:10:44] it was inaccurate according to the dictates of the constitution. Mr. Miller. It was the most [2:10:49] inaccurate census in modern times, in my opinion. Mr. Yang. At the state and national levels, it was [2:10:55] accurate. At the sub-levels below that, it was inconsistent at times, but overall still did very well. And so [2:11:01] was it true that in 2022 that the Census Bureau itself acknowledged that there were significant [2:11:08] errors and significant discrepancies? Is that correct, Mr. Mayfield? That is correct. Right. [2:11:13] And did it have significant impact on states and that there were undercounting and overcounting of [2:11:19] at least 14 states? Mr. Mayfield? That is the census position as of 2022. Now, [2:11:24] was it also accurate that, in fact, the undercounting was often directed towards more conservative states [2:11:31] with more Republican representation and the overcounting was directed towards what we might [2:11:36] call blue states with more Democrat representation? I can't address your use of the word direction. [2:11:43] That is certainly what the modeling suggests was the result. Mr. Miller, would you add to that? Yeah, [2:11:49] the Census Bureau would acknowledge that that would have been the outcome. And to the tune of as many as [2:11:55] 500,000 in the state of Texas, for example? That's correct, costing Texas an additional congressional [2:12:02] seat. So let's get to the heart then of why. Why is that the case? We posit here in this hearing, [2:12:10] I've heard a number of folks represent, that one of the reasons is because of illegal immigrants. So true [2:12:16] or false, is the issue of how we count involving illegal immigrants having a direct impact on [2:12:23] representation in Congress? Mr. Mayfield? That is undeniably true. Mr. Rodriguez? I agree. And it's [2:12:30] been true for at least the last three censuses. Mr. Miller? Some mathematical certainty. Mr. Yang? [2:12:35] Undocumented immigrants are required to be counted under the Constitution. Do they have a direct [2:12:39] impact on how we apportion and how districts are getting set up? That is less clear to me. Let me ask [2:12:45] you a question, Mr. Yang. You posited earlier some, you know, theories about, you know, how we count people, [2:12:50] and we should count everybody for apportionment purposes. If 75 million people were to come into [2:12:57] the state of California between now and 2030, should we have 100 new congressional seats in [2:13:02] California if all 75 million of those people were illegally present in the state of California? [2:13:07] That's the way the Constitution is currently constructed, as I understand it. So that's how, [2:13:12] and taking issue with that, by the way, that the Constitution requires that we apportion based on [2:13:17] people who are here illegally, which I've – which a number of the other people on the panel have [2:13:21] questioned, and which at no point has the Supreme Court said that that is the case, [2:13:25] then we're saying here – the Democrat witness is saying that if we had 75 million people illegally [2:13:30] flood into the state of California, we must have 100 representatives – again, rounding the math there – [2:13:37] added to the state of California. That is extraordinary to me. But I do want to follow up and finish on [2:13:42] this question of the differential privacy. The other question that has been raised here, [2:13:48] which is highly problematic on a less partisan basis, is the extent to which we have the Census Bureau [2:13:53] adopting, by Mr. Mayfield's testimony, by edict of a civil servant bureaucrat at the Census Bureau, [2:14:01] a approach to estimating and guessing the population based on something that was attacked by numerous [2:14:13] groups, questioned by numerous groups, and it has now proven to be statistically problematic that it [2:14:19] is actually causing massive problems with respect to our counting. Is that fair, Mr. Mayfield? [2:14:25] That is accurate. Mr. Rodriguez, is that – is that – is that fair? [2:14:28] That's fair. Mr. Miller? [2:14:30] We may disagree on a lot of different things, but I think there's a bipartisan consensus that [2:14:36] this is a problem – a big problem. Mr. Yang, you said something to the tune of fine-tuning, [2:14:40] but you also seem to acknowledge that there are significant problems with respect to the way this [2:14:47] is being handled now. As a new policy, I agree that this is something that needs to be evaluated. [2:14:51] Absolutely. And so, Mr. Miller, you've [2:14:56] thrown out a couple of ideas. I want to conclude on that point, because I think it's really important [2:15:00] that there are other ways to go about doing this. And swapping, you get into that. And the issue here, [2:15:05] for everybody to understand, is you have laws that say you've got to protect privacy. You've got a [2:15:10] massive file that is protected at unbelievable levels of security and inability to look at the data. [2:15:19] And so, therefore, we've got to figure out how to know that we have an accurate census. [2:15:24] And this deferential privacy is raising massive concerns on a nonpartisan basis, right? A Harvard [2:15:30] study, independent groups – groups on the left, groups on the right. It would seem to me that we [2:15:34] should come to a consensus on how we should approach this. Could the gentleman finish, you know, [2:15:40] filling in that question at that point? Absolutely. So, at the end of the day, there is a constitutional [2:15:47] purpose for all of this. And a privacy statute cannot be a reason by which to ignore the constitutional [2:15:55] outgrowths and outflows of what the purpose of this data is. So, if we have a privacy standard that is [2:16:02] causing – and I think most people would agree with this at this point – that is causing significant [2:16:07] data distortion that is impacting all sorts of federal funding formulas, all sorts of [2:16:13] potentially – definitely redistricting, potentially depending on how – if it's not everything that [2:16:20] we believe it is and not everything that they're purporting to say it is. In theory, it's not supposed [2:16:24] to affect apportionment. I don't have access to the data. I can't verify that. That's how it's supposed to [2:16:28] work. But at the end of the day, we should defer to a privacy method that is also as good and does not [2:16:38] create as many constitutional issues as we have seen. If that was not – if that is not achieved by [2:16:44] swapping and turning off data, we need to get our smart people together and figure out another option. [2:16:49] And you were suggesting – closing out my times over – of turning off the data. That was an approach you're [2:16:54] suggesting to try to have an approach. I think – Mr. Yang, can I just ask you on a non-partisan basis, [2:16:59] with just a little indulgence, do you have a perspective on that? So you're kind of nodding [2:17:03] and sort of maybe almost in that kind of like intellectual chewing on it as to whether that [2:17:07] would be an approach that might help solve the problem of managing privacy but not having data [2:17:12] that's problematic? Like I said, I think this is worth evaluating. And this is part of what happens [2:17:17] after every census is the Census Bureau looks at what worked, what didn't. It acknowledges that mistakes are [2:17:23] made. It acknowledges in this case that there are certain overcounts and undercounts. That's no [2:17:27] different than any other census. Now the job of the Census Bureau, as with guidance from all of you, [2:17:33] is to how to move forward and make that system even better for the next census. [2:17:36] All right. I thank the panel. I now know that my colleague from Texas – [2:17:39] I would just seek unanimous consent. I mean, we've discussed the census after review quite a bit, [2:17:46] so I'd like to seek unanimous consent to introduce the GAO report on the 2020 census coverage, [2:17:52] errors and challenges to inform the 2030 plans. I think there's been a lot of misstatements [2:17:57] about what it shows, so it's good for everybody to have access. [2:18:01] Without objection, we'll insert that into the record. And I'll now recognize the gentleman [2:18:04] from Texas, Mr. Hahn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:18:05] The time has come to elucidate the American people in the census manipulation that Democrats [2:18:11] have been using to influence American elections for years. In 2018, Republican leadership, [2:18:18] including the President himself, called for a citizenship question to be included in the 2020 [2:18:23] census reports. To no one's surprise, when the Democrats took control, these requests went [2:18:29] unanswered, and the question of citizenship was waived. But the fact remains that the concept of [2:18:37] sanctuary cities and radical blue states ignoring immigration law and using the illegal population to [2:18:45] manipulate the lines of congressional districts is, in fact, unconstitutional. Not only are there severe [2:18:51] constitutional concerns from the inclusion of illegal immigrants, but the Census Bureau admitted to [2:18:58] having made several, quote, errors in their 2020 census report. Convenient, seeing that, as in 2020, [2:19:05] Donald Trump was on top of the ticket. In 2020, the Bureau undercounted in primarily deep red states, [2:19:12] such as Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas, all red, while overcounting in radical [2:19:18] left blue states like Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Rhode Island. [2:19:25] This egregious error led to many states being denied proper representation in Congress and the [2:19:31] Electoral College. So much so that these errors cost Republicans not one, not two, not three, not four, [2:19:39] not five, but six seats in the House. In addition to the 2020 miscounting, including illegal, [2:19:46] including illegal immigrants in the census, has improperly granted radical left blue states 12, 12 [2:19:53] additional seats in the United States House of Representatives. It's a total of 18 seats gained. [2:20:01] That is a huge problem. And those are the facts. Mr. Mayfield, thank you so much for being here, sir, [2:20:07] I have a question for you, if you don't mind. You, sir, are a seasoned litigator who has practiced [2:20:12] in matters ranging from complex commercial litigation to constitutional and administrative [2:20:16] law. In your expert opinion, and I want you to really speak about this in long form because I want [2:20:21] this recorded, should illegal aliens be included in the apportionment process under the 14th Amendment? [2:20:28] The Supreme Court has never directly addressed that, Congressman. [2:20:34] For apportionment purposes, as Congress has interpreted it, the Supreme Court has held that [2:20:44] it currently applies to all people, regardless of citizenship. There is certainly an open question [2:20:49] as to whether or not, if Congress were to direct the Census Bureau to do it differently, as to whether [2:20:54] or not that would be legal. Okay. So in regards to thinking more of a high level, in terms of being a [2:21:01] citizen and what it means to be a citizen in this country, and I do believe that being a citizen in [2:21:06] this country means that you have the right to choose the leadership if you're a tax paying [2:21:11] legal citizen in this country. If you are an illegal person in this country, should you, [2:21:18] under any circumstances, be allowed to vote and choose leadership in this country? [2:21:25] That wouldn't be an expert opinion. As a citizen, I would object to that. [2:21:29] And what about you, Ms. Rodriguez? I also object to that. [2:21:33] Mr. Miller? Correct. Citizens should not be, illegal aliens should not be voting. [2:21:37] And that applies to you also, Mr. Nguyen. I'd love to hear your response to this question. [2:21:40] Non-citizens are not allowed to participate in federal elections. [2:21:45] Okay. But are they participating in federal elections? [2:21:48] The studies have shown that there are very few instances in which they have. [2:21:53] So that number needs to be zero. And as somebody who is a proud Texan, we, and in Florida, have done [2:22:01] our best to get that number to zero. And in spite of the fact that I just voted a couple of weeks ago, [2:22:05] and we voted with paper ballots that we had to show an ID for that they didn't verify [2:22:10] my address and where I lived. And then I had to put said piece of paper through a machine, copied it. [2:22:15] They gave me another copy. Then they gave me my very proud, I voted sticker. [2:22:19] And even with those stringent rules, with my daughter, my daughter, who is seven years old, [2:22:23] was actually with me. She too got an I voted sticker. And guess what? [2:22:27] With those stringent laws, we still have illegals voting in federal elections. [2:22:32] So the question is not even about what's happening in Texas. If it's happening in Texas, [2:22:36] you have to imagine that while it may seem like a minuscule amount to you, sir, [2:22:40] that number needs to be zero. And if it's happening in Texas with those stringent rules, [2:22:45] imagine what's happening in other blue states that don't have anything that closely resembles [2:22:51] that level of redundancy to ensure that the person that voted in that election is, [2:22:56] in fact, a citizen that has an address and has an ID. And with that, [2:23:00] I'll yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you very much. [2:23:03] Thanks, gentlemen from Texas. That concludes today's hearing. [2:23:05] We thank the witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today. And without objection, [2:23:08] all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the [2:23:11] witnesses or additional materials for the record. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.