[House Hearing, 109 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] COUNTING THE VOTE: SHOULD ONLY U.S. CITIZENS BE INCLUDED IN APPORTIONING OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES? ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM AND THE CENSUS of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ DECEMBER 6, 2005 __________ Serial No. 109-119 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/ index.html http://www.house.gov/reform ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 26-074 WASHINGTON : 2006 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------ VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent) ------ ------ Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director Rob Borden, Parliamentarian Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York ------ ------ Ex Officio TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California John Cuaderes, Staff Director Ursula Wojciechowski, Professional Staff Member Juliana French, Clerk Adam Bordes, Minority Professional Staff Member C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on December 6, 2005................................. 1 Statement of: Bensen, Clark, consultant and publisher, Polidata Co.; Steven Camarota, director of research, Center for Immigration Studies; and Lawrence Gonzalez, Washington director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.................................................. 28 Bensen, Clark............................................ 28 Camarota, Steven......................................... 41 Gonzalez, Lawrence....................................... 53 Miller, Hon. Candice S., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan...................................... 10 Prewitt, Kenneth, Carnegie professor of public affairs, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University; Johnny H. Killian, senior specialist, American constitutional law, American Law Division, Congressional Research Service; James G. Gimpel, professor of government, University of Maryland, College Park; Andrew C. Spiropoulos, professor of law, Oklahoma City University School of Law; and Nina Perales, Southwestern regional counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund....................................................... 71 Gimpel, James G.......................................... 88 Killian, Johnny H........................................ 82 Perales, Nina............................................ 120 Prewitt, Kenneth......................................... 71 Spiropoulos, Andrew C.................................... 111 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Bensen, Clark, consultant and publisher, Polidata Co., prepared statement of...................................... 31 Camarota, Steven, director of research, Center for Immigration Studies, prepared statement of................. 43 Gimpel, James G., professor of government, University of Maryland, College Park, prepared statement of.............. 90 Gonzalez, Lawrence, Washington director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, prepared statement of............................................... 55 Killian, Johnny H., senior specialist, American constitutional law, American Law Division, Congressional Research Service, prepared statement of.................... 84 Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 7 Miller, Hon. Candice S., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, prepared statement of............... 14 Perales, Nina, Southwestern regional counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, prepared statement of............................................... 122 Prewitt, Kenneth, Carnegie professor of public affairs, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, prepared statement of.......................... 75 Sanchez, Hon. Linda T., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of................. 135 Spiropoulos, Andrew C., professor of law, Oklahoma City University School of Law, prepared statement of............ 113 Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, prepared statement of................... 3 COUNTING THE VOTE: SHOULD ONLY U.S. CITIZENS BE INCLUDED IN APPORTIONING OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES? ---------- TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2005 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:57 a.m., in room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael R. Turner (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Turner, Dent, Foxx, and Maloney. Also present: Representatives Miller of Michigan, and Linda T. Sanchez of California. Staff present: John Cuaderes, staff director; Ursula Wojciechowski, professional staff member; Juliana French, clerk; John Heroux, counsel; Peter Neville, fellow; Adam Bordes and Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff members; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk. Mr. Turner. Call to order the Government Reform Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census. A quorum being present, this hearing of the Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census will come to order. Welcome to the subcommittee's oversight hearing entitled, ``Counting the Vote: Should Only U.S. Citizens Be Included in Apportioning Our Elected Representatives?'' We are here today to discuss a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would change how the Census Bureau determines the enumeration for the purposes of apportioning the U.S. House of Representatives. The 14th amendment states, ``Representatives of the House shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.'' In other words, all individuals residing in the United States on Census Day, except for nontaxed Indians must be enumerated to determine the apportionment base. The issue of whether noncitizens should be included in the apportionment base has received considerable congressional attention in the past. In 1940, for example, Representative Celler of New York said on the floor of the House, ``The Constitution says that all persons shall be counted. I cannot quarrel with the Founding Fathers. They said that all should be counted. The only way we can exclude anyone would be to pass a constitutional amendment.'' Most legal scholars agree with the view of Representative Celler that any attempt to exclude noncitizens from enumeration must be accomplished by a constitutional amendment. That is what Representative Candice Miller has proposed by introduction of House Joint Resolution 53. This measure is a straightforward proposal to distinguish citizens of the United States from the total populations for purposes of determining the apportionment base. I am willing to wager that many, if not most, Americans think that is exactly how it is done today and would be shocked to learn that noncitizens, especially those in the country illegally, have an impact on apportioning the membership of the House of Representatives. Regardless of possible popular belief, there may be some very compelling reasons why the Framers used the word ``persons'' instead of the word ``citizens'' or ``voters'' when they crafted the 14th amendment. The primary question before us today is if H.J. Res. 53 is adopted by Congress and ratified by the States, how would things be different? We have several witnesses today that may provide the subcommittee some insight into what the political landscape would have looked like in the past if the census excluded noncitizens, what it might look like after the 2010 census if H.J. Res. 53 is adopted. I think you will find this testimony most interesting. This hearing has been structured in such a way that the subcommittee will first hear from Congresswoman Miller so that we she may describe her proposal. Subsequent to her testimony, she will join us as a member of the subcommittee in listening and questioning the other witnesses. The subcommittee will then hear from a second panel comprised of two esteemed demographers, Clark Bensen, a consultant and publisher from the Polidata Co., and Steven Camarota, Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies. Joining these two will be Lawrence Gonzalez representing the National Association of Latino elected and appointed officials. In our third panel we will hear from several legal and academic scholars including the former director of the Census Bureau, Dr. Ken Prewitt. Joining him will be James Gimpel, professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland; Johnny Killian, senior specialist in constitutional law in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service; and Andrew Spiropoulos, professor of law at the Oklahoma City University School of Law. Finally, we will hear from Nina Perales, Southwestern regional counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. With that, my colleagues on the subcommittee and I welcome you Mrs. Miller and we look forward to your testimony. We look forward to the testimony of all our distinguished witnesses today and thank them for their preparation and time in participating today. With that, I would like to recognize our ranking member Mrs. Maloney. [The prepared statement of Hon. Michael R. Turner follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.002 Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Chairman Turner, and I really very much appreciate your fairness in handling this hearing, and I always enjoy working with you. I particularly want to thank you for the hearing you held recently in New York City on the community development block grants and look forward to the passage of that report before Congress. But today, unfortunately, we have before us a truly reckless constitutional proposal which on one hand runs counter to our American ideals and on the other hand makes little practical sense. Were it to become part of the Constitution, it would be the second amendment in our history which did not expand individual liberties. The other was prohibition. The amendment shrinks liberty and deliberately blinds the national government to the needs of millions upon millions of Americans. This amendment reverses the explicit intent of the Framers that representation in the House should be based on population and that a periodic count of residents was the only legitimate means to assure equitable representation based on population in a changing nation. The Census Act of 1790, introduced by James Madison and signed into law by George Washington, called for an enumeration of the, ``inhabitants of the United States.'' This was deliberate. We were then and have always been a nation of immigrants. Indeed, seven signers of the Declaration of Independence and eight signers of our Constitution were foreign born. Noncitizens fought for liberty in the Revolutionary War for America and in every war since. Today, 35,000 noncitizens serve on active duty and 8,000 more enlist every year. Most noncitizens are here legally. They are legal, permanent residents and visa holders who pay local, State and Federal taxes. The Framers decided that only citizens would have the right to choose their Representatives through the right to vote. They just as firmly intended that, ``all inhabitants,'' of the country be counted for purposes of apportioning the seats of Congress. They mandated a census of the entire population to prevent the, ``manipulation of political power and taxation.'' The census is itself one of the many vital checks and balances embedded in our constitutional form of government which are at the root of why it has endured so long. This amendment before us today, however, turns the census into a political gadget. As we will hear today in testimony, the census has become a weapon in today's political debate on immigration. Proponents of this amendment will point to recent growth in the percentage of foreign-born residents to make a case that this has somehow, ``diluted voting representation of nonborder States.'' The truth is that compared to the post-Civil War counts, for instance, this percentage is historically low. As we will hear today, this amendment is a management nightmare. It requires the Census Bureau first to count everyone, then for the first time in our Nation's history, ask everyone for proof that they are a citizen, only for the purpose of going back and removing people from the count. That will be a huge cost in time and taxpayer money. Imagine when proponents of this amendment demand that residents show proof of citizenship. The end result will be a national ID card. And let's not sugar coat the effects of this amendment; it will discriminate, it will disproportionately exclude Hispanics, who make up the lion's share of our Nation's most recent immigration. To politically manipulate the count and generate undercounts in border States to benefit interior States is discrimination. Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle profess to prefer a limited Federal Government, so why would they propose a big government, expensive, time-consuming, invasive and last, but certainly not least, discriminatory amendment to our Constitution? It is simple. This amendment is about shifting power. By artificially altering the population in certain areas, the consequence, of course, is an inaccurate census count. A government that spends its resources in the wrong places, where it would skew representation, will result in a loss of faith in leadership. This is about sacrificing 210 years of constitutional practice and history merely to increase short-term power at the expense of millions of Americans and those that will soon be Americans in our country. I am opposed to this amendment. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.005 Mr. Turner. Mrs. Maloney, I want to thank you for your participation today. You have made valuable contributions to this committee, and I appreciate your viewpoint. Today, this hearing, as we look forward, is informational, and I do believe that many are not aware of how apportionment is accomplished; and your viewpoint is going to be valuable as we educate people of the processes and perhaps the impacts of this constitutional amendment. Mrs. Maloney. I appreciate it is educational and not--thank you. Mr. Turner. I next would like to recognize our vice chair, Charlie Dent. Mr. Dent. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this very important hearing to examine the possible impact of Congresswoman Miller's proposed joint resolution to amend the Constitution to mandate that only U.S. citizens be counted in census data for apportionment purposes. It is crucial that we review and evaluate this proposed legislation in that it would have a widespread impact on the Census Bureau, Electoral College, number of seats in the House, and basic weight of an individual's vote. While I deeply respect the Congresswoman's initiative in attempting to illuminate and correct the problem of dilution of U.S. citizens' votes, I think it is also crucial that we take a realistic look at the possible difficulties and costs that may arise as a result of implementing H.J. Res. 53. I look forward to the testimony of my esteemed colleague, Representative Miller, as well as the other witnesses today. Thanks, Chairman Turner, for holding this hearing. Mr. Turner. Thank you. Now it is my honor to recognize for her testimony the Honorable Congresswoman Candice Miller. STATEMENT OF HON. CANDICE S. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mrs. Miller. Thank you. Thank so much, Mr. Chairman and Representative Maloney, Vice Chair Representative Dent as well. I appreciate the fact that you all come with an open mind to this issue, and I certainly appreciate your having a hearing on a piece of legislation that I think is very important to protect the integrity of our democratic system, quite frankly. Mr. Chairman, over the last several decades our Nation has had a rather dramatic shift in the population, and as a result of that, a shift in the congressional representation as well, principally from the Northeast and the Midwest, to the southern and western regions of our Nation. There are, of course, a number of reasons for population shifts. Many people just prefer warmer climates and they might retire into some of those areas permanently. Some people are looking for job opportunities, and they may move to cities to pursue them. There are certainly many legitimate reasons for people to move to the South and West, and I strongly believe in the concept of representational democracy, so it is entirely appropriate for congressional seats to move along with the population shifts so that Americans are properly represented in the halls of Congress. But as I examined this issue, I came across what I thought was a rather surprising thing, quite startling actually. The fact is that illegal immigration or people who are in our country illegally or are not legal citizens of our Nation are being counted and apportioned congressional representation just the same as every legal American citizen. Let us examine how this can possibly be happening. Our Constitution, of course, requires the government to undertake a census every 10 years. One of the many purposes of the census is to distribute seats in the Congress amongst the various States. Those with greater population receive more seats than those with less. Simple concept. This reapportionment of seats is meant to balance as close as is practical the concept of one man, one vote. The 14th amendment of our Constitution states that in the census that all persons must be counted. All persons, of course, include every man, every woman, rich, poor, Black, White, every person. However, many people would be surprised to know that it also means citizens and noncitizens, including illegal immigrants. In fulfilling its constitutional obligation, the U.S. Census Bureau counts every person whether they are in this country legally or not. Those same numbers, which include both legal and illegal immigrants, are then used to determine congressional representation. So even if you broke the laws of our country to come here, we give you as much representation to impact our laws as any legal American. So for all practical purposes, when we are voting in Congress about issues like national security or border security or illegal immigration, we allow illegal immigrants to influence the outcome of those votes. We disenfranchise our own American citizens by allowing illegal immigrants to be counted for the purposes of congressional representation in the same identical way that we count legal citizens. Just allow me to illustrate my point by comparing three different congressional districts, and let me start with the 10th District of Michigan, which I am very proud to represent. According to the 2000 census, in the 10th District of Michigan, the census says 97 percent of the residents that live in my district are American citizens; 3 percent are not. If you look at the entire State of Montana, that has only one congressional district, the census is saying there that 99 percent of the people in Montana are citizens, less than 1 percent are not. Let us now consider the congressional district, the 31st District of California. According to the census, 60 percent of the residents there are citizens, 40 percent of the residents in this district are not American citizens, and yet all three, the 10th District of Michigan, the entire State of Montana, and the 31st District of California have the same vote in the U.S. Congress. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I was a secretary of State in Michigan before I came to Congress. My principal responsibility there was as an election official, so I do perhaps look at election results a little more closely than some. And it was while I was looking at some of the election numbers that this became apparent to me. There were nearly three times as many voters in my district during the last election cycle as there were in California's 31st. So a House candidate in California's 31st District only needs 56,000 votes to win a seat in Congress, and yet in my district a winning candidate would need a minimum of 166,000 votes in order to become a Member of Congress, nearly 50 percent more than the entire vote in California's 31st. I think that fundamental fairness suggests that each congressional district should have roughly the same number of citizens since only citizens are able to vote. A district that has tens or hundred of thousands of illegal immigrants dilutes the voice of American citizens in other areas of the Nation, and in my opinion, that is simply not fair. Another effect of these congressional seats shifting to States with larger noncitizen populations is that recipient States have a larger voice in Congress and, in fact, throughout the entire Federal Government. By having an inflated population, a greater number of Representatives in the House, it opens doors for increased Federal funding in those States. It might actually give some of these States an incentive to encourage illegal immigration. If only citizens had been counted for the purposes of reapportionment, CRS estimates show that it would have had an impact on how nine congressional seats were allocated during the last congressional reallocation. By the Census Bureau's estimate, California is home to an estimated 5.4 million noncitizens. The State of California would have been allocated six fewer seats in the House of Representatives. Three other States would have had one less seat: Florida, New York and Texas. Nine States would have picked up those seats. Those States are Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Utah. In fact, if you think about the six additional congressional seats that have been given to California just because of its illegal immigrant or its noncitizen, however you want to categorize it, population, it also gives those noncitizens an equal or greater voice in the Electoral College and, thus, the Presidential race than States that have six or less Members of Congress. Those States that have less to say than illegal immigrants are Alaska, Delaware, Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming. Fully 20 States and the District of Columbia have less to say, who is elected the President of the United States, than do the illegal immigrants that live in the State of California, most of whom, many of them, broke laws to get into our Nation. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of people who you will hear from shortly in the next panel who will tell this committee not to concern itself with this, that we are a compassionate nation and we need to protect everybody and need to allow this to continue. I do not believe that we should. And for those reasons I have introduced House Joint Resolution 53. This is a constitutional amendment that specifies that the congressional representation shall be apportioned based on the number of citizens, not persons, a really simple change to the 14th amendment. The right to vote is certainly one of our most cherished freedoms. We should not allow that right to be diluted for any reason. Unfortunately, our porous border and lax enforcement of immigration laws are doing just that. Citizens in States with fewer immigrants, legal and illegal, are disadvantaged. This is about fundamental fairness and, again, the American ideal: One man, or maybe one woman, one vote. I don't want anyone to take away the impression that I am anti-immigration. I am a first-generation Scot, and in my district and in my entire State we have immigrants that came from across the globe to seek a better life for themselves. And I will tell you that my constituents who have followed the laws to become American citizens are the first people that think that this is outrageous and want to see it changed. They cherish their citizenship so deeply and the blessing it bestows on them that they more than any others do not want to have their voice diluted. I appreciate your interest in this issue, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Hon. Candice S. Miller follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.016 Mr. Turner. Congresswoman Miller, I appreciate the fact that you have highlighted this issue. I think we are all aware that when the constitutional convention came together there was much heated discussion that resulted in the structure that we have today of the House and the Senate and the allocation of Representatives by State based upon the discussion of how do we balance the issue of influence of large States versus small States. There was a grave concern that those in small States would have less of a voice or representation in Congress and have perhaps their interests overridden. With your illustration of the fact that noncitizens in California representing six additional electors both in the Electoral College that elects our President, and Representatives, your illustration that 20 States have either less or equal representation on the national level to those seats gives a great illustration that this is an issue that goes to the heart of the discussion of the constitutional convention of the balance of States and their power. I certainly think that your comments do not sound anti- immigrant; they sound citizen versus noncitizen as an issue of allocating the vote. It certainly doesn't address the issue of whether or not anyone is welcome, but as you address the issue of balancing of power between the States--something that was very important in structuring our government--it becomes part of that discussion. Prior to serving in Congress you served as secretary of State and had responsibility for administration of the electoral system in Michigan. One of the criticisms that we hear of this proposal--obviously, one is the issue of cost, which I don't find too compelling because, obviously, if we are trying to bolster the rights of citizens, cost is certainly not something that would be a compelling argument. But the nightmare of the administration of the process, I think, is one that does need to be addressed: How would we accomplish the determination of someone's status as citizen or noncitizen? In the testimony that you have and the testimony that we have from most of the witnesses, they make references to the number of citizens or noncitizens that are currently counted in the system. Someone obviously has taken an effort from the data that we have had to ascertain where citizens or noncitizens are located. Could you speak for a moment to what you have learned and your thoughts on the processes of how we might be able to then be successful in doing a census which is under the jurisdiction of this committee and determine citizenship and noncitizenship? Mrs. Miller. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I obviously don't work for the Census Bureau, so I couldn't tell you what the entire impact would be, but I do not believe that this resolution that I am putting forward should really be viewed numerically in the terms of what the costs actually are. As you say, it is about fairness and protecting our citizens' rights. However, right now, the Census Bureau is already estimating without verifying how many citizens and how many noncitizens. In fact, CRS prepared a report for me, detailing for every congressional district in the entire Nation the numbers based on the last census of total population, native born, naturalized citizens, their total, the percentage of resident population, noncitizen population, and then the total vote cast in the 2002 general election. The Census Bureau is already doing much of this work without verification. If they just started with the information that they already have, I don't know why that would be a problem for them. I do think though, it is very important that we do count every person. I am not suggesting that we stop counting everybody here. It is important for us to try to get a handle on what our population is, citizens, noncitizens, etc. I am only speaking to the process of congressional representation, so I am not suggesting that the Census Bureau change their processes not to count illegal immigrants or noncitizens. Those categories must be counted and have to be taken into consideration for a number of other reasons. I am also not suggesting that my proposal go to States or local municipalities. This is only about Federal congressional representation. The States would be allowed to continue as they want. I would like to mention the REAL ID Act that the Congress has recently passed. I was very involved in that particular piece of legislation. Not only as former secretary of state in Michigan did I have election responsibilities, I also had responsibilities with issuing drivers' licenses. We were 1 of 10 States that continued to issue driver's license and State identification cards to known illegal immigrants; even though we knew they were in the country illegally, we had to keep giving them a driver's license, which I believe is very counterintuitive with the kinds of challenges that are facing our Nation today. But the REAL ID Act is going to address that. Now legal presence will be required and every State, even before the REAL ID card, the DMVs and secretaries of state are required to ask for your Social Security number before they issue you a driver's license or State identification card. So I do think that some of this verification technology is going to be in place and I would speculate that it will be an assist to the Census Bureau as they look into what the costs actually would be. Mr. Turner. Congresswoman Miller, you have proposed this change by constitutional amendment versus statute. Is it that you believe that a statute would not be sufficient in order to be able to effect this change? Mrs. Miller. You know, I would prefer to do it by statute because obviously a constitutional amendment is quite a laborious process; and again, I appreciate the hearing on the issue. Of course, it requires two-thirds of each body and then three-fifths or three-quarters of the States for a constitutional amendment, and we should not change the Constitution by whim; so I recognize the seriousness of what I am proposing here. However, as we researched this issue, we came across a Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, this was in the Spring of 1999, entitled, ``Losing Control of America's Future: The Census, Birthright, Citizenship and Illegal Aliens.'' They went through this entire process, and at the very end it said that the thesis of this article is that needed changes can be accomplished by statute. They do believe that it could be accomplished by statute. If, however, either change cannot be made in this way without significant delay because the President, Congress or even the Supreme Court believes the Constitution precludes it, then a constitutional amendment should be pursued until ratification is achieved. Essentially, I came to the same conclusion because I do believe if we tried to do this by statute, even if we were successful in passing it, we would be facing endless litigation, and so I thought a constitutional amendment would be the most prudent course. Mr. Turner. Thank you so much. Mrs. Maloney. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much for your testimony today, Congresswoman. As a Member of Congress, can you describe how your proposal benefits your State of Michigan? Mrs. Miller. Yes. As I mentioned in my testimony, we actually would probably not have lost one of our seats. Previous to the last census, Michigan had 16 congressional seats. Currently we have 15, and we are looking in the next census at the distinct possibility of losing an additional seat. This is not because we have not grown in population. Many States just like your own of New York, we have actually had an increase in our population but not at the same rapid expansion that is happening in the South--Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, California, what have you--particularly when you factor in the illegal immigration. Mrs. Maloney. I have no further questions. Mr. Turner. Mr. Dent. Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like you, Congresswoman Miller, I come from a State that has not grown at a very great rate. In fact, according to the data, in 1960 my State had 27 Members of Congress; today we have 19. Back in the 1930's I know we were over 30 Members of Congress. So really since the 1930's our representation has been nearly cut in half. I would be curious to know how many seats my State has lost due to noncitizens being counted over these several decades, and maybe you know what the answer is to Michigan. According to the data provided to me, my State would pick up a seat. I would be curious to see how many seats we might not have lost had noncitizens not been counted. I don't know if you have any thoughts on that. Mrs. Miller. I have some thoughts. I think it is very unfair what has happened to all of us. I am sorry, I don't have the numbers for your particular State, but you can see a common element here. And I understand, as I said at the outset, that we all absolutely believe in representing the people, the American citizens. That is why we require citizenship to vote. I mean, if you took this to its logical conclusion, why even require citizenship in order to vote? Again, as a former chief elections officer, if we want to protect the rights of illegal immigrants, why do we even require people to have citizenship to vote? They are already really voting on the floor of the House. But I do think that we understand why people and population shifts are occurring. That being said, I have no problem with seats in the House being apportioned based on population, but I certainly do have a distinct distaste for the fact that American citizens', legal citizens of America, vote is being diluted because as the population is shifting and illegal immigration is increasing in some of these border States. Mr. Dent. Thank you. Mr. Turner. We thank Congresswoman Miller. We thank you for your testimony as panel one, and if you would, please now join us as we turn to Panel Two. We have two panels that would continue our discussion of the counting of U.S. citizens and how it impacts our elected Representatives and what would be the effect if we only, in that process, counted U.S. citizens. On panel two we have Mr. Clark Bensen, consultant and publisher, Polidata Co.; Mr. Steven Camarota, director of research, Center for Immigration Studies; Mr. Lawrence Gonzalez, Washington director of National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. If you would come forward. Gentlemen, we will begin by swearing in the witnesses of our second panel. We will swear in the witnesses for the second and the third panels. Witnesses will notice that there is a timer light at the witness table. The green light indicates that you should begin your prepared remarks and the red light indicates that your time has expired. The yellow light indicates when you will have 1 minute left to conclude your remarks. Each of you will be asked to summarize your previously submitted written testimony into a 5-minute presentation. It is the policy of this committee that the witnesses be sworn in before they testify. You would please rise and raise your right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Turner. Please let the record show that all witnesses have responded in the affirmative. I want to thank each of you for the time that you have taken to prepare for your testimony here today. We look forward to your comments and we will begin with Mr. Bensen. STATEMENTS OF CLARK BENSEN, CONSULTANT AND PUBLISHER, POLIDATA CO.; STEVEN CAMAROTA, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES; AND LAWRENCE GONZALEZ, WASHINGTON DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS STATEMENT OF CLARK BENSEN Mr. Bensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to address the possible impacts, mostly the political impacts, of a noncitizen apportionment. Mr. Turner. Can I ask you to move closer to your mic. That way we can hear you better. Mr. Bensen. In addition to the written remarks, there are maps and tablets on my Web site, Polidata.organization, Polidata.org, and there were just too many different scenarios to provide all sorts of handouts here. Let me first start off by summarizing some of what Congresswoman Miller addressed, which is, the 2000 census actually was the culmination of a 6-decades-long shift of the political power in the country from the Northeast and the Midwest to the South and the West. This is clearly a trend that is continuing, and in fact, projections on the 2010 apportionment would indicate that an additional 11 seats would shift from the Northeast to the South and the West. At the same time, of course, the noncitizens, as we measured them in the census, have risen dramatically from, in 1980, about 3 percent to, in 2000, over 6 percent. The distribution, however, of the noncitizens is not very randomly distributed as it were, and in fact with the handout over here there are two maps, one of which is a county-based map, which is this one, which does in fact indicate that a lot of the distribution of the noncitizens is in the border areas. And it is because of this uneven distribution of the noncitizens, again, as we determine them from the census that in fact this is a Robin Hood kind of proposal in the sense that we take from the few and give to the many. And in fact the first aspect I looked at here was the actual apportionments that have been made over the last few decades and projected out to 2010. And in 1980, 1990 and 2000 it was the same general trend, which is, very few States-- basically, four or five States----would have lost seats had the apportionment been based upon noncitizens. And in 2010 it would basically be the same impact. Before my time runs out, I want to address a couple of issues. A lot of the issues we will hear several times today, but one of the impacts, of course, is just briefly the Electoral College. Yes, noncitizens do vote in California because of this, but the overall impact would be basically not as big a shift because some of the other States, of course, are Republicans or Democrats, and so in a sense would have been four extra votes for Bush in 2000 and 2004. But the other aspect goes to the redistricting elements of it, and Congresswoman Miller addressed this to some degree. In actuality, her example is correct even though in reality you should look at one State at a time. And in California it is a similar situation, in which case I look at the Presidential results by congressional district. And this is a project that Polidata has been working on every 4 years for 2 decades, and we look at the total votes in the Presidential election and compare that; and in California it is the same kind of scenario, which is, you have districts where the average vote in the Presidential election is three times what the vote is in the districts that have the smallest number of votes. Let me summarize by saying that also the overall result for the House is that if you add up all the districts based upon the Presidential votes, 50 percent of the Members are elected by 42 percent of the voters in the country. The other element I want to address is again the accuracy of the data and the impact upon the Bureau. And as we know, it would be a short-form item now; and I am concerned about not only the accuracy of the responses, but the fact we may have nonresponse followup, which is a very costly element of the entire process. And more importantly, since I represent people who actually do the redistricting, we need good data, and I see this as a potential problem from not only the Bureau standpoint of their reputation, but also the inevitable litigation over the whole process. And the more important question from a redistricting standpoint is, if we in fact exclude citizens for apportionment, what happens at the State and local level? There is some rationale that in fact whatever is used for apportionment at the local level must basically follow the census, but that is because that has always been determined to be that it is basically based on population. I believe some of the other panelists, the scholars panel, I guess, will address this to some degree as well. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bensen follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.026 Mr. Turner. Mr. Camarota. STATEMENT OF STEVEN CAMAROTA Mr. Camarota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I would like to thank you for having me testify on immigration and reapportionment or apportionment. The United States, of course, is currently experiencing the largest sustained wave of immigration with 1\1/2\ million legal and illegal immigrants settling here. The total foreign-born was 31 million in the 2000 census, including both citizens and noncitizens. Data from 2005 show that it has probably reached about 36 million. Now, there is an unfortunate tendency to see this immigration and see immigrants one-dimensionally, as only workers or as only users of public services and welfare. But immigrants are much more than this; they are human beings. As a result, they have wide-ranging economic, cultural, demographic, national security and political effects on our country. If you take nothing else away from my testimony, it should be that allowing in large numbers of people, even as guest workers or just tolerating widespread illegal immigration, has broad-ranging effects on our society that go well beyond the usual discussion about jobs and welfare and so forth. And one of those impacts is on the reapportionment of House seats. Let me give you some of the overall numbers quickly. The 2000 census showed roughly 19 million noncitizens. Most estimates suggest that 7 or 8 million of these noncitizens were illegal aliens and roughly 1 million were on long-term temporary visas. All of these noncitizens have consequences for apportionment because, as we have already discussed, seats are apportioned to each State in the House based on its total population, and counting the noncitizens and, of course, noncitizens are not evenly distributed throughout the United States. Let me give you one statistic. In the 2000 census, half of all noncitizens lived in just three States. Now, in a report published by the Center for Immigration Studies, we calculated the impact, as others have talked about here as well; the report is available over on the table. My weather-beaten table over here that didn't survive the trip to Capitol Hill shows the States that lost. We will run through them briefly. The inclusion of noncitizens in the census caused Indiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin each lost a seat that they had prior to 2000, while Montana, Kentucky and Utah each failed to gain a seat they otherwise would have had. We also found that of these nine seats, four were redistributed by the illegal aliens. Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, and Montana each had one fewer seat because of the inclusion of illegal aliens in the census. The big winner, of course, is California. Now, because of family relationships and existing cultural ties, immigrants will tend to remain concentrated for some time. They will slowly spread out in the country. Now, that fact along with the fact that immigration levels remain so high means that the noncitizen population is going to also remain high for some time, assuming we don't change U.S. immigration policy or begin to enforce our immigration laws. Now, a 2002 report, for example, found that if all noncitizens who are eligible to naturalize, that is, to become citizens, were naturalized tomorrow, there would still be 15 million noncitizens in the United States. Now, one of the key controversies associated with apportionment caused by noncitizens, or reapportionment caused by the presence of noncitizens, is this fact: It clearly takes away representation from States composed largely of citizens. Of the nine States that lost seats because of the presence of noncitizens in other States, only 1 in 50 residents was a noncitizen in 2000; in contrast, 1 in 7 residents is a noncitizen in California, the big winner. As a result, as we have already talked about, it often takes relatively few votes to win some of these noncitizen heavy districts. In fact, it only took about 68,000 votes to win the average California district in 2002, where it took over 100,000 votes to win the average district in the States that lost seats. Now, I will leave the constitutional issues to others. Let me touch on some of the practical issues with excluding noncitizens. To exclude them would require the census to move the citizenship question from the long form, which only about 15 percent of the population receive, or one-sixth of the population, to the short form which everyone gets. Now, it takes a long time to implement that kind of change, so we need to think about that. And there is also the question of accuracy. Let me conclude by saying, it should be obvious a large noncitizen population is an unavoidable product of large-scale legal immigration and widespread toleration of illegal immigration. If you want to avoid this situation, it seems the obvious thing to do is change immigration policy. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Camarota follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.036 Mr. Turner. Mr. Gonzalez. STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE GONZALEZ Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for your invitation to testify regarding House Joint Resolution 53. Our fund is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that empowers Latinos to participate fully in the American political process from citizenship to public service. It includes more than 6,000 Latino elected and appointed officials nationwide. Because of our longstanding work on promoting a full enumeration of the census, we were recently appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce to serve as a member of the 2010 Census Advisory Committee. Member organizations of the 2010 CAC play a critical role in advising the Census Bureau on how it can effectively and effectively accomplish the goals and objectives. It is from our extensive experience that I discuss with you today what we believe would be the detrimental impacts of H.J. Res. 53 on the efforts to fully integrate the second largest population group into our political system. The passage of this resolution would serve to isolate segments of society and send a message that only U.S. citizens have a right to be heard by our government and elected officials. Omitting noncitizens from the traditional census count contradicts the body of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the 14th amendment which specifically requires that States not discriminate against persons in their jurisdictions. Congress does not just represent citizens. Our Federal elected officials represent all persons, particularly children, who have not yet reached the age to vote, and women, who did not have the right to vote until passage of the 19th amendment and countless other groups of residents of the United States. Congress also represents the thousands of our American soldiers offering their lives to protect our Nation who are not yet citizens but are lawful, permanent residents. Surely these men and women in uniform are entitled to be represented by the country for which they are willing to sacrifice their lives. This is dangerous ground when we decide to classify slaves as not being whole persons, but three-fifths of a person. This amendment would determine that members of our society who are not yet citizens are also not persons in the eyes of the law. This is fundamentally contrary to our values as Americans. Congress has considered such changes to the Constitution before and has rejected them each time, deciding instead to embrace the principles established by the Framers of the Constitution that the U.S. House of Representatives represents all persons residing in this country, not just a few with rights. In listening to the discussions and the presentations of research surrounding the introduction of H.J. Res. 53 much of the debate is focused on the number of undocumented immigrants and their impact on political representation. It focuses on winners and losers in political terms. For example, an analysis by the Congressional Research Service from May 2005 indicates that if only citizens were counted in the 2000 census, California, Texas, New York and Florida would have lost congressional representation rather than gained. Because of the large undocumented population, so the debate goes, and all persons rather than citizens were counted, several other States lost representation. A discussion about counting only citizens is particularly disheartening when viewed in the context of potential Latino political progress. Let me offer the members of this subcommittee another perspective, a perspective that seems to get lost in the emotional debate about illegal immigration and one that our organization cares very deeply about. Last year our organization completed an analysis of the population estimates of legal permanent residents eligible for citizenship, that was produced by the Urban Institute demographer Dr. Jeffrey Passel. These estimates reveal that one out of two of the Nation's legal permanent residents eligible for U.S. citizenship were Latino, 4.2 million. Estimates were produced for Latino legal permanent residents and all legal permanent residents, which totaled 7.7 million eligible to become citizens. Since much of Dr. Passel's estimates are based on Census 2000 data, we believe the overall number of LPRs eligible for citizenship may now be approaching 10 million, with nearly half of those being Latino. According to our analysis, most of the eligible Latino legal permanent residents are in States that are traditional Latino population centers. About 77 percent of the Nation's total live in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey or Arizona. This is important to note in light of the CRS analysis. While we do not dispute the fact that there are large undocumented populations in these States, our analysis shows that there are also many immigrants poised to become citizens. If the goal of H.J. Res. 53 is to shift political power away from States that have large concentrations of undocumented immigrants, the reality is these States also have hundreds of thousands of immigrants who are law-abiding citizens who have played by the rules and are preparing to become full participants in this Nation. In conclusion, we agree with Representative Miller's public statement that H.J. Res. 53 and this discussion today is about the concept of one person, one vote. If you are a person in this country, you should be counted. While the Latino community continues on its path to full political engagement and representation, we have not yet reached that goal, and we will not reach it without the continued counting of all persons that reside within the United States. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Gonzales follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.041 Mr. Turner. We will begin our questioning of this panel with Congresswoman Miller. Mrs. Miller. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I will be brief. Again, I can't tell you how much I appreciate your holding a hearing on this, because I do think it is such an important issue. I would first start with Mr. Bensen of the Polidata Co. You have a political perspective, I think, on what all this means. And I do appreciate that, because it will have certainly an impact, but I do not think this can be viewed in a partisan way. From a political standpoint, I do think that the shift should be to shift political power from noncitizens to citizens. But you also mentioned what would happen if we were to do this and how it would impact the States, and as you mentioned, historically, it has been the practice of the States to apportion based on sort of taking the ratcheting off of what is happening at the Federal level. Do you have any comments whether you think it would be inappropriate for the States to apportion their State senate seats and State house seats based on citizenship as well? Mr. Bensen. Well, there is some precedent for using something other than population as a basis for apportionment in legislatures. For instance, Hawaii at one time used registered voters. The State of Vermont used registered voters at one time, as well; and several States--at least Kansas, I know; I believe another State now--also excludes military and students from their apportionment base. But again the degree to which this has been addressed by the courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, has largely rested upon the assumption that population is the touchstone. Regardless, whatever basis the State uses should track the Federal census. But again the trick there is whether that is because it's the Federal census and it has done the best or because its population base is kind of a mixed bag, but it's more of the latter. The question really is whether or not that can be done because the accuracy of the data requires at the Federal level that block level data reflect noncitizen status. Redistricting people are unique in the census user community, shall we say, in the sense that they are really the only users of the block level data. When we look at the military--and in fact in 1990 and 2000 the military were added on to the States' resident population for apportionment of the U.S. House. They were then excluded from the actual districting process because there is no geographic precision as to where these people live. That is not going to be the case with the noncitizen aspect. We would need to know exactly each block, which again raises a privacy issue to some degree as well because a census block could be two, three or four people, not just a city block with 100 houses or something. So there is some question as to whether that could be done. I am not saying it can't be, but the question really more so in that regard is whether or not the States are going to have an apportionment base that gives them that operation. Mrs. Miller. I appreciate that. I think the operative phrase here is that they do have the option. I am a big supporter of State's rights, and I think it is important that every citizen is counted. As you said, some of them are looking at registered voters. Well, what about people 18 or younger or convicted felons; they are still citizens of this Nation. I think they need to be counted certainly for these purposes. I would also make a comment that I think if you are a noncitizen serving in the armed services, which does happen now--and we obviously salute everybody that wears a uniform for America--in those cases, I think it would be very appropriate for us as a Nation to expedite their citizenship process, and this is something that we need to pursue as well. Mr. Gonzalez, I was trying to take notes as you were talking there. You did testify that the passage of the resolution would send a message that only U.S. citizens would have a right to be heard by our government and elected officials. Do you think it is the purpose of representative democracy to represent citizens or be responsive to every person that is in the country, even though those that are here illegally, do you think it would be appropriate then for us to allow the right to vote to people who are here illegally? Mr. Gonzalez. No, absolutely not. I do think that they should have a level of representation according to the Constitution that all persons should be represented, but in terms of undocumented aliens voting, absolutely not. Mrs. Miller. I appreciate that. And so, in my mind, I guess my thought process would be, if they already really have the right to vote based on our current system, based on what is happening with congressional representation, as I have mentioned and gone over these statistics, you have the illegal immigrants or noncitizen population in California that has more impact on the Presidential election than it does in 20 States and the District of Columbia. Again, when we are voting on issues like border security, what have you, and illegal immigrants already have essentially the right to vote--because they are impacting legislation, that is happening. You have no problem with that, though? Mr. Gonzalez. I wouldn't say I have a problem with it. I just think there are other decisions being made by Members of Congress and elected officials that do impact the way the broader society views immigrants in general, and I don't know that necessarily our society differentiates. I think it is very similar to this overall immigration reform debate, where it is fine to talk about border security and all of that, but often from the Hispanic perspective what people hear is anti-Hispanic. So there's not this real differentiation. They look, see Hispanic, you must be illegal, you might be. We don't know, all we know is, we are against this. And that is the message being sent and that is our concern more than anything. Mrs. Miller. I appreciate that. We certainly do not want to send that message. I know I do not. As I mentioned to you, in southeast Michigan, principally because of the auto jobs, almost every ethnic group around the planet has come and has been a wonderful part of the fabric of our society there. And that is so with Hispanics and almost every ethnic group that you can think of. I think we have the highest Arabic population in the Nation, and it makes for a wonderful culture there and we do not want to send a message of anti-immigration. I think we all need to make certain that we continue to welcome immigrants to this Nation. It really is what has been the backbone of our Nation, makes us strong. I do not believe that this resolution would change that in any way. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Turner. Mrs. Maloney. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of the panelists for your testimony. Mr. Bensen, on page 6, point one of your testimony, you testified that it would, in fact, be very difficult to count only citizens in the decennial census and would likely result in a failed census. And I quote from your testimony: I believe it is not possible that the data collected will meet the high threshold of accuracy that is required for the apportionment process. Could you elaborate for us in more detail of why you believe that the data collected for a citizen-only census would not be accurate enough for apportionment purposes? Mr. Bensen. Sure. First off, most of what we know about noncitizen aspects--and it is certainly, most of everything I talked about noncitizen aspects is from the census and from the not short form but the long form--it is sample data. And if there is anything that those of us working in redistricting have learned over the last decade, we can't use sample data for the purposes of apportionment. So, right away, there is a problem. We can't rely upon the current information we have. And all of these estimates are based upon that sample data. The other aspect is the inherent bias in a respondent of anyone to a survey, in essence a census, as to the kind of social and political mores. It seems better to say you are a citizen, so many people will say they are a citizen when they are not. Or, on the other hand, they may feel a chilling effect in it and not answer at all. If they--in the old days, 1990 or 2000, had they not answered that question, in all likelihood, it would have been filled in by imputation because it was a long-form question. It was not a critical data element. By transmogrifying the status of it from an informational piece of information into the legal aspect of whether or not it is going to have an impact on apportionment, it changes the whole character of it. And I think it has an inherent bias. It has a tendency to be nonresponsive, and therefore, the Bureau would have to spend more money to go and find out whether in fact these people were citizens. And then, again, it is not the Bureau's job to determine whether or not they are citizens. Everything the census form collects and everything that we know from the census is self-response data. There is no showing your passport to anyone. It is what you fill out. The same thing with all the race and ethnic data. It is what you put down as to whether you are from the Ukraine or whatever. It is not a thing that the Bureau can verify, and I don't think they have the resources or should be asked to verify. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you for your statement. We have talked a great deal today about apportionment. But the census really is a picture of America. And it is used for many, many purposes; research, allocation of resources. And I believe that is why our founding fathers had it based on people, the amount of people. There are areas where there are people on the road to becoming citizens and so forth. Counting them accurately is very important, not only for business-- business relies very heavily on census data for projections-- and certainly city governments and State governments for purposes of services, needs, infrastructure, schools, hospitals. All of this is very important data that I would just like to open it up to any of you to answer. What would be the impact if you started excluding large swaths of population and saying, they're not going to be counted? Then you are not going to have the data that gives us an accurate picture of who we are as a Nation, where our needs are, where the trends are, where we are going, certainly who is in the country, what their ages are. So I would like to open it up for anyone to comment on that. Mr. Bensen. I will be brief about it and move on here. First off, we have to remember that the constitutional purpose of the census is for apportionment. And for most of the history of the census, there really were no other questions asked, all the other fun socioeconomic data that we get we didn't have before. But the other thing really is it goes back to the question I was talking about with with Congresswoman Miller which is, what will the Bureau provide to the States? If the Bureau says that since its subjective purpose is to count people for apportionment, and the constitutional amendment says you will only count citizens, there is no reason for the Bureau to provide us with that other information for noncitizens. On the other hand, there is no prohibition, I suppose, in the sense that they could count citizens, count noncitizens and provide separate sets of data for both. But that is a whole bigger question as to operational capabilities. Mr. Camarota. On the specific question of, if we moved the specific question of citizenship from the long form to the short form, it probably wouldn't have that much impact, if any, on response rates just by itself to simply ask people if they are citizens. Now but that assumes that the current regime, if we were to actually begin to enforce our immigration laws, and then people were to get a survey asking them whether they were citizens, then maybe that could have an impact. Research generally shows very little reluctance on the part of illegals generally. We think that--and this is based on work done at the Urban Institute and the Census Bureau--we think 90 percent-plus of the illegal aliens, respond not only to the census but other surveys like the current population survey. That is how we get demographic information on illegals. The INS has also done estimates on how many illegals are in the census. And again, it looks like 90 percent-plus. So, right now, asking citizenship--and that is, again, all from surveys that ask whether you are a citizen--it doesn't appear that people are reluctant to give us that information. But, again, if we try to enforce the law and people got that question, then there might be some impact. Mrs. Maloney. But what you are saying, how in the world would the Bureau distinguish between a citizen and noncitizen? Obviously, many people will say they are citizens whether they are or not. So, how would the Bureau distinguish? Mr. Camarota. I think, right now, just like we take everyone's word if you say you are a particular race or an ethnicity, even though we know from prior research that people give different answers to that question sometimes--the Census Bureau has found it can't even get respondents to get the same answer on the race and ethnicity question the same way each time it asks. But we just accept it, whatever anyone says. So you can just accept the census question on citizenship. Now, people who have tried to look at the actual number of citizens trying to look at administrative data and figure out how many citizens there are find that, in general, most groups--it is not very slated--among Hispanic immigrants there is a tendency to overstate citizenship, particularly among Mexican immigrants who may be legal residents but confuse that with citizenship, we are not sure exactly what is going on. But, in general, the 18 or 19 million noncitizens in the 2000 census isn't that far off. And, again, there are lots of other questions that we use where we just take people's word for it when they say their race. And, again, that stuff is not set in stone, so you could just ask and be done with it that way. Mr. Gonzalez. The other thing I would add, I think it raises some privacy issues, and we've been down that road with the Census Bureau. When you start to ask people mathematical outcome status, you know, you send out messages that information that is received by the census is private. I think we saw a situation not too long ago with Arab Americans where data was released. So I think it raises that issue as well. Mrs. Maloney. I do also, Mr. Gonzalez, know that, in my office, there are numerous legal immigrants on the road to citizenship. And there are many hurdles they have to go through. And would this proposal disenfranchise that group that is on the road to citizenship? Mr. Gonzalez. I think folks clearly understand the difference between being illegal and being a U.S. citizen and whether or not they are not legal, particularly from a Latino perspective. Mr. Bensen. Could I add one clarification? We have talked mathematical outcome short form/long form again. I think we have to have a mind shift here which is--someone can correct me if I'm wrong--but my understanding is that the current budgetary situation is, we will in fact have an ACS for the coming years. We will not have a long form. So the only census form that will come out in 2010 will be, in essence, the short form. So whatever happens here if this, in fact, is adopted and takes effect before then, it would have to be on the short form, which does address some of the privacy concerns that were mentioned here and I addressed earlier as well. But I think we have to get a mindset here which is, right now, we will have all this information from noncitizens from ACS, and we will have it every year, which is, in a sense, from the standpoint of the shift in the population more interesting. Mrs. Maloney. That is an important contribution, but as you said in your testimony, it will not answer the accuracy question. Mr. Bensen. I was just trying to clarify---- Mrs. Maloney. The accuracy question is the question. And as you pointed out in your testimony, it is a huge problem, huge challenge. And if you can't be accurate, what do you have? Mr. Bensen. We could not use the ACS data for apportionment. That would only solve the informational aspects of it. Mr. Turner. Thank you. As I stated in my opening comments, the purposes of this hearing is informational, to let people know that this is the manner in which apportionment is done and to have an understanding of the possible impacts subject to passage of the constitutional amendment proposed by Congresswoman Miller. With that, I have basically five things that I am hoping we can leave this hearing with, and I am going to go through four of them and ask the panelists to see if I can get consensus that we all agree on at least these topics. And basically, it doesn't matter what side of the issue you are on. It doesn't matter if you think we should only count the citizens or if you think we should, in 2010, count persons or it is a good thing that we count persons. Here is a mathematical equation and a mathematical outcome, so it is not relatively subjective as to its impact. So I would like to go over some of those. The first one is to followup on Congresswoman Miller's question to Mr. Gonzalez, and that I want to ask the other two witnesses, and that is, your belief that noncitizens should not be allowed to vote. Would you confirm that your belief is similar to Mr. Gonzalez? Mr. Bensen. Well, certainly, yes, my position is---- Mr. Turner. This is an easy one. Mr. Bensen. My position is perhaps more adamant than that. I have always had a problem with the fact that noncitizens indirectly vote for Presidents. Mr. Turner. We are going to get there. But on a straight direct vote, your answer would be no? Mr. Bensen. Yes. Mr. Camarota. My answer would be as well. Voting should be reserved for citizens. Mr. Turner. The second issue--this is a mathematical one and not a value statement--is that the counting of noncitizens dilutes the vote of citizens. We have the maps here that show that coming up--and I will use my State--in 2010, Ohio is slated to lose two Members of Congress. If the constitutional amendment was passed, Ohio would, in 2010, by current projections, gain a Congressman--no? Mr. Bensen. It would only lose one. Mr. Turner. It says plus one. So we are going to lose one? Mr. Bensen. Now, this is in comparison to whether the citizens were in or not. So in other words, Ohio would only lose one seat. Mr. Turner. So then we are to subtract these two, not add them together. So Ohio would be ahead by not having lost one? Mr. Bensen. Correct. Mr. Turner. Having lost another one. So the fact that we would go from losing two to losing one shows that, as a State, that our vote in Congress and Ohio is diluted by the fact that noncitizens are counted in other congressional districts and congressional representation in seats move. So the question is, do you agree that counting noncitizens for the purposes of apportionment dilutes the votes of citizens? Mr. Bensen. Mr. Bensen. Yes. Mr. Camarota. Mathematically, the case, yes, especially in a low-immigration State like Ohio. Mr. Gonzalez. No. Mr. Turner. That is why I was hoping to go through these in that how, could you explain to me if my State is going to lose votes in Congress--that means less chairmanships, less members on committees and less votes--and other States are going to gain votes in Congress, based on counting noncitizens; how is it that the counting of noncitizens doesn't dilute the voting? Mr. Gonzalez. Other States simply have larger--to compare a State like Ohio and a State like California I think is comparing apples and oranges, or to compare a State like Ohio with a State like Texas just in terms of the sheer size of those kinds of States, regardless of the undocumented population, they would still have a larger vote and a voice. I mean, every citizen in the United States has a vote and a voice the day that they walk into a polling place and cast their ballot. Mr. Turner. But their allocation to congressional districts are diminished by the counting of noncitizens. We have the charts here that shows in the States that are listed that, as a result of the counting of noncitizens, in Congress, the citizens that live in those States have less representation here. That means, when a matter comes to the floor, their State has less of a vote because of the counting of noncitizens. In my view, that dilutes the vote of the citizens. Whether you are for that or against that, I would think that you would mathematically have to agree that is occurring. Mr. Gonzalez. OK, I will go there with you. I will go down that road with you. Mr. Turner. So you would agree then that it does dilute their vote in Congress? Mr. Gonzalez. In Congress, yes. Mr. Turner. The third thing is that because that allocation also has an impact on the allocation of the Electoral College, it has the potential to impact the outcome of Presidential elections by counting noncitizens for allocation of the Electoral College. Mr. Bensen, do you agree? Mr. Bensen. Definitely, yes. Mr. Camarota. Undeniably the case, yes. Mr. Gonzalez. Yes. Mr. Turner. Because of two and three that we just went through, it seems to me that goes to the inherent issue in the constitutional convention in that it impacts the balance of power between the States. Some States have greater influence in Congress than other States as a result of the counting of noncitizen populations within their borders. Mr. Bensen. Mr. Bensen. Yes. Mr. Camarota. Yes. Mr. Gonzalez. Yes. Mr. Turner. I am going to give one more discussion on what I consider the fifth topic or my fifth goal for this hearing, and that is the issue of, how would--if this constitutional amendment were to pass, how would it be implemented? And we have heard some of the discussion of the difficulties of accomplishing that. And I want to give each of you an open opportunity to express your opinions and your views on, if the constitutional amendment passed, how it would have an impact on the administration of the census and the impact it would have on communities as we attempt to determine citizenship. We will start with Mr. Bensen. Mr. Bensen. Well, I don't see much good from the standpoint of the likely impact of it, aside from the point which I addressed which is, the operational aspects of the Bureau even trying to determine this and process the returns when they can't verify anything, going out and following up on the people who have not responded to the form, the entire form now, because they decide not to answer that question. Now let's assume time-wise it is implemented for the 2010 apportionment, and it goes in. There will inevitably be litigation over it. However, there will have already been an apportionment. There will have already been districts drawn for the 2011 and 2012 elections around the country. Those elections will be entirely put at jeopardy, and our peaceful transition of political power may be just totally upside down. Mr. Turner. Mr. Camarota. Mr. Camarota. Well, every reapportionment involves litigation. If we were worried about litigation, I would say, we just can't have any reapportionment. But on the question of moving one question from the long form to the short form, Congresswoman Miller's proposal is not that unreasonable. It has one big advantage. One of the problems that the Census Bureau--and I do work for them--that they face is it is very hard to estimate immigration. We don't know how many people leave and come and go and that sort of thing. If we have that question on the short form, in other words, everyone was asked every 10 years, it would probably be very helpful in terms of our migration estimates so that, in between the census, it is conceivable that will actually improve our estimates for things like the current population survey and the American community survey which we are not sure how to weight right now because, quite frankly, we are not sure how many people are coming and going, especially illegal. The census, by asking everyone that citizen question, would allow us to identify the foreign born every 10 years. And it might improve the quality of our data between the census. But it may also have the effect of discouraging some people from responding. There isn't much evidence right now that asking that question is a problem. In my work for the Census Bureau, I interview people who actually survey immigrants for their American community survey. And the citizenship question sometimes causes some confusion. There is sometimes some reluctance. But, in general, people seem willing to answer it right now. And I think that would probably be the case if we moved it to the short form. But if we actually began to enforce our immigration laws, then that might change. Then people might not be. I think that is a question that we are not sure. But I don't see it as quite this terribly onerous thing. I think it can be done. And then we just take people at their word, just like we take people at their word about their race, even though we know from prior research people don't always give the same answer on race and ethnicity. We just take them at their word. That's the way I think it could work. Mr. Gonzalez. The only thing I would add, Representative, is--I'll let the professionals at the Census Bureau answer as far as operationally. I would just go back to the privacy issue. I think from the work that we do on the census, particularly census 2000 and 1990, I think it would discourage people. There would be issues on, you know, what exactly--why are they asking these kinds of questions, what it means, so there would be a much larger outreach effort that needs to be done in terms of trying to get at the answers that they would be requesting. Mr. Turner. Thank you. Mr. Dent. Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bensen, I think I will direct my question to you. I was reading through your data, and in my State of Pennsylvania, we often talk about the term brain drain, that we have a hard time retaining citizens who are between the ages of about 21 to 39, the second largest elderly population in the Nation as a percentage of the population after Florida. And I guess what I am trying to understand is, how much of the loss of congressional representation in States like Pennsylvania and Ohio and Michigan, for example, is caused by that brain drain and simple population migration from the northeast, Midwest and to the south and west versus noncitizens being counted over these many decades. As I said, my State, probably 1930's, had well over 30 Congressmen. In 1960, it was 27, I believe. And today, it is 19. And I am trying to get a sense, historically, why did we lose all these seats, and how much of it is attributable to noncitizens being counted in these high-growth States? Mr. Bensen. Pennsylvania, I would have to double check, but it is unique in the sense it has lost at least a seat in Congress in each of the last---- Mr. Dent. We lost two in 2000, two in 1990 and probably in 1980 as well. Mr. Bensen. Historically, for several decades, it has always lost one or two seats. Mr. Dent. And the good news, according to this data, we are only going to lose one. Mr. Bensen. First off, remember that a lot of the noncitizen stuff we have really--again, since 1980, it was only 3 percent of the population that were noncitizens. So a lot of that, historically, was not related to that at all. For Pennsylvania, it is not the predominant factor. The predominant factor is the brain drain. It is just people leaving the entire region, not necessarily Pennsylvania but just leaving the region. This is kind of like another little insult. We are having trouble already, but now we are going to lose this as well. Mr. Dent. And I guess the question is, as you know, there is discussion in this building about the guest-worker programs. Do you think that, if we did have a guest-worker program in the United States, that those guest workers would disproportionately reside in States with large noncitizen populations like those in California and Texas and elsewhere? Mr. Bensen. I am certainly not an expert on that, but certainly that would seem to be the case. Mr. Camarota. Sure, certain States are attracting immigrants. There is no reason to expect a change in that in the immediate future. Though, over the long-term, all the evidence would project that over the next 50, 100 years, immigrants and their descendants will spread out. But if we were to turn all the illegal aliens in the United States into guest workers somehow tomorrow, they would continue to likely reside, and there would be some movement thereafter, and it is important to note they almost certainly would be counted in the census. Mr. Dent. You believe, if we did have a guest-worker program, they would be counted in the census as people? Mr. Camarota. In the last census, we counted over a million people who were guest workers and foreign students by everyone's estimates, Urban Institute's, Census Bureau, INS, and in addition to that, we counted 7 or 8 million illegal aliens. So if we turned them into guest workers--and that population is now probably about 11 million illegal aliens, maybe 12--we can expect that some 90 percent of these newly legalized or guest-workerized illegal aliens will also respond to the census. Congressional seats will then be drawn for them, but of course, they can't vote, and all the issues come up. And that is an important thing to always keep in mind, that even a guest-worker program has profound consequences for the United States, including political representation outside of the work force. Mr. Bensen. One other thought, just to clarify what he is saying about the 100 years out, in each of the four censuses that I looked at, the 1980, 1990, 2000 and projection for 2010, not only the number of seats that were affected but the number of States that were affected has risen a lot. And in fact, I did a couple of different scenarios for 2010, and I had even more States being affected. So the fact is, as we know, since many of the noncitizens are Mexicans or of Hispanic origin, Hispanic-origin people, unlike African-Americans, are scattered all around the country. There are a lot of African-American communities, obviously largely in the south and the urban core and northeast and such, but Hispanics are really spread out much more. And that is part of the problem, from the standpoint of the impact on the number of States. The number of States that are likely to be affected, again, only one seat, will definitely increase from the standpoint of where the current trends are because Hispanics comprise the largest portion of noncitizens who are scattered all around the country. Mr. Camarota. I agree. Absent a change in the U.S. immigration policy, the impact will grow on a State like Pennsylvania, but in the very long term, we could expect that immigrants will become--and their descendants--more evenly distributed. But that is decades from now. Mr. Dent. Mr. Gonzalez, do you have any thoughts on this? Mr. Gonzalez. I would disagree. If you look at where the largest growth is, North Carolina, Georgia, States like that, that was basically the news of the census 2000 that the Hispanic community was no longer just in these urban areas; we had moved to suburban and rural areas. Mr. Dent. In my congressional district in Pennsylvania, we have a large Latino population, primarily Puerto Rican, and in eastern Pennsylvania, we have seen a large growth in the Hispanic population. But, again, it is, I guess probably not as many noncitizens because Puerto Ricans are, of course, American citizens. Well, thank you for your insights. It is very helpful to me. Yield back. Mr. Turner. Mrs. Maloney. Mrs. Maloney. I was not here when Mr. Turner asked the question, but I understand he had some questions about noncitizens diluting the votes of citizens in other States. Well, I would like to ask the panelists a question. With regard to the Electoral College, is it not true that the votes of people in smaller States are worth far more than those of larger States given the value of the two senators in their State representation? And isn't my vote diluted, being from New York, compared to someone in Rhode Island? And do the panelists think we should do away with the Senate because this dilutes the votes of people? Mr. Turner. Which they may be for for other reasons. Mrs. Maloney. So I would like to start with Mr. Bensen and have each one of you answer. Mr. Bensen. Well, the question was not exclusive. It was more a question, would this be vote dilution? Yes, your scenario would be that, yes, my home State of Vermont is obviously far more powerful in the U.S. Congress than your home State of New York. Mr. Camarota. Yes. The answer is obviously, big States are penalized in the Senate, so that there are ways in which votes get diluted in our system that are not related to the presence of noncitizens in other States. But nonetheless, the presence of noncitizens in other States is maybe something we can fix, assuming we think the Senate is OK the way it is. Mrs. Maloney. Well, if you are concerned about diluting the votes, then maybe we should do away with the Senate, too, if that is your concern. Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez. I would agree with you, again, under that scenario, I know that a number of our members in New Mexico very much enjoy the focus that has been placed upon them over the last few election cycles with their whopping four electoral votes. Absolutely. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. No further questions. Mr. Turner. Thank you. We will turn to our third panel. We will thank each of you for participating, for your preparation and your time today. Our third panel includes Dr. Ken Prewitt, professor of public affairs, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University; Mr. Johnny Killian, senior specialist in constitutional law, American Law Division, Congressional Research Service; Mr. James Gimpel, professor of government, University of Maryland; Mr. Andrew Spiropoulos, professor of law, Oklahoma City University School of Law; Ms. Nina Perales, Southwestern regional counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. I want to thank each of our members of the third panel. They have prepared written testimony which has been submitted to the members of the subcommittee. They have been asked then to provide an oral summary of their testimony, which the witnesses will notice that there is a timer light on the witness table. The green light indicates you should begin your prepared remarks, and the red light indicates the time has expired. The yellow light will indicate when you have 1 minute left to conclude your remarks. Your oral testimony presentation will constitute a time period of 5 minutes. It is the policy of this committee that all witnesses be sworn in before they testify. If you would please rise and raise your right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Turner. Please let the record show that all witnesses responded in the affirmative. And we will begin with Dr. Prewitt. STATEMENTS OF KENNETH PREWITT, CARNEGIE PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; JOHNNY H. KILLIAN, SENIOR SPECIALIST, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AMERICAN LAW DIVISION, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE; JAMES G. GIMPEL, PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK; ANDREW C. SPIROPOULOS, PROFESSOR OF LAW, OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW; AND NINA PERALES, SOUTHWESTERN REGIONAL COUNSEL, MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND STATEMENT OF KENNETH PREWITT Mr. Prewitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Drawing on my experience as the director of the Census Bureau and a number of studies that I've conducted on the census since, I would offer cautionary comments about the amendment under four headings: Census Accuracy; A Census Endangered; A Civics Opportunity Lost; The Census and Fairness. I also believe, before I get to those topics, that the amendment runs counter to a fundamental principle that has guided how census-taking and democracy co-evolved starting in 1790. This principle is deliberately, carefully placed into the Constitution by the Nation's Founders. The Founders were mindful that numbers were political, especially in a representative democracy. And because of this, they designed the decennial census to be the apolitical, nonpartisan starting point whose end points were appropriately political and partisan. This was their genius, to keep the taking of the census out of politics so that the results of the census could be used in politics. It is this principle that is at risk should this amendment be adopted. It will be widely portrayed as a political instruction to the Census Bureau to count in such a way that one set of partisan interests are advanced and another retarded. Whether this is the intent of the sponsors is not at issue. Motivations do not interest me. Consequences do. It is inevitable that the extensive and heated public debate over this amendment will endlessly repeat that partisan interests are behind the change in how the census is taken. This will erode a basic principle that was clearly of importance to the Founders and has served the Nation for more than two centuries. I urge the sponsors to reflect deeply before taking this step. There will be no turning back. Let me then turn to census accuracy. The proposed amendment will lead to a less complete and less accurate census. A significant number of noncitizens will not respond to the decennial census. Many members of the public, citizens and noncitizens alike, are wary about the census. I remind you of the privacy debate that erupted in 2000. Many political leaders were quick to denounce the census as a violation of privacy. The decennial census came to symbolize an invasive Federal Government. One Member of Congress said, ``I am happy to voluntarily cooperate with the government in areas where I decide it makes sense. Beyond that, it starts to meet the definition of intrusive.'' A Senate leader advised the public to ``just fill out what you need to fill out and [not] anything you feel uncomfortable with.'' The Senate passed a nonbinding resolution urging that no American be prosecuted, fined or in any way harassed by the Federal Government for not answering questions on the census form. The privacy debate in 2000 underscores the general wariness in our public about what is viewed as government intrusiveness. The proposed amendment plays into this wariness by highlighting that the government has some need on a block-by-block basis to distinguish citizens from noncitizens. The nuanced reasons for this, well expressed by those who testify in support of this amendment, will be lost to the millions upon millions of Americans. This question will be treated with suspicion. Taking their cue from national leaders who, in 2000, said, ``skip the questions you don't like or find intrusive,'' many American citizens as well as noncitizens will do just that, and accuracy will suffer. In addition, the huge partnership program that was mounted in 2000 to solicit census cooperation rested upon an argument that if you are not counted, you are not represented. Many of those partners will simply not step forward if this amendment is passed, especially, I believe, the Catholic Church. A Census Endangered: The Congress, if endorsed in this case by three-fourths of the States, can absorb, I think, some deterioration in quality and decide that is a worthwhile tradeoff to realize the purposes of the amendment. If, however, the Congress were to instruct the Census Bureau to validate the citizen status of census respondents, much more of the data quality is at stake. There is nothing in terms of the amendment to suggest that this is what anyone has in mind. But it is foolish to expect that census-taking is immune from anxieties that surround such issues as undocumented aliens, immigration enforcement and so forth. I can promise you that, if the conversation moves from census citizen to noncitizen, to aid illegals and legals, that this concern will be magnified in the Congress or in the country. Finally, I would like to say this is an opportunity lost. Under the new terms of the census, we have a marvelous opportunity to teach the American public a civics lesson. I have in mind that promotion and advertising can emphasize the connection between population numbers and political representation. Such a message will increase public understanding of how our democracy works. The sequence from population distribution to apportionment and redistricting, and from there to elections, from elections to public policy is not well understood by the general public. A mobilization campaign of the scope used in 2000 could be a civics lesson. More ambitiously, it could be designed as a civics ceremony. Imagine 535 Members of Congress completing their census forms at the Jefferson Memorial on census day. The census is, in fact, the only such civics ceremony available to the American public. Our national holidays no longer perform this service. The census has the merit of being inclusive. Everyone is to be counted. It is hopefully nonpartisan. It has consequences for the fundamental workings of our democracy at the national, State and local levels. It is certainly the only civic event that has its origins in the Constitution. The civics lesson, of course, would be foregone if the census is not viewed as the nonpartisan starting point of political representation. And I think this amendment will derail that principle. There is also the issue of fairness; no taxation without representation. That argument will once again be heard. It will be the Boston Tea Party all over. This is clearly a no taxation without representation. The amendment is also a military service without representation, of course. What is special about the census is its reputation for advancing principles of fairness in American political life. This reputation rests on the deep principle that representation is allocated to a portion of the population size, not the counts to distinguish property owners from nonproperty owners, the educated from the uneducated, the voters from nonvoters, citizens from noncitizens. These distinctions have a place in public policy but not in the fundamental starting point from which all public policy springs. In conclusion, representative democracy has come a long way since 1790 when a handful of Senators and Representatives assembled to start the great experiment in self-government. Census-taking has come a long way since 1790. As anticipated by the Constitution, the census has carried the heavy weight assigned to it in what can rightly be described as America's longest continuous scientific undertaking. Census accuracy and fairness matter to this story. However, let us grant that a less accurate and less fair census can still carry the weight assigned to it by the Constitution. Mr. Turner. Mr. Prewitt, you need to conclude. Mr. Prewitt. We can still redistrict. And perhaps this is the price that we should pay. But I am less confident about the future of the census if it is thought by millions upon millions of Americans to have been designed to advance partisan interests, even if this intent is absent among the amendment sponsors. A census so understood will cease to command the respect and confidence that we rely upon. I urge the Congress to respect the genius of the Founders who take great care to separate how the census is taken from the political uses to which the numbers are applied. We undo their craftsmanship at our peril. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Prewitt follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.048 Mr. Turner. Mr. Killian. STATEMENT OF JOHNNY H. KILLIAN Mr. Killian. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as an employee of the Congressional Research Service, I am of course obligated to give Members of Congress objective and nonpartisan advice and information. As a consequence, I cannot address the merits of this proposal and say yea or nay with regard to whether it should be adopted, whether it should be defeated or what not. My purpose, as I understand it, in appearing before the committee is to talk about several aspects, the constitutional amending process, the basis in the Constitution of using the total numbers of the population for purposes of apportionment, and, if there may be some questions regarding that that would be raised if the amendment were