[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERAL MEASURES OF RACE AND ETHNICITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
2000 CENSUS
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 23; MAY 22; AND JULY 25, 1997
__________
Serial No. 105-57
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-174 WASHINGTON : 1998
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
PETE SESSIONS, Texas HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey ------
VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
BOB BARR, Georgia (Independent)
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
Judith McCoy, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology
STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman
PETE SESSIONS, Texas CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
Carolina DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. Russell George, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
John Hynes, Professional Staff Member
Joan McEnery, Professional Staff Member
Andrea Miller, Clerk
David McMillen, Minority Professional Staff Member
Mark Stephenson, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
April 23, 1997............................................... 1
May 22, 1997................................................. 247
July 25, 1997................................................ 507
Statement of:
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Hawaii..................................................... 261
Cantu, Norma, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S.
Department of Education; Edward J. Sondik, National Center
for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; and Bernard L. Ungar, Associate Director, Federal
Management and Work Force Issues, U.S. General Accounting
Office..................................................... 135
Douglass, Ramona, president, Association for Multiethnic
Americans; Helen Hatab Samhan, executive vice president,
Arab-American Institute; Jacinta Ma, legal fellow, National
Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium; Joann Chase,
executive director, National Congress of American Indians;
and Nathan Douglas, Interracial Family Circle.............. 382
Farnsworth Riche, Martha, Director, Bureau of the Census,
accompanied by Nancy M. Gordon, Associate Director for
Demographic Programs....................................... 115
Graham, Susan, president, Project RACE; Carlos Fernandez,
coordinator for law and civil rights, Association of
Multiethnic Americans; Harold McDougall, director,
Washington bureau, NAACP; and Mary Waters, department of
sociology, Harvard University.............................. 546
Graham, Susan, president, Project RACE; Ryan Graham, Project
RACE; Harold McDougall, director, Washington bureau, NAACP;
and Eric Rodriguez, policy analyst, National Council of La
Raza....................................................... 282
Katzen, Sally, Administrator, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
accompanied by Katherine Wallman, Chief Statistician of the
United States.............................................. 45
Katzen, Sally, Administrator, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget;
Isabelle Katz Pinzler, Assistant Attorney General for Civil
Rights, Department of Justice; and Nancy Gordon, Associate
Director for Demographic Programs, Bureau of the Census.... 590
Sawyer, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio; Hon. Thomas Petri, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wisconsin; and Hon. Carrie P.
Meek, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida.................................................... 215
Sawyer, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio; Hon. Thomas Petri, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wisconsin; Hon. Maxine Waters, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California;
and Hon. John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan................................. 517
Waters, Mary C., Department of Sociology, Harvard University;
Harold Hodgkinson, Center for Demographic Policy, Institute
for Educational Leadership; and Balint Vazsonyi, director,
Center for the American Founding........................... 439
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Hawaii:
CRS study................................................ 270
Prepared statement of.................................... 264
Cantu, Norma, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S.
Department of Education, prepared statement of............. 138
Chase, Joann, executive director, National Congress of
American Indians, prepared statement of.................... 422
Conyers, Hon. John, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan, prepared statement of............... 535
Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, prepared statements of.................41, 253
Douglas, Nathan, Interracial Family Circle, prepared
statement of............................................... 430
Douglass, Ramona, president, Association for Multiethnic
Americans, prepared statement of........................... 385
Farnsworth Riche, Martha, Director, Bureau of the Census:
Information concerning ignored 1990 census questions..... 116
Information concerning penalties......................... 115
Fernandez, Carlos, coordinator for law and civil rights,
Association of Multiethnic Americans:
Prepared statement of.................................... 571
Prepared statement of June 30, 1993, hearing............. 558
Forgione, Dr., Commissioner of NCES, prepared statement of... 141
Gingrich, Hon. Newt, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
prepared statement of...................................... 661
Gordon, Nancy M., Associate Director for Demographic
Programs:
Information concerning ancestry.......................... 130
Information concerning classifying data on the Hawaiian
population............................................. 131
Information concerning followup interviews............... 608
Information concerning industrial countries censuses..... 128
Information concerning the degree to which census data
collection policies apply to State data collection on
relevant Federal programs.............................. 129
Prepared statements of.................................119, 632
Graham, Susan, president, Project RACE:
Information concerning followup comments................. 332
Prepared statements of.................................286, 553
Short comments from Project RACE members................. 548
Written statements from legal experts.................... 342
Graham, Ryan, Project RACE, prepared statement of............ 299
Hodgkinson, Harold, Center for Demographic Policy, Institute
for Educational Leadership, prepared statement of.......... 464
Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
Background information on Directive 15................... 6
California list based on public policy................... 112
Chart, ``Modernizing the U.S. Census''................... 133
Dissent.................................................. 487
Information concerning the effect of Directive 15 on
States and localities.................................. 116
Prepared statements of..............................4, 250, 510
Katzen, Sally, Administrator, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget:
Information concerning legislative and judicial
determinations......................................... 84
Prepared statements of..................................49, 596
Ma, Jacinta, legal fellow, National Asian Pacific American
Legal Consortium, prepared statement of.................... 414
Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York:
Letter dated October 1994................................ 377
Prepared statements of..................................36, 257
McDougall, Harold, director, Washington bureau, NAACP:
Article dated May 17th entitled, ``Danish Mother Free to
Take Child Home''...................................... 305
May 17th Washington Post article......................... 303
Prepared statements of.................................307, 582
Meek, Hon. Carrie P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, prepared statements of.................233, 537
Petri, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin, prepared statements of...............225, 524
Pinzler, Isabelle Katz, Assistant Attorney General for Civil
Rights, Department of Justice, prepared statement of....... 619
Rodriguez, Eric, policy analyst, National Council of La Raza,
prepared statement of...................................... 320
Samhan, Helen Hatab, executive vice president, Arab-American
Institute:
List of members of working group......................... 398
Prepared statement of.................................... 406
Sawyer, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio, prepared statements of....................218, 519
Sondik, Edward J., National Center for Health Statistics,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, prepared
statement of............................................... 156
Ungar, Bernard L., Associate Director, Federal Management and
Work Force Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared
statement of............................................... 176
Vazsonyi, Balint, director, Center for the American Founding,
prepared statement of...................................... 478
Waters, Hon. Maxine, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statements of..............228, 527
Waters, Mary C., Department of Sociology, Harvard University,
prepared statements of...................................442, 644
FEDERAL MEASURES OF RACE AND ETHNICITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
2000 CENSUS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
and Technology,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Horn, Maloney, and Davis of
Illinois.
Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director; Joan
McEnery and John Hynes, professional staff members; Andrea
Miller, clerk; David McMillen and Mark Stephenson, minority
professional staff members; and Ellen Rayner, minority chief
clerk.
Mr. Horn. The Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology will come to order.
Since the founding of the Republic and the first census in
1790, every decennial census has included a question about race
and, beginning in 1970, about ethnicity. The 1790 census
classified individuals according to three categories: free
white male, free white female, and slave.
Two hundred years later, the 1990 census offered six
possible categories, five racial, and one ethnic: black, white,
American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander,
and ``Other'' with a write-in response, as well as Hispanic
ethnicity.
High rates of immigration and intermarriage between people
of diverse racial backgrounds are rapidly changing the
composition of our Nation's population. An increasing number of
individuals feel uncomfortable putting themselves or their
children into one of the current categories. Some people feel
they fall outside these categories.
Other people fall between the current categories. An
individual with parents from two different categories may not
wish to choose one parental identity over the other. The
children of two such individuals could conceivably belong to
all of the current categories and feel that to choose just one
is meaningless or offensive. It is difficult to resist pointing
out the example of Tiger Woods here.
The questions on race and ethnicity currently in use have
been designed in compliance with the provisions of the Office
of Management and Budget's ``Directive No. 15: Race and Ethnic
Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative
Reporting.'' This directive provides standard classifications
for recordkeeping, collection, and presentation of data on race
and ethnicity in Federal programs, administrative reporting,
and statistical activities.
The race and ethnic classifications under Directive 15 are
vital to the implementation of numerous Federal laws and
regulations. Data on race and ethnicity are required by Federal
statutes covering issues such as voting rights, lending
practices, provision of health services, employment practices,
and funding programs at historically black colleges. The data
are also utilized by State and local governments for
legislative redistricting and compliance with the Voting Rights
Act, as amended.
The purpose of this hearing is to provide an informational
overview of the measurement of race and ethnicity in the
Federal Government and to review the proposed changes to
Directive 15. This is the first of a series of hearings to
examine this issue prior to the finalization of the use of race
and ethnic questions on the 2000 census.
We want an overview of the issues, historical information,
and actions taken in the current review process. We want to
hear about the use of race and ethnic data by Federal agencies
and the potential impact of proposed changes.
This is a difficult issue. It can be very personal and
emotional at the same time that it has far-reaching
implications for Federal law and for important statistical
measures in our society. If one thing is clear, it is that this
issue needs careful consideration. No changes should be made in
the current categories, nor should the status quo be
reaffirmed, without a full and open public debate about what is
at stake.
We welcome our distinguished witnesses. Sally Katzen will
represent the Office of Management and Budget. She is
Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. Martha Farnsworth Riche, Director of the Bureau of the
Census, will testify on the second panel. She is accompanied by
Nancy Gordon, the Associate Director for Demographic Programs.
The third panel will give us more detail on the collection
of race and ethnicity data at the State and local levels. Norma
Cantu, Assistant Secretary for civil rights at the Department
of Education, and Edward Sondik, Director of the National
Center for Health Statistics at the Department of Health and
Human Services, will each testify, providing a departmental
perspective.
Some of the most important statistics organized by race and
ethnicity are on education and health. Furthermore, along with
the Bureau of the Census, these two departments are at the
front lines of gathering the data. Perhaps the two most
critical points for gathering data at the local level are when
a child is born and when he or she is enrolled in school.
Also on the third panel is Bernard Ungar, Associate
Director for Federal Management and Work Force Issues at the
General Accounting Office. He will complement Norma Cantu and
Edward Sondik by focusing on compiling data at the State and
local level.
Our fourth panel will feature several distinguished Members
of the House of Representatives: Thomas Petri, Republican of
Wisconsin; Thomas Sawyer, Democrat of Ohio; Carrie P. Meek,
Democrat of Florida; and Maxine Waters, Democrat of California.
We welcome all of our witnesses and look forward to their
testimony.
Without objection, I will include, after my opening
remarks, a memorandum that was sent by me to members of the
subcommittee, which provides background information and detail
on Directive 15 and some of the categories since 1790.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn and the
background memorandum follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.030
Mr. Horn. We are delighted to now welcome the ranking
minority member for an opening statement. A quorum is present,
and as others come in, we will ask them to make their
statements before swearing in the witnesses.
Mrs. Maloney of New York.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing on the census and how we measure race in
the year 2000, the next century.
Today's Washington Post, in describing Tiger Woods, who
made history winning the Master's, puts a personal identity on
the issue before us today. He has been described as the first
African-American to win the Master's. He, on the other hand,
describes himself as having a mixed race identity. It is very
difficult to ask a biracial couple to choose one race over
another, but that is what is happening when we have to fill out
the race question for their child.
At the same time, we live in a country where discrimination
is a very real part of our world. We cannot do anything that
makes it more difficult for our laws against discrimination to
be enforced. I fully understand the difficulty facing the
biracial couple when asked to choose ``white'' or ``black'' to
identify their child. Such a choice flies in the face of the
racial harmony their marriage symbolizes.
Today we will hear from many Members and experts on the
issue. I particularly want to comment that Representatives
Sawyer and Petri will be testifying, who worked very hard on
this issue in the last Congress, and also Carrie Meek and
Maxine Waters.
OMB Directive 15 provides the standards for the collection
and presentation of data on race and ethnicity in all Federal
programs and statistical activities. These categories are used
for civil rights compliance, administrative reporting, and
personal recordkeeping. The categories are also used in
statistical reporting and surveys, like the current population
survey, which provides employment and unemployment statistics.
If we look back to the record created by Representative
Sawyer, it is clear that there are many people who are not
happy with the race and ethnic categories we use today. Some
question why ``Hispanic'' is not one of the race categories.
Others question and want ethnicity left as a separate question,
but want changes to the race category. The Hawaiian delegation
wants Native Hawaiians counted as Native Americans and not as
Asians. Some would have us drop the questions completely.
The record from the 103d Congress also shows that many
people would prefer that the categories in Directive 15 be left
unchanged. Some argue that the historical continuity is
necessary for tracking progress in remedying discrimination.
Others contend that all categories are arbitrary, and changing
the categories would not solve anything. Others point out that
the categories we use today are designed to be used in the
enforcement of laws, like the civil rights law, the voting
rights law, and that the proposed changes would make enforcing
those laws impossible.
Whatever decision OMB makes, some people will be very
unhappy with them. Part of the problem we are faced with is a
riddle identified by Justice Harry Blackmon when he said, and I
quote, ``In order to get beyond racism, we must first take a
count of race.'' We must measure race in order to determine
where and when discrimination exists.
We must measure race because discrimination still exists
today. There are banks that continue to redline, insurance
companies that continue to redline, and employers who refuse to
hire or promote minorities. We read about it every day in the
papers.
The task is made more difficult because there is no
scientific basis for defining racial groups. Recent studies in
genetics show that there is more variation within race groups
than between them. If you pick two people at random within one
of these groups, their genetic structure is more likely to be
similar to someone in another racial group than to be like each
other.
However as lawmakers, we are faced with the responsibility
of making sure that our laws are enforced. Without clear,
accurate, and consistent race categories, it is difficult, if
not impossible, to prove that discrimination exists. Without
data, it is impossible to provide a remedy.
I look forward to the panels today, and I thank the
chairman for holding this hearing.
[The prepared statements of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney and
Hon. Danny K. Davis follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.039
Mr. Horn. As you know, we have a tradition on the
Government Reform and Oversight Committee of swearing in all
witnesses. I understand you are accompanied by Katherine
Wallman. If you will identify her title, we will swear you both
in. What is her title?
Ms. Katzen. Chief Statistician of the United States.
Mr. Horn. Very good. If you would raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Horn. The clerk will note that both witnesses have
affirmed.
The usual routine, as you know, Dr. Katzen, is to file your
statement and then summarize it. Now, we're conscious of your
time and that you have to leave at 10:30, so other opening
statements of Members will be put in the record as if read,
because we want to get to your testimony. So if you would
summarize your statement in about 10 minutes or so, 15, then
let's get to the questions.
STATEMENT OF SALLY KATZEN, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF INFORMATION
AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
ACCOMPANIED BY KATHERINE WALLMAN, CHIEF STATISTICIAN OF THE
UNITED STATES
Ms. Katzen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members
of the subcommittee.
I, too, would like to thank you for holding this hearing on
what I think is a very important and sensitive issue. I
appreciate very much your inviting me to testify today about
our review of OMB's Directive 15 on race and ethnic standards
for Federal statistics and administrative reporting.
As you mentioned, accompanying me is Katherine Wallman, who
serves as our Chief Statistician at OMB. And, again, I would
like to thank you for accommodating my schedule so that I can
appear at another hearing in this building later this morning.
As has been mentioned this morning, the standard in
Directive 15 sets forth a minimum set of categories that are
used across the Federal agencies for recordkeeping, collection,
and presentation of data on race and ethnicity. As I outlined
in my testimony to the House of Representatives in 1993, OMB
adopted these categories in 1977, to facilitate, in some
consistent fashion, the compilation of population data for
statistical purposes, as well as for program administrative
purposes.
The development of the categories at that time was largely
influenced by legislative priorities of the 1960's and 1970's.
In particular, the standard was designed to reflect the major
population groups in this country that had historically
experienced discrimination because of their race or ethnicity.
The categories are thus a product of this Nation's political
and social history, and they should not be viewed as having any
anthropologic or scientific origin.
There are, as you mentioned, four categories for the
collection of data on race: American Indian or Alaskan Native,
Asian or Pacific Islander, black, and white. There are two
categories for the collection of data on ethnicity: ``Hispanic
origin'' and ``Not of Hispanic origin.''
While these categories represent the broad major population
groups, the directive does not preclude the collection of more
detailed data, as long as the additional information can be
aggregated into the basic set of categories.
During the past 20 years, the common language provided by
the categories has served the Federal agencies well, in terms
of meeting their statistical, program, and more specialized
needs for data on race and ethnicity in such areas as medical
research. Yet, during the past 20 years, our country's
population has become more racially and ethnically diverse,
largely as a result of the growth in immigration and
interracial marriages.
Consequently, the question has been raised as to whether
the categories continue to produce useful information about our
population. To answer that question, OMB committed, in 1993, to
carrying out a comprehensive review of the categories, in
cooperation with the Federal agencies that are the users and
producers of data on race and ethnicity.
The review process has had two major parallel tracks:
First, reflecting your view as well, the importance of public
comment, we have had a process for obtaining public comment on
the present standards, which has produced numerous suggestions
for changing the standards; and second, research and testing
related to assessing the possible effects of suggested changes
on the quality and usefulness of the resulting data.
Our focus on research and testing should not obscure or
detract from our clear understanding that this is a very
sensitive subject. For some people, our directive does not
simply represent a set of data categories for classifying
characteristics of the population. The meaning and importance
of the categories become very personal matters, when people
provide data about their own or their family members' race and
ethnicity on the decennial census or when registering their
children for school.
Now, with respect to the first track, OMB has solicited
public participation and comment by means of two Federal
Register notices and four public hearings across the country,
as well as many meetings and conferences. We also include in
that category the hearings held by Congressman Sawyer in 1993
and would like to include these, as well, as contributing to
our enlightenment.
This process, to date, has been very helpful in identifying
more clearly several categories of concerns. The first, and the
one that has received the most media attention, is the issue on
how multiracial persons should be classified.
Currently, persons who are of mixed race and or racial
origin are asked to select the category that most closely
reflects the individual's recognition in his or her community.
The one exception to this is, for the last decennial census,
there was also the inclusion of the term ``Other'' for this
purpose. That was designed to enable us to better understand
those who previously had been nonresponsive on the question.
Public comment has included a request for a specific
category called ``Multiracial.'' Some want to specify the races
and some do not, while others have requested an opportunity to
identify one or more races, but not using a category called
``Multiracial''. In other words, an option to check several
boxes but not have a separate ``Multiracial'' box.
Second, we have received a number of requests to expand the
minimum set of categories by adding categories for population
groups such as Arabs or Middle Easterners, Cape Verdans,
Creoles, European-Americans, and German-Americans.
Third, as you mentioned, the Native Hawaiians have
indicated that they no longer want to be included in the Asian
or Pacific Islander category. Some are asking that they be
included in the same category as American Indians and Alaskan
Natives, so that all indigenous peoples would be in the same
category. Others have requested a separate category for Native
Hawaiians alone. Based on the comments we have received, the
American Indian and Alaskan Native organizations are opposed to
the inclusion of Native Hawaiians in their category.
Fourth, we have received requests to eliminate the racial
and ethnic categories from those who believe that the
collection of such data serves to perpetuate an overemphasis on
race in America and contributes to the fragmentation of our
society.
The variety and range of suggestions for changing Directive
15 underscored to us the importance of having a set of general
principles to govern the review process and to guide final
decisions. The general principles that we are following are
attached to my written testimony and include such items as
emphasis on self-identification and respect for a person's
dignity in the collection process; having concepts and
terminology that are generally understood and accepted by the
American people; having categories that are comprehensive in
their coverage of the population; recognizing that there are
burdens imposed on respondents and implementation costs, not
only to the Federal agencies but also to State and local
entities and to the private sector, from changes in the
standards; and having a standard that is usable, not only for
the decennial census, which is where we hear about this most
frequently, but also for surveys and administrative records,
including those data collections using observer identification.
With respect to the second track, several major national
tests were developed, in cooperation with the Interagency
Committee, to research and test a number of the suggested
changes. Some of that research has been completed, and the
highlights are discussed in my written testimony. You will be
hearing from others testifying today about the issues that were
addressed and what the results indicate about the possible
impact on the population counts for the current categories.
We are awaiting a very important piece of research, the
results of the Census Bureau's Race and Ethnic Targeted Test.
When those findings become available, in early May, the
research phase of the review will be completed. It will then be
the task of the members of the Interagency Committee to take
into account the substantial amount of public comment, evaluate
that research results, and make recommendations to OMB that
reflect their best professional and technical advice.
There will be one more opportunity for public input,
because OMB will publish, for public comment, in the Federal
Register the Interagency Committee's report and
recommendations. This is targeted for early July 1997. We will
then consider this round of public comment and announce our
decision in mid-October 1997, so that changes, if any, in the
racial and ethnic categories can be included in the spring 1998
dress rehearsal for the year 2000 decennial census.
I would like to emphasize that we have made no interim
decisions with respect to any of the requests or suggestions
for changing how the Federal Government meets its needs for
data on race and ethnicity. Further, the option remains open to
retain the current minimum set of data categories, given that
they have produced useful and consistent information for 20
years.
During the final phase of the review process, OMB, together
with the Interagency Committee, will have to consider and
assess how much of an improvement in the accuracy and relevance
of the data may result from changes versus the impact of the
changes on the historical comparability of data, the burden
imposed on respondents, and the possible implementation cost to
the Federal agencies, as well as to those at the State and
local level, in the business community, and private sector
organizations.
Finally, it is important to make clear what OMB is doing
and not doing in carrying out our responsibilities under the
Paperwork Reduction Act for standards and guidelines for
classifying statistical data. OMB's role is not to define how
an individual should identify himself or herself when providing
data on race or ethnicity. Rather, we are trying to determine
what categories for aggregating data on race and ethnicity
facilitate the measuring and reporting of information on the
social and economic conditions of our Nation's population
groups, for use in formulating public policy.
In arriving at a decision, OMB will need to balance
statistical issues that relate to the quality and utility of
data, the Federal needs for data on race and ethnicity,
including statutory requirements, and social concerns.
We truly welcome your interest in the review of the current
set of categories. We appreciate having an opportunity to brief
you on the events of the past 4 years, and we hope that we can
count on your continuing interest and support as we arrive at a
decision.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Katzen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.066
Mr. Horn. We thank you for that summary. We are going to
have 10 minutes per Member here on questions, and then, if we
have time for a second round, we will do that, too.
In your written testimony, you noted that additional
categories of race and ethnicity, which could provide a more
complete picture of the Nation's population, might also be
burdensome and costly. Do you have any estimates as to the
possible costs and burden? In addition, let me just go with the
next question, because I think it relates to the first one: Is
there a rule of thumb that you would care to articulate as to
the size of a group in the population before an additional
category would provide useful information?
I note that in your written testimony you stated the
studies conducted, presumably by OMB or the Census Bureau, have
led you to conclude that approximately 1 to 1.5 percent of the
persons surveyed would identify themselves as ``Multiracial,''
if given the chance. Is a total of less than 2 percent large
enough to justify the costs associated with the new category?
We think it's important to remember that adding new categories
does not only impact the Federal Government but the States,
localities, and individuals, too.
So I would just like to have a feel. I realize you don't
know where you are yet; you have got more surveys to do but as
far as a rule of thumb, statistically, perhaps your Chief
Statistician would like to answer that also, as to when are we
hitting pay dirt that's relevant, and thinking of the various
laws that have triggers based on certain racial categories,
whether it be historically black colleges, enrollment, and all
the rest?
Ms. Katzen. Well, I think that's a very important question,
and I may seem to be rambling, but I will try to be responsive.
On costs and burdens, we know that there will be some
additional direct and some indirect costs as a result of any
changes that might be made. I'm speaking now, not only from the
point of view of adding a question to a form, which is a cost
to the respondents, but also the implementation costs that may
be involved, not only for the Federal agencies, but for all who
maintain records.
There are a number of partnerships between Federal agencies
and State and local agencies. There are also private sector
businesses and organizations which maintain records now. For
them to change their current record system is not simply to add
something; it's normally to retrain and refocus, and there are
those costs.
There are also what I was referring to as indirect costs,
which is a diminishment in the historical comparability of the
data. This turns out to be something which, in some instances,
may be easily accommodated through crosswalks, but we have a
lot of different uses for this information, for very legitimate
purposes of study, research, et cetera.
The ability to use existing data in the face of changed
categories will require additional effort, that translates into
time and resources for those who are using it. Many of the
individual agencies from which you will have representatives
testifying after me have actually looked at this for their
particular programs and will be in a better position to comment
on those kinds of costs.
The Interagency Committee will be pulling this material
together in their report and recommendations. At this point, we
do not have a dollar figure or even a range of dollar figures,
but we are aware that there are, indeed, costs.
With respect to the second part of that question, which is
the threshold, we are not approaching this as if there is any
magic number that will trigger one response different from
another response. Part of that is, I think, a result of the
perpetual balancing act that we always have under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
We are looking at the utility of the information in light
of the burden, and obviously, one of the factors in the utility
of the information is the size of the population that will be,
in effect, enrolled or identified under that.
At the same time, as Mrs. Maloney noted, we're not talking
about just now or even the year 2000. I would expect that
decisions that we make will last at least for the two decades
that our last set of standards survived. So it would be a
matter of considering trends that are developing, and looking
to see how we can best accommodate the American people in the
next century.
Mr. Horn. What is the difficulty that OMB and the Bureau of
the Census have really had with the current racial categories?
Is there a lot of confusion when people self-identify here,
based on, say, grandparents and parents? Some of them I find
don't even know the particular race of their grandparents. It's
just sort of a blur; no one ever talked about it. A lot of them
can be part Native American and not realize it.
How do you handle that?
Ms. Katzen. Well, you've touched on something which is a
much broader question, and that's the whole issue of self-
identification. It's actually easier, I think, for somebody on
the census to put down what he or she thinks he or she is. They
don't have to go back and trace for the objective is not to
reflect if there is one drop of something. It's to identify
what you believe you are.
The problem comes not from a lack of understanding or
confusion. The problem--and I think this is most acute in the
multiracial area--is for those who do not identify with a
single category. As you said in your opening remarks, if a
child is the child of two people of different racial
backgrounds, to choose one box may be perceived by that child
as denying the other parent. And that is asking them to choose
between their parents.
One of the very first pieces of correspondence that I saw
after I took office in 1993 was a letter from a woman that was
very simple and straightforward: ``Enclosed is a picture of my
child. Why does she have to choose?'' The picture was of a
beautiful young girl who was very dark-skinned and had Asian
features. And I remember looking at the picture and being
affected by that. So it is not a matter of confusion, but
rather the more personal aspect of the amount of choice that
may be available to you in responding to these questions.
Now, it is compounded where it is not self-identification.
For where you have a situation of someone else designating--and
this happens most frequently in enrollment in schools, and I
believe also on death certificates, et cetera--somebody else is
saying what they think you are.
That is more complicated if there are multiracial
characteristics or features and somebody else is designating a
category for you. That is why one of our principles was to
elevate dignity, because for somebody to tell me what I am is,
I think, very different from my saying who I think I am.
So those issues all get involved in this.
Mr. Horn. I noticed in your presentation that you listed
several, Creole and so forth, that wanted their own
identification. One of them happened to be German-Americans.
Since I'm half German and half Irish, I always said I've got
German humor and Irish efficiency, so there might be a
subcategory under that. But I was curious, where were the
Irish-Americans here? They are usually active in politics.
Ms. Katzen. And we had a public hearing in Boston, too.
Mr. Horn. Are these simply categories you picked up in
public hearings?
Ms. Katzen. Most of these suggestions came out of either
the first round of public comments or in the public hearings.
Some of them, I believe, were motivated by perhaps a
misunderstanding of either the basis for or significance of
having categories, because in some of the public testimony the
comments were made that, ``We would like to be included so that
we have our identity confirmed, validated.'' But some also
said, ``We might be able to qualify for benefits or
protections,'' as though the inclusion of a category would
drive the public policy consideration to either accord benefits
or afford protection against discrimination.
In fact, it was sort of the reverse, in that OMB originally
developed the categories to reflect legislative determinations
of what groups warranted special protections or special
benefits. We were simply using categories to track those groups
to discern whether or not agencies were carrying out their
responsibilities and citizens were carrying out their
responsibilities.
Mr. Horn. What's the penalty if a person doesn't fill in
the category? Are we compelled to fill in that category?
Ms. Katzen. It depends on what kind of form and for what
purposes. Again, some of the representatives from the agencies
may be in a better position to respond, but my understanding is
that, for example, in the field of education, the principal or
some administrative person at the school will fill in the
forms.
With respect to the census, as you know, when a respondent
does not fill in the census and return the questionnaire, there
is a followup which is quite costly and burdensome for the
Census Bureau. I do not know whether, in some instances, for
some programs, a benefit would be denied if the application
included this and it did not have it, or on a monitoring form,
this information was not included.
Mr. Horn. Well, if we just say it's none of the Census'
business and it's none of Big Brother's business, is there a
penalty?
Ms. Katzen. I would direct that question to Marty Riche
from the Census Bureau.
Mr. Horn. All right. Fine.
Ms. Katzen. Because each of these surveys, each of these
questionnaires is based on the laws and the regulations of the
individual agency. Our directive is to ensure comparability
across agencies so that they are all using the same categories.
We do not set the requirements, the sanctions, or any
privileges that attach thereto.
Mr. Horn. The reason I ask is, at one point in our recent
history--in the sense of my lifetime--we've had a President
that was dead wrong and a general that was dead wrong, when
Franklin Roosevelt and General Dewitt rounded up Japanese-
Americans who were citizens and put them in relocation camps.
Now, they thought about rounding up German-Americans, in
which case I would have joined Norm Manetta in a relocation
camp, and also Italian-Americans. But there were just too many
of us, so they decided that wasn't a good idea. In Hawaii, they
never rounded up anybody. Japanese-Americans stayed in Hawaii
all during the Second World War. Yet, in California, 2,500
miles further east, they round up people.
Now, I can see why some people would say, ``Why should I
give Big Brother any indication of what my ancestry is, should
somebody go a little nutty next time.'' Got any feelings on
that?
Ms. Katzen. Well, as I think I mentioned earlier, there are
a lot of different motivations, and certainly there is concern.
People of different ancestry that have experienced oppression
or harassment in their past--I'm in this country because my
grandfather fled from Russia in the pogroms that were there.
Mr. Horn. Sure.
Ms. Katzen. We all are, I think, quite nervous about
revealing too much of ourselves under any circumstances. And I
think that those are very legitimate concerns. One of the
objectives that we have in undertaking this review is hopefully
to reflect those concerns and dispel the sense that this is to
define somebody or categorize someone. I keep emphasizing over
and over again, this is for statistical purposes; this is for
program administrative purposes; this is for enforcement of
laws. But I am sure that there are many who listen to me and
say, ``Yeah. Been there; done that.''
Mr. Horn. Sure; 11 minutes to Mrs. Maloney, since we ran
over a little.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to yield my time to Mr. Davis, because he has
a conflict and has to leave the subcommittee. But I would like
to ask one brief question that follows up on the point that you
were raising.
I have been discussing with Mr. Davis, members of the
subcommittee staff, and others--we've been looking at the
possibility of using the census long form for further
investigation into the interplay between race, ethnicity, and
ancestry. I would like to note that Connie Morella has
introduced a resolution, Resolution 38, which talks about the
importance of collecting ancestry data on the census, and I
certainly support that resolution and hope that other members
of the committee will, likewise, support it.
Perhaps, in the context of asking ancestry on the long
form, we could ask a series of questions that help us
understand the mix of race, ethnicity, and ancestry that really
make up the self-identity of many of us. I would just simply
like to ask if OMB would be willing to work with us on a set of
questions that would focus on the interplay of race, ethnicity,
and ancestry--for the long form.
Ms. Katzen. Mrs. Maloney, a lot of what we have learned in
the past came from the long form. There's a lot of debate about
what's on the long form, what's on the short form. But a lot of
what we have learned in the past has come from analysis of
census data. We would be, I think, very willing, with our
colleagues at the Census Bureau, to explore alternatives with
you and the subcommittee on additions to the long form.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. I yield to Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much. Let me, first
of all, thank the ranking member, Mrs. Maloney, for yielding. I
also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it's certainly good
to have the panel.
I have listened intently to your testimony, and I
appreciate it. I'm trying to determine, does OMB have a
position relative to the proposed change?
Ms. Katzen. No. Our objective was to conduct an open,
comprehensive review and to receive as much information as
possible. I've learned that it's better to withhold judgment
until you have all the information, and have a chance to
analyze it and think it through, rather than reach a
preliminary conclusion, only to be presented with different
information. So we have assiduously avoided any
predeterminations on these questions, notwithstanding a lot of
people trying to convince us otherwise.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. So this is strictly being viewed by
OMB as a management tool where one just sort of takes a
position. It's time to review where we are and how we're doing
certain things, so let's just take a look at it to see whether
or not any changes or additions or directions might be
beneficial?
Ms. Katzen. I may have misunderstood your first question.
Our decision to conduct the review, in the first instance, was
the result of a number of questions that were raised, and we
thought that 20 years after the setting of the first directive,
it was timely to review it. But we went into it with the very
clear conviction that it was a review and that one possible
outcome of that review was that there would not be any changes,
there would be no revisions, there would simply be a review
and, in effect, a confirmation that these categories serve our
needs.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Were any of the questions based upon
individuals' desires to be able to more directly pinpoint their
heritage, individuals who wanted to say, ``Well, let me just be
as explicit as I can possibly be, in terms of the category in
which I fit''?
Ms. Katzen. Among the questions that were raised, there was
sufficient concern that the data sets that we had are not truly
representative and an accurate reflection of the American
population and the broad population groups. That is a question
that we hoped to explore.
There was no one that I'm aware of, in the White House,
OMB, or in any of the agencies, who came into this with a
hidden or not-so-hidden agenda to fix a problem. It was much
more a matter of exploring the situation.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. No, I really meant public questions,
not internal, but an expression from individuals in the public
who may have made inquiries.
Ms. Katzen. There are a number of individuals who have
pursued a number of these areas. For example, there are several
organized groups on the multiracial question that we have heard
from with some frequency.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Just in terms of that, the
multiracial question, are there terms we are familiar with that
could be used synonymously to describe the heritage of a group
of individuals in a multiracial group, more than one term, that
there might be three or four terms that could be used to
describe those individuals pretty accurately?
Ms. Katzen. I'm not sure I'm understanding your question,
in terms of suggestions that have been made for additions or
terms that are used in slang or in jargon?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, I don't know if I'd say jargon
perhaps, not so much slang, but a group that may be identified
by more than one term.
Ms. Katzen. I think what the test results have shown, from
the two tests that have been conducted, is that there are
various combinations of multiracial. You will hear more about
this, I believe, from some of the other witnesses.
But one of the tests showed that if you added a multiracial
category, there was no discernable change in the number of
blacks or whites. There was a statistically significant change
with respect to Native Americans and Alaskan Natives, and I
believe, it also affected the incidence of people checking the
``of Hispanic origin'' box.
This led me to believe that the multiracial people are of a
large number of combinations. You will have combinations of
different components, and as the chairman said in his opening
remarks, it is possible that a child today could qualify for
all four of our racial categories, if he or she could choose to
so identify with their heritage.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. And that would not alter our ability
to know who they were, or where they fit, or where they came
from? Would that be correct?
Ms. Wallman. Mr. Davis, I just would like to go back to the
point that was made earlier. In some cases, we are talking
about a category that might bring together all persons of
multiple races in something called a single ``multiracial''
category. In other cases, we're talking about the ability to
report one's multiple racial heritages.
I think, when we get to the second alternative, if you
will, that there would be much more opportunity to have better
historical comparability, and so on, in terms of the question
that you raise.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Do we find, sociologically, that
there is any significant correlation between individuals of
mixed heritage, notwithstanding who they are?
Ms. Wallman. Not to my personal knowledge. And I'm not sure
if any of our colleagues from the agencies will have more light
to shed on that question at this hearing this morning. If they
have additional research that pertains to that, I'm sure they
would be happy to share it with you.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. That's a question that just cropped
up in my mind. I'm thinking that, if we had this one category,
there may be some real differences in terms of the experiences
of individuals, the needs of individuals, how the rest of
society perceives those individuals, and what their experiences
are in this country. I think that, too, becomes one of the
things that I think we would want to make sure that we were
using the information for.
The other question--you mentioned the gathering of
information for the purpose of having and the purpose of
knowing, and also for management utilization. Now, we know that
information is generated for lots of other reasons. Would one
suspect that some of those reasons--for example, States use the
information to review redistricting approaches and plans, or to
evaluate affirmative action in some places and in some
instances, or to monitor access to certain kinds of resources
for certain groups, or to determine whether or not certain
groups are being, let's say, redlined still in some areas and
some communities.
Would this--and I know you may not be able to place a value
judgment, in terms of where it might fit--but would this kind
of information or this kind of utilization be as important as
the management awareness or the management tool?
Ms. Katzen. I think it is very important. In both my
written and my oral statements I tried to emphasize that the
Federal needs for data are what we are primarily focusing on.
The directive, as I mentioned, came in 1977 on the heels of the
civil rights legislation of the 1960's and early 1970's, and it
is very important to be able to continue to monitor compliance
with the law. That is a Federal need for data which is
statutorily imposed and is something which drives much of this
discussion and those needs are very real.
There are other kinds of needs that are less in the news,
if you will. HHS and CDC do a lot of research, medical
research, which is beneficial to identify certain racial or
ethnic susceptibility to particular types of diseases, or
responsiveness to certain types of treatments for different
types of illnesses. That's also a very legitimate and current
need.
It is for that reason that our process is being conducted
through an Interagency Committee, which consists of many of the
people you will hear after me this morning. Indeed, 30 Federal
agencies are represented on the Interagency Committee, and they
are asked to bring to the table their unique needs, their
program needs, whether it be enforcement, monitoring, or
research.
Federal needs take various forms, and all of these are to
be part of the interagency discussion. That kind of information
informs public policy in the broadest sense and is also of use,
I believe, to the Congress in determining its priorities and
its legislative preferences.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, let me thank you very much. I
don't want to jump the gun. I think it's going to be very
interesting as we continue to try and flesh this out. But I may
as well be up front, I've got some real concerns and
reservations about what appear to be sort of the direction or
the implications of possible changes and what those could, in
fact, mean.
It appears to me that the discussions that I've been
hearing sort of relate to the development of microscopic or
micro groupings that may very well take away some of the
changes that we've generated over the years. For example, I
still find it difficult to find African-Americans who are
elected to public office in political subdivisions that are not
designated majority African-American, or to find large numbers
of Hispanic Americans or individuals of Spanish origin elected,
again, in subdivisions.
We are making some breakthroughs, and I think we've come a
long way, but I certainly don't think that we've come far
enough to start toying too seriously with the way in which
we've been designated in these categories over the years. So I
thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit, for the record, a
statement, and I'm sure that we'll be talking with you later.
Ms. Katzen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Horn. The gentleman's opening statement will be put in
the record following Mrs. Maloney's, at the beginning of the
hearing, as if read, without objection.
We have about 10 more minutes. Let me just ask you, in
testimony, you stated that the current standards issued by OMB
do allow for the collection of more detailed information by
population groups, which was part of that exchange. Does that
mean the agencies could include questions about the person's
multiracial, multiethnic background? For example, national
origin is protected in some laws passed by Congress. The Civil
Rights Commission, on which I served for 13 years, has that
jurisdiction, among others, including women, race, and so
forth. I remember the time we got a tongue-lashing from many
national origin groups, particularly East European, Polish-
Americans, Hungarian-Americans, and so forth, that we were
doing all these things about everybody else in America, why
weren't we paying attention to the discrimination that still
exists against them?
So that leads me to the question as to, do we possess the
ability to collect information on our citizens or noncitizens
of multiethnic background, and to what laws is that still
relevant? Is it either OMB or Census?
I would like one of you to get in the record a display that
is up to date as to the various categories Congress has
enacted, or some are constitutionally based, by which you look
at discrimination, and put those in, and then ask ourselves the
question, to what extent and to what generation do we need to
know that information in order to enforce the law?
Ms. Katzen. We would be happy to work with Census to
provide the information for the record, in terms of legislative
determinations already on the books.
Mr. Horn. And judicial. See, Lau v. Nichols; a judicial
decision that was then followed by legislation. That's L-a-u,
N-i-c-h-o-l-s, I believe. And that ought to be in the record at
this point. Without objection, it will be.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.090
Mr. Horn. So if you could do that, I would appreciate it. I
think we need to narrow this down.
Ms. Katzen. In response to the first part of the question,
agencies can, on their surveys or forms, et cetera, assuming a
legitimate purpose and a minimum burden on respondents, they
can use disaggregated groups under the racial and ethnic
categories, so long as they can be aggregated to the categories
set forth in the directive.
With respect to national ancestry, that can be added as
something which the agencies can do--again, if they can
otherwise justify it--there would be no prohibition on that
additional information being obtained.
Mr. Horn. Well, let's get in the record, at this point,
then, an exhibit between OMB and Census as to how many of those
questionnaires exist, what information are they asking of a
racial, national origin, ancestral, however put, origin, to
carry out some aspect of their program. Just so we know the
extent of this, I think we need to get it in one place.
We also need to know the basis for the question. Let's not
go back beyond the 1990 census. What questions in the 1990
census can you take and figure out the person's multiracial
background, if any? Do we ask where their parents came from? Do
we ask where their grandfathers and grandmothers came from? And
so forth.
On the delay, due to, as I remember, the experiments you
were having as to how people answered some of these categories,
what is our time line? Is it May? I think I heard May is when
some of these will be given?
Ms. Katzen. Yes, we expect to have the results in early
May. I think it's targeted for the end of the first week or the
beginning of the second week. As with the other tests that have
been conducted, the results will be made publicly available. At
that point, then, our research phase will be completed and the
very hard work of rolling up our sleeves and sifting through it
all will begin. We hope to have the interagency report and
recommendation to us in time for its publication in the Federal
Register in early July.
Mr. Horn. Then that will wait for what, 60 days' comment?
Ms. Katzen. Sixty-day public comment period.
Mr. Horn. And then what?
Ms. Katzen. And then the final decision will be made at
OMB, and will be publicly announced. Hopefully, if there are
any changes, they will be able to be used in the dress
rehearsal for the year 2000 census, which will be taking place
in the spring of 1998.
Mr. Horn. If Congress doesn't like it, they can add a
prohibition in your appropriations bill, I assume?
Ms. Katzen. Congress has a variety of ways of making known
its clear intent.
Mr. Horn. Thank you.
Ms. Katzen. To which we are always respectful.
Mr. Horn. Mrs. Maloney, 5 minutes or so. We're trying to
get Ms. Katzen over to Mr. McIntosh's subcommittee, where she
has a lot of fun.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
First of all, you have repeatedly emphasized that the
current categories are derived from the need to provide
information for enforcing laws against discrimination;
specifically, the Voting Rights Act of 1973, and the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, I believe.
Would the addition of another category, such as a
multiracial category, require changes to any of these laws; and
if so, could you provide for the record, in writing, the kinds
of changes that would be needed, if we added that category to
the antidiscrimination laws?
Ms. Katzen. I would be happy to work to try to provide that
information. The answers reside in the agencies who have the
responsibility for monitoring or enforcing those laws, rather
than in OMB. Several of the witnesses that you will hear from
after me may be able to more readily give you answers to those
questions.
Not surprisingly, the laws are written with different words
and different phrases, and have different intent. Therefore,
there is no single answer that I could give you here. It would
be program by program, law by law. We will be happy to try to
work to get that information for you.
Mrs. Maloney. I think that, as you mentioned, it's very
fragmented. You have an interagency task force involving many
agencies. You are the one that is pulling this together. I
think it would be good if someone, specifically OMB, since you
are spearheading this, could pull together that information of
what the impact would be on existing laws.
Second, you have reported today and said many times through
your testimony how it has evolved and changed over history, the
categories on the forms. How do you balance the need for
reflecting the changes in our society with the need for
consistency, so that we can enforce our laws and track our
success of lack thereof in our antidiscrimination laws?
Ms. Katzen. That is a difficult process; again, unique to
each of the inquiries that we may be presented with. It's
inherent in almost every data collection request that we
receive from an agency, whether it involves race and ethnicity
questions or other questions.
It is a balance to be achieved between the utility of the
information--the importance of that information or the use of
that information, both within the Federal Government and in a
more expanded area--and the burdens that are imposed. In
effect, here it would be a potential detriment to the ability
to carry out Federal responsibilities.
Again, this is one in which we have asked the agencies to
explore their own programs and report back to us. I think it's
comparable to the issue you mentioned earlier and one that we
hope to get at in the interagency process.
Mrs. Maloney. If we add a multiracial category, what do I
say to my constituents who say to me, ``You have made it
impossible to enforce the laws against discrimination''?
Ms. Katzen. As we explore the alternatives--and as we
mentioned earlier, there are a variety of ways of addressing
the multiracial question, some of which may have little, if
any, effect on our ability to enforce--certainly we would not
want to take any step that would preclude a Federal agency from
being able to enforce the law.
Our objective here is to facilitate enforcement of the law,
facilitate the implementation of programs, not to make either
more difficult. Therefore, as we think about the ways of
approaching this issue, I hope that we will provide you with an
answer, so that you can say, ``There will not be any diminution
in our ability to do what we have to do.''
Mrs. Maloney. Likewise, if we do not add a multiracial
category, what would you suggest that we say to our
constituents, to a mother who says to me, ``Please do not make
my child choose between one race and another''?
Ms. Katzen. That is the issue that I was presented with,
that I found so compelling, and the reason why we are exploring
the different ways of framing or asking the multiracial
question.
Again, it is possible to consider a variety of approaches.
One would be a simple multiracial line or box. Another is to
ask respondents or enable respondents to check a series of
boxes, so that no one would have to deny any part of his or her
heritage. A third is a totally open-ended question in which
people could identify themselves as they choose to, without
restrictions.
Now, these all have tradeoffs. For some, agencies can more
easily administer the collection of the data, and more easily--
going back to your first point--enforce the law; others are
more difficult in that context. And that is what it is that we
will be struggling with.
I don't have the answers now. I'm not sure I even know all
the questions right now, but I know for sure I don't have the
answers.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, helping us to get those answers are
probably some of the target tests that you are doing?
Ms. Katzen. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. How important will the race and ethnicity
target test be in determining the final categories proposed by
OMB, and when do you propose to finish with this target test?
Ms. Katzen. Well, we think the target test is very
important, because, unlike some of the other tests which used
nationwide bases, this is specifically targeted to areas where
we expect to see a large number of the different population
groups and a large number of multiracial groups.
Those results are expected in the early part of May and
will be made publicly available at that time. I think they will
be very important. At this point, I have no idea how they are
going to come out, so I can't tell you which way they will tip
the scales, if at all. But we are awaiting the results of those
tests so that we can have the benefit of them.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, my time is up. Thank you very much, and
I wish you luck. You're going to need it. You have a difficult
task before you.
Ms. Katzen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Horn. One last question just for the record: Under what
circumstances do State and local governments have to follow
OMB's Directive 15? Does that apply to State government
collection at all?
Ms. Katzen. Yes and no. There are some instances where the
State governments can do their own thing, so to speak. But in
areas where there is Federal-State partnership and cooperation,
then the information would ordinarily be aggregated into the
five categories before it is transmitted to the Federal
Government.
In some instances, that's required; in some instances, it's
simply encouraged, depending, again, upon the particular
program involved, the particular statutory requirements that
guide that program, and the regulations that implement it. Some
of the witnesses who follow me actually work in these programs
and can give you more precise information.
Mr. Horn. California has some more detailed categories than
OMB. I want in the record, at this point, the California list
on which they base public policy. Without objection, that will
be put in, and we will pursue it with Census on the other.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.093
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate
your testimony and wish you well in the next panel.
Ms. Katzen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mrs.
Maloney.
Mr. Horn. If you would stand and raise your right hands,
Ms. Riche, Ms. Gordon.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Horn. Both witnesses have affirmed, the clerk will
note.
We are conscious of your time situation, Ms. Riche, and we
would appreciate it, if you could summarize your statement, and
then we will have a chance for questions.
STATEMENT OF MARTHA FARNSWORTH RICHE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS, ACCOMPANIED BY NANCY M. GORDON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
DEMOGRAPHIC PROGRAMS
Ms. Riche. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting
the Census Bureau to testify on this important initiative of
the Office of Management and Budget.
The Office of Management and Budget developed the schedule
for this initiative to coincide with Census 2000. As you may
know, our procedures for collecting data on race and ethnicity
have been in compliance with the OMB directive since it was
issued in 1977. We plan to continue this compliance with Census
2000. We believe it is essential that Federal agencies observe
such standards to keep our data consistent and comparable
across the Government.
I would like to thank both the chairman and the ranking
member for their interest in and support of Census 2000. Today,
however, we are here in a secondary role, and that is to share
with you the research that we have done and continue to conduct
for OMB, in relation to OMB Directive 15.
So, to that end, I would like to turn over the next part of
the summarizing of our testimony to Dr. Nancy Gordon. She is
the Associate Director for Demographic Programs in the Census
Bureau. Dr. Gordon and her staff are responsible for our
contribution to this important effort.
So we thank you very much, again, for the opportunity to
testify. I'm sorry I have a prior commitment, but I'm going to
put you in the hands of the expert.
Mr. Horn. Well, let me ask you, before you leave, then,
what are the penalties if one does not answer the racial or
ethnic questions?
Ms. Riche. I would have to check into that to give you a
definitive answer, but it is my belief that there are no
penalties.
[The information referred to follows:]
Section 221 of Title 13 United States Code provides for a
penalty of up to $100 for refusing to respond to questions in
the decennial census.
Mr. Horn. Yes. Because I can see a lot of people saying,
``I'm not going to tell Big Brother, looking down my shoulder,
what I am.''
Ms. Riche. Yes. People don't always fill in all of the
questionnaires, and some questions are more sensitive than
others. This is probably one of them.
Mr. Horn. Do we know by analyzing the data from the 1990
census whether this question is ignored more than most? And if
so, what accuracy do we have left with the census?
Ms. Riche. The question actually that is ignored most is
the question on income, and that stands out by far. I don't
know if research has been done on how much this question was
ignored, but if there is some, we would be happy to provide it
for you.
Mr. Horn. I would like in the record, at this point,
without objection, the data that is within the Census Bureau
that shows the degree to which any question in the 1990 census
was ignored. Income, you say, is No. 1. What is No. 2, No. 3,
and No. 4?
Ms. Riche. Very good. Thank you very much.
[The information referred to follows:]
During data collection operations for the 1990 census,
questionnaires were reviewed by census clerks for omissions and
inconsistencies. A telephone or personal visit followup was
made to try to obtain missing information. After these field
operations were completed, remaining incomplete or inconsistent
information on the questionnaires was imputed using allocation
procedures during the final automated edit of the collected
data. Reports from the 1990 census include statistical tables
that show data before allocation (i.e., after field followup)
and after allocation in considerable detail. The highest
allocation rates were for the following:
Income in 1989 for households--18.9
Weeks worked in 1989 for persons 16 years and over--14.9
Income in 1989 for persons 15 years and over--14.2
Origin (whether or not of Hispanic origin)--10.0
Occupation for employed persons 16 years and over--7.1
Industry for employed persons 16 years and over--5.9
Mr. Horn. What I'm interested in now is the question I last
asked to Dr. Katzen on the degree to which the law that applies
to the census also applies to the States, and how do you work
that out in their data collection? She mentioned the joint
partnership legislation. I just wondered, is this a problem?
Ms. Riche. That's not something that I'm aware of. We
basically follow the OMB's directive in our data collection,
and I'm not sure how much leeway States have. I know they have
some leeway.
Mr. Horn. OK. We will get an exhibit in the record, at this
point, between counsel at OMB and counsel in Commerce and
Census, as to what effect, if any, Directive 15 has on States
and localities in data collection related to Federal programs
or federally subsidized programs through State action.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Census Bureau/Commerce Department defers to the OMB on
matters regarding interpretation of Directive 15.
Mr. Horn. Very good. We thank you, and we will count, then,
on Ms. Gordon to explain the testimony.
Ms. Riche. Thank you very much.
Ms. Gordon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It has been mentioned before that the Census Bureau is
undertaking two tests of alternative versions of questions
relating to reporting race and Hispanic origin. The one that
has been completed is a portion of the National Content Survey.
There were four panels of that survey, each with approximately
6,000 households participating, that were focused particularly
on analyzing options for reporting data on race and Hispanic
origin.
That test was not designed to collect data for relatively
small population groups such as American Indians and Alaskan
Natives, or detailed Asian and Pacific Islander categories such
as Chinese and Vietnamese, or detailed Hispanic origin groups
such as Puerto Ricans and Cubans.
Instead, the survey tested questions on race and Hispanic
origin in order to examine two areas that some have proposed be
changed: first, the addition of an option for multiracial
classification; and second, the sequencing of the questions on
race and Hispanic origin. The test also enabled us to look at
the effects of combining both those changes.
There has been a considerable amount of discussion of the
underlying reasons for raising the option of a multiracial
classification. Let me just note why there is interest in
reversing the sequencing of the race and Hispanic origin
questions.
There have been two persistent problems identified in
decennial census evaluations. First, some people see those two
questions as asking for the same information, and thus they do
not answer one of them. And second, research from the 1990
census has shown that some Hispanics view themselves racially
as Hispanic and do not identify with one of the specific racial
categories identified in Directive 15, or that they find the
question about race to be confusing.
I would like to concentrate on the findings of the National
Content Survey, looking first at the option for adding a
category for people who view themselves as multiracial or
biracial. First, about 1 percent of persons reported themselves
as multiracial when given that opportunity. Second, the
presence of the multiracial response category did not have
statistically significant effects on the percentages of people
who reported as white, as black, or as Asian and Pacific
Islander.
But that last statement needs to be taken with some
caution. Although the apparent decline in the proportion of
persons who reported as Asian or Pacific Islander was not
statistically significant, a substantial proportion of the
write-in responses to the multiracial category included
detailed categories of the Asian and Pacific Islander
population. Consequently, we cannot rule out the possibility
that adding a multiracial category would affect how this
population reports race.
Finally, including a multiracial category reduced the
percentage of people reporting in the ``Other'' race category
of the race question.
The major findings on reversing the sequencing of the
questions on race and Hispanic origin are two: first, placing
the Hispanic origin question before the race question
significantly reduced nonresponse to the Hispanic origin
question. In other words, more people answered that question.
Second, placing the Hispanic origin question first reduced the
percentage of people reporting in the ``Other'' race category.
The second major test that we are conducting of questions
on race and ethnicity is referred to as the Race and Ethnic
Targeted Test. That test has a sample of about 112,000 housing
units, drawn from census tracts with high concentrations of
racial and ethnic populations, including American Indians,
Alaskan Natives, Asian and Pacific Islanders, blacks, and
Hispanics.
Because of the targeted design, this test is not
representative of the total population. Instead, it is designed
to detect differences in responding to questionnaire variations
among particular populations, including the American Indian and
Alaskan Native populations, that could not be addressed by the
National Content Survey.
Results from this test are currently being evaluated in
order to address a number of issues: adding a multiracial or
biracial category, using a ``check one or more category''
approach to reporting race, placing the Hispanic origin
question before the race question, combining the questions on
race and Hispanic origin and then asking about ancestry in the
second part of that same question, and several variations in
terminology and placement of some of the categories.
As has been noted a number of times, we plan to release the
results from that study early in May.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gordon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.102
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much.
Let me ask you about the Cambodian population. I happen to
come from a city that has the largest number of Cambodians
outside of Cambodia. Now, one of the problems here is, many of
them came over along in their years, those that survived the
murderous 1 million deaths of Pol Pot, who unfortunately is
still alive. Some of them probably went to Cambodia in the
1890's, and were overseas Chinese and moved into Cambodia, but
are now Cambodians.
We face the problem, with a lot of these who came here as
refugees and or immigrants, as to how well they are served by
some Federal programs. Now, how do we deal with a population
like that, on the census? Do we ask for refugee status? Do we
ask for country of origin, if they are immigrants to the United
States? We did at one time; I don't know what your plans are
for the year 2000.
I would like to hear a little elaboration on how we
pinpoint that type of a population to see the degree to which
they are served by relevant Federal programs.
Ms. Gordon. The general approach the Census Bureau is
taking to designing the questionnaire for Census 2000 is to ask
questions that are required by law or by judicial decisions.
That includes questions on ancestry, race, and Hispanic origin,
as we have discussed before.
I think the question, in terms of the data that will be
collected, really gets back to how those people view
themselves. If they view themselves as Cambodian, that would
determine how they would respond to the questionnaire. If they
viewed themselves as Chinese, then they would answer in that
way.
One of the alternatives that is being tested, namely to add
a multiracial category, then recognizes the need for additional
detailed information in a number of circumstances. The
respondent is asked to write in the categories that the
respondent identifies with. That's a somewhat different
approach from the other alternative that is being tested, which
is to mark one or more boxes.
Mr. Horn. How many industrial countries, such as we, Japan,
Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain, use similar racial and
ethnic questions in any census they might make?
Ms. Gordon. I must confess, I really am not informed on
that topic, but I could get you some information for the
record.
Mr. Horn. Could we put an exhibit in the record? I
remember, when I was in the Department of Labor many years ago,
our International Labor Bureau used to know all this, as to
what labor laws were in other countries, and I assume somewhere
in the Census Bureau there's an expert on that buried.
Ms. Gordon. I must confess, that although those experts are
actually in my portion of the Census Bureau, they know so much
more than I do.
Mr. Horn. Fine. Let's get a little exhibit that notes these
categories for the United States, and what are the categories
of both race and ethnicity advanced industrial countries ask,
and how often do they ask them?
[The information referred to follows:]
Based on a few censuses taken around 1990, industrialized
countries outside the United States have not included a
question on race, but sometimes have included a question on
ethnicity. Japan, Germany, France, and Italy did not include
either item.
Great Britain included a question on ethnic group. The
categories included Black-Caribbean, Black-African, and Black-
Other, and the instruction mentions ethnic or racial group; in
other words, the question on ethnic group includes a racial
component.
Canada included a question on ethnic origin. In addition,
the following question was asked: ``Is this person a registered
Indian as defined by the Indian Act of Canada?''
Mr. Horn. This question was asked earlier, but I want to
ask you, since you are here on behalf of the director: Is there
a rule of thumb that you would care to articulate as to the
size of a group in the population before an additional category
would provide useful information?
I note that, in your written testimony, you stated that
studies conducted, presumably by OMB or the Census Bureau, have
led you to conclude that approximately 1 percent to 1.5 percent
of persons surveyed would identify themselves as multiracial if
given a chance. Is a total of less than 2 percent large enough
to justify the costs associated with imposing a new category?
Ms. Gordon. To the best of my knowledge, there is no rule
of thumb to answer your question. That is one of the issues
that the Interagency Committee and the OMB will have to wrestle
with.
Mr. Horn. Then, of course, the question was the degree to
which census data collection policies, presumably reflected in
OMB Directive 15 or vice-versa, the degree to which they apply
to State data collection on relevant Federal programs, where
there is a partnership between State and Federal Governments.
What is your reaction on that?
Ms. Gordon. We will be happy to work with your staff, and
probably a number of other agencies within the Government, to
try to identify that information for you.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Census Bureau, being a federal statistical agency, is
not directly involved in data collection by states. The data
that the Census Bureau collects on race and ethnicity in
censuses and surveys, which are used by state and local
governments as well as by the federal government, are
consistent with the guidelines in Directive No. 15 from OMB.
Mr. Horn. In a footnote to your written testimony, you
noted, as Sally Katzen did, in response to an earlier question,
that Directive 15 already allows data on race to be collected
in more detail than the five categories. Why has not the Census
used this ability to address the issue of adding a multiracial
category?
Ms. Gordon. Under the current version of Directive 15, one
is required to be able to aggregate the answers to more
detailed categories into the categories that are specified by
OMB. For example, in the Asian and Pacific Islander population,
we have a very large list of different possibilities, but those
can be aggregated back.
If someone were to check a multiracial box, that might not
be possible. For example, suppose that the person checked
``multiracial'' and wrote-in two categories, both of which were
on the list of the four major categories from OMB. We would not
know which category into which to place the data about that
person, so, in that sense, we would not be able to aggregate to
the OMB categories.
Mr. Horn. On country of origin, I assume that's a separate
question somewhere in the census; is that checked?
Ms. Gordon. Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Horn. Is that checked against what they have checked in
these categories?
Ms. Gordon. I would have to check to see if we currently
are planning to ask country of origin. I know that ancestry is
being asked. That's a closely related concept but not quite
identical.
Mr. Horn. Well, we have, for example, a large Samoan
population in California. If there is a question on where were
they born, Samoa would show up. And if there's a question on
various categories, you could list Micronesian, Macronesian,
Hawaiian, whatever. There are all sorts of different groups in
the Pacific that want to be identified one way or the other.
Filipinos do not want to be called Pacific Islanders. Under
California law, I believe there is a separate collection for
Filipinos.
So what is your thinking on that?
Ms. Gordon. Again, I think I will have to supplement my
answer for the record. When we are asking about ancestry, I
believe that it is the person who is responding who gets to
make the decisions about what information to provide. There is
an opportunity for that person to write in an answer.
[The information referred to follows:]
In addition to the question on ancestry, there is a
question on place of birth in which the respondent is asked to
report U.S. state of birth or foreign country of birth.
Mr. Horn. The last question I have is, how will the delay
in OMB's decision on Directive 15 impact the Census Bureau's
dress rehearsal in 1998? Is there a gap as a result of the late
decision in OMB?
Ms. Gordon. I must confess that it would be difficult for
me to say that OMB is late, considering that it's our analysis
of the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test that is an integral part
of their decisionmaking process, and we have not yet completed
it. But to the best of my knowledge, assuming we stay on the
timetable that we have worked out with the people doing the
dress rehearsal, the OMB, and the Interagency Committee, there
will not be a problem.
Mr. Horn. OK.
Mrs. Maloney, 10 minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much.
There appears to be some confusion about what the Census
Bureau can do or cannot do in adding categories before they run
afoul of OMB directives. I would just like to specifically and
just clearly ask, could the Census Bureau add a multiracial
category? Could the Census Bureau, on your own, change the way
that the Bureau classifies Native Hawaiians?
Ms. Gordon. I believe those are two separate questions. To
the former, I believe not; to follow Directive 15, we could
not.
Mrs. Maloney. You could not add multiracial on your own?
Ms. Gordon. I believe that to be true. Again, I do want to
check all of these answers for the record, to make sure that
they are correct. I am not clear on whether we are directed, in
terms of the phrasing of the question on Hawaiians. I know we
are testing it, and it may be that those decisions are ones
that are to be made by the Director of the Census Bureau.
[The information referred to follows:]
The answer given during the hearing is correct.
With regard to classifying data on the Hawaiian (or Native
Hawaiian) population into one of the OMB racial categories, the
Census Bureau follows Directive No. 15, which includes persons
``having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far
East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific
Islands'' in the Asian or Pacific Islander category.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, as you mentioned, you are conducting
several tests. Have you tested a question similar to the one
that is done in Canada, where race, ethnicity, and ancestry are
inter-mixed? Have you tested that?
Ms. Gordon. Yes. In the Racial and Ethnic Targeted Test,
there is a question which has two parts to it. In the first
part, race and Hispanic origin are asked together, so that one
can choose to mark, for example, only Hispanic, or one can
choose to mark Hispanic and black. One has a multitude of
options there, but Hispanic is in the list of races that are
given in the first part of the question.
In the second part of the question, we ask for information
about ancestry, and that is provided by the respondent as a
write-in. So it's not a list where they check it off, but they
write in what their choices are.
Mrs. Maloney. Could a question like that be included on the
long form?
Ms. Gordon. I think that if the Office of Management and
Budget were to direct that that was the way that racial and
ethnic data were to be collected, we would have to use it on
the short form. At the moment, race and Hispanic origin are
asked on the short form, and ancestry is asked only on the long
form.
Mrs. Maloney. In some of your earlier testing, the
inclusion of a multiracial category, your results showed that
only about 1 percent chose that category. So I would just like
to know, if we include, based on your research, if we include a
multiracial category in our surveys, will it provide data that
we can use, since the response was only 1 percent in your test?
Ms. Gordon. If the OMB were to make that decision, there
would be information provided in the larger of the surveys. For
example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics tested this option
using the Current Population Survey. But, the Federal
Government does conduct a number of different surveys, and in
some of them, the sample size would probably be quite small,
just because the survey itself is so small.
Mrs. Maloney. Some people have suggested that the
controversy over the race question will increase the undercount
of minorities. Is there any evidence to support this position?
Ms. Gordon. I'm not aware of any evidence to support that
position. I know that the Census Bureau is putting a great deal
of effort into devising a variety of approaches to encourage
everyone to participate in the census. I'm sure you've heard
many times about the importance of getting people to mail back
their questionnaires, in terms of keeping costs down.
Mrs. Maloney. I have a number of other technical questions,
Mr. Chairman. I would like to present them to Ms. Gordon in
writing so that she could get back to us in writing. In the
interest of time--I see Congressman Sawyer here and other
Members of Congress who wish to testify, and I know their time
is valuable--I would like to really yield back the balance of
my time and submit the remainder of my questions in writing.
Mr. Horn. Without objection, they will be submitted by
staff to the director for the answer and to coordinate within
census.
Two last questions: Discussion has focused a lot on OMB
Directive 15 and the 1980 and 1990 census. As the directive is
only 20 years old, the subcommittee is curious: How did the
Census Bureau measure race and ethnicity prior to 1980? Do we
have any data? I think one of the earlier questions suggested
by members of the panel was the degree to which you can get
consistency in a series when the question is changed, and how
does the census adapt for that?
Ms. Gordon. My own personal expertise is not as a
historian, but I had some advance notice of the subcommittee's
interest in this topic. Your staff has a table that was
prepared by the National Research Council that goes back only
to 1850, but that gives you a flavor of some of the different
ways that the question on race has been asked.
Mr. Horn. Because we were interested, and we will put these
in the record. If you could make sure that it relates to that
chart. How were the categories decided? Were the questions
consistent with those posed today, for example, in terms of the
census language?
Then, notwithstanding the current debate about Directive
15, what changes do you foresee the Census Bureau to the form
it will use in the 2000 census? Are we going to change these
questions substantially, do we know that yet, or do we all have
everything up in the air until these field hearings and all the
rest are over?
Ms. Gordon. The specific questions will be submitted to the
Congress by April 1 of next year, and those questions will
track with the directives that we have from OMB.
Mr. Horn. Very good. Without objection, we are going to put
in the chart, ``Modernizing the U.S. Census,'' and this is
Table 7.1, Census Race Categories, 1850 to 1990.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.104
Mr. Horn. Well, we thank you very much for coming, Ms.
Gordon. You've got a tough job, and you've handled the
questions very well.
Ms. Gordon. Thank you very much for including us.
Mr. Horn. Now I would like to ask the gentleman from Ohio,
Mr. Sawyer, do you wish to testify now, or would you like to
wait till your other colleagues arrive--what is your pleasure?
Mr. Sawyer. I'm happy to do whatever serves the
subcommittee.
Mr. Horn. It's whatever you would like.
Mr. Sawyer. Why don't we hang here for a few minutes.
Mr. Horn. Fine. OK.
We now have the next panel, which is panel III: Norma
Cantu, Edward Sondik, Bernard Ungar. Please come forward.
Ms. Cantu and gentlemen, if you would stand and raise your
right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Horn. All three witnesses have affirmed, the clerk will
note.
We will begin with you. Norma Cantu is the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education. We
are glad to have you here, Ms. Cantu.
STATEMENTS OF NORMA CANTU, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL
RIGHTS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; EDWARD J. SONDIK,
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; AND BERNARD L. UNGAR, ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR, FEDERAL MANAGEMENT AND WORK FORCE ISSUES, U.S.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Ms. Cantu. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members
of the subcommittee.
I am pleased to be with you today representing the
Secretary of Education. I welcome this opportunity to be with
you today because we all realize the timeliness of the OMB
responsibility to review the status of racial and ethnic
categories used throughout Government. Certainly, the shape and
configuration of our country is different from 20 years ago,
when the last changes were made to racial and ethnic categories
for use across the breadth of our Government.
Today you have heard from the Office of Management and
Budget regarding the work during the last 4 years in studying
the many complex and interrelated issues regarding racial and
ethnic categories, and you understand the administrative
process OMB is using to develop recommendations for revising
these categories. Accordingly, the Department of Education
feels it is premature to comment one way or the other until
definitive recommendations are released by OMB for public
comment.
While reconsideration of racial and ethnic categories is
certainly appropriate in 1997, it is necessary to consider
carefully how specific changes may affect accuracy of
reporting, facilitate implementation of any changes that may be
adopted by OMB, and preserve the reliability of longitudinal
trend data.
Careful consideration of these three factors, accuracy,
implementation, and trends, is critical, not only for Federal
agencies, but for our local and State partners who work with
the Department of Education to collect these data and use the
data to evaluate the condition of their communities and their
programs. While, in this context, I am talking about education
matters, I know that many other Federal agencies and programs
have very well developed partnerships with a wide range of
local government and State government programs and services.
In this testimony, I would like to briefly discuss with you
the three factors I identified above and to discuss with you
the results of a study conducted in 1995 by the National Center
for Education Statistics, in consultation with our Office for
Civil Rights.
So let me begin with the three factors: first, accuracy. In
the Office for Civil Rights, we need the most accurate data
possible on race and ethnicity, so that our continuing
evaluations of past discriminatory practices are appropriate,
our current and future investigations of alleged discriminatory
practices are focused, and our ongoing work to identify
emerging civil rights concerns and issues is relevant.
Of course, we need to provide parents and guardians
appropriate racial and ethnic categories, so, when requested,
they may make appropriate decisions, decisions which may be
regarding multiracial children. It is of interest to note that
census data tells us that the number of children in interracial
families grew from less than one-half million in 1970 to about
2 million children in this country in 1990. Even if there are
questions about the accuracy of these numbers, no one can
contest the significant growth of interracial families as we
reach the end of the 20th century.
Second, implementation. First, careful consideration should
be given to the possible effect that revisions will have to
racial and ethnic categories across a variety of programs in
the Department of Education. For example, a thorough review
should be made in all department programs regarding the
possible effect of revised categories where the result might be
that the number of students in one or more present categories
might decrease.
Second, we need to carefully consider the effects of any
revisions to racial and ethnic categories on existing civil
rights settlement agreements and on our ongoing monitoring of
those agreements.
Third, we need to ensure that our partners at local
education and State education agencies are, wherever possible,
using the same categories we use.
Fourth, we need to consider any increased reporting burden
and the implementation cost of adding new or revised racial and
ethnic categories. The question we ask is the question you all
have asked: Is the increased burden justified relative to new
information we would expect to gain?
Our third concern is trend data. Integrity in longitudinal
trend information is a critical component in all programs in
the Department of Education, including the Office for Civil
Rights. If and when any changes are implemented and put into
effect, there needs to be a bridge. And we agree with OMB on
the principle that there need to be bridge studies to determine
that data continuity is ensured.
Now I want to address the NCES study, and that is a 1995
study conducted by the National Center for Education
Statistics, in consultation with our Office for Civil Rights.
This was part of the research that you heard described by OMB's
review of Directive 15. I understand that copies of the study
have already been submitted to your subcommittee.
The study asked what methods schools used to classify race
and ethnicity, what categories they used, and how they reported
that information to the Federal Government. This study used a
stratified sampling design of 500 public elementary schools and
500 public secondary schools across the country.
Let me summarize the main results: 55 percent of all public
schools that the students' race and ethnicity is collected when
students initially register for schools in the district.
Another 17 percent collect this information at initial
registration and whenever the students change schools within
the district, and about a quarter of public schools collect
data on an annual basis.
About 41 percent of public schools reported there are
students in their districts for which the five categories were
not accurately descriptive for them, and 83 percent of the
schools reported that this represents 5 percent of their
students who are affected by a lack of accuracy in the current
five categories.
The majority of public schools, that 73 percent, reported
that they use only the five standard categories the Federal
Government uses. Additional categories, such as Filipino, are
being used by 7 percent of all schools, and this is
predominantly in the western States and also in urban
districts.
Public schools typically ask their parents to identify the
race of the children, and about half of the information comes
in from parents. But it is interesting to note that we also
have a good section of identification that is done by the
teachers. About 22 percent responded that the teachers or
administrators observed the race or ethnicity of the students.
A majority of the respondents said that the current categories
are not a problem, that they were not a problem at all or a
very minor issue to them.
To close, I want to offer a written statement by Dr.
Forgione, the Commissioner of NCES, which further explains the
study in greater detail. And I ask that that statement be made
a part of the record of this hearing.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation. I
would be pleased to answer any questions.
Mr. Horn. Without objection, it will be put in at this
point in the record.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Cantu and Mr. Forgione
follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.119
Mr. Horn. We thank you. That's very helpful information,
and we will pursue a lot of that in the question period.
Next is Edward Sondik, Director, National Center for Health
Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Dr. Sondik.
Mr. Sondik. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am very pleased to be here. I also serve as the senior
advisor to the Secretary on health statistics, providing
technical and policy advice on statistical and health
information.
I am very pleased to be here. We have taken a great
interest in the OMB process to review the adequacy and
usefulness of Directive 15. My specific focus today will be on
the use of race and ethnicity in health research and
statistics, and a necessarily brief discussion of the impact of
a few of the changes that have been discussed.
Let me turn first to the use of race and ethnicity in
health research and statistics. Collecting data on health
status, on our use of health services, on the relationship
between risk factors and disease, are all crucial components of
the National Center for Health Statistics' mission and that of
many of the other department components, including the NIH,
especially as applied to vulnerable or disadvantaged population
groups.
Directive 15 has proven very valuable in fostering data
comparability across these different sources. For example, we
work closely with the census to assure that their population
data can be used with our national vital statistics system to
calculate death rates.
Although the directive does not require the collection of
race and ethnicity data, our health statistics data systems,
and virtually all of those of the department as a whole, do
collect such data. Nearly all of our data systems follow the
standards established in Directive 15, and many collect
substantially more detail, as has already been mentioned in
this hearing, than called for. Equally important, many State,
local, and nongovernmental entities have voluntarily followed
this standard.
A strong health data system is essential to identify health
problems and find ways to maximize the health status of all
Americans. Indeed, over the last decade, we have devoted
considerable attention to improving the level of health
information about specific racial and ethnic populations.
It is important, however, that we maintain a clear focus on
the limitations of race and ethnicity data, because these
designations often conceal more than they reveal. Although data
show that groups do differ in health status and the use of
health services, such as, for example, the use of mammography,
these differences depend, in a very complex way, on many
factors.
For example, education, occupation, income, community
environment, culture, and individual behaviors and values, as
well as discrimination and racism, all of these may play a role
in effecting differences. In short, race and ethnicity are
important analytic tools, but are only part of the picture.
Reconsideration of Directive 15 is a key issue to the
health and statistical agencies, and also to the human services
and civil rights components throughout Health and Human
Services. We in health statistics, along with many of our
colleagues elsewhere in HHS, have appreciated the opportunity
to be actively involved in the open and very participatory
process that OMB has established.
Our involvement has included considering the impact of the
proposed changes across the Department's various programs and
providing formal comments in response to the initial Federal
Register notice. We also have attended public hearings and
encouraged and facilitated input into the process from many of
our partners in the States and in nongovernmental
organizations.
Making changes as fundamental as those under consideration
can be difficult and potentially disruptive. We appreciate the
priority that OMB and the statistic community have placed on
sound research as a basis for these decisions.
Let me turn to a few of the proposed revisions to
illustrate a health research and statistics perspective. Let's
consider first one of the most challenging methodological
issues, multiracial identification. We recognize the need to
capture information on the full range of cultural and racial
diversity in our Nation's population. However, we do not
routinely have information that identifies individuals of
multiple races, and this limits our ability to take a more
complex view of race into account in our analyses and research.
However, establishing a new category presents several practical
and methodological challenges, and we will not have a sound
basis for reaching definitive conclusions until research now
underway, that you have already heard about, is completed and
fully analyzed.
If the category ``multiracial'' is to be included as one of
the new response categories, there are important considerations
in how this would be done. These include the need for
understanding changes in trends and preserving the rich detail
on multiple individual race groups with which a person may
associate. Losing the detail to a single category could be a
threat to our ability to monitor and protect the health of
communities at risk.
One way to maintain continuity and comparability is to
augment a multiracial category with information about the
multiple individual races that a person would report. Another
possibility is to not use the multiracial category itself, but
simply allow the individual to associate themselves with more
than one racial group, which allows a number of options for
followup questions, coding, and analysis.
We believe that such potentially major changes should be
made only after careful research. We have conducted one of
several studies carried out by statistical agencies to explore
the impact of certain approaches to collecting this data, and I
have included a summary of the findings in my written
statement.
I would also like to mention the issue with respect to
Native Hawaiians and to point out that redefining the category
``Hawaiian'' as Native Hawaiians, and suggestions that have
been made to shift this newly defined Native Hawaiian category
to either a new or separate category or a Native American
category, would very likely disrupt our ability to monitor
trends in these populations. Again, research is very important
to understanding this.
With respect to Hispanic origin, there is a question of
whether Hispanic origin should continue to be maintained as a
separate ethnic category or included as one of the race
categories. We in health statistics have collected race and
Hispanic origin separately, and many have found this useful for
analytic purposes. We recognize, however, that many respondents
have difficulty distinguishing these two concepts and,
therefore, difficulty in responding to separate questions.
Some studies have shown that changing our current practice,
that is, moving away from separate race and ethnic questions
toward a single question that includes both, will result in a
smaller number of persons who report that they are Hispanic.
Moreover, when individuals report themselves as Hispanic
without the additional option of designating a race, studies
have shown that there are unpredictable shifts in the estimates
of the other racial categories. Further research, again, is
important to understanding these shifts and to maintaining
continuity between the current and any new standard.
I see my time has expired. Let me just summarize and say
that not only are we concerned with interview surveys where the
questions are answered directly, we also have to be concerned
with records and form-based systems, administrative record
systems, and systems designed to collect data to protect
against discrimination.
In conclusion, we at the National Center for Health
Statistics and the Department of Health and Human Services
recognize the need to carefully consider these changes, and
have worked with OMB, and will do that in the future. We have a
very strong partnership with States and other governmental
organizations, and we intend to work with them to assure an
orderly transition for both our data sources and our data
users.
I, too, will be happy to answer any additional questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sondik follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.136
Mr. Horn. Well, we appreciate that very much. That's a very
thorough presentation, and I'm sure we have a lot of questions.
Our last panelist on panel III is Bernard L. Ungar, the
Associate Director for Federal Management and Workforce Issues,
U.S. General Accounting Office, which is part of the
legislative branch. We look forward to your testimony. Please
proceed.
Mr. Ungar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mrs. Maloney. I am
pleased to be here today.
I would like to focus my summary statement on two topics:
one is GAO's prior work in the area of collection of data,
federally, on race and ethnicity, including the decennial
census; and the second is the collection of data at the State
and local areas on health and education.
I would first like to point out or just highlight the
pervasiveness of OMB Directive 15. If it is changed, it would
certainly suggest there would need to be a change in the way
data is collected throughout the country, and that would
include probably many State agencies, many local agencies, all
the schools in the country, and probably all of the employers
in the country. So a change in Directive 15 could certainly
have a wide implication.
In terms of Federal data collection, in 1992 we did a
survey of eight Federal agencies to determine the extent to
which they were complying with the standards in OMB Directive
15. Fortunately, we found that they all were using the
directive for the operations that we reviewed.
We also looked, in the early 1990's, at issues concerning
how the 1990 census was conducted, and there were really two
issues we focused on. First, was the extent to which the Census
Bureau was able to achieve a consensus on the race and
ethnicity questions, and then, too, as now, it was quite
controversial. The second issue related to the accuracy of the
data.
In the 1990 census, the major issue was the formatting of
the question on Asian and Pacific Islander populations.
Unfortunately, the Bureau had a late start in addressing that
issue and, at least partly due to that late start, was not able
to achieve a consensus. It therefore ended up using a question
that it did not feel was quite as accurate or would produce as
accurate a result as its preferred route.
Fortunately, for the 2000 census, the Bureau and OMB did
get an earlier start on their planning and involvement of
advisory committees. However, with the controversy, I'm not so
sure that that's going to help a great deal in the end.
In terms of an accuracy problem that the Census Bureau
experienced with the 1990 census, as was indicated, many folks,
particularly of Hispanic origin, had a problem answering the
question on ethnicity and race. As a result, the Bureau ended
up with inconsistent answers. Of course, that is one of the
issues that it has been testing for the 2000 census.
In terms of State collection of data, I would like to start
with a little context. That is, there are at least five States
that do have laws that pertain to the collection of race and
ethnicity data that specifically identify the multiracial
category as one that should be used. Now, these five States
don't all have the same type of legislation. They don't all
cover the same agencies, and they all have not been
implemented.
I would like to start with the health area. What we focused
on in the health area was the collection of data on births and
deaths. This data is collected by the States and sent to the
National Center for Health Statistics under a cooperative
arrangement that the National Center has with the States. As
part of that arrangement, the Center has worked out, in
consultation with the States, some guidance that includes model
forms and instructions.
We did check with nine States and found that, by and large,
they were using the model forms, and they say they were
following the instructions. In the case of collecting the data,
the model form calls for a question on ethnicity, ``Are you
Hispanic?'' Yes or no, followed by a block for the write-in of
a racial category.
There the person responding, for example, on a birth
certificate--it would usually be the mother or the father of
the child--is asked to identify race. The person responding
could put in ``multiracial,'' although the instructions would
say, if they are, they are asked to identify the specific
components or the specific races or ethnicities that he/she
would identify with.
It is interesting to note that, on the birth certificate,
the race or ethnicity of the infant is not called for, or is
not asked for. When the data is tabulated by NCHS, it's the
race or ethnicity of the mother that is tabulated. That was
changed maybe about 10 years or so ago, as a result of some
problems, I believe, that NCHS was having in getting the race
and ethnicity of the infant in a consistent manner.
Two States, Georgia and Indiana, have implemented laws that
require the collection of data on multiracial categories across
all State agencies, including health agencies. However, because
these laws basically say that that multiracial information
would be collected in those cases where there is a list
enumerated of choices to choose from, they don't apply to the
birth and death certificates directly, because there is a
write-in space; there is not a list, in general, that is used.
In terms of education, again, the data that is collected by
the States and at the local level on student enrollment is
collected under a cooperative agreement or arrangement with the
Department of Education's, National Center for Education
Statistics. Also, this data is collected as part of compliance
with the civil rights rules that the department has issued.
Like the National Center for Health Statistics, the
National Center for Education Statistics has published guidance
in concert with the States. However, there is no model form for
the collection of data, and there is no suggested protocol for
the aggregation of the data on the education side as there is
on the health side.
Now, contrary to the health side, we found quite a diverse
range of practices at the local level in collecting data on
race and ethnicity at the school level or at the school
district level. Some schools use the five categories that are
specified in OMB Directive 15; some use less; some use more.
Some schools have a write-in block. Most schools ask parents to
fill in the information; other schools have that information
recorded by an observer, a school employee. It could be the
principal, a clerk, or a teacher. There are some schools that
have the multiracial category.
I would like to point out that there is a big difference
between the way the data is collected and the way it is
reported nationally. There are many variations to the way the
data is collected, and I would like to give some examples of
those.
Just in this area, for example, the District of Columbia,
on its school enrollment form, uses a write-in category where
the parent writes in the race or ethnicity, and then the school
aggregates that data using the five categories. If there is
another category used, the school may allocate the other
category across the five.
On the other hand, in the city of Alexandria, VA, the
school system prelists the five categories and asks the parent
to check which category applies. If the parent doesn't, a
person from the school will do that by observation, and the
observation, we are told, is based on the parent who is
registering the child. It may be the father or the mother.
Another difference would be Fairfax County, VA, which, by
administrative order, has established a multiracial category on
its school enrollment form. Basically, it uses the five OMB
categories plus the multiracial category. Fairfax County
officials tell us that that category was included as a result
of concern expressed by residents of the county. They say that
they have been doing it for a couple of years, and it has not
caused any problem. When they do report to the State, they
allocate the folks who have checked ``multiracial'' to the
other categories, and that's in compliance with the State of
Virginia requirement that the data must be reported to it in
accordance with the five categories.
Another and the last example would be the State of
California, which you mentioned. It requires 7 categories, but
I would like to point out an example, which would be the city
of San Diego. This city collects data on 19 categories, most of
which are subgroupings of the five, plus it has a multiracial
category. Its protocol calls for a parent to select 1 of the
19. If the child is multiracial, one can designate
``multiracial'' and then write in the specific races or
ethnicities that apply.
There are three States that have laws that require the use
of the multiracial category in school registration. We looked
at a number of counties or local school systems in those States
and found that they were actually collecting that data using
the multiracial category.
Finally, there are some States that have administrative
orders in this area, but not laws. North Carolina is one of
those. It has implemented the order. We did find that, in some
cases, the local school systems actually use the category
``multiracial.'' In a couple of other cases there is a write-in
space.
That concludes my summary, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ungar follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.169
Mr. Horn. Well, that's an excellent presentation and
summary, as I would expect from the General Accounting Office.
Let me ask you--and all three of you are welcome to answer
this question--which Federal laws would benefit someone or the
agency that is collecting the data if they mark certain racial
or ethnic categories out of proportion to the actual numbers in
the room? In other words, do local school districts gain money?
I want to know the greed factor.
I am worried when I see people are checking the race and
ethnicity in a school, if the principal is out to get more
money for that school. Now, I'm curious, No. 1, from GAO, have
we looked at some of these programs with regard to that? No. 2,
I'm curious, from the agencies, if the Inspectors General have
done a random sample of this to go back and check data, and see
if there is fraud being committed by school administrators?
Mr. Ungar, can you start on the overall picture, and then
we will work our way backward.
Mr. Ungar. Sure. Mr. Chairman, we recently have not looked
at that in the manner in which you have asked. We were told by
a number of school officials, in our current inquiry, that it
is not uncommon for a parent to want to change the racial or
ethnic designation of their child, for example, when they want
to apply for college scholarships or admission. But we
certainly did not look at any effort or any manipulation of the
data at the school level.
Mr. Horn. Well, there is no question we have seen some of
that in college scholarship applications. If they can check
Hispanic or Latino or whatever the category, and feel that
that's a benefit they will and that is a problem, obviously.
Mr. Ungar. Right. Yes, sir.
Ms. Cantu. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Yes.
Ms. Cantu. We do have, at the Department of Education, a
very thorough check by our Inspector General of any
misrepresentations in any type of data. The program my office
is responsible for verifying is the magnet school applications.
We did not notice a greed factor, as you mentioned.
But, as I mentioned, one of our first principles was
accuracy. We do not want to see either an overcount or an
undercount in any of the racial categories, so we do compare
data reported by districts to other data bases, such as the
census and reports that they file with our agency over time. So
if there is an aberrant number, if all of a sudden a school
looks very minority where in past years it was not, we will
pick up the phone, we will verify, and we will check our
sources.
Mr. Horn. Has the Inspector General in Education done any
reports in this area?
Ms. Cantu. I'm not aware of that, but I can check for the
subcommittee.
Mr. Horn. Yes, please, and have the staff also followup on
that, because you implied in a comment there that the Inspector
General did look at the data.
Ms. Cantu. The Inspector General looks at all reports. They
are interested in any fraud, so they look at all reports. They
would not exclude a category such as race; they would treat it
like they would treat every other category.
Mr. Horn. Well, I just wondered. In other words, they don't
seem to have done any work. They have looked at them, but
either their suspicions were not aroused or there were no tips,
or whatever, I guess. But I am curious as to whether a random
sample is done of any data collection to see to what extent
it's really accurate.
Ms. Cantu. I will check that for you.
Mr. Horn. OK. Thank you very much.
How about health statistics? That's vitally important.
Mr. Sondik. I must say I can't think of a law where the
greed factor comes in.
Mr. Horn. I can't think of the greed thing, but I can think
of inaccurate conclusions from data on various diseases.
Mr. Sondik. I don't think there's any question about that.
All of this data, at least all that I can think of, is asked on
a self-report basis. And I can't think of a situation really
where it would relate to something along the lines, if you
will, of greed, or something along those lines. But it
certainly may relate, since it is self-reported, to an
individual's desire to put themselves in one group or another.
That's one of the reasons why I think it's so important
that we have the research, and I'm very pleased that the
research is currently underway.
Mr. Horn. Then the question comes, who should make that
judgment? I gather we have some where the mother is asked to
make the judgment. I would simply ask, on the health side, is
there any genetic information, as to recessive characteristics
and all, that come through the mother and might not have come
through the father? And does that affect the data in any way?
Mr. Sondik. Well, actually, Mrs. Maloney said something--I
believe it was Mrs. Maloney--early on concerning the variation
in genetics between peoples. The figures, as I understand them,
are that if we look at differences between races, we see about
15 percent of the genome representing those differences. But
within a particular race, we see an 85 percent variation.
So there's no question, of course, that factors are
inherited, and we are concerned about particular genes that may
be inherited that relate to particular diseases. But
fundamentally, as is stated in the OMB directive, this is, in
effect, a cultural anthropological, if you will, concept that
is up to the individual to specify.
As I mentioned in my testimony, though, when we use this
information in health research, we need to couple it with all
sorts of other factors to really make sense out of what is
causing these differences.
Mr. Horn. I yield 10 minutes to Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
I would like to ask each of you to respond to this
question, if you would like. One of the proposals on the table
before us is to let each person check all the boxes they think
apply. What is your reaction to that suggestion? Just go down
the panel. Do you think it's a good idea, a bad idea, and why?
Mr. Sondik. Well, we conducted a study that asked questions
about birth certificates. We asked mothers of children less
than 3 years old, particularly multiracial mothers and Hispanic
mothers, as to how comfortable they felt with filling out the
boxes in various ways. And they seemed to be most comfortable
with not checking a single multiracial box but choosing from a
list or putting in a series of categories.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Ungar.
Mr. Ungar. Mrs. Maloney, I think there are two things that
come to my mind. One is, the State of Michigan has legislation
that would require the use of a multiracial category across
State agencies, and the State put together a working group to
sort through how to implement this. I think the group's
recommendation was to identify the specific categories and then
add a separate box for multiracial, allowing the parent or the
person to choose one category or check multiracial, and then
identify what the races or ethnic composition would be.
As I mentioned, the city of San Diego does something
comparable to that, too. I think the whole issue in education
has arisen from concern by parents; when they go to register
their child, they feel there is not a box there that the child
fits into. So this might be one way to accommodate that concern
as well as address the concern about being able to aggregate
the data into the categories that the Federal agencies need to
have it.
Ms. Cantu. Not taking a position either pro or con, but let
me walk you through the pros and cons that I noted. The pros
agree that it may assist in more reporting, because people will
be able to check all the boxes. You get closer to accuracy,
because you will get more responses. It may also help with
keeping longitudinal data, because it will help you cross-walk
it to earlier responses.
The cons are, as far as civil rights enforcement, we will
need a designation. Are they white or black; are they Asian or
white? We will need a designation in order to be able to tell
if we're making progress with the Civil Rights Act, and
checking all the boxes may not give us that information that we
need to measure progress.
And we would need to study that phenomenon. We would need
to study ``multiracial'' as a group, because we hear in our
office from individuals, several times a month, that they
believe they are discriminated against because they are
multiracial. One keen example was in the South where the high
school principal would not allow biracial couples to come to a
prom. And a young woman who was the product of a biracial
marriage said, ``What about me? I can't come at all?'' She was
very offended by that principal's decision. So we would need to
collect information on that.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Ungar and Ms. Cantu, in your testimony
today you highlighted the different ways that different school
districts in America are compiling information on race and
ethnicity, and it is very different. Even within one State,
it's compiled in a very different way. So, therefore, it's not
reliable, and I would think, statistically, it's probably not
dependable in many ways.
Why doesn't the Department of Education issue guidelines to
school districts on how to do self-identification or
observation, or issue guidelines to help make the responses
uniform and therefore more usable in our country?
Ms. Cantu. I'm speaking for our office. If we can
supplement with other parts of the department, I will be happy
to do that. But we're trying to meet several interests here.
We're trying to, one, preserve students' privacy, because there
is a Federal student privacy act. So we don't want to single a
child out and say, ``You answered this incorrectly,'' or
``We're going to follow you up and somehow hound you until we
get the right answer from you.'' So we're meeting the interest
of student privacy.
We also do believe the data is reliable, because we sample
large enough groups. For example, our elementary and secondary
survey samples one-third of the student population every 2
years, so at the end of 6 years we will have gotten a full
universe. And that's a big sample, considering how large the
student population is in this country. So that's quite
reliable.
We are trying to meet the interest of civil rights, too, in
that perception matters. How a student is viewed by his
teachers or her administrators counts here. So a student may
come in with a self-concept that ``I am biracial, half white,
half black,'' but the teacher treats her as if she were black,
and puts her at the back of the class, and gives her a watered
down curriculum compared to her white peers. So it matters, and
so we're trying to serve that interest, too, of collecting
perception data, as well.
Mrs. Maloney. Would you care to comment, Mr. Ungar, because
you did touch quite in depth on the disparity of this data?
Mr. Ungar. Yes, Mrs. Maloney. I don't know if I can
comprehensively answer your question. I think it's a little
tougher in the school situation than it is in the health
situation to have a standard form, perhaps. I think there are a
lot of different practices at different schools, in terms of
how this information is collected.
I think it might be possible to come up with some standard
categories and to have subgroupings of those along with the
multiracial category. To a great extent, I believe that's going
to depend upon OMB Directive 15, though. I think that the
States really do take their signals from OMB Directive 15 to a
great extent. So, I think that the extent to which that is
changed would basically heavily influence what is done at the
State level.
Mrs. Maloney. Many biracial couples have written my office
expressing the agony that they have in choosing between the
race description for their child. They are asking Congress and
OMB to do something about it. I would like to ask each of you,
if you were sitting in this chair, what would you do about the
multiracial question, the multiracial category? What is your
wisdom on this issue?
Dr. Sondik.
Mr. Sondik. Well, in some sense, I'm glad I'm not sitting
in that chair. But in this chair, I look at it from a health
statistics and, in particular, the chronicling of our social
fabric and health research points of view. In doing that, what
I guess I'm most concerned about, based on the fundamental
notion, that this is a self-reported concept, is that we
develop trends that are consistent, or that we are able to
maintain trends.
One of the areas where we learn the most about our health
and our social fabric is in looking at these trends and how
they have changed over time, and understanding the reasons for
those. So I prize, I guess, and I would consider one of the key
factors here, consistency, so that in any change that is made,
that change be made in such a way that we can understand how
the country has changed over time.
That could mean a variety of options, and I don't think all
of the data, if you will, is in yet. That's what OMB is
currently considering. At this point, I'm not sure that I see
enough to be able to make a specific choice.
Mrs. Maloney. You did testify earlier about the need for
accurate data for the health measurements that you need for
your research. How would the addition of a multiracial category
affect the measurements that you are taking for health
research?
Mr. Sondik. Well, it really depends on how it's done. If it
did not allow us to maintain the trends, it would damage our
efforts. There's no question about it.
Mrs. Maloney. You say it would damage your efforts?
Mr. Sondik. If it were done in such a way that we could not
maintain the trends. For example, we're looking at a particular
racial group, if you will, and at some point in time we
couldn't continue to track what happens to that group over
time, its response to risk factors, its morbidity, its
mortality. That would be very difficult for us.
But there are a variety of ways, of course, that this
proposal could be done that would allow trends to be
maintained.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Ungar, your wisdom.
Mr. Ungar. Well, personally, I think I would strongly
consider the Michigan recommendation and proposal. I believe
that that is one that the Census Bureau is testing. I don't
know what those test results are, so I don't know what the
testing has shown. But in the final analysis, I believe the
decision will probably be based, at least partly on judgment
and not totally on objective data.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Ms. Cantu.
Ms. Cantu. I would try to offer a human response rather
than a bureaucratic--Well, we have to have statistics, and they
have to be accurate. The difficulty of this question is here
because it involves human beings, not just ciphers.
When they do call our office, we do empathize. We do tell
them, if it is painful to respond, you are under no obligation
to respond. There's no penalty for declining to cooperate and
fill in a box that you don't think is telling the truth.
We do explain why the information is being collected, that
it is important for us to measure if the job is done in serving
all students and helping all students reach their full
potential. We try to humanize. There is a reason why the
Federal Government does what it does, not because it's always
done that way, but because we have a current need for that kind
of information, and it is presently valuable to the taxpayer.
Mrs. Maloney. How would a change, with a multiracial
category, affect the implementation, the monitoring, the
effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act,
and other antidiscrimination laws that we have put in place?
Ms. Cantu. Not speaking for Department of Justice and other
Federal agencies like EEOC and U.S. Commission, I do not
believe you need to change any of the civil rights laws,
because they have been interpreted by the courts in ways that
pick up all types of discrimination.
You mentioned the Lau case, that was a Supreme Court case
involving Chinese-speaking children. Well, Chinese-speaking is
not a category within the civil rights laws, but because it is
a characteristic of national origin, it was picked up under
coverage by the civil rights laws.
So I am personally confident that the civil rights laws we
have in place right now would continue offering protections to
children, regardless of how we collect data. We have, however,
testified that there needs to be an orderly process for phase-
in so as not to be disruptive of civil rights monitoring. The
same need we have is the need that the people who are
conducting surveys and analysis need to be able to do that
cross-walk, to connect data to prior historical information.
I have full confidence in OMB moving forward in that
orderly way. It's one of their stated principles that they will
not disrupt current data gathering, and I trust in that.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much. My time is up.
Mr. Horn. Well, we thank you very much for that line of
questioning. That's very helpful. We are going to submit
additional questions to each of you, and if you don't mind, we
will put them in the record at this point. We have a number of
Members here, and we want to start with that panel.
You have provided some very valuable testimony, each one of
you, and we appreciate that. There will be maybe 10 or 12
questions we will send down. Please fill them out, and we will
put them in the record, without objection, at this point.
Thank you all for coming.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. Another Member who was supposed to be part of
this panel unfortunately will not be able to be here, Maxine
Waters.
Mr. Horn. That's the coming panel. We are not on this panel
yet.
Mrs. Maloney. OK. Please, put it in the record.
Mr. Horn. We will, eventually. We have two very
distinguished gentlemen to join us, and possibly some others.
Mrs. Meek, I believe, is also here. So Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Petri,
Mrs. Meek, if you would come to the table. We appreciate your
coming.
You two are the House of Representatives experts on the
census, based on your past incarnation. When there was a Post
Office and Civil Service Committee, you were chairman, Tom, of
the Census Subcommittee, I believe. So it's a great pleasure to
have you here. We hope we didn't keep you waiting too long, but
I assumed you were absorbing the current thinking in this area
before your own testimony. So we are looking to both of you and
Mrs. Meek to integrate it for us, and take all the time you
would like.
We don't swear in Members. We assume they are telling the
truth. I did swear all Members till last year's chairman said,
you might be insulting some of them, because we know once they
lie to us once, we never listen to them again. So that's the
punishment around here.
OK. Mr. Sawyer, since you were the former chairman, and Mr.
Petri was the former ranking member, why don't we start with
you, Tom.
STATEMENTS OF HON. THOMAS SAWYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO; HON. THOMAS PETRI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN; AND HON. CARRIE P. MEEK,
A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Tom and I know what you and Mrs. Maloney are going through.
Frankly, thank you for undertaking these hearings. The work
that is embodied here is inevitably more complex than it
appears on first blush, and important in the lives of millions
and millions of Americans.
As you may recall, in 1993, the Subcommittee on Census,
Statistics, and so forth, held hearings on Directive 15 and
racial and ethnic data, and I think perhaps the best that I can
do at this point is to try to recap what we learned at that
point.
The ideas that I would like to share with you today, if I
could, basically fall into the groupings of what categories are
and what they really are not, the purposes for which the data
is collected, why race and ethnicity is a difficult matter to
measure, how it fits with the desire for--and I suspect growing
desire for--a multiracial category, and how to reconcile those
important differences.
First, let me suggest, above and beyond all, that OMB's
primary consideration in putting together Directive 15 to bring
about consistency and comparability of data over time is
important. It is perhaps the single most important element in
establishing the categories. But in looking at that, I think
it's also important to understand what the categories are and
what they are not.
Clearly, they are not deeply grounded in genetic or
scientific, anthropological bases. In fact, there is a specific
disclaimer to that in Directive 15. Nor are they fixed and
unchanging. As your questions earlier, Mr. Chairman, suggested,
these categories have ranged widely over time, from a period of
a time in the 1790's, where they tracked questions of taxation
and a variety of other measures of humanity, as a Nation, to
questions of race and color, and then, in this century,
ultimately, national origin.
Categories are, in the end, largely culturally determined
descriptors that reflect societal concerns and perceptions, and
often the bias of a particular age. Categories, however, at
least under Directive 15, are not used for determination for
eligibility for any kind of Federal assistance, and there is a
specific prohibition against that.
The example that you raise of where private sector uses may
be determinants of eligibility, for example, for scholarships
is a consideration, but perhaps ought not to define what we are
doing with Directive 15 and with Federal categories. Rather, as
you have heard today, the Federal Government collects data for
three main purposes: to enforce law, the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1973 being primary among
them; to measure differential outcomes throughout society, in
terms of incidence of disease and better health statistics,
life expectancy, assimilation of immigrants, residential and
economic segregation, educational attainment, and a variety of
other important measures. And maintaining continuity and
comparability from one decade to the next becomes important to
Governments on all levels, for purposes of policymaking, and in
the private sector for targeting investment.
There is another reason, and that is to measure and
understand change itself, which may be, in fact, the
fundamental characteristic of our age. It is a key component of
that kind of change to recognize that people's view of
themselves is changing. It's one of the things that leads me to
my third point, and that is why race and ethnicity is
difficult.
That kind of accounting is hard because it is imprecise in
its character and highly subjective. OMB categories have sought
to achieve a variety of goals that the categories that they use
be discrete, that they be few in number, that they be easy to
use, that is to say, convenient, that they are broadly
understood and yield a consistent response.
In doing that, you raised the question earlier of the
Hispanic question and how that question itself might migrate
and evolve over time, but, clearly, that's not the kind of
broad-based change that we are talking about when we are
talking about multiracial questions.
There are a number of different dimensions, though, when we
ask the question about the multiracial, multiethnic category.
You mentioned one: who makes the identification? Directive 15
allows for a self- or observer-made identification.
In the census, over 60 percent of the households returned a
completed form, but in most cases, only one person in that
household made that identification, and that identification may
vary, particularly from one generation to the next. Having
consistency within that identification becomes very difficult.
It is even more difficult when you recognize that the
remainder of those identifications may be made by an external
observer, outside the household. We're not even talking about
hospital personnel or school personnel; we're talking about the
census itself. We're talking about asking at the door or asking
a neighbor, or sometimes doing what is loosely referred to as
``curbstoning,'' where you just take the best guess that you
can.
It is important that we try to recognize that precision may
not be possible, but that accuracy is diminished if we have too
many categories or that they not have a shared understanding.
Let me just mention one that has been in the news recently
a great deal. Tiger Woods is a gentleman of diverse background.
And I'm not going to suggest that we or I or any of us ought to
suggest how he might answer a particular question, but rather
only to recognize that his parents might have answered the
question for him differently, that an outside observer might
answer a question differently, and that he, himself, might have
answered the question differently this year, 10 years ago, or
10 years before that.
Trying to develop consistency, continuity, in longitudinal
terms, is very important. In the end, I guess it comes down to
this: that the concept of multiracial is not easily or
uniformly understood, and therefore is unlikely to yield a
consistent response in current terms.
If we were to add a multiracial category, the question
becomes, how far back would we draw the baseline? Would we ask
individuals to trace their roots from the beginning of the
Nation, from the end of the Civil War, the turn of the century,
World War II, last year, 2000? I don't know the answer to that
question, but it's a dimension that we all need to recognize,
because the desire for self-identification, as real and as
human as it is, has changed over time and must be weighed
against ensuring the usefulness of data for enforcing law and
making policy.
It is important to recognize that we are changing in ways
that are not easy to measure or define, but that that change
may be one of the most important characteristics of our age. To
that end, I would strongly recommend that, first of all, as
much as possible, we not try to make this decision by a show of
hands on the floor of the House of Representatives, that you
have a number of very scholarly people who have worked on this
and tested these measurements for some time, and I hope that we
can rely on them.
I would hope, second, that we would be able to use the 2000
census itself, perhaps in the long form, to explore ways to
measure change, to enable tracking of the way in which we
define ourselves in racial and ethnic terms and in multiracial
terms. To do this without disruption of continuity or
comparability, and that we recognize that we, as a Nation, are
on the edge of becoming sometwhether hing that may not have
existed before.
You asked the question about other industrial nations. I
have spoken with the demographic bureaucrats of the former
Soviet Union, which may be the only other nation on earth that
has had the ethnic and traditional concepts of racial mix that
the United States has had. But they were different in many
ways, and perhaps the most fundamental of those is that they
were not evolving and changing as rapidly as we are.
We may be becoming, in real terms, the world's first
transethnic, transracial nation. It has gone beyond the
limitations of region and geography, and found that what we
heard reported about the genetic content of humanity really is
true, that there are only fine gradations among the more than 5
billion of us.
You have undertaken an important question, Mr. Chairman,
one that will affect policy and practice for the next decade. I
look forward to working with you in trying to resolve the
dilemmas.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas Sawyer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.174
Mr. Horn. Well, we appreciate that.
Now I am glad to lead with your partner in the once
Subcommittee on the Census, of Post Office and Civil Service
Committee, Mr. Petri of Wisconsin.
Welcome, Tom.
Mr. Petri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be
here again.
The only change that I really notice between appearing last
year on some of these questions before your subcommittee and
this year, is that Representative Meek is no longer sitting up
on the platform to your right, but is here to my left
testifying. I am delighted that she is continuing to be active,
even though she has ascended to the appropriators' group in the
Congress.
As you mentioned, I first became interested in the issue of
the racial classification question on the census and other
Government forms, and specifically the lack of a category by
which people of mixed race ancestry can adequately define
themselves, when I was ranking minority member on the Census
Subcommittee of the old Post Office and Civil Service
Committee, that was so ably chaired by my colleague from Ohio,
Tom Sawyer.
As our committee reviewed the results of the 1990 census
and heard from many points of view on its merits and defects, I
felt that the lack of a multiracial category was an oversight
which should not be repeated in the 2000 census. This may seem
to be a small matter to some, but if you think about it, one of
the great sources of strength in our country is the melding of
many great cultures and traditions from around the world into
one. As each of us can take pride in being an American, we can
also take pride in our own ancestral heritage and its
contribution to American society. When we exclude an entire
category of people on a Government form such as the census, we
are denying these people recognition of their unique place in
society.
Here we have an official form of the U.S. Government
telling them that they don't quite fit in. In the case of
multiracial individuals, we are asking them to choose between
one part of their heritage and another, between one parent and
the other, or possibly between four different grandparents.
When Tiger Woods fills out his census form, why should he have
to choose between his African-American father and Asian-
American mother? I am sure he is proud of both parents and both
heritages. The current categories force him to deny half of his
heritage.
This principle is not dependent on the size of the group in
question, and I would support including a multiracial category
regardless of the number of people involved. But I do think
it's worth noting that this group, which is not recognized as a
distinct category, is, in fact, growing by leaps and bounds.
Interracial marriages doubled in the 1960's and tripled in
the 1970's. By 1990, the Census Bureau counted 1.5 million
interracial couples. Naturally, with more interracial couples,
we have more interracial offspring. Whereas there were less
than a half million children of interracial couples in 1970,
there are believed to be over 2 million today. This may be
small, as a percentage of the entire population, but it is
obviously a significant number of people.
I don't think the choice of ``Other'' is an acceptable
option. These individuals don't think of themselves as an
``Other,'' and it suggests some type of second-class
citizenship, almost an afterthought, in the population.
Some have suggested allowing people to check more than one
category if they are multiracial. While this comes a bit closer
to addressing the issue, I think it would be problematic,
myself. The statistics generated from this question on the
census form are used in all types of research and assist public
policymakers. These statistics will not be reliable if the
categories add up to more than 100 percent.
For example, when developing social policy, we might want
to know how those people living in poverty are divided along
racial lines, or when considering health policy, we may want to
know if a given disease has a disparate effect on one race or
another. If the percentages of the races add up to more than
100 percent, it will cause confusion, and policymakers will not
get a clear picture of the problem at hand.
Since I introduced my bill in the last Congress to require
the inclusion of the multiracial category, which has been
reintroduced in this Congress as H.R. 830, I have had the
opportunity to work with a number of organizations and
individuals in the multiracial community.
As I understand it, the subcommittee is planning on another
hearing next month, and at that hearing you will hear testimony
from some of the individuals who are active in these
organizations. You will be hearing from some very sincere and
dedicated people to whom this is a crucial issue. It's about
full recognition as an integral part of the American tapestry,
the melting pot, that makes our Nation unique in the world.
Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to make
this statement, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas Petri follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.176
Mr. Horn. Well, we thank you very much. Have you put in
your bill in this Congress yet?
Mr. Petri. H.R. 830, and we are thinking of renaming it the
``Tiger Woods Appreciation and Recognition Act.'' In any event,
we would invite people's review and co-sponsorship.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Davis, the gentleman from Illinois, do you
have any questions you would like to ask the panel? I want to
get to Mrs. Meek. I want to make sure, before you have to
leave, are you OK? Can we wait?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I can wait, but I do have a
question.
Mr. Horn. OK. Our last witness this morning, Ms. Waters,
cannot make it. Without objection, her testimony will go in the
record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Maxine Waters follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.178
Mr. Horn. We are delighted, Mrs. Meek, the gentlewoman from
Florida, is here with us. Please proceed.
Mrs. Meek. Chairman Horn, thanks for giving me the
privilege of being here today.
I am glad to be here with two of my colleagues who have
helped me, over the years since I've been here, with this
question of the census. If I am not well educated, part of it
is their fault. I served with you, Mr. Chairman, last session,
in the 104th Congress, on the Government Reform Committee, in
which I had strong interest in the census.
I have some personal experiences with both sides of this
issue. I have a son-in-law who is Japanese, and I have a
granddaughter who is in a similar situation to that of Tiger
Woods: one parent of one race, and the other parent of another
race. I can understand the difficulty that will force these
children to choose between parents when responding to a census
question, but I want to remind you that that census question
will not occur until 3 years from now, and it is extremely
important that we realize that. As it is at this point, I have
two things I want to bring before the subcommittee.
On the other hand, I grew up in a very strongly segregated
part of the country, and I went to graduate school in the State
of Michigan, paid for by the State of Florida, because I could
not go to any graduate school in Florida because of my race.
They had graduate schools, but because of my race, I could not
attend them.
I know that Congress has passed several civil rights laws
to try to end this horrible legacy of slavery, which we still
face, and it was because of one of these laws, the Voting
Rights Act, that I and two other Members of this Congress are
here today, and perhaps more from other States, other southern
States. But I know there are three of us from Florida that
would not be here if it weren't for that.
These same civil rights laws which the Congress has passed
protect other racial groups. While they may not be the
descendants of slaves, they have suffered and still suffer from
discrimination. These civil rights laws can act as Congress
intended only with accurate and consistent information.
I was glad to hear the former testimony regarding the
slowness that this process should take. I also heard my other
colleague say that, the Congress needs more information in
order to make an informed decision on this. I commend OMB for
its careful process. It has solicited comments, just as you are
doing. It has held public hearings, such as you are doing. It
has commissioned research. Administrator Katzen has testified
today that OMB will publish its preliminary conclusions in July
1997 and its final conclusions in October 1997.
I applaud what this subcommittee is looking at, Mr.
Chairman. It's going to take some time and some deliberation. I
want to point out a few reasons why I think that the current
OMB directive is a sound one. I would recommend that we remain
within the confines of the OMB decision, and I want to tell you
why.
Multiracial categories apply only to the children of
interracial marriages. They do not apply to the grandchildren
or great-grandchildren of these interracial marriages. For
example, the child of a black father and a white mother would
be multiracial by what we want to see on the census. But if
their child were to marry another multiracial child, the
grandchildren would be considered black and not multiracial. So
a child with two black grandfathers and two black grandmothers
would be a black child, probably not a multiracial child.
I understand how Tiger Woods and the rest of them feel, but
no matter how they feel from a personal standpoint, we're
thinking about the census and reporting accuracy, so that
Government and other agencies can make accurate decisions.
Because historical discrimination has been against persons that
have been assigned to a single racial category, there is really
no history. More than likely, the racial categories that these
records of discrimination have been applied to were black.
There's no court or any legislative or legal record of
discrimination against multiracials. So it's going to be,
perhaps, prohibitive for multiracials to get the advantage of
the discrimination which black citizens of this country have
faced. Without such a record of discrimination, courts will
have a hard time claiming discrimination against multiracials.
This young man in golf would have a difficult time today,
Mr. Chairman, claiming discrimination, because there is no
legal record in the courts that will back him up with any
claim. There's no history toward that. From a personal point of
view, I think he is absolutely right. Further, as the category
is presently drafted, any history of discrimination against
multiracials will be moot after one generation, if I am correct
in my assumption. Multiracial categories will make it difficult
for Government agencies and civil rights organizations to track
ongoing civil rights violations.
Individuals like Mr. Woods, who designate themselves as
multiracial on the census form, will not thereby reduce by any
amount the discrimination they face. I'm sure Mr. Woods has
recognized that by the statements that were recently made at
the Master's tournament about him. So there is no way you will
have a chance to do this. Usually, the amount of discrimination
a person feels, and would perhaps want to followup on it, is
based on appearance and not on racial classification.
The multiracial category will just make it more difficult
to identify where discrimination has taken place and where it
has not taken place, because it will cloud census counts of
discrete minorities who have been restricted to certain
neighborhoods and, as a consequence, to certain schools. It
will cloud the census count of these discrete minorities who
are assigned to lower tracks in public schools, and you know
that they are. It will cloud the census count of discrete
minorities kept out of certain occupations or whose progress
toward seniority or promotion had been skewed. The list goes on
and on, Mr. Chairman, to include civil rights reporting in the
arenas of lending practices and the provision of health
services, and beyond.
Census data is used in all levels of Government, so the
impact would be at the State and local levels, as well.
Further, the proposals which are now being offered would change
not only the census but all Federal programs reporting and
statistical activities requiring data on race and ethnicity.
Thus, the negative impact on the ability to track ongoing civil
rights violations would be greatly magnified.
Last, Mr. Chairman, multiracial categories will reduce the
level of political representation for minorities. It is
unlikely that majority/minority districts will be created for
multiracials, especially given the lack of recorded
discrimination against them, within the meaning of the Civil
Rights Act. I think it would have a negative impact on that
act.
As pointed out by the coalition of groups opposed to the
proposed modification of OMB Directive 15, in 1994, the
experience of other nations with multiracial categories, such
as Brazil and South Africa, has been that such categories
increase rather than decrease social stratification and
stigmatization on the basis of race.
So I think, Mr. Chairman, in summary, that my
recommendation is that we stick with the position as taken by
the coalition of groups opposed to this modification and make
very slow changes in Directive 15, because, otherwise, our
records on civil rights will certainly not be helped by this.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carrie P. Meek follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.185
Mr. Horn. We thank you for your testimony.
Now, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me appreciate the testimony of all three of my
colleagues. Let me also apologize for not having been present
when Representative Sawyer was testifying, but I have had an
opportunity to scan through your testimony.
My question is, if we move to multiracial categories--and,
of course, all three of the Members could, in fact, respond--is
there a scenario that we could see where individuals would be
counted twice, or maybe three times, once in the multiracial
grouping, and then a split-off of the other groups of which
they are a part? So the question becomes, would we view that as
any kind of possibility, especially given the fact that OMB has
suggested that the purpose of looking at this is to be able to
use it as a management tool, as a way of being accurate, in
terms of knowing who we are and where we came from?
Mr. Sawyer. I can go first. Your question goes directly to
my conclusion. My belief is that it is important to sustain the
continuity of the existing categories, perhaps as they evolve,
in small ways, to make sure that they are better administered.
The Hispanic category is a good example of that, where the
order of the question and the way in which it is asked can make
a substantial difference in the kind of response.
But that notwithstanding, the numbers can, as you suggest,
continue to be aggregated in the form in which they provide
comparability from one decade to the next. But it is also true,
as you suggest, that the way we understand who we are is
changing, as well. This is not something that ought to surprise
us.
Just to name a few, we have measured race and ethnicity for
questions of free versus slave, questions of color and race,
for purposes of taxation, for purposes of keeping track of
migrant populations and non-Western European immigration. All
of these things have been of interest at various times in the
200 years of our national history.
Today, as we become a more blended population,
understanding how that blend is taking place and how we
perceive ourselves in that blend is, I think, an important
characteristic that we ought to begin to measure. But we
shouldn't confuse the two. Keeping the management tool, as you
suggest, on one hand, and maintaining the ability to understand
how we are changing, on the other, I think can both be done
within the census and yield valuable information for all of us
as a Nation.
Mrs. Meek. May I address that, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Horn. Why don't we just go down the line.
Mrs. Meek. Go ahead, Mr. Petri. He's trying to yield to me,
but I'm not accepting it.
Mr. Petri. I actually covered this in my prepared
statement, when I indicated that I think it would be good if we
could. It's a good question.
Some have said, well, why not just let people check more
than one category? I think that is an option, but the
difficulty there is that, when they start running it through,
you end up with more than 100 percent, and that could lead to
some confusion. So I think, for some purposes, it might make
more sense, for the long form or other ways of doing the data,
to try to break down that category for analysis purposes.
But from the point of view of the individual citizen who is
being asked to fill this form out, to give them the feeling
either that somehow they are not fully American, and therefore
they are in some other category, psychologically, I think is a
mistake. Also, to try to force them to accept or to associate
with one parent or with the other parent, really is putting
kids and families in a very difficult position. They don't want
that. That's not the way they think of themselves. They think
of themselves as multiracial.
We are talking about several millions of people, and a
rapidly growing number, in our country. If this is to be a
snapshot of America, there is someone standing over there who
is not in the picture right now, and we would like to include
him or her in the next census' snapshot.
Mr. Horn. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
To my colleague, Mr. Davis, I recognize and empathize with
everyone's individual right to be identified with whatever
ethnic or racial name that they choose. But I think the
question here is, should the census create a new mixed race
category? And I would say, naturally, no, because that
particular category is so vague that, 90 percent of the people
filling out the census, it would take them all day to determine
how many categories they are in and how to fill out the census
figure.
As I said before, it would weaken the Voting Rights Act,
and I would be the last person to ask for that. There would be
no commonality in this category. For example, let's say if an
Asian and a Hispanic have a child, is that child of mixed
ancestry? Yes. If a black and a white have a child, is that
child mixed? The answer is yes. But does the black and white
child share the same race as that Asian-Hispanic child? Clearly
not. So you can see the confusion and the lack of commonality
in separating, in terms of our census.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I raised that question a little bit
earlier, in terms of the differences in mixes, and I certainly
agree with you.
If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one
additional question.
Mr. Horn. Sure.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I associate myself most directly
with the testimony of Representative Meek.
I would like to ask if we could respond to some of the
fears that were raised in her testimony, relative to the
diminution or dilution of voting rights strength on the part of
some minority groups, the inability to really track and make
use of the data to effectively enforce components of civil
rights legislation, and the whole business of looking at the
question of who is disadvantaged and where, and the question of
where individuals live as a factor that needs to be considered
when we look at the whole question of entitlement opportunities
as a result of race and ethnicity.
Mr. Sawyer. I can begin.
I have argued, since the hearings that we had in 1993, as a
product of the lessons that we learned in 1990, that the
categories are important for precisely the reasons that you
suggest, that they need to be discrete, few in number, easy to
use, broadly understood, and yield consistent responses, no
matter who may be answering the question, whether you are
answering the question about yourself or about another member
of your family, of your generation or another, or whether, in
fact, it is an outside observer responding to the question.
The reasons are that it becomes extremely difficult to
enforce the laws of this Nation guaranteeing protection against
discrimination, and it becomes incredibly difficult for those
who track other kinds of outcomes, health status, life
expectancy, assimilation, and as you suggest, residential and
economic segregation, not only in terms of formal civil and
voting rights. The ability to enforce the fundamental
guarantees of equal protection under the laws of this Nation is
grounded in the ability to do aggregate measures of the Nation,
not for the purpose of individual identity, as important as
that may be to individual Americans, but for the purposes of
guaranteeing aggregate rights for all of us, so that we all
have equal protection under the law.
Having said that, I identify that portion of what I'm
saying entirely with Mrs. Meek's testimony. I also believe,
however, that one of the critical characteristics of change
that is going on in the country right now is in terms of the
blur that is becoming traditional racial and ethnic
determinations.
In that sense, I believe that the census becomes a vehicle
that can be used, particularly if we focus on the long form
side, in measuring the characteristic of that change. If you
keep the two separate, as your first question implied, then you
can do both without destroying either, and, in fact, perhaps
illuminating both in ways that we have never done before.
Mr. Horn. Does the gentleman have any other questions?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Do you have a response?
Mr. Petri. I can make a little stab at it. I think that I
understand the concern that somehow having this category might
make it more difficult to enforce civil rights laws and
protections for particular elements of the community, but I
also think that it is important to recognize that, while we
have not made uniform progress, we have made considerable
progress in this area. What we don't want to do is freeze
ourselves in time, and because we've made progress, try to deny
it and maintain rigid categories, regardless of the progress
that has been made, because it advantages certain organization
officials, or bureaucrats, or other people who were hired to
get us moving down this road.
In other words, we don't want to freeze us in time or deny
it if we are making progress. I think the fact that these
statistics exist and that people are trying to move beyond some
of these stereotypes is actually a plus, not a minus. While we
shouldn't try to gloss it over or say there aren't a lot of
problems--there still are--we ought to try also to accommodate
progress when we make it.
This census broadening is in response to a legitimate
concern of real people, and I think the fact that it is being
discussed is a sign of progress. Whether we are at the point
where we want to move to this step or not, whether we should do
it through legislative action, or the Census Bureau should just
recognize the growing number of people who would like this
category and make this change, is an interesting question and
something that you all will be pursuing.
I am very happy, I should conclude by saying, that they are
taking this very seriously. They have been doing surveys. They
are having professionals review it. And I think, according to
the kind of criteria that they traditionally use as they review
census questions and revise them, they might well decide this
is an appropriate step. They still have a little while to make
that decision, and I know you will be monitoring as it moves
forward.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Meek. I just want to say, I appreciate Mr. Petri's
approach to this, and I agree with him that there should be
some consideration for the people he is mentioning, for all of
them. I wish we were living in an America where we did not have
to focus on race. But I don't see anything changing that much,
even in the next 10 years, in this country.
As I look at it, race seems to be one of the most important
references in this country. And I must agree with Mr. Sawyer
that unless that is considered, if we mesh them all in a
multiracial category, you will find out they get so enmeshed
that there will not be any consideration for those groups of
people who have not historically received equal rights under
the law.
It would require, I think, a whole new effort by Congress,
over and over, to level the playing field, so that everyone in
this country could be treated equally. I think this is going to
be a hard thing to do, Mr. Chairman. If the Census Bureau goes
to using these kinds of data, in terms of multiracial identify,
it's going to be very, very difficult, if not impossible. There
will be a lot of confused people, a lot of confused agencies,
as well.
I understand this thing of the melting pot, but we are not
looking at that in all of our considerations. We are not
looking at there are a lot of multiracials in this country.
Other people are coming from other countries; they are mixing
in with people in our country. That's true. But why should we
consider it just for the census, when it has not become an
overall consideration?
So I plead to the subcommittee, and to people who will come
forward, to think of that. If you begin to take away what the
Voting Rights Act has given us, take away what this wonderful
Congress has given this country in trying to equalize civil
rights, it will be very difficult. If you remember, that came
up with Plessy v. Ferguson. Those of us who have been around a
long time, we can understand and remember those cases and what
they mean.
So I think that everything I've heard here today is very
positive, Mr. Chairman, and it calls for deliberative kinds of
actions. Thank you.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, very
much.
I would like to thank the panel for some very thoughtful
responses and very serious testimony. I certainly would agree
with those who suggest that we've made progress in this area of
blending and melting. Actually, we've come a long, long way.
But I'm also reminded of a song that we often sing at the
church I attend, when we're trying to get to heaven, and that
is that we're still a long way from yonder shore.
So we've got to keep pressing on. We've got to keep moving
ahead. And I think, as we move a little further, then I think I
will have a different level of comfort that this will turn out
to be positive and not negative. And certainly, I thank you
very much.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Petri, would you like any final word on this?
Mr. Petri. No.
Mr. Horn. Let me just suggest that this is simply the first
of at least three hearings, and that one should not assume any
action will be taken by this subcommittee based on what
witnesses say or Members say from the dais. We are going to
look at this very thoroughly. We would hope that the Office of
Management and Budget, and the Census Bureau look at this very
thoroughly, and that no door is closed.
I think what we want is an accurate census that does
reflect the diversity of this country. There are a lot of ways
to get at that and to solve these problems, from both
perspectives. Socioeconomic class still remains a major factor
in this country, in terms of discrimination. It's not just
racial discrimination; it's not just ethnic discrimination.
Having spent, I think, 25 years of my life on these issues,
I've seen all the arguments, and they are held very closely by
many.
But we do need the data to carry out some laws that we have
on the books, and we also need to have data accurately reflect
the nature of the demographics of this society, which is
certainly a multicultural, multiracial, and multi-anything you
want to put at the other end of the hyphen.
So, without objection, I am going to include Maxine Waters'
testimony. She wanted to be here very much this morning and
couldn't make it. It will be put as part of this panel.
As I suggest, today's hearing was the first of our
subcommittee's review of the important issue. Our next session
will be on May 22, where we will receive testimony from both
individuals and representatives of professional groups in this
area, advocacy groups, interest groups, and so on, and we will
also have some of those groups, newer ones, at the last session
that we hold a little later, perhaps, in June.
Once OMB has acted on this, we will take a look at what
they have done. We will again have, perhaps, them and the
Census Bureau to testify on how they came to whatever
conclusion they came to.
In closing this hearing, I want to thank the staff that
prepared it. On my left, your right, is J. Russell George, the
staff director and counsel for the Government Management,
Information, and Technology Subcommittee, who has had a large
responsibility in this hearing; Joan McEnery, right back here,
who shortly will be leaving us for the U.S. Senate, otherwise
known as ``the other body,'' professional staff member; John
Hynes, professional staff member, next to her, for the
majority; and Andrea Miller, the clerk, next to Mr. Hynes, for
the majority.
On the minority side, working on this hearing were David
McMillen, professional staff member; Mark Stephenson,
professional staff member; Ellen Rayner, chief clerk for the
minority; and Jean Gosa, clerk for the minority.
And our faithful court reporter, Charlie Smith.
We are going to have the hearing record left open for 2
weeks, if anybody would like to submit anything. We have a
series of questions we have sent to OMB, Census, and the
relevant agencies.
So thank you very much for coming.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
FEDERAL MEASURES OF RACE AND ETHNICITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
2000 CENSUS
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
and Technology,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn
(chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.
Present: Representatives Horn, Sessions, Sununu, Maloney,
and Davis of Illinois.
Also present: Representative Norton.
Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and
counsel; John Hynes, professional staff member; Andrea Miller,
clerk; David McMillen, minority professional staff member; and
Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk.
Mr. Horn. The Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology will come to order.
This is the second in a series of hearings on the topic of
how the Federal Government classifies the people of this
country according to race and ethnicity. We can all agree that
this issue is both complex and important. It is a public policy
issue, yet it is also a personal identity issue.
Currently, the government classifies people according to
five categories of race and ethnicity. The race categories are
black, white, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or
Alaska Native. The ethnic category is Hispanic. The question is
whether these categories are adequate to measure our society
today and into the coming decades.
The race and ethnic classifications under the Office of
Management and Budget's Directive No. 15 are vital to the
implementation of numerous Federal laws and regulations. Data
on race and ethnicity are required by Federal statutes covering
issues such as voting rights, lending practices, provision of
health services, and employment practices, among others. The
data are also utilized by State and local governments for
legislative redistricting and compliance with the Voting Rights
Act of 1965, as amended.
For several years now, there has been an organized movement
of individuals who argue that the current categories are not
complete, because people with multiracial backgrounds cannot
fit into one of these five categories as required on various
Federal forms. Their argument has recently received a dramatic
and inspiring illustration, Master's champion Tiger Woods.
Where, people are asking, does Tiger Woods fit on the map
of race in America? Some argue that existing categories need to
be redrawn to give multiracial individuals one of their own.
Others say there is no coherent racial identity that could be
called multiracial. The only effect, say opponents, would be to
diminish the importance of race in analyzing the fairness with
which Government benefits and services are delivered.
Is it possible to reach a compromise that satisfies both
public policy and individual desire? Perhaps we will get an
answer today. In order to do so, we will need to be very clear
about the issues involved. We are joined by some of the
preeminent experts on this issue.
As chairman of this subcommittee, I would like to touch
briefly on one fundamental issue. The five categories of race
and ethnicity in question were established on Federal forms for
the purpose of remedying the wrongs of past and present
discrimination. Data gathered according to these categories are
required by a variety of Federal statutes, most of which were
required by the civil rights movement of the 1960's and 1970's.
Our discussion today must begin with the question of why we
gather data on race and ethnicity. There is no hope for
agreeing on the issue of what data we should gather unless we
can agree on the purposes for which the data will be used. I
hope our witnesses today will address this fundamental
question: Is the chief purpose of measuring race and ethnicity
to help specific racial and ethnic groups receive equitable
treatment in our society?
If the witnesses should answer no to this question, it is
incumbent upon them to explain their alternative view of the
primary purpose for utilization of these data. If witnesses
answer yes to this question, then they must explain how their
proposals for the current categories fit that purpose.
Our first panel will consist of Senator Daniel Akaka of
Hawaii. He is a long time advocate for Native Hawaiians. We are
very pleased to welcome him here today.
The second panel will feature Harold McDougall, the
Washington bureau director of the NAACP; and Eric Rodriguez,
who is a policy analyst at the National Counsel of La Raza.
These two organizations bring highly respected voices to this
discussion.
Also on the second panel are Susan Graham, president of
Project RACE, Reclassify All Children Equally, and her son Ryan
Graham who is multiracial. They appeared before Congress in
1993 to testify on behalf of a multiracial category, and since
that time have been very active as multiracial advocates at the
State and local level as well as the Federal level.
The third panel consists of Ramona Douglas, who serves as
president of the Association for Multiethnic Americans; Helen
Samhan, the executive vice president of the Arab-American
Institute; Jacinta Ma, who is staff attorney at the National
Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium; and JoAnn Chase,
executive director of the National Congress of American Indians
will round out that panel, along with Nathan Douglas, who is a
member of the Interracial Family Circle and a parent of a
multiracial child.
Our fourth panel features three scholars with strong
backgrounds on issues of demographics, race, and ethnicity.
Mary Waters is a professor of sociology at Harvard University.
Dr. Harold Hodgkinson is director of the Center for Demographic
Policy at the Institute for Educational Leadership and Dr.
Balint Vazonyi is the director of the Center for American
Founding at the Potomac Foundation.
We welcome all our witnesses today, and look forward to
their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.187
Mr. Horn. I will now yield to the ranking Democrat at this
point, Mr. Davis of Illinois, who is prepared to make some
opening remarks.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me also welcome the panelists and I thank you for the
opportunity to make a few brief comments.
I understand that today's hearing is to focus on the
possible change of Directive 15, which specifies the
definitions of race and ethnicity for legal, administrative,
and statistical purposes, since OMB will decide this summer
whether or not to change the definitions of race used by the
Federal Government.
I feel that it should be noted that the possible change of
this policy has many implications to it, in that Directive 15
is used throughout the Government in policymaking, and is key
to implementing numerous Federal laws.
Since this issue first began to gain public attention, we
have heard from a number of groups, organizations, individuals,
and agencies. They have raised questions that if we get into
multiracial identity, then how would this effect the protection
of voting rights laws, reapportionment, civil rights laws,
lending practices, employment practices, et cetera.
I realize the personal nature of today's topic, and also
acknowledge the desire of those of multiracial heritage to be
able to fully express themselves. But I also need to convey my
worries about the adverse effects that the multiracial category
may imbue.
Since census information is used for civil rights
enforcement and policy purposes, and given that we the Federal
Government do not currently have a method for ensuring accurate
collection and analysis of results in a multiracial category, I
am generally opposed to this issue being addressed in the
Census 2000. It is too soon I think to implement.
Until a process to collect meaningful, accurate, or
specific racial and ethnic data that remedies past, current,
and/or even present future discrimination is in place, I feel
that the multiracial category could jeopardize the civil rights
or many minorities as well as may provide inconsistent and
damaging effects on overall racial counts.
I have concerns as to how the fusion of race and ethnicity
would challenge the ability to administer and enforce civil
rights laws against discrimination. I understand that a
multiracial category may make sense for the first generation.
But when you begin to look at it long term and those
multiracial children marry others, their children are then
classified as multiracial, and it could go on and on.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters, and
look forward to hearing the opinions of the experts. I trust
that after all is said and done that more will be said than
done. And that we will end up with a system that accurately
reflects the status of minority groups in this country, the
problems that we have faced, and possible remedies to correct
those past ills, and then move ahead.
And I thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.189
Mr. Horn. I thank the gentleman.
And I now recognize the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr.
Sununu, for an opening statement.
Mr. Sununu. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have only a few
brief remarks. Principally to thank you and the subcommittee
for putting together a hearing on this extremely important
issue.
Americans are very proud of our reputation as a melting pot
country, where people of many faiths, backgrounds, and
different cultural heritages come together. But even as those
different cultures and ethnicities blend together, we continue
and should continue to celebrate the cultural heritage that
makes us unique. It is a celebration that strengthens our
families and our communities. And that makes us ultimately
stronger as a Nation.
I believe that we need to maintain a system within the
census that enables us to understand who we are as a country,
what the variety of backgrounds and heritages are that make up
the United States of America, the citizens of the United
States. I think that it is of great value to have this type of
a hearing which enables us to better understand the value and
the importance to maintain just such a system.
I want to welcome all of the panelists that we are going to
have, especially the Senator who has taken his valuable time to
be with us today. And all of the members of the different
organizations that represent their membership so ably.
Particularly, Helen Samhan from the Arab-American
Institute. As a Member of Congress of Arab-American descent, I
know the fine work that she and the AAI has done, not just on
behalf of their constituents, but on behalf of all of the
different groups that have been fighting for fair treatment,
fair recognition, and the elimination of discriminations for
years and years.
So again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing the panel
together today, and for the work that the committee has done on
this issue.
Mr. Horn. I thank the gentleman and I now yield to the
ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, Mrs. Maloney of New York,
for an opening statement.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We are here today because 200 years ago black slaves were
counted as three-fifths of a person. We are here today because
100 years ago, a black male in Mississippi could not buy a one
way train ticket and could not buy a round trip ticket without
a note from his employer. We are here today because last
weekend a church in Northeast Washington was painted with
swastikas.
This is not just an arcane statistical issue. This is the
measurement of race in this country, and the measurement of
race in this country is a story of discrimination,
discrimination all too often condoned by the Government.
It has been less than 50 years since the Supreme Court
ruled that separate is not equal. It has been only 30 years
since our country was torn apart by riots caused by hate and
discrimination. Over the last 2 years, we have seen an
unprecedented number of black churches burned to the ground.
Racial hatred and discrimination is as alive today as it
ever was and it is against this backdrop that we must have this
discussion.
The interracial couples who have brought the measurement of
race to national prominence are to be praised for their effort.
We all know that the lens that the Government puts on issues
shapes the way that all of us see it. All too often, however,
we simply cannot accept that lens as accurate. Their efforts
have forced us to reexamine the lens we put on measuring race,
and we are discovering just how pitted and scratched that lens
is.
We cannot deny the history of discrimination or its
presence in our society today. Neither can we deny the progress
our society has made that is symbolized by the interracial
couples testifying before us today. Well into this century,
States had laws on the books that made interracial marriages
illegal.
The pain caused by forcing the children of an interracial
couple to choose between a mother's race and a father's race is
very real. So is the pain caused by discrimination. A solution
that eases one pain while making the other worse is no solution
at all.
I would like each of you today to help us in answering two
questions that will be placed before us. First, do the
categories as they are constituted today continue to serve the
intended purpose of helping the Government to fight
discrimination? Second, how can we achieve that goal and
simultaneously provide individuals with the opportunity to
identify themselves in a way that they are most comfortable? If
we can answer these two questions, we will have made
significant progress in how we define race and ethnicity.
I thank the chairman, my colleagues, and all that are here;
particularly the Senator, and the couples.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.191
Mr. Horn. I now yield time for an opening statement to a
guest of the subcommittee, and an active member of the full
committee, the distinguished delegate from the District of
Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to sit in on this hearing as a member of the
full committee.
I come here in part as a former chair of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, whose work was not only to
enforce the laws against discrimination, but to collect
statistics that would enable us to enforce the laws against
discrimination. I have come to say that that was a very
difficult task. And I hope that we can find a way to satisfy
the concerns raised here, while keeping in mind the official
purposes that racial statistics serve.
I have no difficulty with clarifying Directive 15. I
believe that we must find a way to satisfy the concerns of
those who want to recognize the particular heritage of both
their parents. That concern is very sensitive, and has to be
felt very deeply.
But, Mr. Chairman, that is largely a personal concern, and
one that deserves our response. But it is very important not to
mix personal concerns with the official business of the
Government. There may be a way to allow people even on census
forms to satisfy that personal concern without making it
impossible for the Government to enforce the laws against
discrimination.
My view is that we must work to satisfy both those
concerns, and I want to indicate some of the reasons why. In
this country, since overthrowing racial discrimination, we have
allowed people to self-identify themselves and I have to say
that I think it is important that people self-identify
themselves. But once we say that you can self-identify yourself
and the categories or some revision of them as we have known
them no longer exists, I have not yet heard how they can be
counted. And that is what I want to hear.
Once we can all identify ourselves any which way we want
to, then I want to know who in fact should and who should not
be counted when we are enforcing laws that allow affirmative
action.
That is very difficult as it is. The questions that are
raised are deep. Some people feel just as deeply, not only
about their parents, but their grandparents. No, I am not Irish
and American Indian as to my parents, but my grandmother was,
and I want to claim her.
What should the Government say? I tell you one thing I
oppose. I oppose the Government going behind that category to
find out what you really are. Because then we really have
brought the South African regime to the United States of
America.
If you are claiming a category that qualifies you for some
Government benefit, you bet your bottom dollar that somebody is
going to want to find out whether you are legitimately claiming
that category.
The civil rights laws have become very difficult to
enforce. I am certainly not for making them more difficult,
because of a personal concern that I regard as entirely
legitimate, but I am for trying to find a way to recognize
legitimacy of that claim. And I would do so even on the census
forms, as long as we do not get ourselves into trying to find
out who is really what and who is really what not.
But let me indicate another concern that I have. I must be
very old. Because the America that I come from is an America
where these differences found their way into the culture in the
most painful ways. Where at one point, blacks thought they
might mitigate the effect of being black by claiming something
else in their heritage. ``Oh, I am black, but I am also
American Indian. I have got an Italian great grandmother.'' Oh,
it was so pitiful.
About the only thing that American racism did for us is
saying no, you are one or the other. Let us look at societies
where that is not the case. South Africa, and the Caribbean.
Visit those places. And we have in triplicate what we had
duplicate there. Go to Haiti. Go to Jamaica. Go to Brazil.
If you go there, you will find the blacks, those are the
darkies. There are those who have escaped being black, because
they can now claim something else, and then they are whites.
The only thing worse than what we have in America is that.
I am going to tell you that I have official reasons,
because I think that the census has to be the census, and
cannot satisfy each and every one of us in our personal
concerns. I have concerns as a former enforcer of the laws. And
I have concerns about polarization in the United States of
America. I have never seen it more polarized.
As a youngster in the civil rights movement, there were
blacks and there were whites, and there was more communication
along racial lines than there is anywhere in America today.
Race relations are as much a problem in the United States
of America as racism is. And when we go to sub-categories and
we have got Asian, and black, and Hispanic, and Irish, it will
go on ad infinitum. The reason that it will go on ad infinitum
is because this glorious country has freely taken in people of
every race and ethnicity.
So I sit here as a light skin black woman and I sit here to
tell you that I am black. That people who are my color in this
country will always be treated as black. And calling yourself a
multiethnic will get people walking down the street to say you
a multiethnic, so I do not regard you as like those blacks that
I see on television that steal from people or who murder
people, you are multiethnic.
We have got to join together, people of color. We who are
Asian, and who are Hispanic. We who are black have got to say
look, we are people of color, and we are readily identified.
Any discrimination against one of us is discrimination against
another. If you want to know my heritage, I am going to tell
you what it is, because I am proud of my mama, and I am proud
of my daddy, but I will identify with people of color.
If you do not do that, you are right now creating a
different America. There are going to be whole groups of people
who are going to drop out of the black race. That is how
pitiful it is going to be, if we go to these various
categories. People who do not have any immediate heritage of
black and Hispanic, they are going to drop out.
And there is nothing that we can do about it, because I am
going to get you if you try to go behind them and find out who
they are. Because then you are into a regime and into a country
that I do not want to be a part of. You are going to be
whatever you say you are, which means that we will have no
statistics.
To satisfy the concerns who are multiethnic, I say put
another category on the census form. Let them satisfy
themselves that way without further complicating race in this
country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. We thank you.
And we now will call on our first witness. Senator Akaka
has a vote that he has to get to in about a half hour. So we
hope that we can get every bit of wisdom out of you in that
time period. The Senate takes forever to end a roll call, so I
think you are safe. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am delighted to be here, and I am pleased to be here to
testify about Office of Management and Budget Directive No. 15,
an important guideline governing racial and ethnic data
collection by Federal agencies.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, your leadership in convening this
hearing is to be commended, particularly since OMB is expected
to make a decision in the fall on Directive 15.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I continue to strongly advocate
that the Federal Government rectify a longstanding
misperception that Native Hawaiians are not indigenous peoples.
In the 1993 congressional and 1994 OMB meetings, I proposed
to reclassify Native Hawaiians in the same category as American
Indians and Alaska Natives, rather than the Asian or Pacific
Islander category.
After viewing the April 23 hearing record, which your
subcommittee held on this subject matter, I am further
convinced that Federal officials have yet to recognize the
gross disparities of Native Hawaiian statistics in the Asian or
Pacific Islander category.
Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about two main
arguments against my proposal. First, it is argued by Federal
officials that my proposal would likely disrupt their ability
to monitor trends or skew the statistics in the affected
populations. I find such statements baffling and misguided.
Any disruption of either the Asian or Pacific Islander, or
the American Indian or Alaska Native category is negligible
compared to the benefits which Federal officials would accrue
in being able to fairly assess the Native Hawaiian community.
Between 1980 and 1990, the Native Hawaiian population
increased by 22.4 percent, compared to the American Indian or
Alaska Native population, which increased by 37.9 percent. The
aggregate Asian or Pacific Islander population by contrast
doubled in size between 1980 and 1990, just as it did between
1970 and 1980.
As a result, the Native Hawaiian percentage of the Asian or
Pacific Islander category decreased from 4.6 percent in 1980 to
only 2.9 percent in 1990. If Native Hawaiians were added to the
American Indian or Alaska Native category for the 1990 census
purposes, they would have comprised 9.7 percent of the
category.
I believe that this is fairer for statistical purposes, and
because the aggregate demographics of the American Indian or
Alaska Native population more closely match the Native Hawaiian
population. If one simply looks at health statistics, for
example, Native Hawaiians are more comparable to American
Indians and Alaska Natives rather than the healthier Asian
populations in infant mortality, cancer, and life expectancy
rates.
A 1987 Office and Technology and Assessment Report found
that Native Hawaiians had a death rate 34 percent higher than
the death rate for all other races in the United States. One
alarming statistic was the death rate for diabetes. Native
Hawaiians die from diabetes at a rate 222 percent higher than
for all other races in the United States.
If you look at other Federal statistics like immigration,
you might wonder what use the current Asian or Pacific Islander
category serves Federal officials when it comes to Native
Hawaiians. According to the 1990 census, over 63 percent of the
aggregate Asian or Pacific Islander population were foreign-
born. This means that this category is largely comprised of
individuals who have immigrated to the United States.
Comparatively, only 1.3 percent of Native Hawaiians were
foreign-born.
The 1990 census also revealed that over 63 percent of the
Asian or Pacific Islander population speak an Asian or Pacific
Islander language at home, compared to 7.7 percent of Native
Hawaiians. In education, 37 percent of the total Asian or
Pacific Islander population over the age of 25 had completed
college, compared to 12 percent of Native Hawaiians and 9.3
percent of American Indians or Alaska Natives. I implore
Federal officials to explain to me how these aggregate social
and economic trends are fair to Native Hawaiians.
Mr. Chairman, the second concern raised about my proposal
is that it would adversely impact Federal programs for American
Indians and Alaska Natives. OMB Directive No. 15 specifically
states that the directive should not be viewed as determinants
of eligibility for participation in any Federal program.
It should also be emphasized that the majority of Federal
programs established for the benefit of American Indians and
Alaska Natives, particularly the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
the Indian Health Service, are based on a trust relationship
between the Federal Government and federally recognized
American Indian tribes.
My proposal, Mr. Chairman, does not, and I repeat does not,
affect the Government to Government relationship which exists
between federally recognized American Indian tribes and Alaska
Natives and the Federal Government. It also does not affect the
political status of Native Hawaiians. That is something that
we, as Native Hawaiians, will resolve through the legislative
process.
Let me make this clear, Mr. Chairman. OMB Directive No. 15
cannot grant Federal recognition to Native Hawaiians. Federal
recognition can only be granted through the Bureau of Indian
Affairs' recognition process, treaties, Presidential Executive
orders, statutes, and case law.
While Native Hawaiians are culturally Polynesian, we are
descendents of the aboriginal people who occupied and exercised
sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of
Hawaii. Like the varying cultures among the hundreds of
American Indian tribes and Alaska Native groups, Native
Hawaiians also have a unique political and historical
relationship with the United States. Our current classification
by the Federal Government denies us our identity as indigenous
peoples.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I simply urge that when Congress
and the appropriate Federal agencies prepare for the 2000
census, any proposed changes to OMB Directive No. 15 should be
based on the merits of the relevant issues, not political
expediency and popularity contests. There is no one in the
Federal Government who can deny that Native Hawaiians are
native peoples of the State of Hawaii. It is high time that
Native Hawaiians be properly classified.
My proposal, Mr. Chairman, recommends that the following
changes be made under Directive 15. One is definitions. The
category of American Indian or Alaska Native in paragraph 1(a)
should be changed to American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native
Hawaiian. And be defined as, ``A person having origins in any
of the original peoples of North America or the Hawaiian
Islands, and who maintain cultural identification through
tribal affiliation or community recognition.''
Two, utilization for recordkeeping and reporting. The
category of American Indian or Alaska Native in paragraph 2(a)
of the directive for minimum designations for race and
ethnicity should be changed to ``American Indian, Alaska Native
or Native Hawaiian.''
That is the extent of my proposal. Mr. Chairman, I thank
you very much for giving me the opportunity to testify before
you and this subcommittee on this very important issue. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Daniel K. Akaka follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.196
Mr. Horn. Do you have time for a few questions, Senator; or
do you need to get back right now?
Senator Akaka. I have a vote at 3.
Mr. Horn. At 3:00?
Senator Akaka. Yes.
Mr. Horn. If I could just ask you a couple of questions on
Native Hawaiian issues, to get it straight for the record. When
I was vice chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, we
took a look at the situation in Hawaii. And I can certainly
share your concern about the bad treatment that has been given
a lot of Native Hawaiians in terms of access to land and so
forth.
What, roughly, is the percent of the total population in
the State of Hawaii reflected by so-called Native Hawaiians,
what are we talking about?
Senator Akaka. Well, right now, that would be about 20
percent.
Mr. Horn. And if they were categorized as Native American
or Alaskan, that group that you want to join, would the
benefits increase in various Government programs that are not
now triggered because Native Hawaiians are not in the Native
American category. What impact would that have on Federal
programs?
Senator Akaka. I would tell you that at the present time
that Hawaiians have not been eligible for some programs.
Mr. Horn. Has anyone done a study in the Federal Government
that has analyzed this to the degree that that change of moving
from Native Hawaiian to Native American would increase Federal
benefits?
Senator Akaka. Yes. There has been a study done by CRS. At
this point in time, I do not know the findings.
Mr. Horn. Well, we will ask staff to followup on that, and
do a bibliographic search as well as get the Congressional
Research Service. And if we can, if it is not 8,000 pages, we
will put it into the record at this point, if it is 20, 30, 40
or whatever. I think that we need to get a better feel for
that.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.206
Mr. Horn. Is there any anthropological evidence that the
Native Hawaiians came perhaps the same route as the Native
Americans? Most of the Native Americans' origin is over the
Bering Straits into Canada. You find Antibasti--I think it is
in Canada--is similar to Navaho in Arizona. And, of course, you
know that great reservation goes into three States, and is the
size of the State of West Virginia.
And you certainly have a similar situation on how the
Native Hawaiian population is spread out, or are they
concentrated more on one island than another?
Senator Akaka. They are spread over all of the islands. And
to answer your question, they did come to Hawaii. As you know,
the Hawaiian Islands are volcanic islands. They erupted from
the bottom of the sea. But the Hawaiians did migrate there, and
were the first people there, and they became the indigenous
people of the Hawaiian Islands, and are part of the Polynesian
race.
Mr. Horn. You have been working on this subject for a long
time.
Have you discussed this with the people at the Census
Bureau and the Office of Management and Budget, the Chief
Statistician of the United States? What kind of comments have
you received from those discussions?
Senator Akaka. Well, the reception has been negative.
Mr. Horn. But is there an intellectual reason behind why
they think that?
Senator Akaka. Yes. I would say that part of the reason was
because of the chaos that might come in changing the forms. And
in that particular case, we are not changing the forms. We are
just adding the Native Hawaiians to the Native American
category.
Mr. Horn. Right. They could do it with a rubber stamp, and
they would not have to destroy their forms.
My last question is on what they call them the Pequots in
Connecticut. Go to the westward expansion corridor of the U.S.
Capitol that opened at the time of the 200th anniversary of
laying the cornerstone. The Pequots are very prominent in the
1500's, 1600's, and 1700's. Presumably, they had diminished, as
you know. And a gentleman who recalled the stories of his
mother put the tribe back together, and got billions of dollars
and thousands of acres from the State of Connecticut. And they
now have the largest casino in the world.
Under law and the Constitution, if we made the Native
Hawaiians into Native Americans, would they gain any
constitutional status in their law claims against the United
States?
Senator Akaka. Right now, there are some claims that the
Hawaiians do have. As you know, Hawaii has gone through six
different governmental structures, one of which was the
monarchy. And, of course, the royal family and the monarchy
owned most of the land. But the history is that such land
claims are only ceded lands.
And by the 1959 statehood document that was signed as we
became a State, those lands were set aside. To that extent, the
Hawaiians have some bearing in the State of Hawaii.
Mr. Horn. I now yield to the ranking Democrat on the
subcommittee, Mrs. Maloney of New York.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. You have covered all of my
questions.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I have one question.
Senator, you indicated that OMB suggested that if they were
to change the designation that it would cause chaos with the
forms, is that correct?
Senator Akaka. That is correct. Meaning that to change the
forms would have caused many problems in their process of
taking the census. And what I am saying is that we are not
changing the form, but we are just adding. The categories are
there. They are very hesitant, as you know, about revising the
forms at all for the census. And this is part of the reason why
they try very hard not to bring any changes about.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Do you know what their position
might be with reference to the chaos that would be created by
adding multiracial? That would seem to be an alteration of the
form as well.
Senator Akaka. I would not know what it would be. Except
that I would say at this time that we would not be in that
category of causing any changes or bringing about chaos. But
originally, and I proposed this, that was one of the reasons
that they were against it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Let me just say that I agree with
your logic in terms of the designation of Native Hawaiians. I
think that the same logic exists for Native Americans. I mean
indigenous people are indigenous. If Hawaii is a part of the
United States of America, then the people who are indigenous to
Hawaii are indigenous to the United States of America.
Mr. Horn. We thank you. There are no more questions I see
from the panel. We appreciate you taking the time. We know that
you have a busy day trying to deal with some of the legislation
that we have sent in your direction.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
wish you well, you and the subcommittee.
Mr. Horn. I appreciate it.
Will panel II come forward. Ryan Graham, Susan Graham,
Harold McDougall, and Eric Rodriguez.
We have a tradition in this subcommittee of swearing in all
witnesses, since it is an investigative committee, except for
Members of the Senate and Members of the House. So if you will
stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Horn. All four witnesses have affirmed, the clerk will
note. And we will now go by the order that is noted on the
program. We will begin with Susan Graham, the president of
Project RACE. Welcome to you and your son. So please proceed.
I might add that since most of you have not testified
before that your full statement is automatically placed in the
record without objection by anybody. So if you would like to
summarize your statement--most of us stayed up late last night
reading it--there will be more time for questions. Do not read
it to us. We have read it.
STATEMENTS OF SUSAN GRAHAM, PRESIDENT, PROJECT RACE; RYAN
GRAHAM, PROJECT RACE; HAROLD McDOUGALL, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON
BUREAU, NAACP; AND ERIC RODRIGUEZ, POLICY ANALYST, NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF LA RAZA
Ms. Graham. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I
am very pleased to be with you today representing the national
membership of Project RACE.
I testified before the former Subcommittee on Census,
Statistics, and Postal Personnel in 1993. Much has happened to
the multiracial classification since that time. Five more
States and many individual school districts have added the
multiracial classification. Testing has been completed by the
Census Bureau.
CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, NPR, AP, Time magazine, USA Today,
the Washington Post, the New York Times, and it seems every
newspaper and radio station across the country have carried
stories and debates on the multiracial question. And Tiger
Woods won the Master's and proudly claimed all of his heritage.
Members of Congress know that as any issue gets more and
more attention, as people take sides, as personal feelings get
intertwined with facts, stories emerge and become truths in the
public's minds. It is more important than ever in any issue to
keep our perspective at such a time and separate myth from
reality.
The reality is that not all Americans fit neatly into one
little box. The reality is that multiracial children who wish
to embrace all of their heritage should be allowed to do so.
They should not be put in the position of denying one of their
parents to satisfy arbitrary Government requirements.
The reality is that seven States now officially recognize
multiracial children. They are Ohio, Illinois, Georgia,
Michigan, Indiana, Florida, and North Carolina. Other
individual districts across the country have taken the step to
include a category for multiracial children, including the
Fairfax County, Virginia schools. This shows that people want
the right to designate themselves or their children as
multiracial. None of the States, State agencies, school
districts, parents, or children have reported any problems with
utilizing the multiracial classification.
The National ACT test adopted the multiracial category.
High school students complained that they felt discriminated
against when one of the very first questions they were asked on
this important test was one they could not answer, because
their combination of races was not there.
I am not a statistician or a demographer. It would be a
very big myth to say I am. We decided to look at the actual
enrollment figures from Fulton County, GA, because it was the
first county in the country to add the multiracial
classification. We looked at the data for 6 years, from 1991 to
1997, to see how many students actually use the category, and
to see if numbers dramatically decreased from any other racial
or ethnic category.
I set out to find a statistician to analyze the data. A
curious thing happened on the way to reality. Each statistician
said, ``Tell me what you want to prove.'' I would say, ``Just
honestly tell me what the figures prove.'' They would laugh and
say, ``We can prove anything you want to prove.'' I did not
throw out the data, but I did throw out the statisticians.
Attachment A shows the enrollment figures for the school
district of almost 60,000 students. The multiracial category
was added in the 1992-1993 school year. In the current 1996-
1997 school year, 835 students are checking multiracial in the
race category. That is 1.39 percent of the total student
population. The black, white, Asian, and Native American
populations have stayed pretty constant, with fluctuations so
small as to be insignificant. The Hispanic population has
steadily increased.
There are 835 real, actual children who consider themselves
to be multiracial in the school population of almost 60,000
students. There are 835 real, actual children, not government
projections, not ``what ifs,'' not a number someone dreamed up.
There are 835 real, actual children between the ages of 5 and
17, who only want to embrace all of their heritage.
There is a pervasive myth of massive defection from other
racial categories into the multiracial category. There are 835
children in 60,000, 1.39 percent of the total number of
students. These very real figures dispel that myth. The reality
is that 1.39 percent is pretty close to between 1.0 and 2
percent found by the National Content Survey, which states that
less than 2 percent of respondents nationally might select a
multiracial category when it is offered. The reality is that
1.39 percent is pretty close to 1.5 percent who identified as
multiracial in the report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
There also seems to be a concern that the addition of a
multiracial classification will suddenly cause all of the past
statistical data in America to become useless. If we want
accurate data, we need to count people accurately. The addition
of a Hispanic classification on the 1980 U.S. census did not
render past data meaningless. Census categories have been added
and taken away since the inception of the census, and never
once did they have to throw out all of the historical data. To
say that the multiracial classification would suddenly wreck
havoc with the data is a myth.
Attachment B outlines the many, many different ways the
Census Bureau has classified multiracial individuals. It
explains why my children are classified as white on the U.S.
census. It is actually pretty interesting reading.
What do we want? The myth is that on a Federal level that
we want only the term multiracial and nothing more. The reality
is when we testified in 1993, we suggested a format for Federal
purposes that instructed a multiracial person to also choose
their racial combinations from a list of categories listed
underneath the multiracial category.
When we answered the OMB's Federal Register notice in 1995,
we asked for the same type of configuration. Although these
models yield the most accurate data, we have been told by the
OMB and the Census Bureau that they take up too much real
estate on the forms. We have also been told that multiethnic
definitely would not be considered.
So do we scrap the whole idea? Absolutely not. The
multiracial community is sensitive to the concerns of all
communities. After all, we belong to all communities. The
question of a multiracial category has been studied for over 20
years, most extensively in the past 4 years. Much time and
money has been put into research. If it is not done now, it
will be brought up again for every census. We will not go away.
It is time for all communities, including the multiracial
community, to compromise as we go into the year 2000. There is
no better time to begin to reflect the true and accurate
heritage of all Americans.
Our model for OMB Statistical Directive 15 is attached as
Attachment C. It would be similarly adapted for the census or
at any time the ethnic and racial categories are separated,
with Hispanic placed under ethnicity and would state under
race: ``Check one. If you consider yourself to be biracial or
multiracial, check as many as apply.'' Numbers would be
allocated accordingly. It adds only 14 small words. It is
concise. It is clear. It is precise. It is accurate, and would
yield results that could be easily coded and tabulated. In
short, it works.
What we do not want. We would prefer to have a category of
biracial or multiracial, again with the ability to designate
races because we recognize the need for this information at the
Federal level. We do not want multiracial with blank spaces to
fill in races, because that leaves too much room for error and
confusion. We do not want to be known as other or some other
race. We totally reject any question which allows a multiracial
person to specify multiracial, but then asks us to write in the
race we most identify with. It is an invalid question, and an
insult to the multiracial community.
Would this change be costly? No. States, schools,
businesses, and the U.S. Government constantly change their
forms. Data cells are added all of the time. Tax changes, new
health care plans, new area codes, name changes for racial
groups, et cetera are all changes we expect and absorb. Why
would the multiracial classification be any different?
The reality is that the century update to the year 2000
will be far more costly than adding another racial category. In
fact, it is the perfect time to make such changes. The myth is
that party lines must be drawn on this issue. This is a
bipartisan issue. This is a children's issue. This is a civil
rights issue.
Three Republican Governors have signed multiracial
legislation into law: Governor Voinovich of Ohio, Governor
Engler of Michigan, and Governor Edgar of Illinois. Two
Democratic Governors have also signed our legislation: Governor
Miller of Georgia, and Governor Bayh of Indiana. The Democratic
Governors of North Carolina and Florida have been fully
supportive of the administration addition of a multiracial
designation in their States. The Republican and Democratic
lawmakers of these seven States feel that no child should be
forced to deny his or her heritage.
In remarks made by House Speaker Newt Gingrich on January
7, 1997, after winning a second term as Speaker, he said,
``What does race mean when many Americans cannot fill out their
census forms because they are an amalgam of races?''
President Clinton was asked about the multiracial
classification during his speech in Dallas on April 17, 1995.
He stated that he would not be opposed to a multiracial
category. And went on to say, ``I think it ought to be done.''
We think so, too.
In conclusion, I think that we need to remember that what
is right is often forgotten by what is convenient. It would be
easy to leave things as they are. But it would not be right for
millions of American multiracial children who feel just as
proud of all of their racial heritage as does their role model,
Tiger Woods.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express the
views of the membership of Project RACE.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Graham follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.218
Mr. Horn. We thank you very much.
We are now delighted to call Mr. Ryan Graham for his
statement. Welcome.
Mr. Graham. Thank you.
My name is Ryan Graham, and I am multiracial. I live in
Georgia and when I fill out forms, there is always a
multiracial box for me to check. It was not always that way.
But when my mom and the parents of other multiracial kids asked
the Georgia lawmakers to add the multiracial classification,
they passed it and the Governor signed it. Some of the
legislators told us later that they voted for it because it was
the right thing to do.
Four years ago, when I was 8 years old, my mom and I came
to Washington to ask the Members of Congress to make it
possible for the multiracial classification to be on every form
in the country. We hoped that the Federal Government would also
think it was the right thing to do. Four years is a long time
when you are only 12, but here I am again.
My mom is white, and my dad is black. Most forms force me
to choose between one of those races. I feel very sad, because
I cannot choose. I am both.
Wouldn't you be embarrassed if your classmates laughed at
you because you went up and said to the teacher, ``I do not
know what race to mark on my test''?
One day a kid asked me, ``Are you mixed?'' I said, ``No, I
am multiracial, big difference.'' He said, ``What is the
difference?'' I said, ``Puppies are mixed, people are
multiracial.''
Some forms include the term ``other,'' but that makes me
feel like a freak or a space alien. I want a classification
that describes exactly what I am.
In Georgia, I have that option. But there are millions of
kids just like me all over the United States who do not. I
think those of us who are multiracial should be able to choose
that classification. I think adults should understand.
My little sister is waiting for me back in Georgia, to come
home and tell her that this subcommittee has said yes to the
multiracial classification. It is not how you see me; it is how
I see myself that is important.
I thank you for letting me be here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Graham follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.220
Mr. Horn. Well, we thank you for coming. I was just
wondering if you have the record as the youngest witness, from
when you testified 4 years ago. I remember trying to testify at
age 17. And what I got from the ranking minority member at that
time was a pat on the head, and ``now, now, young man,'' et
cetera, a brush-off. We are delighted to have your perspective
here. So keep testifying.
Mr. Graham. Thank you.
Mr. Horn. Now we are on No. 3 of the panel, Harold
McDougall, director of the Washington Bureau of the NAACP.
Mr. McDougall. Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, I am grateful for the opportunity to testify
before you today on behalf of the NAACP. I am director of the
Washington Bureau, as you know.
The NAACP is the Nation's oldest and largest civil rights
organization, with over 6,000 members in 2,000 branches around
the country and in five foreign countries. We are committed to
the protection of the civil, legal, political, economic, and
human rights of African-Americans and other citizens of color
here in the United States.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we have great
sensitivity to the issue of personal identification and self-
identification. We have always supported the right of self-
determination. As is evident from my statement, we are very
concerned about the possible impact that a personal choice
might have on the data. Delegate Norton explained that quite
well.
According to the most recently released study by the U.S.
Census, the field study that was released last week, relatively
small numbers of African-Americans appear to identify
themselves as multiracial. The census data indicates that this
is a phenomenon which is most current in terms of people who
are presently in interracial marriages or are the products of
interracial marriages that have just taken place in the last 20
or 30 years.
There are figures that indicate that perhaps 70 percent of
the population of the African-American population is of mixed
race. African, Native American and European. These mixtures
took place during slavery and that period immediately after.
Most of the African-Americans who are of mixed race, are
the product of marriages before the 1967 Loving v. Virginia
decision, continue to identify as African-American. The census
data indicates that of the children of black/white interracial
marriages that have taken place since the 1960's, about three-
quarters of those children continue to identify themselves as
black. Only one-quarter of the children who are the products of
the most recent generation of interracial marriages actually
identify themselves as multiracial.
But the study that has been released is still far from a
full dress census and we have no idea how this might play out
in decades to come. History demonstrates that the interaction
between the categories as they appear on this census and the
self-conceptions of the population, are not static.
The Hispanic category, for example, first appeared, I
believe, on the 1960 or 1970 census. And since that time, in
over two or three censuses for 20 or 30 years, the numbers of
people who think of themselves as Hispanic has expanded
dramatically.
This could have an impact on data. And this is why census
professionals always take the position that we should be very
conservative and very cautious about making any changes in the
way that the census is presented.
So in terms of the question that Representative Maloney
asked, would the introduction of new categories possibly have a
corrupting effect on the data, the NAACP feels emphatically
that that is a danger. And we counsel caution.
But again, we are very sensitive to the issues that the
young man raises. I have a son who looks very much like him,
but my son identifies very clearly as a person of African
descent. And we are concerned about the possibility of
confusion.
Again, we respect people's rights to make a self-
identification. We just question whether the census is
necessarily the best place to do that. Most of the data that my
colleague, Ms. Graham, presented was a function of children
making decisions in terms of school forms. Indeed, there is a
difference between a school form and a census form.
Ms. Norton said that she was concerned about the possible
impact of fraud in self-identification. How we do determine
when somebody is black, or white, or multiracial?
Carol Simpson, who is a Channel 7 news anchor, gave a
presentation at Howard University about a week ago, where she
talked about being in South Africa, and being shown a tool that
the South Africans used to use to determine whether you are
white, or colored, or black. It is a little tool that they put
a piece of your hair in. And if your hair is kinky, then it
does not make any difference what color your skin is, you are
black. If your hair is straight, it does not make any
difference what color your skin is, you are white. What Carol
said to the audience was do you really want to go there, do you
really want to get involved in those kinds of determinations?
So again, we are concerned about that.
We are also concerned, because we think that it is one
thing to approach questions of discrimination and segregation
as matters of semantics, as matters of words. We think that
segregation and discrimination in this country has to be
battled with deeds, not just with words.
There was a very compelling editorial by Clifford
Alexander, the former chair of EEOC and also the Secretary of
the Army, who made it possible for Colin Powell to advance as a
general. It is in the Saturday May 17th Post and I would like
to offer it to be included in the record, if that is possible.
Mr. Horn. Without objection, it will be inserted at this
time.
Mr. McDougall. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.221
Mr. McDougall. I would also like to say that the NAACP's
role is to protect people. The census data help us do that. One
of the things that we are concerned about, or that everyone
should be concerned about, as Ms. Norton said, ``multiracial
people do not spare themselves social discrimination or
segregation, because of what they call themselves.''
The social discrimination and segregation of this society
is a matter of how you look, not a matter of what you call
yourself. A very good example of that is an interracial couple
who were both jailed in New York about a week ago. A Danish
woman, an actress, and her African-American husband had a
multiracial child. The child was in a stroller right outside of
a restaurant. The couple was charged with child abuse and child
neglect.
Now I have been on the streets of New York. And I have seen
people beat their children on the streets of New York and never
be arrested. These people were arrested for putting their
stroller outside of the restaurant, a practice which is very
common in Denmark.
The upshot of it is that the two of them were put in jail
for 2 days. The child, a multiracial child--and I have an
article here with the child's picture--the multiracial child
was taken from her parents, and placed in foster care for 2
days.
The African-American father of the child allegedly was
beaten by the police. The charges against the Danish mother and
her multiracial child have been dismissed, and they have been
sent back to Denmark. The African-American father, however, is
facing charges.
That is also detailed in an article called Danish Mother
Free to Take Child Home, Washington Post, May 17th. I also
would like to submit this for the record.
Mr. Horn. Without objection, it will be inserted in the
record at this point.
Mr. McDougall. Thank you, sir. And there are copies on the
table.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.222
Mr. McDougall. Just to finish this up, I want to point out
that it is what you look like and not what you say you are,
that determines whether or not you meet social discrimination
in this country. This is very, very much underlined by the case
of Plessy v. Ferguson. I believe that Mrs. Maloney might have
been referring to that when she talked about a black gentleman
who got a ticket to go to Mississippi.
Plessy v. Ferguson was a case in which a person of color
asked to be able to ride in a white car. The Supreme Court of
the United States upheld the power of Louisiana to assign him
to a black car. Mr. Plessy was classified by the census as an
octoroon. He was not black. He was multiracial. Octoroon means
that if you have eight great-grandparents, that only one of
them is black.
Now it was Mr. Plessy's appearance, not what he was called
in the census, that had to do with the way that his rights were
treated. We are interested in the struggle against segregation
and discrimination in this country. We call out to all
multiracial people who so identify themselves, to join us in
that struggle.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McDougall follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.232
Mr. Horn. We thank you for your testimony.
We will now turn the podium over to Eric Rodriguez, policy
analyst, National Council of La Raza.
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee.
In answering the question as to why we care about this
issue, it is important to underscore what census data under the
current classifications tell us. For example, these data show
that Hispanics constitute the second largest minority group in
the U.S. Currently, more than 1 in 10 Americans is Hispanic.
Further, these data tell us that Hispanics are two-fifths
of the U.S. minority population. It is one of the fastest
growing and youngest population groups, and are expected to
become the Nation's largest minority by 2005.
The proposed addition of a multiracial response block on
the decennial questionnaire resonates with Latinos, a
multiracial population with origins in European, African, and
Asian countries. The Hispanic community sustains a multifaceted
identity, so that Latinos often also identify themselves as
white, black, Asian, and Native American. This racial and
cultural diversity is the essence of a Hispanic-American
culture, and will be increasingly influential as the U.S.
Latino population continues to grow.
Yet in spite of this and other relevant issues including
the legitimate need to count the growth of the number of
multiracial persons in the United States and the often voiced
powerfully emotional sentiments of biracial parents and
multiracial people, the addition of a multiracial option among
the current racial classifications is not a good idea.
Rather than improving the accuracy and quality of census
information, this change would likely create a less than useful
new identifier and disturb the current classifications, making
race and ethnic data less than accurate. This is troubling,
because provisions that threaten the accuracy, quality, and
utility of the Federal race and ethnic data would likely
inhibit civil rights and other public policy initiatives that
rely almost exclusively on such data.
So why do we think that the multiracial identifier is less
than useful. The purpose of the census is to provide a
socioeconomic and demographic snapshot of the U.S. population,
determine Federal policy and research needs for groups with
broad common characteristics, and enforce and implement
statutory rules and laws. The census is not meant to capture or
express specific individual identity. While issues regarding
socio-political acknowledgement and identity are quite
important, census decisions cannot be based on that criterion
alone. So from a public policy perspective, we know that the
disparities among Asians, whites, blacks, and Native Americans,
and Hispanics in such areas of income and employment are clear
and persistent, making such data collection imperative and
valuable.
Multiracial persons, on the other hand, have few and
perhaps no socioeconomic characteristics, since this category
would include those of any multirace. Therefore, multiracial
data collected in this manner would not be terribly informative
for public administrators and policymakers.
For example, if we knew that 50 percent of a target
population were multiracial, how would we respond from a public
policy perspective? From a civil rights perspective,
multiracial is neither a race nor a protected class under the
law. Therefore, the collection of such data does not serve any
clear statutory purpose. Given that a major driving force
behind the development of standard classifications is civil
rights law enforcement and implementation, the utility of
collecting data on this population in this manner is
questionable.
I do not mean to suggest that persons of mixed race do not
face discrimination in America. I am merely suggesting that the
collection of data on multiracial persons serves neither a
public policy or legal purpose at this time.
So how does the current proposed multiracial category
reduce the accuracy of census information?
First, as the U.S. population becomes increasingly bi- or
multiracial, or as people begin to view themselves as
multiracial, fewer people are likely to be considered protected
as they fall into an ambiguous all-encompassing and
heterogeneous category for which few public policy initiatives,
civil rights, or otherwise can reach them. This dilution of
standard racial categories will seriously hinder public policy
initiatives aimed at serving historically disadvantaged
communities.
Second, as proposed, this category is likely to include
many respondents who are confused about the meanings of race
and identity. Tests conducted by the Census Bureau show that
many people misunderstand the meaning of the multiracial
category. Many respondents confuse race with ethnicity.
Hispanics are especially likely to find this category
confusing, since they primarily identify with ethnicity and not
race. Therefore, a black Cuban is more likely to believe that
he or she is multiracial when his or her race is black and
ethnicity is Hispanic.
As a result, respondents who are not multiracial may
erroneously select this category effectively reducing the
accuracy of the census count.
Consequently, as you continue to undertake the task of
reviewing Federal race and ethnic data classifications, we hope
that you will properly gauge the cost and benefits of having a
heterogeneous identifier that is not an actual race category
among the current racial categories.
The principal interest of the Hispanic community is the
accuracy, quality, and utility of race ethnic census data.
While concerns regarding self-identity and societal
acknowledgement resonate with the Latino community, we
understand that the purpose of the census is both to enforce
and implement the law, and inform law makers about the distinct
needs of special historically disadvantaged populations.
As you proceed, we would like to underscore the following.
First, quality, accuracy, and usefulness of race and ethnic
data should be of primary consideration in the design of race
classifications. Having said that, the addition of a
multiracial category among standard classifications is not
recommended.
Second, the addition of a multiracial category undermines
prudent public policy, and may inadvertently subvert the
Nation's ability to ensure the protection of civil rights for
all groups. The drive for a new census category has on the
surface been fueled almost exclusively by emotional concerns
related to identity.
However, while many proponents of the multiracial option
sincerely claim that they need the box to validate their
personal identity, many nonmultiracial persons, particularly
those who oppose civil rights initiatives to begin with what
appears to be advancing the multiracial cause. In addition, the
multiracial cause has begun to resonate with many
nonmultiracial persons who believe that the very existence of
racial classifications divides the Nation and exacerbates
racial tensions.
The erroneous conclusion that the elimination of such
racial categories or the creation of a more ambiguous and all-
encompassing classification would ease such tensions is
dangerous and counterproductive. While the many personal and
compelling pleas for such a category have overlooked the intent
and purpose of the census, others appear to be more focused on
elimination or erosion of current racial classifications,
precisely because of the intent and purpose of those
classifications.
Third, while we oppose this proposed change, under some
clear circumstances, we may be inclined to support a
disaggregated multiracial option. Should a multiracial category
be added to the census in the future, it should not be located
among the standard classifications; and should only be included
if it is proven by reliable census testing not to disturb the
current classifications; and should be disaggregated to provide
more useful data; and should be proven to improve the accuracy
of census data. The current proposal is far from this.
In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the difficulty
and sensitivity of this issue. NCLR appreciates the need to
assure that the census reflect the changing demographics of our
Nation as it captures the important racial, ethnic, social, and
economic data that are critical for creating sound public
policy.
Nevertheless, we urge the subcommittee to consider
carefully the concerns outlined above as it proceeds on this
matter. I would like to underscore that the census is not
merely a means for personal acknowledgement, and that no group
prior to this debate has fought for a category simply as a
means of public acknowledgement.
Moreover, public policy goals of preventing discrimination
and poverty, based on accurate data on disadvantaged
communities, and the fear that the disadvantaged school
children and communities may no longer receive the protections
and services that they need should outweigh any concerns or
needs for personal public acknowledgement.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.239
Mr. Horn. Well, we thank all of you for your helpful
testimony. Let me start first with a few questions of Mr.
McDougall and Mr. Rodriguez.
Have either one of you ever been involved in the Voting
Rights Act and its implementation, and the way that one looks
at discrimination data, to know that it ought to come under the
Department of Justice who would review any changes in
registration laws and so forth? Have either of you been
involved in that kind of analysis?
Mr. McDougall. I have some familiarity with it, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Well, the question that I want to ask based on
that is: is there an assertion that the multiracial category
would hinder the implementation of civil rights laws? This
happens to be one where I was on the drafting term. So I pick
that one. Your opponents disagree with that assertion.
And I guess that I would like the subcommittee to get an
example of how data on race or ethnicity is used to implement
one particular law. I think that you might want to tell us how
it is used in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and as amended.
Mr. McDougall. I would certainly be more prepared to
respond in terms of the Fair Housing Act.
Mr. Horn. Well, try the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. McDougall. All right. You know, essentially, we are
able to track the--when we talk about the possibility of
creating a vehicle by which people who have been historically
repressed in terms of their ability to express themselves
through the ballot, when we talk about that, we are talking
about a history of practices which, as you know, drafting have
to be submitted.
Because of the past practices, the pre-clearance provisions
require that any change in the system have to be cleared,
because of the history of legal segregation gerrymandering that
made it impossible, and a variety of other practices, poll
taxes and these kinds of things.
It has been the consensus of the civil rights community
that the best way to respond to this historic inequity has been
to create majority and minority districts. If we do not know
who lives in a district, it is going to be very difficult for
us to construct a district that we say is majority and
minority. I think that is probably it in a nutshell.
Mr. Horn. Well, you described it very well. But it seems to
me that the question then is, if you use that method of
analysis, and you are absolutely right, is there a pattern and
practice, and is there under-utilization of those. You have to
look at it on a proportion, because sometimes you do not have
detailed backgrounds of individuals.
But you are looking at census tracts that might get
aggregated or precincts that might get aggregated into the
census tract, and you try to see if there is under-registration
of let us say a Hispanic Latino group proportionately, or is
there under-representation of black citizens, whatever. And
then if it is, as you say, you would come under the pre-
clearance rule of having to consult Justice if you are going to
change the voting rights laws. You would be carefully looked at
in elections. You might well have Federal registrars even go
there.
Now the question would be if you had a check-off of
multiracial, why would that detract from winning a fight on
under-utilization? Why can you not just add the multiracial
column and the percent or the numbers, and aggregate that with
the various racial check-offs, and say hey, this is either
under-utilized or it is sort of normal where you have the
whites who register, et cetera?
We know that there are a lot of different factors of why
people register or do not register, just like white people vote
or do not vote, even when they are registered. But let us
assume that everybody could register and everybody could vote,
and you look at the data of that tract, and you have the
specific racial categories adding up to 40 percent, and let us
say that you have got 10 percent multiracial.
Can you not say that is 50 percent minority?
Mr. McDougall. I think that there are two ways to respond
to that. It is very intriguing.
I guess one question that I would have for you, Mr.
Chairman, would be whether adding those two categories
together, would require some change in the voting rights law as
it now stands, either by a change in the law itself or by
change in the regulations?
Mr. Horn. I would think that you would change the
regulations on that.
Mr. McDougall. Right.
Mr. Horn. If it is an either/or. If it is a both/and, where
you check off the racial, and then you have got this general
category down there that you also want to check. I think that
might also be one of the problems we have got to look at. So
you keep it. So its equivalency is what the particular racial
categories are. But if it said multiracial, we have got to
assume, I guess, that they would fall under the protection
clause let us say of the 14th amendment on race, and that you
could count them in.
And as you know, if you go and move to set-asides for small
business or education, it has been clear for years that Asians
per se do better than the average group of whites per se. So we
have got various changes in public policy based on that.
Mr. McDougall. Again, I would say that it is a very
intriguing idea. Our national conference is where we debate
issues like this in full, in their full incarnation, if you
will. That will be in Pittsburgh in July, and I am sure that we
will be talking about this. I would be happy to report back to
the subcommittee after that discussion.
The second thing that I would want to say, of course, is
that the multiracial category, as I understand it, is one that
includes people of many different races including white. I am
not sure whether the public would be prepared to accept the
proposition that because a person designates themselves as
multiracial, that they have been discriminated against.
It gets back to what I was saying before. It is not so much
a question of what you call yourself, but what actually happens
on the ground.
But to me, it is an intriguing idea. We certainly will
consider it in our convention.
Mr. Horn. Well, let me ask you another along this line. You
are probably much more familiar with it than I am. I have not
had a chance to look at it, but the thought came to me as I was
listening to the testimony.
In the implementing regulations, has there been any
particular percentage specified by the Federal Government that
you must be this percent black to check the black category, not
that anybody could enforce that, but is there such a rule
anywhere?
Now some American Indian tribes have that. Some tribes say
you must be one-sixth or something in order to claim tribal
rights, and that person has to prove that. Different tribes
have different percentages.
But I have never heard it, and it does not mean that it
does not exist, that is why I am asking the question. I have
never heard it in relation to either Asians, blacks, Latinos in
the ethnic category, that you should not check this unless you
are--and fill in the blank.
And that worries me obviously. If there is a percentage,
and particularly if it is 1 percent or so, I am just curious.
What do you know about that?
Mr. McDougall. Well, I do know that as far as the census is
concerned, certainly the way that it is being managed now is
that it is totally a matter of self-identification.
Mr. Horn. Right.
Mr. McDougall. Which I think is why Delegate Norton raised
the whole question of fraud. Theoretically, I could check off
that I was white, and you could check off that you were black,
and we have that freedom. And once you get into a question of
checking these choices--as you say, is there a minimum
percentage--you then start talking about the tools like the one
that I was talking about from South Africa.
Now clearly, we have historically had laws that did that.
For example, the so-called rule that one drop of African blood
makes you black. That was certainly recognized in Plessy v.
Ferguson. As I said, because Plessy was only one-eighth black.
But he was still considered not to be a white person and
because he was not a white person, he did not ride in the white
car.
I mean, clearly we have a very ugly history in this country
of those kinds of determinations, just as you described. The
reasons for the categories are to track the footprints of those
deeds, so we can undo them.
I think as my colleague, Mr. Rodriguez, mentioned that the
purpose of those categories is to enable us to right wrongs
that have been done. The purpose of the categories has not
been, at least in their original formulation, to be a vehicle
for self-identification.
There are more than 100 groups who can theoretically make
the same claim that we see here today. But again, we are very,
very sensitive to these issues. These are issues that have
grown historically. We just want to urge caution at this point.
Mr. Horn. Well, I think that we can all agree with you on
the caution. I think that the last thing that we want is some
type of bureaucratic, racial characterization that God knows
poor old South Africa went through for long enough. You had the
blacks, the coloreds, and the whites.
I remember when I was sent over there by the U.S.
Information Agency to speak on human rights and civil rights in
1979, I was used as the excuse they had to bring all of these
people from these different categories together.
One of them happened to be an Indian woman from India with
a Ph.D. in nuclear physics that the South Africans spent 12
years deciding whether to admit her, because she was not black.
I guess she was colored. But since they call Indians
caucasians, they did not want to put her in white. And so
forth, and so forth. A sickening commentary on the human
condition. I do not think that we want to get into it.
But it leads to the next question, which is should we ask
any of these questions, and can we not determine voting
discrimination by looking at precincts and wondering why they
are low, and maybe look at socioeconomic class which might be
the main factor rather than race or ethnicity?
Mr. McDougall. Well, again, I think that my colleague, Mr.
Rodriguez, responded to that in his statement. There is a real
concern that there are people out there who want to eliminate
the categories to cover their tracks. There are some articles
that appeared in the Washington Times recently indicating that
elimination of all categories would be a really nifty way to
take those footprints that I was talking about, just kind of
take a little broom and just dust them away. So now nobody
knows what really happened.
And I think that would be something that we would have to--
if that were the reason for this, we would clearly have to
oppose it.
You know, we do not think that we are done with the
business of eliminating racism, segregation, and discrimination
in this country. We do not think that it is time to erase those
footprints. When we are, then we will come back and we will
talk about it some more, I think.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Rodriguez, do you want to get into this
voting rights discussion?
Mr. Rodriguez. I would probably just prefer to just
piggyback on what he just mentioned, but also speak about it
from a research perspective. For the Hispanic community, it is
important considering that currently we experience 30 percent
poverty. There is a real concern for us to know what is going
on within the community with regard to all of the socioeconomic
conditions as they relate to ethnicity.
We cannot afford to lose that data, from a public policy or
research perspective. Because that is really critical to the
kind of work that we are doing in trying to alleviate poverty
and discrimination within the Hispanic community.
Mr. Horn. I now yield to the ranking Democrat on the
subcommittee, Mrs. Maloney of New York, to question the
witnesses.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to mention to Mr. McDougall that
Kweisi Mfume, the head of your organization, is a former
colleague and good friend. I hope that you will send my warm
regards to him, and I would especially like to thank Mr. Graham
for his very thoughtful testimony, and for coming here and
being with us today.
I would like to really ask each of you to answer the two
questions that I presented in my opening statement and I will
say them again to you.
Do the categories as they exist today still serve the
purpose of helping the Government fight discrimination? That is
question No. 1. Second, how can we achieve that goal and
simultaneously provide individuals with the opportunity to
identify themselves in the way that makes them feel most
comfortable?
And I would like to start with Ms. Graham.
Ms. Graham. In the fight against discrimination, I think
that we have to remember that there are all kinds of
discrimination. The multiracial community is very, very
sensitive to discrimination of other communities. But there is
not only black discrimination and Hispanic discrimination, but
there is also discrimination against multiracial people because
they are multiracial. And that has to be looked at as well.
If we do not have a category, if we are not counted, if we
are not tracked, then we cannot do any of that. We cannot fight
discrimination against the multiracial community.
Mr. Rodriguez says that his community needs certain data
for certain reasons. Our community needs the same type of data
for the same type of reasons. It is no different than any other
community.
We have medical issues where multiracial children are
totally invisible in the medical community. They are not
recognized. They do not exist. I have no idea what the medical
risks are for this child, not at all. No studies have been
done, nothing.
It is a very, very big problem for our community. I think
that it is one that can only be solved with the addition of a
multiracial category as we propose it.
I also want to say something about the Voting Rights Act
too. I am not a lawyer. But our legal experts asked us to call
the Census Bureau and ask if there is any type of memorandum on
how this is going to affect voting rights, because this
question had also come back to us several times.
The Census Bureau said, ``We have nothing, we suggest that
you call the Justice Department.'' I personally called the
Justice Department and asked if there were any kind of
memorandum or any kind of explanation on how multiracial
classification was going to adversely affect voting rights. And
they said there is nothing, because it will not affect voting
rights in this country.
Mr. Horn. Do you have that particular answer? We would like
it for the record at this point, if you could put it in, on the
Justice Department.
Ms. Graham. I said what the answer was.
Mr. Horn. I mean did they ever do it in writing?
Ms. Graham. No, they did not do it in writing. I have the
name of the gentleman that I talked to.
Mr. Horn. Why don't you let our staff know, and we will
followup and try to get something in writing. And that will be
put in at this point in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.244
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Ms. Graham.
Mr. McDougall, would you like me to repeat the questions?
Mr. McDougall. Would you just repeat the first question,
and then the second one?
Mrs. Maloney. Do the categories as they exist today still
serve the purpose of helping the Government fight
discrimination?
Mr. McDougall. If I could just answer that one. Absolutely,
yes. That is our position.
The second question?
Mrs. Maloney. Would you like to elaborate on that?
Mr. McDougall. No. I think that all of our testimony, my
testimony and Mr. Rodriguez' testimony, I think underscores all
of the reasons. Education, discrimination in education,
lending, employment, and voting. We need the data. Our position
is that we absolutely do need those categories to do the work
that we do.
Mrs. Maloney. My second question is how can we achieve that
goal and simultaneously provide individuals with the
opportunity to identify themselves in a way that makes them
most comfortable?
Mr. McDougall. Here, I think, I am moving out into
territory that is more the territory that I covered when I was
an organizer. It is my view that one asserts one's social,
political, and economic rights in relationship with other
people.
We have never seen the categories in the census as a way
for us to assert who we are. We see the categories as a record
of some things that have been done to us, and that we have to
respond to. But we have never seen the census as a medium of
self-definition.
Self-definition in the African-American community has to do
with what church you belong to, where you live, where you work,
what political organizations you are associated with, and what
civic organizations you participate in, as you articulate your
citizenship in the country. That is the only answer that I
could give.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Rodriguez.
Mr. Rodriguez. On the first question, I think that there is
no question in our mind that the data has been used and is
critical to public service delivery at the street level.
Clearly, we have seen that happen in terms of our own programs
in serving our own respective communities, in establishing and
defining need, and being able to address and target some
resources to them.
On the second question, I think that in part we have been
sort of thinking about just that very question. And suggesting
that if very reliable census data showed that you can put a
multiracial category outside of the standard race
classification, thereby not disturbing those categories and
providing for some disaggregated multiracial data, meaning that
you would not just have multiracial but you might have sort of
African-American and sort of white, much more specific data.
So that you are not lumping a bunch of persons into one
category or a bunch of multiracial persons into one very
heterogeneous category, where the data is kind of ambiguous. If
that could be done at some other point or at some other place
within the census without disturbing or without taking away
from the quality and accuracy of the data as it is currently
collected and used, then I think that is something that we
would like to consider and that we would entertain.
Mrs. Maloney. Some people have suggested keeping the census
form, the short form, as it is, but adding multiracial and
other categories to the long form as one approach. That might
be a compromise approach.
But my second question, I guess you have elaborated enough.
Mr. Rodriguez. Hopefully. But clearly, there is a real
serious concern on our part that the categories as they are
currently, are not disturbed. And so even on a long or short
form, we would have a lot of concern with that.
Mrs. Maloney. You would not even like multiracial on the
long form?
Mr. Rodriguez. No, not if it is within those standard
classifications. We would have a problem with that.
Mrs. Maloney. Some of my colleagues have been quite vocal
about the content of the census. They argue that the census
should collect only what is required to administer the law. I
would like to ask each of you to comment on this criteria on
what you think should be included in the census. They want only
information that is necessary to administer the law.
How do you feel about that? And I will start with Mr.
Rodriguez.
Mr. Rodriguez. I think that to the extent that we are
talking about administering services, which means that you
would necessarily collect socioeconomic data, that that sort of
makes sense. If it is for the strictest purpose in terms of the
narrowest definition, that being collecting race and ethnic
data only for civil rights enforcement, I think that we would
like to see it a little expanded, because of the use, and the
purpose, and the importance of all of the remaining data in
terms of socioeconomic and otherwise that is used for research
and delivery of public services broadly throughout the
agencies.
So in some sense, if the meaning is the narrowest
definition of administering the law, then we probably would not
support that. But if it means that we would be collecting and
maintaining socioeconomic data, that is something that we would
support.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. McDougall.
Mr. McDougall. I concur.
Mrs. Maloney. Would you comment also on the proposal that
some of my colleagues have put out on keeping the short form as
it is for race, but putting multiracial on the long form?
Mr. McDougall. I believe that in last month's panel that I
heard Congressman Sawyer advance that proposal. That is
something that we would certainly study. Again, like I say, we
are gearing up for our national convention right now where
these kinds of things will be discussed in a full blown aspect.
Again, I would be happy to report back to you after that.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Ms. Graham.
Ms. Graham. I think that part of the problem that we have
at this point is that multiracial people can be multiracial
people in one State and not multiracial in another State. In
one State, they might be considered white or black. And if you
go to different States across borders, you have that problem.
I think that if we furthered that by putting the
multiracial category only on the long form and not on the short
form, we would have a very big problem. Then you can be
multiracial on one Government form, but not on another
Government form.
I see a lot of problems with that, and we would not accept
that.
Mrs. Maloney. Ms. Graham, how does Project RACE feel about
the potential civil rights consequences of decreasing the
populations of longstanding minority groups that were raised by
Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. McDougall?
Ms. Graham. I think that my testimony shows that
particularly with the use of the Fulton County school data that
that is not happening. As a matter of fact, in that situation,
the Hispanic community grew by 119 percent when the multiracial
classification was added. So we are not talking about
decreasing numbers.
Also, three Government studies have now been concluded. The
National Content Survey, the survey by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, and the RAETT Test, the results of which came out
last week.
Why are we doing all of these Government studies, if we are
not taking this useful information and putting it to work for
us?
And what all three of these Government studies showed, was
that there are not big defections, if you will, from any of the
other racial categories into the multiracial category. So I
think that really has been taken care of.
Mrs. Maloney. My time is up, but one brief last question on
the point that you just raised, and that some of you raised in
your testimony. And that is the pilot studies by the Census
Bureau shows that about 1.5 percent of the population chooses a
multiracial category when given the opportunity. And I would
like to really address this question to Mr. McDougall and Mr.
Rodriguez.
Given that fact, Mr. McDougall, would you and Mr. Rodriguez
explain why this 1.5 percent makes it so difficult to enforce
civil rights laws?
Mr. McDougall. One of the things that I mentioned was that
as a matter of racial fact, perhaps 70 percent of the African-
American population is in fact multiracial. That racial
interchange took place primarily during slavery and immediately
afterwards. And there is a pretty clear African-American
identification all the way up until the products of interracial
marriages that took place after the Loving case and the
counter-culture of the 1960's.
But the experience in the Hispanic category I think is
instructive. Because before 1960, there was no such category.
Now we have heard of the studies of the U.S. Census Bureau, the
three studies that have taken place. I would just need to point
out that those three studies have taken place during a period
of time which is actually rather telescoped in terms of the
evolution of the census.
We are talking about three studies that all took place in
less than 5 years. The experience of the Hispanic category is
that when it was introduced into the census over a period of
two or three censuses in like 20 to 30 years, that there was a
dramatic change.
That is something that we cannot ignore. And again, that is
the reason why we are urging caution. And we are planning
ourselves to study this, and watch and wait.
Mr. Rodriguez. I think in part that my testimony also
suggests that over time, and this is really in the long run,
that the likelihood that more people will become more conscious
and understanding of their multiracial and multiethnic areas
makes it more likely that they will choose this category.
There is also an issue of straight confusion about race and
ethnicity, and about the differences, and about the meanings,
which makes it very likely, and the tests have shown this, that
there is confusion in identifying with the multiracial
category, partly because of confusion in identifying as a race
or as an ethnicity.
So it is likely that a good number of those who erroneously
chose this category, those who are not multiracial, will select
multiracial. And indeed, that is a problem.
So I completely concur that the Hispanic category has been
an interesting one to look at. Because over time, as identity
becomes a more visible discussion and debate in terms of what
is Hispanic, more Hispanics are more inclined to view
themselves as Hispanic. So over time, as multiracial becomes a
more heated debate in this country, which I think it will, and
I think that the media and definitely the attention so far has
shown that this proposes to be a major issue in the future.
Mrs. Maloney. Should multiracial be treated as one of the
protected categories for civil rights laws and voting rights
laws, should expand the class of protection to include
multiracial?
Mr. Rodriguez. I think that from our perspective that we
will have to see how courts interpret past remedies of
disadvantaged populations, and what occurs from the legal
framework in terms of civil rights, and whether this category
fits into that or not. It will be an interesting discussion,
and I think that we will be viewing it very carefully.
But if in fact it is determined that this is a protected
class, then lots of things start to change. And I think that we
will be seeing some of those changes.
Mr. McDougall. Congresswoman, if I can also respond to
that. One of the things that I think it is important to
remember is that there is no legal record of discrimination
against a person because they are multiracial. A multiracial
person is part of a protected category, I would think, or the
argument will be made. Because some part of the multiracial
person's ancestry correlates with a historically oppressed
group, a group that has historically suffered segregation or
discrimination.
Under those circumstances, a person who is multiracial
might take the position that they wanted specifically to affirm
their identity with that group which has suffered the most.
Partly because of the benefits that might accrue, but also
because of the honor of the struggle against those kinds of
things.
That is certainly the route that my family has taken. My
family is, you know. I do not even go there, do you know what I
mean.
So you know, I think that it is an honorable calling to
stand up and be counted, you know, in the struggle against
discrimination and segregation in this country.
Certainly, this is one of the things that I meant to say
earlier. I meant to actually bring some NAACP membership
applications with me. Because I wanted to distribute them among
all of my colleagues who are here, and welcome them to join us
in the fight that we have.
But again, we do have a slight legal obstacle. Because
there is no legal record of discrimination against a person
because they are multiracial.
Ms. Graham. I would like to comment as well. There is legal
record. I am not an attorney, and our attorneys were not
invited to be here today, but I would like to get written
statements from our legal experts about that. Because there has
been rather blatant discrimination.
Mr. Horn. Without objection, that will be put into the
record at this point.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.273
Ms. Graham. Also, Mr. McDougall talks about fighting racism
and discrimination. And I would like to make clear that a
multiracial category will not mean that multiracial people will
ever stop fighting discrimination and racism. We will continue
to fight discrimination and racism as multiracial people and as
members of other communities.
Mrs. Maloney. But Ms. Graham, do you believe that
multiracial should be a protected category in terms of civil
rights laws and voting rights laws?
Ms. Graham. I really do not know how that will play out
quite honestly, and that is what I would like to talk to our
legal experts about and get back to the subcommittee on that.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much.
Mr. Horn. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, for
questions.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Graham, let me first of all just commend and
congratulate you for the level of activism, involvement, and
willingness to advocate for something that you believe in, and
believe very strongly in. I think that is really the essence of
what has made America, and I commend you for that.
I would like to ask you, would you suggest that I am
multiracial?
Ms. Graham. I think that it is how you consider yourself.
If you identify yourself as multiracial, then you would be
multiracial. If you identify as black, you would be black.
We talk a lot about self-identification. And Mr. McDougall
and Mr. Rodriguez have talked about that you can self-identify.
Multiracial people cannot always self-identify. That is part of
the problem.
As a matter of fact, the Equal Opportunity Commission tells
employers that they should not ask a person their race.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. But we are talking about public
policy. We have gone beyond the individuality of self, even
though that is a part. So I need to know what you would define
me.
Ms. Graham. It is not up to me to define you.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Then would it be up to the
Government to define individuals by putting it on the form?
Ms. Graham. No. It is up to you to define yourself, and
have the ability from the Government to be able to define
yourself.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Let me ask you another question.
Would you tell me just briefly what you think racism is?
Ms. Graham. I think that the racism is any kind of
discrimination by anyone of one race or two races against
anyone else. We see racism sometimes in this country as just
racism against the black community, but that is not true. You
can be racist against any community, including the multiracial
community. I do not know if that answers your question.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Oh, I think it does. Of course, my
definition is a little different than your definition. My
definition suggests that racism really is the deliberate and
systematic oppression of one group of people by another group
of people for the sole purpose of maintaining dominance and
control for the oppressing group over the oppressed group.
So I think that it is a little different and I think that
we all operate on the basis of our understanding. As I
indicated, I certainly appreciate your involvement.
Ms. Graham. I agree with you on your definition.
Would you agree with me that that is what is happening to
the multiracial community?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, I am not sure that there has
been the orchestration of the deliberateness that perhaps I am
talking about and have seen. Perhaps we will ferret out a
little bit of that, because I would like to go to your son.
Ryan, let me just tell you that you are indeed a role model
for thousands of young people all over America. For them to
know that you believe that by expressing yourself, by taking a
position in relationship to what you believe, and that you
actually live it out in a real sense the true meaning of what
America is designed to do. That is for all of us to help make
decisions about our country and what our country is.
Let me ask you, have you ever experienced what you would
call racism or discrimination?
Mr. Graham. Well, not actually. The school I go to, I mean,
we all pretty much play fair, and there is no discrimination.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. You have been most fortunate, in
that you have not. And I certainly want to commend the area
where you live, and the people that you come in contact with,
and the community that you come from. It seems to be a model
kind of community in terms of race and race relations.
My point would probably be that when you do or if you ever
run into it, it will probably be more on the basis of how you
look than on the basis of how you are listed on the form. I
really thank you for the answer.
Mr. Rodriguez, you seem to be very definitive in terms of
your position and the feeling of your organization that a
change in the rules under which we have become accustomed to
playing will in some way diminish, dilute, or take away from
the ability for the group that you represent to experience
equity and justice.
Is that accurate?
Mr. Rodriguez. That is accurate.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I know that while you have already
laid it out a number of times, could you once again indicate
why you feel that it is important to protect the rules and the
game, that perhaps some of the largest minority groups in the
country have had access to and have been able to use?
Mr. Rodriguez. I will certainly try. I would say that we
fought very hard in terms of civil rights and otherwise to gain
a category on the census for the purposes of really attacking
the issues of poverty and discrimination, that
disproportionately affects our respective communities.
So there is no question in my mind that the accuracy and
quality of data is critical to the efforts that have brought us
up to this point in time. And there is no question in my mind
that any disturbance or any reduction in the quality and
accuracy of census data is going to have an impact on the
effectiveness of programs and services that reach our
communities.
The range of services is endless. We are talking about Head
Start for our youngest. We are talking about all kinds of
programs that serve those in higher education. Throughout,
cradle to grave programs that are there and are designed to
help alleviate poverty and reduce discrimination in our
communities.
Yet there is a clear understanding that right now 30
percent of the Hispanic community suffers poverty, and we still
suffer disproportionate discrimination. We have got a long way
to go, and we need these tools. We need them to be accurate,
and we need them to be useful, and we definitely cannot risk
any harm to these programs.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, let me just say that I
certainly appreciate the position that you are taking. I agree
wholeheartedly with it. Because it appears to me that you are
saying that yes, we have made some progress, that we are
moving. But you are also saying let us not risk that progress
by altering or changing the way in which we operate.
Mr. Rodriguez. Absolutely.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
Finally, Mr. McDougall, I certainly appreciate your
testimony. I have long been a member of the NAACP, and have
always had high regard for its work. And I appreciate the
decisionmaking process that you are aware of and familiar with.
The fact that on some of these issues, you are actually going
to take policy positions on them at the upcoming convention,
and you would not want to jump the gun in terms of that. I
appreciate that understanding of the process, and I am sure
that your organization does too.
Did I detect though in your testimony a suggestion perhaps
for a desire for all of the minority groups in this country to
sort of understand that we may have gotten our status
differently, or that we may have become part of the minority in
a different way?
Another way of saying it is maybe we have come over on
different ships. But for all practical purposes, we are on the
same boat. And maybe we better just try to coalesce around
that.
Did I detect that?
Mr. McDougall. You did, sir. That is my view certainly, but
I think that it is in the tradition of the best of what the
NAACP has accomplished over the years. That is our job after
all.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much. I appreciate
all of you being here.
And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. You are quite welcome.
I just have a few closing questions.
Mr. Rodriguez, my Spanish is many years ago.
Could you translate the word La Raza for me?
Mr. Rodriguez. Oh, sure. La Raza actually emanates from
Latin American literature, meaning what is the cosmic race. It
is a mosaic of differing persons and it reflects the diversity
of the Spanish Latino community within the United States and
externally. So it has an interesting philosophical meaning.
Mr. Horn. Has that sort of been a school of literary
criticism or a school of philosophy, or how has that evolved in
Latin America?
We all know that every country is unique in Latin America.
Americans make the mistake of thinking that there is one
overall culture that is replicated in every country. The
language is the same. It may be pronounced differently at a
different pace. But if you look at the art, and it is all
distinctive when you go country to country.
And yet it translates sort of the race. And yet you made a
strong point here I think--well, let me put it this way: How
would you relate the questionnaire on the census form that
Hispanic people now can check off? But they are not considered
as a race, because they are not a race in terms of the
anthropological analysis. Now some of that anthropology is
nonsense, I might say. Just because a group of professors said
it does not mean it is right, and a lot of it has been thrown
out--mostly in this century.
Anyhow, I find it unique that your group would really be
the council of the race when racial stereotyping is sort of I
think in bad form in this country. Go ahead.
Why would you prefer that ethnic category, or do you prefer
to have it suddenly classified as Hispanics, Latinos, whatever
you call different things by yourselves, and then you have big
fights over these, as I remember.
Mr. Rodriguez. That is correct.
Mr. Horn. From the older citizens who say keep it Latinos,
and younger citizens have another view of life.
So explain to me what category matters the most in terms of
the census?
Mr. Rodriguez. I think that in terms of the census that
because Hispanics are an ethnicity and not a race in terms of
counting, we know in our own respective countries and in the
United States, and most of us are native born, that we have
ancestors and we come from a range of different racial areas of
the world; African, European, and Asian countries. And with
that, we take those traditions and some of those cultural
memories.
So I think that it is interesting, because there is such a
diversity within the Hispanic population, that the separation
of ethnicity and race does actually make sense from our
perspective just because of that, and because we know that
there are interestingly enough black Cubans who speak Chinese.
It is fascinating, and it is part of the mosaic that makes for
diversity.
So in terms of the census, we do want to be clear. And we
want to be able to determine if there are and where the
distinctions lie between Hispanics of different races. Because
we clearly see that there are racial differences and
disparities within our respective Latin American and Caribbean
countries.
And so we recognize that racism is prevalent even
throughout the Hispanic community. And we understand the need
and the necessity for collecting that kind of information.
Mr. Horn. Since I am half Irish, I am well aware that the
English did not like us, and perhaps still do not like us. And
the feeling was mutual for a very long time, even in this
country. Yet, that discrimination is within a race, as the
anthropologists look at it. So, I am just curious in terms of
voting statistics, for example. And in terms of appeals to the
Supreme Court, I think that Mr. McDougall would admit, the
Court takes much more seriously racial discrimination as
opposed to ethnic discrimination or other forms of
discrimination within races as such.
Is it that there is a desire to be in ``protected''
category of the Constitution, that the Court puts a much higher
standard in some ways in its administration of that particular
phrase?
Do you just want to leave it at the ethnicity category that
you have now in the census?
Mr. Rodriguez. Would we like to leave it as ethnicity?
Mr. Horn. Yes.
Mr. Rodriguez. In terms of a separate and distinct category
from race?
Mr. Horn. Right.
Mr. Rodriguez. Yes. I think that the census tests have
really shown that in separating the categories I think we gain
some very valuable information about the racial distinctions in
the Hispanic community. So there are some clear needs for some
information about Hispanics by race, which is something that we
are really looking into. So I think that from our perspective
that the accuracy of the data is helped when the categories are
separated.
Mr. Horn. Well, if they check the Latino Hispanic category,
does that not give you enough data in terms of administering
the Voting Rights Act and various Housing Discrimination Acts?
Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, I do believe it does.
Mr. Horn. If you take any of the racial columns.
Mr. Rodriguez. I do believe that it does. But the
additional information that we get from the racial disparities
is really critical to the research and otherwise. Because there
is a distinct difference between what is race and then what is
Hispanic origin discrimination. And the Hispanic community by
the nature of who they are can experience both.
And being a dark skinned Hispanic who speaks very well
English can be discriminated against as opposed to a light
skinned Hispanic who speaks very poor English, can be
discriminated against.
So there are some clear disparities, and discrimination
takes many forms within the Hispanic community that makes
collection of the data really essential.
Mr. Horn. I recall those that come under the national
origin category, often Eastern Europeans in particular, that
lectured the Civil Rights Commission--I think quite
appropriately--for doing almost nothing about looking at
discrimination among Slavic groups as they came to the United
States. And let us face it, they had tremendous problems in
some of our urban cities, and they still do. And yet, the
Government was not really worrying about them. It was worrying
about everybody else.
As you say, sometimes it may not be appropriate, because
some of those who were in these protected categories were a lot
better off than the average citizen of the United States.
So that, it seems to me, is one of the problems we face in
reality. And I guess that we can ask the basic question of when
does the day come that we do not need to check the racial
category, or we just throw everybody into a multiracial
category.
I mean does the day come only when the groups that have
their lobbying efforts say yes, now is the time? I doubt that
those groups will ever say that is the time. Right?
Mr. Rodriguez. In response, I guess when discrimination and
poverty sort of subside, I would not have an issue with finding
a new line of work at all. So when that day comes, I would be
very pleased to end the reasoning behind simple discriminatory
questioning.
Mr. Horn. Obviously, what I am thinking about is the 15th
amendment, which is the right of citizens of the United States
to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or
any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude.
Well, we do not ask for color really. In part we do in the
racial categories of the census. But I do not know if that
solves all of the problems of the people of color. But we do
ask for race, which is the highly protected category in the
Constitution.
Well, we thank you all for coming. And we will have some
questions to followup with all of the witnesses, this panel and
others. And if you would not mind answering them, we would be
most grateful. And we will put them in the record at the
appropriate point. We did not have time to ask all of the
questions that we have here. So we thank you for that effort.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. I believe that the gentlewoman from New York has
an insertion for the record.
Mrs. Maloney. Yes. I would like to insert in the record a
letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, the Civil Rights
Division. And it is a long letter. It is dated October 1994.
But in it, they speak out strongly about any changes that would
fragment racial and ethnic group data, and thereby make it more
difficult to prove that numbers of a particular racial or
ethnic group are suffering discrimination.
And may I put that in the record?
Mr. Horn. Without objection, it will be inserted at this
point in the record.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.278
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much for coming.
And Mr. Graham, we are going to look forward to you when
you hit 16, and maybe you hit 20, and all ages in between. We
will be glad to have you testify. Thank you for coming.
So if panel III would come forward, we will begin. If you
would stand and raise your right hands, please.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Horn. All five witnesses affirmed.
We will follow in the order on the program. As I said
earlier, we have read all of the testimony. Please do not read
it. We would like you to summarize it.
The way that we are going to go on these rounds is we are
going to have the clock going, and I will enforce it. There
will be 5 minutes to summarize your testimony. The caution
light will go on at the 4th minute. So try to wind it up by
that time.
We will also put this time rule on the Members of the
panel. We will have 5 minutes essentially for questions by each
Member.
So let us begin then with Ramona Douglass, the president of
the Association for Multiethnic Americans. Ms. Douglass.
STATEMENTS OF RAMONA DOUGLASS, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION FOR
MULTIETHNIC AMERICANS; HELEN HATAB SAMHAN, EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT, ARAB-AMERICAN INSTITUTE; JACINTA MA, LEGAL FELLOW,
NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CONSORTIUM; JOANN CHASE,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS; AND
NATHAN DOUGLAS, INTERRACIAL FAMILY CIRCLE
Ms. Douglass. Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members
of the subcommittee. At your request, I will not be reading my
testimony.
But I can assure you that I am proud to call myself a
multiracial American of African, Italian, and Native American
heritage. I would also like to say that I have been a civil
rights advocate for the last 30 years, a civil rights advocate
who is aware of the civil rights struggles of all of the
communities that I represent.
In 1997, the community that I represent today are the 2.5
million Americans that call themselves multiracial. If this
were not a key issue for the 1990 census, we would not have had
over 9 million people mark the other category at that time.
My organization came into being in 1988, and it is a
federation of local grassroots organizations that are
interracial and multiethnic, and they span all of the racial
and ethnic groups.
Some people say that we are not a community, because our
colors do not match. Therefore, how can we claim community
rights and issues. I speak all over the United States at
student organizational conventions. Those conventions include
people who are Asian, African, European, Native American, and
mixtures, that call themselves a community.
I think that what is important here today is that a new
conversation needs to be addressed in terms of race. We spent
an awful lot of time talking about a history of racism in this
country strictly in terms of a white/black context.
I know that when my parents got married in 1947, that the
idea of interracial relationships was against the law in over
17 States in the United States. It was against the law until
1967. This year, my family will be celebrating a 50th
anniversary of an interracial and interethnic union and there
are many others like us.
What I want to bring to your attention is the fact that
this is not only a personal issue. I am in the medical field. I
deal with medical issues on a daily basis.
From personal experience, it is a very interesting prospect
being put into a hospital having the clerk at the admissions
department list me as white from her perspective. And the East
Indian resident listing me as black from her perspective.
From a lab technician's point of view, they decided that I
needed to be listed as sickle cell positive, but the test was
never done. And if I had not been a vocal and conscious
patient, I may have been given the wrong anesthesia.
I am not the only person who has suffered this because I
look ambiguous. There are many other people like me who because
of the perceptions of others get misclassified for medical
issues. They get shortchanged for testing. There is not enough
research being done.
So someone like Michelle Carew, who was the daughter of the
famed baseball player Rod Carew, did not have a donor match for
her bone marrow transplant. Therefore, she was unable to
survive and died.
If we had the ability to at least acknowledge that what you
see is not always what you get, then at least more intelligent
questions could be answered on medical forms with regard to
race and ethnicity.
We are not saying that we are a solution to civil rights
laws or civil rights injustices of the past. But I find it
ironic that our organization and our people are being asked to
correct by virtue of how we define ourselves all of the past
injustices of other groups of people.
I would also like to say that my former president of the
Association of Multiethnic Americans is Mr. Carlos Ferrandez,
who is both Hispanic and not Hispanic. From his perspective and
from the perspective of people who identify as Hispanic and not
Hispanic, they feel that it is as important to claim the
Hispanic heritage and to acknowledge the other heritage that
they are a part of, as it is to say they are part of one racial
or ethnic group.
In terms of political agenda, I would like to distinguish
the American multiracial movement from the movement of Brazil,
and from the movement of South Africa. I think that too many
stereotypes and too many generalizations have been made in this
room today and in the American public with regard to our
purpose and our reasoning for being a part of this movement.
Because I have been a civil rights advocate, I have no
flight from blackness on my agenda. I have no insensitivity to
the fact that there are injustices that are going on today in
every community. But I have to say that what we are doing is
basically breaking down a paradigm. We are basically having
another conversation which says we want choice in the matter.
We want choice in the matter of who we are, just like any other
community has choice in the matter.
And it is not just to feel good, but it is also because we
are discriminated against. When someone goes to a housing
development and the colors do not match, they face
discrimination not because they are black or white; they are
discriminated against because they are both. And when they go
to get a loan for a house, the same issue can apply.
The Wedowee case was a perfect example. A young lady named
Revonda Bowen, was of mixed race heritage, not simply an
African-American young lady. The insult to her was that her
parents had created a mistake, and the mistake was a
multiracial child.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you have on
this issue, because I know that there are many.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Douglass follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.290
Mr. Horn. We thank you.
And Helen Hatab Samhan, executive vice president of the
Arab American Institute. Welcome.
Ms. Samhan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I, too, will
summarize my statement.
I want to say that I come here in two capacities. I am here
representing the Arab American Institute, which is committed to
including Arab Americans in all forms of public, political, and
civic life in this country, as well as the founder of the
Working Group on Ancestry in the U.S. Census. Our membership
spans all of the ethnic communities in the country from Europe,
the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. It is really cross-cutting
on race lines. It is primarily organized around ethnic data.
I would like to submit for the record the list of the
members of the working group.
Mr. Horn. Without objection, it will be included at this
point in the record.
Ms. Samhan. Thank you, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.296
Ms. Samhan. I would also like to say that I am perhaps the
only witness that is here not to speak about the race
categories. Our Working Group Coalition and my institute in
specific would like to see the continuation of existing race
and Hispanic origin measurement. We believe that these are
important categories, and they remain important categories.
What we have come to talk about is the importance of
broadening the concept of ethnic measurement, which complements
race data. Specifically, I want to talk about the ancestry
question in the U.S. Census, which was basically a very good
idea that the Census Bureau initiated in 1980.
What it does is it complements race data by expanding the
definition of ethnicity to include all Americans. It measures
the ethnicity of all Americans regardless of whether they fit
within a minority or a majority category.
I have in my written testimony several categories of need,
and purpose, and use of ancestry data over the last 20 years.
It is valuable for research purposes. It is valuable for public
service delivery. It is valuable for business and commerce.
It is also valuable for another area that is very dear to
my heart, because this is what we do in my Institute. And that
is to promote civic involvement, especially of the immigrant
community. Without data on ethnicity that goes beyond race, we
would have no way of knowing where our community lives. We
would have no way of reaching that community, and trying to
involve them in the political process, and in the public life
of this country.
The other point that I would like to make is about the
specific questions of the 2000 Census. First of all, I would
like to thank the Census Bureau for including ancestry as a
required item in the topics that they submitted to Congress in
April. I would also like to thank the Members of the House and
Senate who sponsored a bipartisan concurrent resolution to
support ancestry data.
I would also like to say that I know that the OMB and the
Census Bureau are now considering a combined question on race,
Hispanic origin, and ancestry. Our full working group has not
had a chance to deliberate and come to any consensus on this.
But I would like to say that my community, the Arab American
community, would support such a combined question.
Because I think particularly for those Americans whose
ethnicity is not measured in the race question, or in the
Hispanic origin question, the addition of the ancestry data
makes it really an inclusive question. And I think that it
would be a good thing for our country.
I would also like to support the continuation of the long
form of the census. I think that some of the witnesses in the
other panel referred to the socioeconomic data that is derived
from the long form. It is absolutely crucial to have that
demographic data. Otherwise, the information we get from the
short form is simply not as useful. So I would definitely
support, and our coalition supports, the continuation of the
long form.
In conclusion, I would also like to give an example of how
our community, the Arab American community, how the OMB
categories as they exist today have affected our community, and
how I believe that the OMB categories are actually more
flexible than we think with a little bit of restating of what
the purpose of those categories are.
Four years ago, I testified about some confusion that
exists for people from my community, particularly for
immigrants coming from Arab countries and the Middle East in
general, who are very confused by the fact that the Government
classifies them as white.
We are not going to get into an anthropological discussion
as to why people from the Middle East and North Africa are
classified as caucasian. That is really not what I want to talk
about today. But what I do want to talk about is the fact that
sometimes the race categories that we are put into are not
necessarily as meaningful, and sometimes they are confusing.
I did testify then and I would like to remind the
subcommittee today that on the State and local level there are
many needs for agencies, civil rights commissions, and schools
to actually collect more detail than the Federal categories
require. And I believe that they have continued to do that.
What I would like to stress is I believe that Directive 15
has the flexibility to allow for more detailed information when
it is required. And I think that what the OMB has to do is
restate the fact that the categories in the Federal Directive
15; 1, they are minimal standards that should encourage and
allow for further detail when necessary; and 2, that they have
no intrinsic bearing on qualification for Federal programs or
affirmative action.
But these standards have much more flexibility. They do not
need to put ethnic communities and racial communities in a zero
sum bidding over benefits. We are talking about the ability to
measure ethnicity when it is needed.
With that, I will conclude my statement. And I thank you
for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Samhan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.299
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.300
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.302
Mr. Horn. Well, we thank you. That is very helpful. You
finished right on the nose.
Now Jacinta Ma is with the National Asian Pacific American
Legal Consortium. Thank you for coming.
Ms. Ma. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee.
The National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium is a
national nonprofit and nonpartisan organization whose mission
is to advance the legal and civil rights of the Nation's Asian
Pacific Americans. We are affiliated with the Asian Law Caucus
in San Francisco, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center in
Los Angeles, and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education
Fund in New York.
Together we have over half a century of experience in
providing legal services, community education and advocacy on
issues affecting Asian Pacific Americans, including issues on
the census. We work with the Census Bureau, policymakers, and
other community groups to assure that the Asian Pacific
Americans are accurately and fully counted, and that
appropriate sub-ethnic data is collected.
I would like to begin by noting that the Consortium is very
sympathetic to the emotional interests of people who wish to
identify themselves as multiracial. Many of our board members
and family members have children who are multiracial. I have
two nieces who are multiracial. Specifically, they are white
and Asian.
Tiger Woods has helped to personalize this issue for
everyone, and has pushed it to the forefront of people's
consciousness. And self-identification is particularly
important to people like me, whether they have been unfairly
stereotyped and categorized.
However, this is not just a personal issue. Census data is
used for important national research, data collection, policy
development, and resource allocation. In particular, it is very
important to use this information to monitor and fight
discrimination.
As the tests have shown, there is not adequate time for the
Government to fully determine the effects of a multiracial
category before the Census 2000, and to do the massive
education that would be necessary to prevent public confusion,
and to prevent inconsistent counts, under-counting, and other
adverse effects.
Therefore, at this time, we oppose the addition of such a
category. And this information is used for public policy and
civil rights purposes including enforcing the Voting Rights
Act. The Voting Rights Act, the census data determines which
jurisdictions are required to provide bilingual assistance for
Asian Pacific Americans. Adding a multiracial category has
resulted in inaccurate counts. The results of the most recent
report from the Census Bureau further confirms that the data is
unreliable. In the test, the Census Bureau over-sampled
relatively small populations like the Asian Pacific American
population, including the Native Hawaiian population.
In one comparison, Asian Pacific Islanders dropped from 65
percent to 60 percent. Now some people have said that this 5
percent difference is fairly small. But for a population like
the Asian Pacific American community which is small, this
difference can have a very significant effect. And in fact, it
will have ramifications that ripple down, because of all of the
different statistics that are derived from census data.
In addition, this report showed that the percentage of
Asian Pacific Americans who identified themselves as reporting
more than one race varied from 4 percent to 12 percent. What
these results demonstrate is the complexity of the race
question and the potential for confusion. The reporting of race
will vary depending on the wording of the questions and the
order of the questions. Also, these varying responses are
attributable in part to confusion. People do not understand
what the multiracial question is, and what the multiracial
category is. Discussions with people in the Asian Pacific
American community have shown that there is confusion between
multiracial and multiethnic.
I was in a panel yesterday when specifically somebody was
asked about how they felt about the multiracial question, and
the panel was confused, and thought that they were talking
about multiethnic considerations.
So there is just not going to be confusion between
multiethnic and multiracial. People are going to wonder what
constitutes multiracial. Is this going to be another drop rule,
where if you are one part of another race, that you will be
classified as multiracial?
Adding a multiracial category will only cause more
confusion, and make the integrity of the data collected on the
census questionable. And one of the things that we have not had
time to fully address and consider is the other forms of
questions on reporting a multiracial heritage. We believe that
the mark ``one or more'' or the mark ``all that apply'' forms
of questions need to be studied more fully before a conclusion
on their use should be made.
And as Chairman Horn noted in his opening remarks, OMB
Directive 15 does have roots in this country's attempt to
rectify this devastating impact of de jure and de facto
discrimination on people of color, and the discrimination that
has impacted their ability to even assert from very basic
rights.
Asian Pacific Americans do continue to suffer from
discrimination. In our annual audit of incidents of violence
against Asian Pacific Americans, there are 458 incidents
reported. This showed an increase of 80 percent of incidents in
southern California. A 14 percent increase of aggravated
assault, and an 11 percent increase of assault. These numbers
are really striking when you compare them to the FBI reports
that overall crime is down by 13 percent. And such a persistent
presence of violence serves to show that racial categories are
not abstract, and they are not limited to self-identification.
There is really still a very potent impact on identifiable
racial minorities.
I would just like to conclude by also stressing the
importance of data that is historically comparable and able to
be utilized across many years if the civil rights enforcement
is to continue. Because the Government does not yet have a
method for ensuring accurate collection and analysis of results
in a multiracial category, we oppose adding multiracial as a
racial category in Census 2000.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ma follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.307
Mr. Horn. Thank you.
We now have JoAnn Chase, the executive director of the
National Congress of American Indians. Ms. Chase.
Ms. Chase. Good afternoon, Chairman Horn, and members of
the subcommittee.
On behalf of President Ron Allen and the over 200-plus
member tribes of the National Congress of American Indians, I
am pleased to have this opportunity to present a statement
regarding a multiracial category.
I am JoAnn Chase, and I a member of the three affiliated
tribes of North Dakota. I serve as director of the National
Congress of American Indians, the oldest, largest, and most
representative Indian organization in the Nation. It is our job
to advocate on behalf of tribal Governments, particularly on a
myriad of complex issues including ethnic and race data.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my comments this
afternoon with a very brief overview of the principles of
Federal Indian law that we believe are relevant today. Any
discussion of Indian policy must be grounded in the fundamental
principles which form Indian law and policy. And it is
essential that lawmakers who pass laws and make decisions which
dramatically affect Indian people have at least the basic
context for the legal foundation, which guides the
decisionmaking process.
From the outset, it is imperative to understand tribal
sovereignty. Since the earliest days of our Republic, Indian
tribes have been considered sovereign nations with separate
legal and political existence. Indeed, tribal governments
represent one of the three enumerated sovereign entities
mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
As you may be aware through the constitutional mandate,
literally hundreds of treaties, and Federal statutes, and
dozens of Supreme Court cases have settled that Indian tribes
have a unique legal and political relationship with the United
States.
For our purposes today, it is important to understand that
this relationship is grounded in the political Government to
Government relationship, and it is not always race based.
Further, as distinct political entities, Indian tribes have the
power to determine questions of membership, and this power has
been consistently recognized and upheld by the courts.
The term then ``Indian'' may be used in an ethological or
in a legal sense. For example, if a person is considered to be
one-fourth Indian, and I am not an expert, but it is my
understanding that the person would ordinarily not be
considered Indian for ethological purposes. Yet legally, such a
person may be an Indian pursuant to the tribal membership
criteria and as citizens of sovereign nations.
When addressing the American Indian and Alaska Native
issues, it is important to note that the racial composition is
not always dispositive in determining who is Indian, according
to Federal Indian law. In dealing with Indians, the Government
is dealing with members of political entities, that is Indian
tribes, and not just persons of a particular race.
The second important legal principle that I believe is
relevant today is that of the trust responsibility owed by the
Federal Government to Indian tribes.
As you know, and I would add another reason why we are here
today, is that we ceded vast lands and resources to the United
States. And accordingly, the Federal Government made certain
promises to Indian tribes, such as to provide into perpetuity
various goods and services, including health care, housing,
education, and the right to self-government among others.
The Federal Government's trust responsibility is not easy
to define by any means, but it is grounded in the oversight and
trusteeship of Indian lands and resources. And using analogous
common law principles, it has been determined by Federal courts
to be similar to the highest fiduciary duty owed a beneficiary
by a trustee.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the fact that data on race and
ethnicity have been used extensively in civil rights monitoring
and enforcement governing areas such as employment, voting
rights, and educational opportunities. We know firsthand the
importance of accurate data in these areas, because we know
firsthand the pain and devastation of discrimination. For these
reasons alone, accurate data is imperative.
But when it comes to dealing with American Indians and
Alaska Natives, there is another distinction. And it is the
method by which many of the Federal agencies actually quantify
and carry out their trust responsibility to this Nation's first
residents.
Why NCAI celebrates the diverse ethnic and racial
backgrounds that make up this Nation, and while many American
Indians and Alaska Natives are of diverse heritage, myself
included, nonetheless we believe that it is essential to
maintain the distinct classification standards for American
Indians and Alaska Natives as they currently exist.
And while we are very sympathetic to those persons who are
asking for a multiracial category, we nonetheless at this time
oppose the inclusion of a multiracial category in Directive 15
primarily because we believe that such a measure would
inaccurately count the number of American Indians and Alaska
Natives who are members of tribal governments, and
unfortunately further diminish the Federal Government's
fulfillment of its trust responsibility to Native Americans.
Simply stated, we cannot afford further inaccurate
reductions in our numbers. We believe that a multiracial
category poses a risk to the ability of Federal agencies to
collect useful and accurate data with respect to Indian people.
The stability and the quality of the data for our population is
of particular concern, because we are a small population. And
the data, as I mentioned, is used to disperse Federal program
funds to American Indian tribal and Alaska Native village
governments.
In testimony before this subcommittee in April, I believe,
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs concluded
that a multiracial response option is likely to reduce the
proportion of the population reporting as American Indian and
Alaska Native. Of course, these findings were actually echoed
in the census' recent race and ethnic target test.
Perhaps the most poignant argument, however, comes directly
from the Indian Health Service that concluded that from a
multiracial option, that there would be a loss of Indian count
in the census and on vital event records of approximately 25
percent. IHS believes that diminishment of Indian counts would
translate to a total annual funding loss of $500 million, and
that tribal health contacts would be curtailed to the degree
that the data are diminished.
IHS stated overall that this would severely impact their
ability to advocate on behalf of tribal governments, and
further diminish their ability to provider services to an
already severely underserved population.
It is my understanding that the new rules being set forth
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development with respect
to Indian programs are also going to rely on census data, and
could be affected as well.
We concur with the concerns that have been raised certainly
regarding the issues of confusion. I know that even to say that
I am Native American is something that I have had to learn, or
am I an American Indian. I identify as a member of the three
affiliated tribes. So we know when we go into our communities
that there is going to be confusion. We thank you for this
opportunity to present the statement in connection with this
vital issue. And I would finally conclude that our position is
that any change to current measures of race and ethnicity would
have far reaching legal, financial, and statistical
implications for the American Indian and Alaska Native
population.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chase follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.308
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.309
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.312
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.313
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much and now Mr. Douglas. Nathan
Douglas is with the Interracial Family Circle. Somehow I did
not have a biography. Maybe it is floating around here.
Mr. Douglas. There are two floating around.
Mr. Horn. Tell us a little bit about the group, if you
would.
Mr. Douglas. It is a group of about a 150 families who get
together and support each other, interracial families. That
could be interracial because of transracial adoptions.
Mr. Horn. Is it in this area?
Mr. Douglas. Yes, sir. It is a Washington-based group.
Mr. Horn. Go ahead.
Mr. Douglas. Thank you.
Congressman Horn, distinguished subcommittee members,
fellow multiracial activists, well-meaning opponents, members
of the press, and others gathered in this room, greetings and
best wishes to each and every one of you.
I am here today on behalf of my son, Anthony, a healthy,
well-adjusted 8 year old boy who happens to be multiracial.
Like all proud fathers, I carry around a picture of my son, and
I would like to show it to you now. This was taken a few years
ago when he was dressed up for a wedding in some sharp looking
but very uncomfortable shoes.
As you can see, Anthony is not a statistic. He is flesh and
blood, bones, muscle, intellect, and genes. And I want to
remind everyone, regardless of your opinions on the multiracial
issue, 50 percent of my son's genes came from me. That means
that he is neither black nor white. He is both and no one
should presume to have the authority to tell him or me anything
to the contrary.
Regardless of what some would have you believe, race
remains essentially a biological construct in our society. When
my son was born and the vital statistics people wanted to know
what race he was, the issue of culture was never mentioned.
It did not matter how he was to be raised or with which
social group he might identify in the future, or even what type
of music, literature, dance, folklore, et cetera that he might
prefer. It was just about my wife's genes and my genes. So we
should keep this debate honest and focused on biological
reality, rather than cultural diversions.
Now most of us know that white supremacists, using their
insidious one drop rule tell us that one drop of black drop
makes a person black. This crazy concept is an anachronism in
today's world. Thankfully, we have reached the point in our
Nation's great history where we must reject the racist one drop
rule once and for all.
Supporting one drop today is like supporting the flat earth
theory. It is irrational and illogical period. People who
continue to uphold the one drop myth, whatever their stated
reasons, are major contributors to lingering racism in America.
Ironically, among those still supporting the one drop myth, and
opposing the new multiracial category, are many in the civil
rights establishment. I say to these folks, brothers and
sisters, this is a civil rights issue, and you are clearly on
the wrong side of it.
How can you suggest that a group of your fellow human
beings, no matter how large or small, must be denied their
right to identify accurately in order to accommodate the status
quo. How hypocritical. The violation of multiracials' right to
self-determination should ring loud warning bells for every
believer in civil rights.
Furthermore, no organization or individual has the moral
authority to impose racial patriotism over others. Some of our
opponents appear to have commissioned themselves as members of
a racial border patrol. They dutifully stand guard over
America's imaginary borders between the races, scanning the
horizon for illegal racial immigrants. And when they see one,
they swoop down with all of their might and unrighteous
indignation.
Well, it is sometimes said that the truth shall set you
free. If our opponents are truly interested in freedom, why are
they so afraid of the truth?
I remind every nay sayer, from the private or the public
sectors, that all previous civil rights legislation was
construed to be doing harm to someone, somewhere, somehow.
People argued about the loss of presumed freedoms or
privileges; or the projected disastrous financial impact; the
insurmountable logistical difficulties; or the accompanying
social upheaval.
However, these were never legitimate reasons for activists
to withdraw. Civil rights legislation and complementary court
decisions were enacted and implemented because they were
morally correct.
Ladies and gentlemen, the multiracial identifier is the
morally correct thing to do. We deserve the right to identify
accurately and whatever the consequences of this change, we as
a society will just have to cope with them. Yes, it may mean
other legislation will have to be created and passed. Yes,
there will probably be many test cases before the courts. And
yes, the whole process will be inconvenient to many. So be it.
Multiracials and their supporters have no reason to be
ashamed of demanding their true identity. They deserve respect,
support, and accommodation in their efforts.
In conclusion, our Government should stop demanding that
multiracials and their parents commit fraud in order to
maintain an erroneous status quo. It is irrational and immoral
to ask me as a parent, or my child when he becomes an adult, to
choose only one of his racial heritages as his racial
identifier.
Exclusively calling my son African-American or black is a
lie also, calling him just European-American or white is a lie.
Anthony will be multiracial for as long as he lives. We should
respect and acknowledge that fact.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Douglas follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.314
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.315
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.316
Mr. Horn. Well, we thank you for your presentation.
How old is Anthony now?
Mr. Douglas. He is 8 now.
Mr. Horn. He is 8, OK. We might make him the first
congressional witness after Mr. Graham.
I now yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Davis, to question the witnesses.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I might suggest that not only are those sharp shoes
that Anthony is wearing, but that is a sharp outfit.
Mr. Douglas. Thank you. I thought so, too.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Plus he has a very passionate
father. I am sure that he is very proud of him, without a
doubt, as he ought to be.
Let me just ask you. I mean I understand your testimony, I
think.
Do you believe that individually that we can accomplish
what the Nation must do?
I am saying that we have individual rights obviously, and
individual responsibilities, but do you think that individuals
just sort of taking a position that this is where I am at, and
this is where we ought to be, that that might get us to where
we are trying to go?
Mr. Douglas. I would not suggest that. I am not naive. But
I am rational. To me, a lot of what I have heard today is
irrational. In the first place, a lot of these folks here are
talking about ethnicity and culture. They are not talking about
race. Race is my genes and my wife's genes, and the result is
Anthony. That is what race is.
When people on the one hand talk about well, physical
features. You are going to be discriminated against because you
look a certain way. Well, what is that? That is race. That is
the way that we should keep this debate focused.
And the fact is that we are not talking about what Anthony
wants to be or what I may want him to be. We are talking about
what Anthony is, the truth, the fact and all we want is a
multiracial category. It could have subdivisions. I think that
negates a lot of the arguments that I just heard before I gave
my testimony.
We want Anthony to be able to choose an accurate
description of what he is, not who he is going to be, but what
he is racially.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. You also indicated that you were
somewhat amazed a little bit to see the civil rights
organizations, individuals representing the civil rights
establishment, on the other side.
Mr. Douglas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Why do you think that they are
there?
Mr. Douglas. Well, I would have to filter that answer.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I guess what I am trying to----
Mr. Douglas. I think that a lot of them are locked up into
old habits and old ways of looking at things. And when we see
someone like Anthony, we do not know how to deal with it. And
when we hear a white parent actually claiming a ``black
child,'' it bothers people.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Do you think that it might be that
based upon their years of study, their years of analyses, their
years of understanding the issue, and their years of
involvement may have given them a certain perspective about it
based upon experiences that they have had, and based on
information that they have had access to?
Mr. Douglas. Yes, sir. I believe that they believe that,
and I respect that. But I have got 30 years of experience in my
life dealing with these matters too. And I know what I have
seen, and I know what is true.
We are not talking about an opinion here, but we are
talking about a statement of fact. We are talking about what I
call a vital statistic, a reality. We are ignoring reality
here. We are talking about multiracial as if it were
multicultural and multiethnic and it is not. It is multiracial
and it stops there. The ethnic categories are another issue.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, I can certainly appreciate
your passion and the individuality of your being. And I guess
that we would probably call it shooting from the heart as
opposed to maybe from the head.
Mr. Douglas. Well, if you read my full testimony, it was
from the head.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Ms. Ma, does your organization have
individuals in it who are multiracial?
Ms. Ma. Yes, as I said, our board members, I believe that
we have board members who are multiracial. But definitely,
their families have children who are multiracial.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. So you spend a great deal of your
time looking at issues that affect multiracial individuals or
situations that multiracial individuals would most likely be
confronted with and by?
Ms. Ma. Yes. When we are considering all the positions that
we take on issues, we work with other Asian American groups as
well, who also have constituencies where there are numbers of
multiracial individuals. And we definitely consider the impact
that we think that a policy may have on them as well.
Because we know that discrimination is not always based on
how you self-identify yourself. We have heard of situations or
we know of situations where identity really depends on how you
appear. We know of people who come from the same family, who
have a Japanese-American mother and an African-American father.
The sister identifies as Asian-American, and the brother
identifies as African-American.
So yes, we take these concerns very carefully and
thoughtfully.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yet, you are saying that you are
able to go beyond the individual feelings or the individual
experiences that people may have, and look at the question in
the context of the group, and what might be happening, or what
might happen, or the impact on the whole group as opposed to
what some individuals may have experienced?
Ms. Ma. Yes. It is something that when you live in a
society, you know that your personal expression may not always
come first. That the greater good may be something that you are
concerned about.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
Ms. Douglass, you also identify yourself as being
multiracial?
Ms. Douglass. Yes, that is what I am.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. And you have studied the issues
surrounding this?
Ms. Douglass. Yes. I have been a civil rights activist
since the late 1960's and early 1970's.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. And I guess that the question is do
you think that there is any possibility that the designation
could detract, or take from, or diminish in any way the
progress that is being made relative to multiracial inclusion,
not in terms of designation, but in terms of the movement
toward the common and integral part of the overall society?
Ms. Douglass. I am not sure exactly what you are saying.
But I can tell you from what I have heard today. I am on the
Census 2000 Advisory Committee. I was on the working group for
content. I have been active not just as an individual seeking
individual redress for my community, but I have also worked as
a very conscientious American looking for the best way to
identify our society as it is today.
And one of the ways that you cannot do that is to continue
to tell people that they must adjust their identity to fit the
laws. The laws in reality must be a reflection of our society.
And if our society is shifting, and if our numbers as
multiracial people who identify as such are growing, if in fact
we have groups such as Hapa Issues Forum, which is Asian
multiracial, and if we have the groups that identify as
Hispanic multiracials, and they all come together and have
joined the Association of Multiethnic Americans, then there is
more at stake here than just individuals expressing individual
desires.
These are families and communities. These are people who
are very consciously saying that what you are asking us to do
is no longer acceptable.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Do you think that there is any
possibility that class discrimination or category
discrimination could be more difficult to identify with the
multiracial labeling?
Ms. Douglass. I am not sure exactly what you are asking.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. What I am asking is individuals who
may be discriminated against because they are of a certain race
and live in a certain area. And let's say that that area is red
lined, because somebody decides that they are not going to
provide insurance coverage to a black community.
Ms. Douglass. I am listening.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. That is what I mean.
Ms. Douglass. Well, there are multiracial people who are
under economic distress. There are interracial families who are
poor. We are not all middle class striving professionals. We
are also poor. We are also discriminated against on the basis
that as a family we do not have colors that match. It is not
just because you are black or white.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. So you are basically saying that
this really has nothing to do with all of these sociological
and economic indicators, but that what it would really do is
give individuals the feeling that they have been so rightly
identified, and now they are a real part of the American dream,
that this takes care of it?
Ms. Douglass. You have lost me. I just said that we get
discriminated against in the same way as other communities. We
are a community too.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I think I understand what you are
saying. I am not sure that I agree with the approach to
rectifying the discrimination that you are talking about. But I
do think that I understand.
I really do not have any other questions, Mr. Chairman.
Well, I do have one.
Ms. Chase, obviously, you have a great deal of civil rights
experience or a great deal of advocacy experience, in terms of
looking at the needs of groups of individuals. And it seems
that there is some argument or some difference on the basis of
whether or not the rights of individuals are being denied, if
the designation is not included.
Yet, there is a feeling by people like myself that
individuals are indeed a part of it, but that individuals
certainly do not have as much impact or influence on public
policy decisionmaking as groups of individuals do. And so the
group representatives seem to come from a different side.
Why do you think that is the case?
Ms. Chase. Mr. Davis, my whole value system is one that is
a community based value system and a community based identity
and so I have great appreciation for my culture. But I am also
a member of a sovereign entity, that is a nation, that exists
within this great Nation, and have been acutely aware of the
efforts over the period of the history of this great Nation to
diminish that sovereignty, to diminish that status, and to
diminish my ability to exist as a member of the three
affiliated tribes.
Even the notion that there are three affiliated tribes is
an example of such diminishment over time. We are no longer
simply the Hidatsa Nation or the Mandan Nation.
So certainly, I have an absolute commitment both from my
heart if you will, and certainly in terms of the work that I do
each day, to maintain that sovereign status. And we certainly
find that it is that commitment that comes from the community
and to preserve that status.
As we have seen increasing attacks to undermine the tribal
sovereignty from a variety of corridors, Congress included,
that it is imperative that we work together as a group, and
that we come together. And that is the very existence for the
National Congress of American Indians. We came about as an
organization representing the collective sovereigns, because it
was the policy of this country to terminate Indian
reservations, and to assimilate native people into mainstream
society.
That is why we exist. We fought that policy. And we fought
that right to maintain our individual identity, and in so doing
to uniquely come together and advocate together.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. So you would probably take the
position that no matter how well meaning individuals might be,
that the greater the rift, or the greater the split, or the
greater the diminution of group potentiality, the less the
amount of protection that the individuals in the group or that
the group itself would have?
Ms. Chase. Yes, I would take that view.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, I certainly would concur with
that.
And I thank all of you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much.
I just have a few general questions. On our next panel,
Professor Waters will be one of the witnesses. In her written
testimony she wrote this, ``The census and Federal forms create
categories which then have meaning for people. Creating a
multiracial category rather than allowing people to `check all
races that apply to them' will create a category that will take
on some social meaning, and may actually become an ethnic or
racial group.''
Do you agree that a multiracial category could promote a
distinct multiracial experience and identity, and would this be
desirable? I am asking that of all witnesses.
Yes, Ms. Douglass.
Ms. Douglass. First of all, the Association for Multiethnic
Americans as well as Project RACE have stipulated that the most
intelligent way to look at this is to add a multiracial
category with the ability of checking all that apply. Both of
them were components.
Mr. Horn. All of the above?
Ms. Douglass. All of the above. We recognize the need to
make a distinction, so that the multiracial category is not
simply just a substitute for other.
Mr. Horn. So if you were doing a voting rights analysis in
a particular area, how would the investigators do that, would
they include the multiracial and then also all of the check
marks?
Ms. Douglass. Right now, the census has worked on three
different formats for putting the question to the public. I am
not a demographer. But from the studies that have been done,
and there have been three, there have been multiracial and a
blank space; check all that apply; check one or more boxes.
The jury is still out as to which one will produce the best
results. Our contention is that if you are going to count us,
count us first as multiracial because we are. If you want
further information, then ask us what that means.
Mr. Horn. Well, let us go right down the line.
Do you have any reaction to that question, Ms. Samhan?
Ms. Samhan. Well, I think that I will just pass, because I
think that this is not an issue for the coalition on the
multiracial question.
Mr. Horn. OK. Ms. Ma.
Ms. Ma. I cannot say whether or not multiracial people have
a particular multiracial experience. But I can say that I do
believe that people who are say half African-American and half
Asian-American may have very different experiences than
somebody who is Asian-American and half American Indian. I
think that they will have very different experiences.
So the multiracial category is not very descriptive and we
have looked at the most recent test of the Census Bureau, the
race test. And this was the first time that we have actually
seen any studies talking about the check one or more, or the
check all that apply.
In that test, the results that seemed to be the most
accurate for our racial counts would be the check one or more.
But we really have not had time to fully study this category.
Mr. Horn. Ms. Chase.
Ms. Chase. Mr. Chairman, while we certainly have a great
appreciation for some of the arguments that are being set forth
today by those who advocate for a multiracial category, I must
say that on behalf of the National Congress of American
Indians, the category itself and the implications that it would
have for those individuals who consider themselves multiracial
has not been a subject of extensive discussion.
What has been is maintaining the distinct category for
American Indian and Alaska Natives, because in fact part of the
function of the census data that we have found a reality is
that it does help the Government fulfill its trust
responsibility.
We, too, have an upcoming national organizational meeting
in June. Certainly, these issues will be put on our agenda and
discussed. And I would be very pleased to report back to the
subcommittee some of the results of those discussions,
particularly those addressing the multiracial category.
Mr. Horn. We would welcome your input after that meeting.
Mr. Douglas.
Mr. Douglas. Well, I want to say that I appreciate
everybody's sensitivity. But we would more appreciate your
support on this issue.
The fact is that everybody keeps talking about census data
and other data as if it were accurate now. It is not accurate.
Obviously, multiracials are being counted as monoracials. Guess
what? That is not accurate. It is not true. It is not real.
What we are asking is for the first time to make it
accurate, and to have a multiracial category. I concur with
Ramona, Ms. Douglass, that it should be subdivided for
political expediency. And you will still be able to go back and
find out who is black, who is white, and who is whatever. So
that is my opinion.
Mr. Horn. Your comment reminds me when I was an
undergraduate many years ago in the 1950's. And this statement
that I am about to quote is from a college professor at
Stanford. This was before the Kansas case, Brown v. Topeka, was
handed down, which overruled Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896.
This comment was made by a professor in international
relations who got onto the subject of race in America. He said,
``Well, it will be solved some day, and we will all go around
with sort of a light tan.'' And in essence, that would be
interracial marriage. That would solve the problem, he felt.
Since that is the only political science course that my
wife ever took as a history major, that statement has been
riveted in both of our minds since that time.
Do you think that he was right?
Mr. Douglas. I am not going to fall into that trap.
Mr. Horn. It is not a trap.
Mr. Douglas. Well, what I tell my son when he comes home
and he asks me these questions about what is black, what is
white, and who is white, and who is black, I tell him that
everybody is brown. And I am going to hold up a white sheet of
paper and put my hand on it, and can you tell me that my hand
is white? I would love for somebody to tell me my hand is
white. It is not. My hand is a shade of brown as a result of
melanin. We all have melanin. We are all some shade of brown.
Let's get over it.
Mr. Horn. OK. We appreciate your testimony. There might be
a few questions that we will have the staff send you. You are
still under oath when you answer them. We will insert them into
the record at the appropriate point. And we thank you for the
time that you have taken to make such interesting
presentations. Thank you for coming.
We now will go to panel IV. Professor Mary Waters,
Department of Sociology at Harvard University. Dr. Harold
Hodgkinson, Center for Demographic Policy, Institute for
Educational Leadership and Dr. Balint Vazsonyi, the director
for the Center for the American Founding.
If you would stand and raise your rights hands, please.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Horn. The three witnesses have affirmed the oath.
So we will begin in the order in which you are on our
agenda starting with Professor Waters.
STATEMENTS OF MARY C. WATERS, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, HARVARD
UNIVERSITY; HAROLD HODGKINSON, CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHIC POLICY,
INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP; AND BALINT VAZSONYI,
DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR THE AMERICAN FOUNDING
Ms. Waters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee for inviting me to speak with you today.
I am a sociologist and demographer who specializes in
racial and ethnic identity. In my comments today, I will not be
arguing for or against a multiracial category. And I also take
as given the need to continue collecting data on race ethnicity
by the Federal Government.
And to answer your question that you posed at the beginning
of the hearing, I do think that the reason to collect these
data is for enforcement reasons. I think that you are facing a
problem. And we, as demographers, who try to do this actual
work, are facing a problem. Because in order to collect the
data and in order to meet enforcement needs, you need the
compliance of the population.
As you are seeing, people are visualizing their categories
in lots of different ways, and I think that is where you get
the disjuncture. The laws were written in one way, and people
are thinking of themselves in another way right now.
I have five general points. First, groups that we socially
define as races have always had permeable boundaries. Groups
last for generations, even with high intermarriage and movement
of individuals into and out of the group.
Currently, most parents do choose one race for their child
when they are intermarried. This is similar to identity
changes, which have happened over a long time period for white
ethnic groups, who were once thought of as racists.
Right now, children of many intermarriages involving whites
with Asians, American Indians, and some Hispanics are labeled
white by their parents in the census, while children of
intermarriages involving blacks and some Hispanic groups are
predominantly labeled black or Hispanic.
The point that I want to make is a simple one, which is
that there is already movement into and out of these groups
without a multiracial category. This often goes unrecognized.
Second, there is research on how mixed ethnic individuals
fill out the census form. And there are just a couple of
insights that I think should inform the decision that you have
to make.
First, we know that education is positively linked with
reporting a multiple ancestry. Less educated people tend to
report fewer identities to the census. We also know from
examining mixed ethnic people, that parents tend to simplify
their children's ancestry in filling out the census form. And
yet, parents also tend to give more data than the children
themselves do when the children grow up and answer the census
form for themselves.
So there is some slippage. When the parents fill out the
census form, you have less information. And when the person
grows up and leaves home, there is even less information. And
over the life course actually, people tend to simplify their
identities and give less than one answer.
There is also evidence that when people get married, they
tend to match up their ancestry with that of their spouse. So
if an Italian and Polish person marries an Italian person, they
tend to say that they are both Italian, and they forget about
the Polish part.
The implications of this is to the extent that lobbying
groups are pressing you for a multiracial category, they are
composed of parents of multiracial children. One question for
research over the coming years would be whether the children
themselves would identify with the same degree of completeness
about their ancestries that their parents are currently doing.
Second, it is unclear about whether this is something that
is associated with age, because multiracials are quite young
now because of growing intermarriage. And we do not know in the
future how Mr. Graham will identify when he grows up.
The third point that I want to make is that there is a much
larger potential multiracial population than the number of
people who currently try to identify as multiracial. Right now,
there are a number of people who choose one race, yet they
report elsewhere they have more identities. The pool of
potential multiracials is large. Recent testing, which has been
referred to today, finds the number of people who actually
report a multiracial identity is small, 1.0 to 2 percent of the
population.
The fourth point is that political attention, like we have
seen today, will likely focus on black/white interracials, and
on the implications of an interracial category for the long run
political and social fortunes of African-Americans. This
reflects the enormous importance of the black/white color line
in our society, and the distinctive legacy of slavery. Yet if
there is a multiracial category, it will affect much more
strongly the Asian and American Indian counts. And if Hispanics
are included as a racial category, the Hispanic populations.
This is because of the much higher rates of intermarriage, and
they are much smaller groups, except for the Hispanics.
So the statistical impact will be much greater. And indeed,
in the census tests, the African-American population has not
been significantly statistically impacted by a multiracial
category.
Finally, the census and Federal forms create categories
which then have meaning for people. Creating a multiracial
category rather than allowing people to check all races that
apply to them will create a category that will take on some
social meaning, and may actually become an ethnic or racial
group.
The fact that this group does not exist now, except as a
statistical artifact and a coalition of people lobbying the
Federal Government, does not mean that the group cannot come
into existence and begin to have social meaning for people. We
are probably seeing the beginning of that with people right
now. And that is what happens with racial and ethnic groups.
They come into existence, and then they change over time.
So the point that I am making is what may appear to be a
technical choice, which you are probably going to get
information about how much it costs to do one or the other, it
is not simply a technical choice, but it will have long run
implications for how people actually think of themselves, and
what kind of data are actually reported for different
categories.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Waters follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.317
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.318
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.319
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.320
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.321
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.322
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.323
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.324
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.325
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.326
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.327
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.328
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.329
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.330
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.331
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.332
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.333
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.334
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.335
Mr. Horn. Thank you. And I particularly enjoyed your paper.
It was a very sound piece.
Have you given that at particular academic conferences?
Ms. Waters. Yes. And some of it has been published in other
places.
Mr. Horn. Well, it is very helpful.
Dr. Hodgkinson.
Mr. Hodgkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The speaker's last comment, Dr. Waters, is one that I would
like to start with. And that is the fact that it is not quite
clear what Directive 15 is all about. If I can quote from the
directive. ``The racial and ethnic categories set forth in the
standard should not be interpreted as being scientific or
anthropological in nature,'' which does not tell us what they
are, but tells us what they are not. And it would be very
helpful for me if we had some clear sense of what Directive 15
means.
If it is to describe the American people as accurately as
possible, that would be one set of conditions that I could
understand. The issues that we have talked about were clear
when Thomas Jefferson began this process, and we began to see
that the ``one drop of blood'' rule was clearly a way of
expanding the slave pool.
Ever since, it has been used for political purposes as well
as simply to describe the people, so that we could reorganize
the House of Representatives, which I thought was a stroke of
political genius at the time and still do.
That idea that we change the Government so that it fits the
population is a very, very useful idea. It seems to me,
however, that with the mixed category that we have finally run
into the fact the scientific basis for the categories is not
clear. And that, indeed, we may begin to think about biology in
terms of what it means for these new categories.
So should there be a category in the 2000 census for
multiple ancestry? If the census is to accurately describe the
American people of course.
I would like to raise a different question. What do we as a
Nation need to know about people and why? Some argue that to
target Federal assistance equitably, we need to keep the
current categories in order to eliminate them. Bringing to mind
the famous comment about Vietnam, destroying the village in
order to save it.
I think that we need to build on our history so far, and
learn from our experience. When Brown v. Board of Education,
which you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, was decided, all of the
black children in Topeka were poor. Today 20 percent of black
households have an income higher than the white average. And in
1996, high school graduation rates for whites and black
students equalized at 90 percent.
Minority populations are spreading across this vast
economic and educational range as whites, which is a great
success story. Being a minority is no longer a universally
handicapped condition. But being in poverty is. No one ever
benefited by being born into poverty.
In fact, wealthy black students do better on standardized
math tests than Asians from poor families, although we assume
that all Asians have a math gene which then enables them to
perform superbly.
Today in America, the census itself has reported that we
are more segregated by wealth than we are by race, two reports
as of 1996. Minority middle class families are alive and well
living in the suburbs preparing their children to go to
college.
Our racial desegregation efforts have if anything only
increased economic segregation. What if we were to bend our
efforts to economic desegregation, if we were to truly right
wrongs? We are seeing a large increase now in low income
children living in the close-in suburbs. So the idea that the
city contains all the poverty is simply no longer as true as it
used to be, if indeed it ever was. There is also a large
increase in white children in poverty, and that presents
another set of issues.
I know hundreds of communities in which white, black,
Asian, and Hispanic, and urban Indians live together as friends
and neighbors, but there are few if any poor people there. I
know of no community in which rich and poor people live as
friends and neighbors. And it seems to me that this issue is
one that will come up in one way or another in the next 10
years.
The fuss that white parents made about having their
children go to school with minorities is nothing compared to
the explosion if we demanded that wealthy children to go to
school with poor children. The Kentucky State Supreme Court
decision effectively desegregated the State schools
economically, arguing the enormous difference in per student
spending between its poorest and richest school districts. Many
other States have had similar court judgments without a date
certain for implementation.
The courts have not yet tested the equally great difference
in equity between the richest suburban schools and those of
their innercity, much less economic equity within a single
school.
If the census categories are to correct economic injustice,
what indeed should they be?
If I know that a household contains a married couple, one
or both college graduates, with one or more children, I do not
need to know their ethnicity for equity purposes. If I wish to
sell things to them, which is another function of the census,
the most widely used marketing tool in the Nation, I would like
to know the nations of origin, and I would like to know how
many generations their ancestors have lived in the United
States.
It seems unlikely to me that the traditionally black
colleges would lose funds by having a mixed race category. I do
not think that we really know what people are going to decide
on ``mixed raced'' until we actually do it. There have been
other noncensus estimates that are much higher in terms of how
many people would change.
But the idea that black colleges would lose money in this
way, because they would be a smaller population overall, I
think is probably not true. That is if there were a Federal
category to aid colleges that have historically taken in large
numbers of poverty students from home without a college
graduate parent, all of the traditionally black institutions
would still be included and would perhaps even be higher in
terms of the amount of money that they would be eligible for.
It is my hope that while you look at the mixed ancestry
box, that you need to think about the broader question. And
Congress needs to advise, I believe, OMB on this.
And that is, what do we need to know about the American
people's ethnic background, for what purposes, and why?
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hodgkinson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.336
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.337
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.338
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.339
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.340
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.341
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.342
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.343
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.344
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.345
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.346
Mr. Horn. Thank you.
Dr. Vazsonyi, you are next. And maybe you could tell us a
little bit about the Center for American Founding, of which you
are the director.
Mr. Vazsonyi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We advocate and
practice a discussion of national issues as they relate to
America's founding principles. We believe that too many issues
are being discussed without reference to the principles, as I
think my testimony might also reflect upon.
It is a great privilege to be here. It is my first time and
the last thing that I would like to do is abuse the privilege.
So I hope that I am not offending the panel and my fellow
witnesses if I suggest----
Mr. Horn. None of us get offended at anything, I can assure
you.
Mr. Vazsonyi [continuing]. If I suggest that I believe we
are in the wrong debate altogether. And this is one of many
such instances because as all of the difficulties referred to
already by everyone, the question is not whether we need more
categories, but the question is should there be any categories
at all.
And I would like to recall that when I think about the most
memorable moments of my life, it is not when I played in
Carnegie Hall or in the Kennedy Center--I am a pianist by
profession--but those moments happened in a courtroom in Grand
Rapids, MI in 1964 on the day when I became an American
citizen.
And I will never forget the judge, after administering the
oath of citizenship, looking over the courtroom at the people
and said, ``Now please remember, you are not Dutch-
American,''--being Michigan, there were many from Holland--
``and you are not Hungarian-American, or any other hyphenated
American. You are American.''
And so, Mr. Chairman, on April 20, 1964, when I was 28
years old, I was for the first time in my life a human being
with equal rights. Never before, because I grew up in Hungary,
never before had I achieved that status. And I will come back
to Hungary in a few moments.
But I would like to spend a minute talking about equality
before the law, this most noble and most elusive attribute or
asset that humanity may avail itself of. It was a long hard
road. And although the English began to dream about it some 800
years ago, ours is the only country that committed itself to
that concept in the moment of its birth.
And the relevance, the overwhelming importance of equality
before the law is such because we are unequal in every other
respect. You can just look around this small gathering, Mr.
Chairman, as I am sure that Thomas Jefferson did when he wrote
that memorable sentence, to realize that we are unequal in
every other aspect. The only way that we can be equal is before
the law.
It is a very precious thing. And the fewest people, the
fewest nations, have ever gotten there, which is why I would
like to disagree, and I am very sorry that Representative
Maloney is not here, because in her opening statement, she said
that the reason we are here is that there was slavery in
America 200 years ago. And there were very unsatisfactory
conditions even 100 or even 50 years ago.
I would like to disagree, because that is not why we are
here. There was slavery everywhere, in every corner of the
globe, and still is, if our newspapers are correct. The reason
that we are here, Mr. Chairman, is that 200 years ago some
people got together and decided to build a better life. And it
was in America, and they were Americans, and that is the reason
that we are here today.
The road to it is very hard, and nobody suggests that
equality before the law was accomplished the moment it was
declared. It is like announcing that we will climb Mount
Everest. That is an intention announced. It does not mean that
we are at the summit. It means that we are committed to the
hard and arduous road of getting there. And I think that this
Nation has an unequaled record in trying to do just that.
I spoke of the memorable moments in my life. There was
another one that I would like to relate. And that was the first
time that the mail delivered an affirmative action form to me.
I remember staring at it. And I remember the night when I
walked out of Hungary, dodging Soviet military search lights,
and mine fields, and all of those things. I thought that I
would never see anything like that again. And I could not
understand what was happening in my new homeland.
It seemed to fly in the face of common sense. Because the
university that sent it to me described itself as an
affirmative action/equal opportunity employer. And I looked at
it and asked, what happened to the country of common sense? It
cannot be both. You are either one or the other.
Then it seemed to me that it flies in the face of what is
the essence of America, which is that we are not locked into
our origins. This entire society came into being to offer the
peoples of this earth a place where they can come and not be
locked into their origins.
And then, of course, I remembered my first 20 years in
Hungary, first under the Nazis and then under the Soviet
occupation. People were locked into their origins. And people
were judged by the forms that they had to fill out, and the
categories they had to choose.
And it is a horrible proposition to even mention those
abhorrent regimes that we all detest in the country that we all
love. But unfortunately, there are really no two ways about
collecting data with the force of law behind them, and
enforcement behind them, of people's origins.
It was never done for a good purpose. It cannot be done for
a good purpose. Because it flies in the face of freedom and
equality before the law.
I would like to refer to three important documents. Thomas
Jefferson, of course, said that all men are created equal.
Mr. Chairman, I see the red light. I was asked to prepare a
10-minute oral testimony. I hope that you will permit me to do
that.
So in the Declaration, we are committed to the idea of
equality before the law. The Constitution in its preamble, as
the very first purpose of its being, says ``in order to create
a more perfect union.''
And then we come to the Bill of Rights, which recognizes
the rights of persons as individuals, or the people as a whole,
but there is absolutely no mention or no provision for groups
of any kind. And this was true in 1776 and in 1791. It still
seemed to be true in 1964, when a distinguished American who
now serves in another chamber of this august body with the
minority, his name is Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wrote that
groups do not have rights in America, only individuals do.
And so what we are really looking at, Mr. Chairman, is the
question of the rule of law. And the law is not a smorgasbord.
And by law, I mean the supreme law of the land, the
Constitution. It will not do that a generation, any generation,
looks at it and says, ``these laws I like, the others I do not,
so let me just observe the ones that I like.'' It will never
do.
So therefore, it seems to me, even though I am not so naive
as to think that one testimony late Thursday afternoon is going
to change what so many people are committed to, but I think
that the compassion which dictated so many of these processes
is misplaced here.
Although compassion should prevail when we write the law
and compassion should prevail perhaps when we apply the law,
but it should never take the place of law. And therefore, it
seems to me that both the law, and the spirit, and the nature
of America requires that there be no categories. And this is
not to say that the census should not collect data about
ancestry, which people are free to write in any way they want.
But that is a very different thing from preexisting categories,
which freezes people into a condition.
And I thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vazsonyi follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.347
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.348
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.349
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.350
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.351
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.352
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.353
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.354
Mr. Horn. Well, I thank you for that eloquent statement. My
father happened to be an immigrant from Germany in 1903. You
sound much like him. I have always found that immigrants have a
greater appreciation for the Constitution than most people born
here regardless of race or ethnicity. Because you saw the
difference between where you came from and where you came to. I
thank God for immigrants who renew our faith in America when
they come here.
Since you mentioned that point of groups versus
individuals, I am going to take the liberty of the Chair
without objection to put in at this point in the record a
dissent that I wrote when I was on the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights when some of my colleagues were saying well, we have to
translate our ballots, and this started in the Federal courts
in Lau v. Nichols, into particular languages.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.355
Mr. Horn. Of course, that is sheer idiocy under the
Constitution. And yet, we are still doing it, and it is wrong.
This Congress should have the guts to deal with that matter
when we get to it. It was not in the original Voting Rights
Act, I can assure you. It was added later, I am sure, with well
meaning people with compassion.
But if we are going to start carrying out the equal
protection clause as being based on helping groups and not
individuals, then we will need 300 or 350, if you include
Indian dialects, of different types of ballots printed in the
United States. And since that is so absurd, maybe we all ought
to speak English, and read English, if we are going to be
citizens.
That was the tenor of my remarks. But I am going to put in
the full remarks, and take advantage of you opening up that
question.
I am going to yield the time now to my colleague from
Illinois, Mr. Davis. We will each take 7 minutes to question
and maybe a little longer.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
had a feeling that this group might bring out the academician
in you. I was sitting there hoping that you did not pack up
your books and run back to academe.
But it was certainly delightful to hear the testimony
coming from each one of you. And I do think that academe
provides a foundation of hope for not only America but indeed
for the world.
Dr. Vazsonyi, I could not help but think when you raised
the question of Thomas Jefferson relative to the creation of
men how one can bridge the gap to the practicality or the
reality when I think of the fact that Jefferson actually owned
slaves, but made this lofty statement.
How do you bridge the gap between what one says and what
one does?
Mr. Vazsonyi. Congressman, I think that I began responding
to this when I mentioned the climbing of Mount Everest. That
there can be little doubt that Mr. Jefferson looked around him
and saw a very unequal world both in his household and the
world at large.
And it seems to me that the phrase that he wrote is the
expression of an aspiration, one that was not reality anywhere
else at that time, or in the very fewest places. And mostly
those who spoke English even described it as an aspiration to
achieve at some later date.
So it was a long and arduous road, and there were realities
which happened to exist at that time. I have a Ph.D. in
history, so I have done a certain amount of reading and
thinking about these things. It seems to me that there are two
things that people cannot do. One is to change the past, and
the other is to foretell the future. And it seems to me that
there is no disagreement today about the way that we viewed the
past, but we cannot change it.
I do not think that Mr. Jefferson would have been in a
position even to change his present beyond a certain extent,
but it was possible for him to propose that the Nation be
committed to an idea.
And I wonder if you might agree with me, Congressman, if I
suggest that the only test that America ever failed was when
measured against American standards. America certainly never
failed by any standards established or existed in other
nations, only its own.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, I would agree with that. But I
was taught never to compare yourself with others, because you
might become vain. Because there is always someone greater and
far lesser and so the only true measurement is against or
compared to self.
The other question that I would ask, we had a little bit of
it, but I would ask each one of you, if you could respond to
it.
Since politicians have to make decisions, I mean we
ultimately may have to decide something on the basis of
something, do you think that the categories which currently
exist really help to fight discrimination and help move us
closer to that state that Jefferson may have been talking
about?
Mr. Vazsonyi. I would just like to report that I arrived
here in 1959, and I happened to end up in Tallahassee, FL,
because there was a great musician with whom I wanted to study.
And I found myself in the middle of a segregated State and
community.
I do not mind telling you that I simply could not believe
that this could exist in America, in the America that I had
hoped to come to.
But I was also here in 1964 when I became a citizen, and I
saw what was happening. And that America was always famous for
self-examination, more than others. I claim this vanity, I
permit myself the vanity, because I was not born here, and am
not as prejudiced.
So I know where we come from. Because I have experienced
it, and I fought it in my own little way, you know, before I
was a citizen or could speak English.
But your question is have we accomplished something? And my
answer would have to be that if I compare the spirit, the
intent, the genuine good will that I felt about 30 years ago
really sweeping the country, my honest answer under oath would
have to be that I think that we are worse off today than we
were then.
And I take up something that one of the witnesses
mentioned. I think that if we seek information, then a question
about ancestry is helpful. The sense is that these categories
are really about benefits, or to even put it more crudely,
money and that is not a good recipe for good feelings to
develop.
Mr. Hodgkinson. I think that the categories are getting
less useful, partly because of something that Dr. Waters said.
And that is the fact that we are now finding much more things
going on within each category as well as the costs.
Shirley Halzlett has a wonderful book called ``The Sweeter
the Juice,'' which describes a black family in which two
children have light skins and go North, and two stay in the
South. And the description of what happens to them in terms of
their lives is deeply moving for a white person.
My feeling is that the categories will continue to get less
useful, because of the fact that the population is going
through some very major shifts that we never encountered
before. And it seems to me that those shifts can only get
larger.
Several indications are that we have roughly 2 million
Native Americans, and 4 to 5 million people who will claim in
one form or another, in one venue or another, that they have
Native American ancestry.
All of those things, I think, are going to begin to boil
over. And people are going to become aware of the fact that
these categories are not scientific. And there may be a
disillusionment with this whole process, which would be a bad
thing for everybody.
So my concern is that these be as accurate as we can
possibly make them. And I do not think that the current
categories are as accurate as we could possibly make them.
Ms. Waters. Yes. I think that the current categories are
very useful for protecting people and for helping people.
As part of the National Academy of Science's workshop on
OMB Directive 15 a couple of years ago, they wrote to every
Federal agency and said how do you use these categories. And we
had a binder about that thick. It was extremely informative to
me about the incredible range to which these data are put in
protecting people and helping people in all kinds of different
ways.
I do think that you are facing a technical problem though,
which is as the population changes, the categories have to
change along with them. And that is partly a technical question
and it is partly a political question. And clearly, those lists
of races on the census are a political result. No person I
trained in demography or social science would come up with that
list of categories.
But you do need to walk a fine line between changing them
enough to keep them useful, and not destroying the uses to
which they are being put currently.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. So you are saying the ultimate
bottom line. I guess when you raised the question of the
benefits, I could not help but think of Voltaire who suggested
that there were a lot of people who took the position that the
purpose of politics was to take as much money from one group of
people as you could, and give it to another group. Also, I
guess that he was a philosopher.
And I am not sure that much has changed in the way of
thinking. I am saying that practically everybody that I know
thinks in terms of a certain kind of self-interest, and then
figures out a way to rationalize the self-interest, so that it
does not sound or seem to be self-serving.
So there is a tremendous gap that already exists, but it is
being generated even more between those who have and who have
not. And all of the groups are concerned about how do I get.
You know, not how I get what may rightfully belong to someone
else, but how do I get my fair share.
And I think that civil rights groups take the position that
somehow the addition will decrease the ability to get their
fair share.
How do we allay those fears, or how do we respond to those
feelings and questions?
Mr. Vazsonyi. I think that the first problem, Congressman,
is what fair share is. And I think that since you bring up
Voltaire, I would like to take the liberty of referring to what
I think is the real debate that has been going on for 300 or
400 years between two fundamentally different views of the
world. And I think that we are in the middle of it here right
now.
One view believes in perfection that can be and must be
achieved at any cost. And another view holds that we are
imperfect, and so was Thomas Jefferson incidently, and we all
are. And that we need to go with the best possible.
I would like to submit to you that only if you believe that
perfection is possible can you define what fair share is.
Because it is a very relative thing.
I really do not mean to get melodramatic. But believe me
that if you are 8 years old and you are in the siege of
Budapest as I was, followed by 2 or 3 years with basically no
food for anyone, then relatively speaking, the poor of America
appear to have generally a better lot than a whole lot of
people in all sorts of conditions elsewhere. Which is not to
say that they are not poor relatively speaking. But because it
is relative, what is fair?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I think that I understand you. I
often debate the question of is it fair for birds to eat worms?
And I take the position that if you ask the bird, you get one
answer. And if you ask the worm, then you get a different
answer most likely. And so there are dilemmas I guess that we
really face as we try to arrive at a conclusion.
I am finished, Mr. Chairman. I think that you have been
more than generous. If the other two would respond, that would
conclude my questions.
Ms. Waters. Well, I think that what I would try to do is to
think creatively about how to allow people their ability to
self-identify, but then be able somehow to come back to the
categories that you need for legislative needs. And that may
mean having some kind of a combination question, and I have
seen a couple sort of floating around, in which you have the
categories that you need for legislative purposes, and you also
allow people somehow to tell you what they really are. There is
a small percentage of Americans that really do want to tell you
that they are a combination of different things.
And I think that it is important for you to recognize that
that has become a real sense that people have that when they
fill out these forms, that they are really asking for
recognition of something. They are some dignity issues that
come up with people about being recognized for who they are.
So I think that some combination there where you can allow
people to answer a question to say who they are, and then get
back to the categories that you need for legislative needs.
Mr. Hodgkinson. I would also suggest that you look
carefully at the national origin issue. Because there are some
nations that were clearly put in the form as examples, because
of political pressure. And I see nothing wrong with that as
long as everybody has the right to compete. But why out of 200
and some nations in the world, we have a list of some nations
on the census and we do not have others, when every nation has
somebody living in the country, it seems to me to be a
disequity in itself.
I find it sort of a hodge-podge of different kinds of
information. And to my mind, there has to be some self-scoring.
But there also has to be a sense on the part of people to
understand what this is all about. And I do not think that most
people do. I think that there is vast confusion about what this
thing actually is. My feeling is that we have seen the tip of
the iceberg in terms of people who actually do come from mixed
circumstances. And I think that once it becomes socially
acceptable to talk about it, you are going to see a large
increase in the number of people who will so record themselves.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I really hate that the press left so
soon. Because I think that it would have been just great or it
would be great for the American public to experience this
discourse. And I certainly again appreciate your responses.
Mr. Horn. I thank the gentleman, and I agree with him on
his last comment. That maybe we are going to get you back here
on the third hearing on this subject, which will be July 25,
1997.
OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, is supposed to
receive a preliminary recommendation on Directive 15 sometime
in July. And the subcommittee will convene to consider that
recommendation.
I just have a few closing questions here that interest me.
I happened to serve in President Eisenhower's administration,
believe it or not, and I think that I am one of the few that is
still in Congress, except for Strom Thurmond and Senator Byrd.
I remember living through the Depression.
Eisenhower had a great comment. He lived through, not the
Depression I lived through--he was in the military and a
major--but when he was a young boy in the early part of the
century in Kansas. Kansas was not exactly the well off section
of America. He said, ``I guess that we were poor, but we did
not know it.''
And that is exactly the way I was. My father was completely
wiped out in the Depression. He lost everything he had, except
13 acres of a hillside and a house that he had built with his
own hands. That is where I was born. So I did not know any
different. I thought that it was the best life I could find. I
thank God every day that I was not born in urban America, be it
Los Angeles, Long Beach, or anywhere else.
Some of this is consciousness of one's relative
deprivation. I think that probably one of the most influential
books that I ever read was Crane Brinton, one of your
colleagues a few decades ahead of you, at Harvard in the
history department, who wrote ``The Anatomy of Revolution,
Phase I, Alienation of the Intelligentsia.'' That could cause
the Government more trouble than most people think. Ideas are
important.
And I remember, as a young man in my eating club, having
Kerensky over for dinner. He had been one of the great
democrats--small d--in Russia, who had actually led the Duma in
trying to get democratic policies and putting the Czar aside
peacefully.
As he warmed up, you saw what might have been Russia,
instead of 70 years of communism and totalitarianism and
killing 26 million people. But that did not happen, because of
a mistake here and there.
But what I am particularly curious about, Dr. Waters, since
you have written so much on the subject, and I regret that I
did not have time to read all of your books before this
hearing, but this has been a bad week in terms of reading
anything but budget resolutions.
But you wrote one, ``From Many Strands, Ethnic and Racial
Groups in Contemporary America,'' then ``Ethnic Options,
Choosing Identities in America,'' and numerous articles.
What I am curious about, since you might have been here
when I noted that groups were concerned that the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights was not thinking about national
origin discrimination, and correctly came and berated us, and I
agreed with them. They should have berated us.
The original focus of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
under President Eisenhower was first on black voting, voting
discrimination as to blacks in the southern United States. That
was point one.
The Commission came in unanimous. He never thought that
they could agree. They did agree, even with southerners on it.
No one could say that that was not true.
Then in 1961, they issued major reports on housing,
education, administration of justice, and so on. Six major
reports. Which those of us on the Hill in a staff position tore
apart and put into legislation, and beat on the door of the
Kennedy administration for about 3 solid years. We finally
forced out of them--they were very reluctant to do anything
believe it or not--a civil rights draft in June 1963.
Now the Civil Rights Commission broadened its base. Well,
by late 1969, they at last thought about discrimination against
Mexican-Americans. They issued a Mexican-American education
report. They had not done anything about it. I would hate to
tell you that we finally forced them to think about the Native
American, the American Indian. And we held hearings on the
Navaho Reservation in October 1973 and all of that.
And women, they did not bother themselves with women. So we
had to force them into thinking about that. And shame them in
as fellow commissioners, they finally went along with that.
The bias of the staff was simply, and I can certainly
understand it, no group has been discriminated as much against
in this country as African-Americans historically, and still to
some degrees in some places. But it has been a slow evolution
of groups coming into their own with their problems. Since we
had review of the administration of justice in the country, we
would look at what was happening to the gay Americans, nobody
on the staff wanted to touch that one. I mean it was just a
wall that went up. And police abuse was going on, and nobody
was facing up to it. So I faced up to it. And so it went. Even
groups of Government people that mean well sometimes have to be
kicked, dragging their feet, or pulled into the 20th and 21st
century.
So what I am curious about with your writings is do you
feel in this day and age that we are several decades or three
generations past the large East European ethnic migration to
the United States in the 1870's, 1880's, and 1890's, the turn
of the century, I would just be curious as to what your feeling
is on this, how much discrimination if any has been suffered in
the East European communities as they met the cultures that
came ahead of them?
And this includes my Irish ancestors who felt that the
Yankees were beating them up politically, economically, and
every which way, and then by the 1940's they were beating the
yankees up in terms of politicals and all of their neighbors.
You know, you had the Italian gangs in one block and the Irish
gangs in another.
My assistant, I remember, when I was president of the
University at Long Beach, I said, ``How did you learn to be a
track star?'' He said, ``I learned by running like heck when
the neighborhood gang came after me.'' One learns to be very
fleet of foot at that point.
But I would be curious as to how you would sum it up with
your research on this. Is ethnic discrimination still with us,
and is it worthy of anything the Government agencies are
supposed to be doing to fight discrimination?
Ms. Waters. I think that you can find individual instances
of discrimination based on a particular national origin or
European origin ethnic group. I think that what we have
learned, and really the census ancestry data has been
incredibly important for answering these questions. Before we
had that ancestry question we could not even really talk about
later generation European origin ethnic groups.
But I think that most of the data points to the fact that
for most of these groups, even from Eastern Europe, they have
experienced what sociologists Andy Greeley calls the ethnic
miracle. That in most cases that there is no evidence of
systematic occupational discrimination. They earn the same
incomes for people at the same educational levels.
Even the occupational concentrations that you had seen for
Slavic groups, and Greeks, and Italians, et cetera by 1980 and
1990, you can see some vestiges of it, but you really cannot
see much of it at all. So in most cases, I think that you have
seen real social progress over a couple of generations for
those European ethnic origin groups.
Whether or not there are particular people who still
experience particular discrimination, I would say that I am
sure that there are. But I think that systematically the data
points to real ethnic progress for those groups.
Mr. Horn. So then the question would be why do we need the
ancestry question?
Ms. Waters. Well, you know what is interesting about the
ancestry question is that the census tends to always be
designed to solve yesterday's problems, because that is what
you are thinking about when you design it. So, of course, the
ancestry question was designed to really give information about
European groups, because the groups were aging generationally.
But in fact, it is being used for instance to look at Arab
Americans, discrimination against Arab Americans. And in fact,
if it is on the year 2000 census, there will be another group
that it will turn out that we did not even think about them
when we were designing the census. But there are people who
will self-identify that way, and you will actually find red
lining against them, systematic discrimination, and income
problems.
And so I do not think that you necessarily know before you
collect the data who you might be actually best using it for.
We collected it to find out how Eastern Europeans were doing.
It actually gave us a lot of info about Arab-Americans. And it
is the only source of information about Arab-Americans, some of
whom experience very virulent discrimination.
Mr. Horn. We have major refugee groups in various parts of
the country. In my own city of Long Beach, there are roughly
50,000 Cambodians. If you go over to Orange County and
Westminster Garden Grove, they even have a sign that the State
has put on the highway, Little Saigon. If you go into central
Los Angeles on the freeway, there is a sign Korea Town. That is
all put up with the excited part of the businessmen and women
in those communities, who would like the tourists to come
there, sample the food, and so forth and so on.
So you think that by having an ancestry category on the
census form, that is we wanted to do an economic analysis or
other type, a school progression analysis or whatever, we could
find where those clusters are, and see if they are going at the
same pace as the majority of American citizens?
Ms. Waters. Well, the reason that we have everybody
lobbying you to be on the short form which is the race and
Hispanic question is that sometimes that kind of question that
you have, the ancestry data will not be very good for it,
because you will not be able to get it at a low enough level of
concentration, because it is from the sample, it is from the 20
percent sample.
So sometimes if you have, for instance, school enrollment
kinds of data that you are looking for, the ancestry data is
not as helpful as if you had it on the race or Hispanic
question. So Koreans are a race category and you can get that
data for the school enrollment for Koreans. The Cambodians are
not. You have to find them in the other Asia category. So it is
a hit or miss kind of thing in terms of the politics of who is
listed separately.
Mr. Horn. As you suggest, that is very misleading. Look at
the Mung people, the poorest of Asias that came over here as
refugees. They certainly deserved to come here given all of the
service they rendered to the U.S. Government. You have
thousands of them in the central valley. I have probably a
thousand in my district adjacent and mixed into the Cambodian
areas of Long Beach. They certainly are as poverty ridden in
many ways and less adaptable to adjustment to the United
States, because they were an older generation really. It is
difficult to learn the language and so forth.
I guess that if we have that question of whether people
know what they can write down there, and even what it is. I can
see value in that, as you do a random check of different groups
and try to look at their relative standing. I think that there
are one or two good studies that I saw 20 years ago where
people actually did that kind of analysis.
Now, I do not know that the Government is doing it. It
should. It should be exploiting these things. So you see where
the trouble spots are. And as we go through this argument on
what is the effect of changes in the welfare law with legal
immigrants, that is also a major problem. Because you have an
older generation that faces a lot of problems that any older
generation in poverty would face. They are living on very
little, which is whatever the SSI check under Social Security
puts in their mail box.
But anyhow, those are certainly some of the things that I
think would affect many districts in this country. Now there
are a lot of other arguments that we can go through. And the
courts have been doing it piece by piece.
You have got places in West Virginia that are still
speaking Elizabethan English. There has not been much movement
out of there. And some of them are still in deep poverty with
the end of mining and all the rest, or the others left, and
left them behind. So you have pockets of this all over the
country.
I do not know if any of you have any other comments that
you want to make on this. We will welcome them. And then we are
going to adjourn this. The House is going to reconvene at 6:30.
So we are just in time.
Mr. Hodgkinson. If I could have 10 seconds, I would like to
commend your attention to the Kentucky State Supreme Court
decision, which desegregated schools economically. Rural
districts brought suit against basically Louisville. And
without any census data being used as far as I could tell, the
State went through a significant shift in terms of building a
floor under every poor child in the State of Kentucky.
That is a model for what we may have to do more often in
the future. I commend that sort of issue to your attention.
Mr. Horn. Frankly, I could not agree with you more. When
you look at the economic deprivation, I think that all of this
shows up. There has been substantial discrimination. And there
are enough idiots in this country as well as anywhere else that
would discriminate based on color. But often, that will come up
in the economic data.
And affirmative action, the word fraud was used in some of
that. There is no question that nonminority students have
checked the column, because they feel that universities will
not admit them otherwise. That is a pretty sad commentary on
where we are in university admissions.
Of course, California now is having to grapple with how you
deal with that when you cannot use the quota system.
Affirmative action ought to be used, and a good personnel
policy. That is all it is. But if it ends up with a quota, that
was never the intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Hubert Humphrey was adamant on this, as the co-floor
manager with my own mentor, Senator Kuchel. When we had a major
briefing for the whole Senate, those questions came up and it
was absolutely clear, there is no quota related to anything in
this legislation.
And all of that was both Executive orders of President
Johnson and President Nixon, one Democrat and one Republican,
who thought that they were doing good deeds. Well, they were to
a certain extent. But good deeds sometimes get turned into
things you wish you had not started, because it can be so
misused. And that is where we are sort of making the circle
right now.
Well, I thank you all for coming. It has been very helpful.
Keep in touch with us. We would be glad to have any other
thoughts you have, and we will put them in the record at this
point, if on the way home and back to your offices you have
other thoughts.
Mr. Vazsonyi. May I make one final observation, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Horn. Surely.
Mr. Vazsonyi. It seems to me that discrimination and other
atrocities are committed by individuals against other
individuals. Groups can't do things, and groups can't sustain
things, people do. And it would seem to me that if the effort
that we are putting into remedies through groups would be put
into maximum enforcement of the law and remedy of the law for
every individual who suffers, we may be further down the road.
Thank you.
Mr. Horn. Well, I thank you.
And I am now going to thank the staff who worked on this
hearing starting with our very able staff director and counsel
for the Government Management, Information, and Technology
Subcommittee, Russell George, against the wall there quietly
observing this, once the wheels start. And John Hynes, who is
right next to me, is the professional staff member responsible
for this hearing. Andrea Miller is the clerk for the majority
subcommittee is over there waiting to scoop everything up, as
soon as we get out of here. David McMillen, a professional
staff member for the minority and Ellen Rayner, the chief clerk
for the minority.
Our court reporter here, committee reporter, Charlie Smith.
We thank them all for what they did to make a very useful
and enjoyable hearing.
And we thank you all. We appreciate you coming.
With that, this meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.356
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.357
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.358
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.359
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.360
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.361
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.362
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.363
FEDERAL MEASURES OF RACE AND ETHNICITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
2000 CENSUS
----------
FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
and Technology,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Horn, Davis of Virginia, Portman,
Maloney, Davis of Illinois, and Owens.
Also present: Representative Norton.
Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and
counsel; John Hynes, professional staff member; Andrea Miller,
clerk; David McMillen, minority professional staff member; and
Ron Stroman, minority counsel.
Mr. Horn. The Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology, quorum being present, will come to
order. We will begin with opening statements.
This is the third in a series of hearings on how the
Federal Government measures race and ethnicity. Today's hearing
follows a major decision on this issue. After 4 years of
review, a task force set up by the Office of Management and
Budget, known as the Interagency Committee, has issued a
detailed recommendation for changes to the standard measures of
race and ethnicity.
This is not a casual matter. It is highly personal for
millions of Americans who take pride in their full heritage. It
also is a vital issue for the enforcement of the civil rights
laws of our Nation.
The current measures include four basic categories of race:
black, white, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or
Alaskan native. These categories and other standards for the
collection and reporting of data on race and ethnicity are set
forth in OMB Directive 15.
A major issue is whether these categories are adequate to
measure our society now and in the coming decade. In
particular, there is growing concern that asking individuals to
identify with only one of these four categories on the census
questionnaire and other forms fails to accommodate people of
multiple racial heritages.
It is not hard to understand this problem. All you have to
do is imagine you are Tiger Woods, perhaps without the Nike
endorsement, and someone is telling you to identify with only
one part of your heritage.
The challenge is to allow for multiracial identification
without harming the usefulness and accuracy of the data. One
proposal for multiracial identification is to create a fifth
racial category called ``multiracial.'' Another proposal is to
keep the current four categories but allow respondents to check
off more than one.
On July 9, the Interagency Committee recommended against a
multiracial category but in favor of allowing people to
identify with more than one of the existing categories, to
reflect their diverse backgrounds. In its recommendations to
the Office of Management and Budget, the Interagency Committee
stated that the multiracial population is growing and needs to
be measured, but that a separate multiracial category is not
the best way to do this.
The recommendation notes that years of surveys and public
town meetings did not show a general consensus on the
definition of ``multiracial,'' and that such a category is
likely to be misunderstood by individuals responding to
questions concerning race.
As Edmund Burke once observed, ``All government, indeed,
every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every
prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.'' The
Interagency Committee did just that. In effect, the task force
has advised the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
to preserve the current usefulness of racial and ethnic data,
and also to acknowledge the desire of individuals to identify
their heritage.
Some will say this recommendation tries to please all
sides, and therefore pleases none. There are two distinct
aspects to this issue: The first is individual identification.
People need to be treated with dignity, especially when they
are being asked to identify themselves. The second aspect is
the utilization of these data. They are put to some very
important purposes, purposes that many would say outweigh
concerns over individual identification.
The Interagency Committee recommendation leaves the
questions about tabulation and reporting of the data largely
unanswered. That is a problem, and we need to address it. Will
people who check two racial categories be counted twice,
significantly inflating the numbers of two particular races in
a particular area?
We begin today with very distinguished witnesses. The
Speaker will be delayed, because he is in some negotiations now
on major issues before the closing of next week's session, and
we have told him he will be able to speak any time he walks
through the door. So we are pleased when he can join us.
We also will be hearing from other Members of Congress. We
will then hear from a number of individuals who are experts in
this area, as well as the administration witnesses, who will
appear after we have heard all the rest of the discussion, so
that they can integrate the views of the Interagency Committee
with what they have heard.
We will then hear the reaction of various witnesses. We
will finally get the testimony, not only from the Office of
Management
and Budget, but also the Bureau of the Census, and the
Department of Justice.
We thank you for joining us. Now I will call on the ranking
Democrat, Mrs. Maloney of New York, for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.364
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.365
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, I am committed to assuring that the next
census is the most fair and most accurate that has ever been
conducted. The measurement of race is central to that effort.
Unfortunately, all of my colleagues are not committed to this
effort. In fact, there are those who would have us pay a higher
price for a 2000 census that is less accurate and, in some
instances, will render the race question moot by not even
counting them.
The 2000 census will be the 22d census conducted by this
Nation. Many are surprised that 3 years before the census there
is so much discussion about what data to collect and how to
collect it. That's really no surprise. At this point prior to
the last census, the Commerce Department was already in court
over how much that census would cost and how that census would
be conducted.
The measurement of race is essential to our understanding
of the accuracy of the census. Shortly after the 1940 count,
the Census Bureau started looking at the accuracy of the census
using birth and death records. In preparation for World War II,
the Census Bureau provided the Army with an estimate of the
number of men eligible for active duty.
It turned out that those estimates were low. Thirteen
percent more black males turned up than the Census Bureau had
predicted. It was then that they began to understand the
relationship between race and a gross undercount.
Now, more than 50 years later, we have quite a collection
of data regarding census errors. The methods used in the 1990
census caused nearly 26 million errors. That is an error rate
of more than 10 percent. The 1990 census missed people, double
counted people, and created fictitious people. Nearly 6 million
people turned up in the wrong place.
These errors were made by using the same methods that are
being touted by those opposed to sampling. As a result of those
errors, millions of dollars in Federal aid designed to provide
assistance to the poor, are being misdirected. Millions of
people are not being included in apportioning representation.
Our first understanding of the undercount in the census was
that young black males were missed at a much higher rate than
others. But we now know more. We know that people in rural
areas are almost as likely to be missed as those in urban
areas.
We know that African-Americans are missed at a much higher
rate than whites. In 1990, the undercount for African-Americans
was almost 10 times that of non-Hispanic whites. Fifty-two
percent of those who were undercounted are children. I believe
issues of counting minorities need to be resolved before we
decide how they will be categorized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Thank you.
I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis, for
an opening statement.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'm going
to be brief.
I appreciate that you are holding this hearing today. I
represent a district that is 25 percent minority, very
multiethnic. One of the kids I was talking to the other day
asked, ``Well, I'm an American: 25 percent Vietnamese, 25
percent African-American, 100 percent American.'' That was the
way they defined themselves, and I'm not sure that the
categories that we've dealt with over the past few decades
encompass all that Americans believe themselves to be.
So I approach these hearings with an open mind. I
appreciate the opportunity to hear a number of different
viewpoints as we move through this today.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Horn. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you for convening this hearing regarding the very
important issue of how the Federal Government should measure
race and ethnicity for the Census 2000. I would also like to
acknowledge and thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for
taking the time to come and share with us their expertise and
feelings as it relates to the issues of race, ethnicity, and
the census.
We gather here today to discuss the recommendations of the
Interagency Committee for the review of the racial and ethnic
standards on changes to OMB's Directive 15. This is an issue of
critical importance to our Nation. This issue is directly tied
to the accuracy of count for the Census 2000.
When I think about the census and its importance, I am
reminded of a quote from Thomas Jefferson, referring to the
question of slavery, when he likened it to a fire bell in the
night that filled him with terror. I submit that the issue of
race, as it relates to the census, is one of the fire bell
issues of the day, because race divides us, defines us, and in
many ways strengthens us.
We stand today at a crossroad. We can go forward, or we can
go backward. I say, let's go forward. We have measured race in
this country since 1790, during the first census. We counted
free white male property owners as a whole person and black
slaves as three-fifths of a person. Now we're being told that
we should be counted as a multiracial person.
While blacks are now recognized as 100 percent of a person,
we have not fully realized full participation in the systems of
this Nation. We have not reached the day where equal
opportunity and equal justice prevail. Discrimination is alive
and well in America today.
We are not a color-blind society. Income inequality between
blacks, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Native Americans and whites
continues to persist. In education, race differences persist in
high school completion rates, college enrollment, and graduate
degrees granted. Blacks and other minorities are not receiving
a fair share of Federal, State, or local procurement
opportunities.
The question of how we measure race in the Census 2000 has
some profound consequences. Census data is used to reapportion
Congress, State legislatures, city councils, county boards, and
other special political subdivisions. In addition, census data
is used to enforce the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act,
and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Millions of dollars of
Federal resources are determined on the basis of the census.
I have a great sensitivity toward American citizens who
have a mixed ancestry, whether it be interracial, biracial, or
multiracial. In fact, I am certain that a large number of
Americans could be considered technically multiracial, and
especially within certain minority groups, but I do believe
that a ``multiracial'' category and other major changes could
dilute the political, economic, and social progress that
minority groups have worked so hard to attain. Such a category
could take us back a number of years.
However, I look forward to hearing our witnesses. And I do
believe that, after all is said and done, we will realize that
although possibilities exist, the American people will take a
course of action that will not take us back away from the gains
that have been made by large minority groups in this country.
I thank you very much and look forward to the testimony of
our witnesses.
Mr. Horn. I now yield to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, for an opening statement.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to sit in with the
subcommittee this morning. I am a member of the full committee
but not the subcommittee, and I am here because I believe this
is an important subject and hope we will all be able to come to
some rational response.
The census itself, for a long time now, has been a very
controversial and complicated subject. Into this controversy,
we now plunge race. The one thing we did not have to worry
about in the last census was how we categorized people. We have
made a very complicated and very important subject much more
complicated.
At the last hearing, Mr. Chairman, where I was privileged
also to sit, it was not then clear whether the census was going
to move us to a new category, a multiracial category. They have
come to their senses and understood, it seems to me, the rank
confusion that such a category would impose upon the census.
Now they come, apparently, with a set of categories that
may pose some of the same difficulties. I have come this
morning particularly, to hear about the new proposal to allow
people to check multiple boxes. All I can say is watch out. I
can't imagine what kind of confusion may come from multiple
boxes.
I know this much: Those who come forward wishing a category
to recognize their mixed parentage are very sincere, and I very
much sympathize with what they are doing. They come forward
seeking a real solution to their dilemma. My problem is, I do
not believe that solution is found in an official document of
the United States.
As to several categories, indeed, even as to the multi
category, I hope we do not now bring down upon us fun and games
in the census, as people try to identify themselves in multiple
ways and in ludicrous ways. We have to not only ask ourselves
what are we after, but how will Americans receive this
question.
I cannot imagine how Generation X, for example, would have
received the multiethnic question or the multiracial question,
not to mention the ability to check off as many boxes as you
feel like checking off. This is serious business. There is much
at stake here.
I very much look forward to hearing how OMB describes the
discipline in its multiple boxes, because that's what I'm
interested in. I am also interested in finding a way for people
of mixed heritage, or at least mixed parentage, if they desire,
to indicate that mixed parentage. I don't believe we want to
intrude on these categories that we have learned to live with.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say this: We are not, when we
talk about a multiracial category, in this country, only
talking about a category. We are talking about, not a new
category, but a new race. And if you do not believe that this
is the case, I invite you to look at the history of the West
Indies, of Brazil, and of South America where, indeed, there
has long been a multiracial category.
That is not a category. What attaches to that category has
been a whole set of distinctions, privileges, benefits, and
lack of the same. The last thing we need in this country, given
the role race has played, is a new category that develops into
a new race.
I ask that we understand that we are not dealing with this
unrelated to history, either of our country or the world, and
that we not plunge into new racial directions in an official
way, without understanding all the implications.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Thank you.
I now yield to the gentleman from New York, Major Owens.
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The designation of a racial or ethnic category is not just
a statistical, abstract government procedure. In America,
racial designations are very political and they were made that
way by the majority population a long time ago.
There was a time when the designation ``octoroon'' or
``quadroon'' were not enough. They would not be accepted. It
was decreed that if you had one drop of black blood, one drop
of Negro blood, you were automatically a Negro. You were
automatically considered a descendant of African slaves.
I think that there are many constructive reasons why that
designation still should continue, not for the same negative
political reasons provided before, but for very positive
reasons. We don't want to lose the identity of the descendants
of African slaves.
We have a situation now where the President has called for
a dialog to move America forward and to own up to the problem
of a multiracial society. At the heart of that dialog has to be
a discussion of what happened with the African slaves. And you
cannot talk about justice unless you talk about what happens to
the descendants of those African slaves.
For 232 years, we had a group of people who were forced to
give their labor to the building of this country for free; for
232 years, an accumulation of problems that resulted from the
fact that the owners of slaves found it profitable to try to
obliterate the humanity of the slaves. They didn't want to
annihilate slaves.
The obliteration was very different from the Holocaust,
where the hatred in the Holocaust was so great until they
wanted to annihilate people. The slaves were valuable property.
Nobody wanted to annihilate them as living entities, but they
wanted to annihilate their humanity.
It was profitable to have them become more efficient beasts
of burden. It was profitable to have them operate more like
machines. It was profitable not to have them establish bonds
related to families. It was profitable to continue the practice
of refusing to recognize marriages and families, to sell
children away from parents and to deny any sense of belonging
among families or any sense of a society, which had mores and
traditions before it came to these shores.
Every effort was made to obliterate any past traditions and
any things which established the humanity of the African
slaves. Great injustices were done.
The Emancipation Proclamation and, more importantly, the
13th amendment, 14th amendment, and 15th amendment began to
change all that. But there are some residues that still exist.
Because of those residues, because of the kind of damage that
was done over the 232-year period, its lingering aftereffects,
we still need to have distinctions which clearly tell who the
descendants of the African-American slaves were.
Other groups may have other kinds of concerns, but we don't
want to have obliterated, at this point, that distinction
before the justice--if not the justice, at least the truth and
the recognition of the injustice is confronted.
I wholeheartedly applaud the President's efforts to raise
the level of the dialog on race relations and the dialog on a
multiracial society to a new level. We are the indispensable
Nation, as the President said in his inaugural address. We are
the indispensable Nation. In order to remain in that position,
we ought to try to build on the positive factors that flow out
of being a very diversified society.
We are a diverse society ethnically, but we have a problem.
At the heart of our diversity, there is still a core problem
related to the relationships between blacks and whites, and
this grows out of the long years of slavery. The descendants of
slaves, just probably as the descendants of Native Americans,
have a special distinction. That special distinction should be
kept for a long time to come, until we deal with the problems
that the long years of oppression and injustice generated. I
thank you.
Mr. Horn. I thank the gentleman.
We will now begin with our Members' panel. Will
Representative Thomas Sawyer of Ohio, Representative Thomas
Petri of Wisconsin, Representative Maxine Waters of California,
and Representative John Conyers of Michigan please come
forward.
I think Mr. Sawyer is second there.
Mr. Sawyer. We're going down in the order you said, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Horn. I am going to call on Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Petri
first, because they are former chairmen and ranking members of
the committee that had jurisdiction over the census before it
was merged into the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight at the beginning of 1995. We have looked to them as
our experts in this area. They have been kind enough to come to
a number of our hearings and testify on various aspects of the
census. So we will begin with Representative Thomas Sawyer of
Ohio.
STATEMENTS OF HON. THOMAS SAWYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO; HON. THOMAS PETRI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN; HON. MAXINE WATERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am grateful for your designation as an expert. I guess I
would say thank you and recognize that maybe the most that we
can claim is that we have long familiarity with this issue, as
a matter of census practice and other statistical systems of
the United States.
In that sense, I am grateful to you and Congresswoman
Maloney and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to
share some additional thoughts beyond those that I shared at
your last hearing on this subject, as you continue to review
the categories for collecting data on race and ethnicity in the
2000 census.
Let me begin by congratulating OMB for all of the work that
is has done on this important issue. After 3 years of careful
and thorough consideration of alternative ways to measure race
and ethnicity, OMB has recently released its proposed
recommendations for Directive 15.
While I believe that its recommendations properly address
the concerns of those on both sides of the multiracial issue, I
would really like to begin and end today by encouraging OMB to
address something that you discussed, and that is establishing
guidelines for how the Federal Government is to tabulate and
publish and use this data.
When I testified in April, I discussed the importance of
understanding what racial categories are and what they are not.
Clearly, they are culturally determined descriptors that
reflect societal concerns and perceptions. They are not
grounded in genetic or anthropological or scientific bases, and
they are not fixed and unchanging.
OMB has historically sought to establish categories,
therefore, that are discrete, are few in number, are easy to
use because they are broadly understood, and which yield
consistent responses. The categories are also intended to
maintain continuity and comparability of that data over time.
That's a tall order, but I believe OMB's recommendations meet
those goals.
First, the task force that dealt with this was composed of
30 Federal agencies who regularly use racial and ethnic data.
The panel voted unanimously to recommend that to OMB that a
multiracial category not be used when collecting racial and
ethnic data.
Instead, they suggested the individuals be given the
opportunity to provide multiple responses to the race questions
when they identify personally with more than one category.
Second, they recommended that ``Hispanic'' remain as a separate
ethnic category and not be added as a new racial category.
Additionally, they found through testing that arranging the
Hispanic origin question so that it preceded the so-called race
question proved to minimize confusion. This is important to
yield a more accurate count, particularly among all of the
populations that have been undercounted in past censuses.
Taken together, these recommendations, in my opinion, are
an important step forward in measuring racial and ethnic and
change that is currently taking place in our country and may,
in fact, be a fundamental characteristic of our age.
By providing respondents with the choice to mark all that
apply, OMB satisfies a compelling human need for self-identity,
while allowing for measurement in the aggregate of the changing
racial and ethnic makeup of our Nation. Adopting OMB
recommendations would also enable us to preserve, with
consistency, the comparability and continuity of data over
time.
While its recommendations are sound, let me again urge OMB
to look carefully at the data that will be produced by this new
collection system, and accompany these changes with clear and
meaningful guidelines for tabulating and publishing and using
the data once it's collected.
Let me give you an example: The Civil Rights Division of
the Justice Department is charged with enforcing the Fair
Housing Act. It prohibits discrimination in the granting of
home mortgages. Monitoring and enforcement generally involve a
comparison of census data with reports of lending activity for
minority applicants for a specific geographical area.
If the census data on race and ethnicity for a given census
tract includes a percentage of residents who checked off white
and black or Asian-American, the question is, should the
Justice Department consider that portion of the population to
be minority or nonminority for the purposes of determining
whether there is a pattern of discrimination in that
neighborhood? It is particularly important to understand how
and when to use aggregated or disaggregated data when more than
one category is checked.
There are not easy answers to this and similar kinds of
questions, but they need to be clear, because the soundness of
OMB's proposed changes to Directive 15 must be judged, in part,
by whether clear and consistent guidelines can be developed to
provide a rational and consistent response that is comparable
with similar data over time.
Otherwise, the Federal Government may inadvertently erase
the gains that the Nation has made over the last few decades in
an effort to create a more inclusive society.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity that
you and members of the subcommittee have given to participate
in your continued oversight of this important issue.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas Sawyer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.366
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.367
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.368
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.369
Mr. Horn. I thank the gentleman and I think he put his
finger on the key question.
I now yield to his colleague who has spent many years
working with the census, Mr. Petri of Wisconsin. He is the
introducer of the Tiger Woods bill, H.R. 830, of the House of
Representatives, which would create a multiracial category.
Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing
and continuing to take an interest in the issue of racial
categorization.
Last April, I testified before this subcommittee on behalf
of the bill you referred to, H.R. 830, to add a multiracial
category to the census and other Federal forms which ask
respondents to categorize themselves by race. In the course of
that testimony, I briefly mentioned some concerns on how the
data would be tabulated if, instead of a multiracial category,
we were to allow people to check more than one of the existing
categories.
As you know, the Office of Management and Budget recently
issued its preliminary recommendations which indeed call for a
``check all that apply'' system. I would like to reemphasize
that there should be at least one compilation of data from the
race issue on the census in which the total is not greater than
100 percent, and therefore, in which multiracial individuals
are included as a separate group when the tabulation occurs.
The numbers can be tabulated in several different ways, of
course. If the Bureau wants to publish information about how
many people checked off a certain category, including
multiracials who checked off that one and another, I certainly
have no objection. It might be useful information for certain
purposes.
That is done with each of the categories. Those who check
off more than one category will be counted more than once, but
for some uses of the data that may be OK. For other purposes,
however, it is necessary, in order for policymakers to get a
clear picture of the situation, that the individual categories
do not add up to more than 100 percent of the total.
Thus, we need one compilation in which multiracial
individuals who have checked more than one box are counted in
their own category and only in that category. These two ways of
compiling the data, and perhaps still others, are not mutually
exclusive.
I have been briefed by OMB officials on their plans for
compiling the data, and I was encouraged by that briefing.
Officials there seem to be aware of the need for data in which
multiracial individuals are grouped together separately from
the other categories.
Although I would like to see a separate box on the form for
the multiracial category, counting separately those who have
checked more than one box comes close, and if the OMB follows
through, would, in my opinion, accomplish the goals of H.R.
830.
I thank you for allowing me to appear here this morning.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas Petri follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.370
Mr. Horn. Well, again, I think the gentleman has put his
finger on one of the key questions. If people do not like the
multiracial aspect, maybe we just check a category that says,
``I have checked more than one above.'' We will get into that
with the Chief Statistician of the United States and the
representatives of the Office of Management and Budget.
I now yield to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Maxine
Waters.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today.
The subject of today's hearing is one which potentially
impacts every African-American citizen in our country: the
recent Federal Interagency recommendation that the Office of
Management and Budget make changes to its current standards for
measuring race and ethnicity.
The Interagency Committee, a task force with representation
from 30 Federal agencies, recently rejected the proposal for
creation of a multiracial category, but recommended that
individuals be permitted to select one or more of the current
categories of race used in the census.
Today, I join with this viewpoint, which is shared by
several civil rights organizations, including the Lawyers
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the National Urban
League, the NAACP, and the Joint Center for Political and
Economic Studies, in strong opposition to the addition of a
multiracial classification in the 2000 census.
The use of a multiracial or biracial category in the 2000
census would jeopardize the ability of individuals in the
United States to seek legal redress for continued racial
discrimination.
Currently, the United States has made substantial progress.
We still have substantial progress to make in the area of
racial equality. There is discrimination practiced daily in
housing, employment, voting rights, and education.
Federal law enforcement efforts to deter such
discrimination often use data collected pursuant to Directive
15 and the U.S. census. Legal redress of persistent racial and
ethnic discrimination is contingent on current racial
classifications which show disparities in racial treatment in a
variety of instances.
I believe that the inclusion of a multiracial or biracial
classification is counterproductive to effectively enforcing
the civil rights laws of this country. Directive 15 has been
indispensable in facilitating the information required to move
the Nation's equal opportunity agenda forward.
The data compiled under this policy have been used to
enforce requirements of the Voting Rights Act, to review State
redistricting plans, to establish and evaluate programs and
plans to get rid of discrimination both in the public and
private sectors, to monitor and enforce desegregation plans in
the public schools, to assist minority businesses under the
Minority Business Development Program, and to monitor and
enforce the Fair Housing Act.
You also heard, from Congressman Sawyer, how the HUM data
is used. I serve on the Banking Committee, and that information
has been extremely valuable in helping the banks and financial
institutions of this country correct their lending practices.
When they unveiled this valuable data and they saw that
loans were being made to whites who had less income, who had
less favorable paying records, et cetera, and were able to
compare that in communities and census tracts where minorities
had been turned down, even though they had the income, they had
the records, they had all that you would think would cause a
bank to lend to them to buy homes, it was not being done.
The record indicates that significant improvements have
occurred in all of these respects. For nearly two decades,
Directive 15 has been greatly instrumental in that progress.
However, the evidence is equally clear that much more remains
to be done. Racial discrimination is still prevalent in
American life, and the residual effects of past discrimination
continue to limit progress.
Recently publicized discrimination cases, such as that
involving Texaco's executives referring to African-Americans as
``bright jellybeans'' in their board room, are highly
instructive on the persistence of discriminatory treatment
based on race.
In closing, I would emphasize that I will continue to
resist any effort to complicate, reduce, or deter progress
toward equal opportunity and racial fairness in American
society. The multiracial proposal poses a risk to the ability
of Federal agencies to collect useful data on racial
classifications. For this reason, I must vigorously oppose any
use of a multiracial category in the 2000 census.
Mr. Chairman, prior to closing, I would just like to say
that I had an opportunity to look over Mr. Gingrich's
testimony, where he had some discussion in here of Tiger Woods.
I wanted to engage him in some discussions about another
golfer, whose name is Mr. Lee Elder, who was a prominent
golfer.
When he was young like Tiger Woods, he would have loved to
have been able to participate. I think that his handicap was
probably zero, and he was excluded for all of the years.
Finally, a big fight was put up to get him finally on the
senior tour.
After many, many years and long fighting and organizing by
African-Americans and some others, we finally got him on the
senior tour, maybe about 8, 9, 10 years ago. If he had had the
opportunity to participate back when he was as young as Tiger
Woods, you would have seen another Tiger Woods a long time ago.
That story can be told time and time again. Yes, Tiger
Woods is extraordinary, but we would like to live in a society
where someday other African-Americans with handicaps of 10, 8,
and 9 can get to compete just like whites do out on these
tours.
All of those--well, let me just say it this way: We should
not have to be super, super, super stars to be able to
integrate, whether it's golf or anything else. We should be
afforded the same opportunity that any other average American
is afforded.
While people can point to Tiger Woods and try and relate
this to our need to have a multiracial category, let me assure
you that this super, super, super human being is a fabulous
young man, but there are a lot of other fabulous young African-
Americans, had they had the opportunity to participate, like a
Lee Elder, too would have excelled on the same tours.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Maxine Waters follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.371
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.372
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.373
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.374
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.375
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.376
Mr. Horn. We thank you.
It is now good to welcome back the gentleman who presided,
for many years, in this room, the former chairman of what was
then the Government Operations Committee, Mr. Conyers of
Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mrs.
Maloney, members of the subcommittee.
I am very pleased to be here with you today to continue
this very important dialog, and I look forward to being here
with the Speaker of the House. It indicates how important this
matter is.
Of course, we can understand his busy schedule, and the
prevalence of coups on the Hill makes it rather difficult for
him to always be where he wants to be. So let's just hope that
all is well on the Republican side. Well, most of us hope all
is well on the Republican side and the Speaker will soon be
able to join us in this important discussion that has been
going on in this subcommittee.
I commend you all, first of all, because we can talk about
this and lower our voices and keep the rhetoric to as low a
minimum as is possible on the Hill. The President invited the
Nation to do that and I think we are doing that if we have this
discussion in the manner that we have been. I commend all of my
colleagues at the table. They have done an enormously important
job and have been working at this for quite a while.
I am heartened by Mr. Petri, my dear friend, indicating
that he might be willing to do something that I had been
thinking about yesterday. I asked to testify last night; this
wasn't something I was planning for a long time. But the reason
is I thought that there might be something in here that we
could talk about, because I feel that it is important that we
identify who is in this country, not only from the national
point of view, but from the point of view of the people who are
in the country. They have a right to be identified.
Nobody decided to pick mixed parentage. As a matter of
fact, nobody decided to be black----
Ms. Waters. Or white.
Mr. Conyers [continuing]. Or white. So we come here trying
to untangle a legislative problem that has very deep social
roots. And the one improvement that I might be willing to
consider--and my chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus
always deeply influences my legislative thought processes,
especially when she's sitting so close to me. [Laughter.]
The one thing that I might be willing to consider is the
identification of a category in which people would be allowed
to check more than one box. Now why does that become important?
It becomes important because some people want to let everybody
know their parentage, just as I, and I presume all of you are
proud of, but they don't want to become the victim of what
Major Owens said, a category in a government office. They would
also like to indicate their preference, if you are biracial, of
which identity they choose.
I thought I heard the gentleman from Wisconsin indicate
that such a further rethinking of his legislation would be
possible. It is in that vein that I come to this hearing to
express interest. I had no idea the gentleman was going to take
the words out of my mouth this morning, and I'm very happy
about that.
So please count me in on this dialog. As you can see, my
views are not in concrete here, but I think that there is a
constructive discussion going on, and I thank you for allowing
me to participate in it.
Now, I close on a subject that is not on the agenda today,
but I urge the continued openness that I hear here, and that is
with the subject of sampling. Please, if you are bringing open
minds and stretching your understandings of this to the limit,
please do not apply it to the subject of sampling.
In some respects, here we are dealing with a way of
remedying an admitted problem, a problem that everyone has
confessed, that we've been undercounting African-Americans by
the millions for decades, and we're trying to figure out how to
do it. So we want to keep those avenues as open, as well.
I thank you for the generosity of your time, Chairman Horn.
[The prepared statements of Hon. John Conyers, Jr., and
Hon. Carrie P. Meek follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.377
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.378
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.379
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.380
Mr. Horn. We thank the gentleman for coming.
I will now yield 5 minutes to Mr. Davis of Virginia to
begin the questioning for the majority, and then we will
alternate with the minority.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you.
Let me start, Mr. Conyers, I was reading your written
statement, which is a little bit at variance to what you said
orally. Your written statement says, ``I'm going to propose a
solution,'' and throughout it says, ``my solution,'' ``my
solution,'' and then you get up here, and you sit next to Ms.
Waters, and you said you might be willing to consider your
solution.
I don't know, Ms. Waters, if you've looked at Mr. Conyers'
proposed solution, what you think of that.
Ms. Waters. No, I have not, but I listened to his
statement, and I think what I heard him say is he knows there
is a need to solve this problem. He's still somewhat open. He
was pleased to hear Mr. Petri this morning talk about a
multiracial category and other categories that could be checked
by someone who falls in that definition.
So what I really heard was Mr. Conyers coming here to seek
a solution with somewhat of an open mind.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Do you agree with that? In other
words, you could check ``multiracial'' and then go down and
check the other.
Ms. Waters. No, I came with a little bit of a point of
view. However, I do not think that we should simply disregard
Mr. Petri's testimony or Mr. Conyers' desire to give further
thought to it.
I came pretty much decided that, in fact, the work that is
being done by the interagency task force, with the background
and the experience, really should be paid attention to. These
agencies are looking at all that they must do with the forms
that they have in their various agencies, and how we can have
some consistency in government, and what would make sense for
everybody.
So when I took a look at their work, I thought the
recommendation not to have a multiracial category, but to have
a number of categories that people could check, made a lot of
sense. Then I questioned them very closely that if someone
checked more than one category, how then would you count? And
they are in the process now of making that determination.
I would really like to see them continue that work so that
we can have the benefit of a concentrated effort in making
sense out of all of this. While all of us have some opinions,
and we deal with 999 things on any given day, none of us are as
concentrated and as focused as the interagency task force that
is designed to do this kind of work. So that's where I'm coming
from.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Petri, let me ask you, in your
written testimony you make reference to the need for data in
which multiracial individuals are grouped together separately
from other categories. What are some specific needs, whether in
public policy, research, or elsewhere, do you think, for data
on the variety of people selecting more than one race?
Mr. Petri. Well, I think there are a couple of reasons for
having people select more than one race.
When Tom Sawyer and I had these hearings, when he scheduled
the hearings and I attended, to review the 1990 census, a
number of individuals, and perhaps a few representing small
groups or newly organized groups, came forward and said they
did not think it was fair for their children to be forced to
choose between one-half of their heritage and another half of
their heritage. They stated that they may have had a Korean
mother and an American black father, and why couldn't they say
that instead of having to say that they were black or say that
they were Asian, or whatever it happened to be.
I found that persuasive and thought that it made sense not
to force people into that untenable and uncomfortable position.
My solution was to say, well, maybe we should have the current
categories, or whatever the experts think makes sense, and
then, by the way, if they don't fit, provide another category
that wasn't as off-putting as ``other,'' which sounds sort of
whatever, but that would reflect the fact they were
multiracial.
That's what the bill provided for. But the panel of some 30
agency representatives, under OMB's direction, came up with the
idea of why not just, instead of directing people to choose
only one category, period, say choose one or more than one as
you feel appropriate. Then that eliminates the uncomfortable
situation that we were forcing people in by requiring them to
choose just one. So that's one benefit.
Now my testimony basically goes to how is that going to be
presented for useful purposes by policymakers at the State
level and National level, in business, and so on. It seems to
me, if when they do the compilation of the census, the
different categories total more than 100 percent in a
particular area, it starts getting very confusing for
redistricting, for example.
So, at least in one iteration, and they can do it many
different ways, they ought to have something, whether it's
called ``multiracial'' or people check more than one box, or
whatever, a separate category so that all of the percentages
total 100 percent. That's the point of my testimony here today.
How it can be used, there are many different ways it can be
useful. The census is supposed to be an accurate picture of the
American population at a particular point in time. I think this
would make it more accurate.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. Thank you. Do you want to add
anything to that, Mr. Sawyer?
Mr. Sawyer. If I can add something. I am not going to
disagree with what Tom has said. Let me just say, though, that
it is important that the data be collected in a way that makes
it possible to tabulate, in a variety of ways, for a variety of
purposes, so that they can be aggregated and disaggregated for
specific applications.
This proposal makes that possible. A multiracial category,
on its own, would not, and would, I believe, add to the
confusion in the terms that Tom has just described, rather than
to clarify it. I believe that what the multiagency task force
has suggested will yield the result that all four of us across
here are talking about.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you.
Mr. Horn. We thank the gentleman.
I now yield 5 minutes to the ranking member, Mrs. Maloney
of New York, for the purpose of questioning the witnesses.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome all the witnesses, particularly the former chair
of the committee on which I served, Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Petri,
the two former chairs of the subcommittee. Really, I want to
thank you for the many hours that you have dedicated so far in
testifying before this subcommittee. And always, Maxine, you
add a lot of spark to all the hearings you participate in. It's
always good to see you.
I would like to ask the same question to each of you.
The voting rights laws and the civil rights laws were
written to really address discrimination against certain groups
of people. Should we accept the recommendations of the
interagency task force, which allowed individuals to check
various combinations of their heritage that they feel they are,
in their self-expression, should that person check one of the
areas of protected status, would that person be a protected
group, in terms of civil rights laws and voting rights laws?
Mr. Sawyer. Let me begin by referring to Directive 15. I
can only assume that the same kinds of limitations that apply
to Directive 15 today would apply in the future, and that is to
understand that the purpose for which these categories are used
is not for personal identification nor qualification for
eligibility of any Federal program. It is used to provide
aggregate measurement of population in ways that reflect the
reality of the Nation.
So it's very important to understand that these categories
are not used for eligibility identification; rather, it's so
that we can understand the direction and the shape and the
change of the country, in the aggregate and in its many
components.
Mr. Petri. Yes. At least in the case of the census form,
it's confidential; it's guaranteed to be confidential. All
information provided is absolutely confidential and cannot be
used by Federal law or any other to, in any way, benefit or
hurt an individual.
So the answer to your question really is, what will the
courts, lawyers, and administrators make of this change in
data. And I don't know. I would think, myself, that an
individual would still have all of the protections that they
have now. Many people are being forced into one category or
another who are, in fact, multiracial. They still deserve
protection, and I don't think this would lessen it.
Mr. Sawyer. May I just go back and read from Directive 15.
``These classifications should not be interpreted as being
scientific or anthropological in nature.'' We've already talked
about that. ``Nor should they be viewed as determinants of
eligibility for participation in any Federal program.'' That's
the fundamental, underlying principle of these categories.
Mrs. Maloney. Maxine.
Ms. Waters. I agree.
Mr. Conyers. It's an interesting subject that the
committee, I now serve on, is going to watch carefully. I'm not
asking you to share jurisdiction this morning, or anything like
that. But obviously, as has been referred to by many of us this
morning, we don't need any more monkeying with the civil rights
and voter rights legislation in America. I don't think there's
a Member in this room that would support anything that would
have that effect.
I think that the gentleman from Ohio's rereading of 15
keeps us all on the same point, and I agree with you, Tom.
Mrs. Maloney. I just have one last question. I would just
like to ask each of you, yes or no, do you support the
recommendations of the interagency task force?
Mr. Sawyer. Yes.
Mr. Petri. As I understand it, I do. I expressed my concern
about how the data that's collected is presented, and I assume
that, when they think about it, they will not at least have one
thing that doesn't total more than 100 percent. In some ways,
it's better than H.R. 830.
Ms. Waters. Yes, I certainly do. And I think the
recommendation that they have come forth with so far is
reasonable, it is logical, and I think it satisfies, basically,
most concerns. And I await the additional information that will
further explain the tabulating of that. I'm really pleased to
have this concentrated group of individuals who work in all of
these agencies working on this.
Mr. Conyers. Well, I'm not a wishy-washy guy, by my staff
instructed me to say, ``for the most part.'' [Laughter.]
Mrs. Maloney. OK.
Mr. Conyers. I'll find out what that means. But Mr. Davis,
I hope, will give me permission to revise my statement so that
it will comport with what I said, with what was written for me.
Thank you.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Horn. I thank the gentlewoman.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Portman,
for questioning the witnesses.
Mr. Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
panelists for the information today.
This is my first hearing on this. I'm the newest member of
this committee. I came back, Chairman Conyers, after being away
for a few years. I was on with you for my first year. So I
really am new at this issue and probably reflect, therefore,
most of the other Members of the Congress who have not had the
opportunity to spend as much time on this. I found both the
opening statements of my colleagues here interesting, as well
as informative, and yours.
I have a couple very elementary questions, I suppose. The
first is, it does seem important to me that all of us
understand better, not those of you here, but those of us in
the Congress who are not so close to it, what this data is used
for.
I think I have a better sense of that now, Tom, after your
explanation. This is really aggregate data. It's not for
eligibility for a specific program, but it's data that would be
used for such things as redistricting, probably the most
sensitive issue, but other general directional policy questions
where you need to have the aggregate.
Mr. Sawyer. That's correct.
Mr. Portman. With that in mind, I guess my fundamental
question is, how do you avoid the double counting?
I'm intrigued. I did read your statement, John, and also
heard your oral statement, and it seems to me that to give
people an opportunity to identify themselves as multiracial, if
indeed they are and view themselves that way, is only fair. On
the other hand, one would want to have a further breakdown, as
you indicate in your written statement. It seems to me
inevitable, then, you have double counting.
How do you avoid that? Can someone respond to that for me?
Mr. Conyers. Yes. Having never thought about this subject
that you've asked me before in my life, let me say that it is
my view that double counting is not the world's worst thing.
There's one way to get a total number of the people in the
United States. The fact that some of the total number of people
check more than one box, I don't think will even throw the
Census Bureau people off too much. I mean, this is not rocket
science.
Some people check two boxes. So don't, Census Department,
add up all the boxes and say we got more than 100 percent. Got
it, Census?
So my view is that this may be, you know, a complex
problem, but from this point of view of this Member, I just
don't see that as what we really have to worry about too much.
Mr. Portman. Other panelists want to comment?
Mr. Sawyer. I'm going to urge you strongly to ask the folks
from OMB about this and to refer that question specifically to
the career professionals at the Census Bureau.
But what John just said is correct. Each response counts as
a single response. It may have more than one dimension to it,
but that does not count for more than one response. So each
person responding only counts as one person, no matter how many
different categories they may check.
Mr. Petri. Yes. I would just add, if people were going to
be counted as more than one response if they check more than
one box, I guarantee you, for redistricting purposes, I will
work as hard as I can to get everyone in Wisconsin to check
every box on the census form. [Laughter.]
Mr. Portman. You'd have four or five more Members of
Congress from Wisconsin.
Mr. Petri. And I suspect every other Governor, Senator, and
State legislator in the country will do exactly the same.
So what we are wanting to do is to have a more accurate
census and accommodate changes in our population. It seems to
me that checking more than one, and those that check more than
one, the multiracial cut on it, doing other cuts on it, all
makes sense.
I would think it would be a mistake, myself, in doing the
total, to try to deaggregate it. So if someone checked three
boxes, say, well, we'll add one-third of a vote to this
category and another third to that category, and so on. That
strikes me as probably easily creating confusion rather than
making a more accurate situation. In sociology and in our
society, some people think of themselves as mixed, so why not
admit it and reflect that in the data.
Mr. Portman. Let me clarify one point, then, for my
edification. Maybe I missed something here, but you indicated
earlier that you supported the interagency recommendation,
which rejects the idea of a multiracial category. Is that
correct?
Mr. Petri. No, it doesn't really reject the notion of a
multiracial category. It accommodates the concern I had in
introducing legislation to provide for a multiracial category,
which was that if you are told you must classify yourself as
one or another, and you don't feel, as Tiger Woods is an
example and a lot of other people, that that is accurate, that
you're a bit of each, you are, right now, not accommodated in
the census form.
Telling people that they could check ``multiracial'' struck
me as a way of solving that problem. The census task force
thinks telling people that they don't have to check just one,
they can do more than one, that's fine, too.
When it's presented, then, though, my only concern is that
you then don't go ahead and end up with 110 or 120 percent in
your totals. Instead, when you present it, if you want to call
it a multiracial category, or whatever, you would have a
separate category, for statistical reporting purposes, that
would reflect those who checked more than one box.
Mr. Portman. I will yield back to the chairman because my
time is up.
Ms. Waters. OMB asked us to wait until they come back with
a recommendation about how to do it. And I'm just reserving my
opinion on that aspect of it until they come back, having given
some real thought to it, to suggest to us how it should be
done.
Mr. Portman. Maxine, are you still concerned--and this goes
to your written statement, John, really--that given that--as I
understand the procedure you're suggesting, Tom--still
individuals who consider themselves to be multiracial might not
have the opportunity, at the outset, to identify themselves in
that manner. Is that correct?
Mr. Conyers. No, they would.
Mr. Petri. No, they would.
Ms. Waters. No, no.
Mr. Portman. They would?
Mr. Petri. They would, because they could put down black
and Asian, or black, Asian, and Caucasian.
Mr. Portman. So they would have the opportunity to identify
themselves by one or more.
Ms. Waters. That's right.
Mr. Portman. But not as multiracial, as a category.
Mr. Petri. Yes. You wouldn't have to choose between your
black mother; you could put down both. You're a bit of each.
Mr. Sawyer. If I might offer a clarification. The question
that Tom is concerned about is one of tabulation. We don't want
to have tabulation that confuses the issue about how many
people we're talking about. The issue that we're dealing about
here is one of identification as you fill out the form. The
recommendations that all of us are suggesting to OMB is that
they make sure, in their instructions, that the tabulation be
done with absolute clarity.
So there are two separate questions.
Mr. Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. I yield 5 minutes for the purpose of questioning
to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis.
I might add, before he begins, we have a vote in progress.
Fifteen minutes to get over there. There might be other votes.
This is a motion on the previous question. So we will try to
complete the questioning, if you're not coming back. If you can
come back, we've got 15 minutes of questioning here,
potentially.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say that I appreciate the testimony of each one
of our distinguished witnesses. Let me just ask, we know that
there are political as well as cultural consequences of the
census. I observed, as I listened to the dialog, it occurred to
me that if all of us were as close and congenial as the four of
you, that in all probability we could work out, with relative
ease, most situations that we face.
But my question is, looking at the political and cultural
implications, in your minds does one outweigh the other, or how
do we consider the two? I think what I'm looking for are some
instructions from OMB.
I know, Representative Waters, you indicated that you
wanted to hear their position, but I think that this may be an
excellent opportunity to give them some ideas and instructions
as they wrestle with what these boxes would actually mean.
Ms. Waters. Well, Mr. Davis, let me just say, I agree with
the first recommendation to be able to check more than one box.
I think that is a good, sound recommendation, and I think that
that recommendation takes care of the concern about those who
see themselves as multiracial. There is no need for a box
called ``multiracial.''
I don't have a clue about how to tabulate it. That's a
different question. I don't know and I have no recommendation
about how they would take an individual who checks three boxes
and tabulates that so you don't get more than 100 percent. I
just don't know how to do that.
But I would like to add--and this may be a little bit
outside of your question--that for those people who may be
concerned about having a multiracial category, they may be of
the opinion that this information is somehow seen and
identified with them as an individual, when in fact it is not.
This information, compiled and used in a general way, needs
to be explained, I think, to the public, so that people won't
think that Ms. Jones is somehow going to be identified other
than what Ms. Jones believes she is, because they have checked
this form. It does not work that way.
What Ms. Jones needs to understand is, if she is not given
the opportunity to check a category that would ensure that we
protect her from discrimination, and we are able to count in
ways that will identify where certain things are occurring and
help to make those corrections, she must understand that she
will be a lot better off in this society by having those kinds
of protections than not.
That's the kind of discussion we have not had an
opportunity to get into, in this overall education process.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Anyone else?
Mr. Conyers. Well, I don't have a University of Chicago in
my district, Danny, so I can't deal with these kinds of
questions this morning.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. We'll help you.
Let me just say--and I think it's time to go--I think you
raise a very interesting point, because many of the individuals
with whom I have spoken, who indicated that they were looking
for a multiracial category, have indicated that is was a very
personal feeling and item to them.
We have often suggested to them that, yes, that's important
and that's one thing, but just as important as your personal
feeling really is where you fit as part of a group, especially
if you're a member of a minority group and you're seeking equal
protection and equal opportunity under the law.
So I thank you very much.
Ms. Waters. Thank you.
Mr. Horn. We thank the gentleman.
The subcommittee stands in recess for approximately 12
minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Horn. The subcommittee will reconvene.
We will begin with panel III: Susan Graham, president of
RACE; Carlos Fernandez, coordinator of law and civil rights,
Association of Multiethnic Americans; Harold McDougall,
director, Washington Bureau, NAACP; and Dr. Mary Waters,
Department of Sociology, Harvard University.
If you would please come forward, we will begin.
I might add, for the benefit of the audience, we could have
several votes coming up, presumably, they say, maybe within 10
minutes. I thought I would come back, since I've seen those
things last an hour before they go, and we will just keep
plugging away.
We have a tradition on this subcommittee, which is an
investigating subcommittee, of swearing all witnesses except
Members of Congress to the oath, as to their testimony. So if
you would stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Horn. The clerk will note that all four witnesses
affirmed the oath.
We will just take them in the order that they are in our
agenda, and that means we begin with Susan Graham, president of
Project RACE.
I believe you are from Georgia, are you, Ms. Graham?
Ms. Graham. Yes, I am from Georgia.
Mr. Horn. Well, the Speaker had very much hoped to be here
to introduce you, but he and Mr. Lott and a few of the White
House people are working together, so that will have to be
postponed. So please begin.
STATEMENTS OF SUSAN GRAHAM, PRESIDENT, PROJECT RACE; CARLOS
FERNANDEZ, COORDINATOR FOR LAW AND CIVIL RIGHTS, ASSOCIATION OF
MULTIETHNIC AMERICANS; HAROLD McDOUGALL, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON
BUREAU, NAACP; AND MARY WATERS, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY,
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Ms. Graham. Thank you.
I am pleased to be with you again today, representing the
national membership of Project RACE. I testified before the
subcommittee on May 22 about the plight of multiracial children
in America who are without a racial classification. My son Ryan
also testified. He told you that he wants a classification that
describes exactly who he is, multiracial.
This time I've brought two other young ladies from Georgia
along with me. They have a vested interest. They are both
multiracial. One is my daughter, Megan Graham; and the other is
Ashleigh Miller. Ashleigh's mother filed a suit against OMB so
that Ashleigh and her brother could be considered multiracial.
I have been asked to come back today to address the
interagency recommendation to the Office of Management and
Budget. The national membership of Project RACE expressed
feelings of elation at the ``mark one or more'' parts of the
recommendation. For the first time in the history of this
country, our multiracial children will not have to choose just
one race. It is progress.
But after the elation came the sad truth. Under the current
recommendation, my children and millions of children like them,
merely become ``check all that apply'' kids, or ``check more
than one box'' children, or ``more than one race'' persons.
They will be known as ``multiple checkoffs,'' or ``half-and-
halfers,'' or as John Hope Franklin, chairman of President
Clinton's Race Relations Commission referred to them, ``half-
white Negroes and half-black whites.''
They are none of the above. They are multiracial children.
The worldwide readership of ``Interracial Voice'' and the
national membership of A Place for Us join with Project RACE in
strongly advocating for a multiracial category. We want the
message to be very clear: multiracial category children exist,
and the Federal Government recognizes them.
You must understand that the proposal, in effect, says,
multiracial persons are only parts of other communities; they
are not whole. When I was in school, one-half plus one-half
equalled a whole. I think it still does, unless you're
multiracial.
Let's be very clear. The compromise for ``check one or
more,'' without a multiracial identifier, was not a compromise
with the multiracial community. It was a compromise with the
opponents of the category.
I have brought short comments from Project RACE members
from across the country, of all ages and races, voicing their
opinions about the recommendation and the need for the
multiracial classification. I ask that they be entered into the
record.
Mr. Horn. They will be in the record at this point.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.381
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.382
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.383
Ms. Graham. Thank you.
Representatives of OMB stated in a media briefing held on
July 8, 1997, that a multiracial classification would ``no
doubt add to racial tension and further fragmentation of our
population.'' This statement is racist, untrue, and
inflammatory.
In the seven States which currently have a multiracial
category, there has been no racial tension or fragmentation of
the population as a result of the multiracial classification.
In fact, people of all races have been glad to have the
multiracial category. I have heard of no race riots, hate
crimes, protests, or the slightest bit of tension in those
seven States because of the multiracial classification.
And incidentally, those seven States include Mr. Sawyer's
and Mr. Portman's State of Ohio, Mr. Conyers' State of
Michigan, Mr. Davis' State of Illinois, and Speaker Gingrich's
State of Georgia.
The Interagency Committee obviously recognizes the need for
appropriate racial labels. They have recommended adding
African-American to the black category, changing Hawaiian to
Native Hawaiian, and changing Alaskan Native to Alaska Native.
Terms like Latino can be added to Hispanic. Why can't
multiracial be used in addition to ``check more than one''? Why
is it unimportant to be multiracial but important to be
African-American or Latino?
Why does OMB object to the word ``multiracial''? First,
because they do not want to define the word. In fact, they
don't have to define it at all. OMB Directive 15 should state,
``A multiracial person may have origins in two or more of the
listed groups.'' OMB Directive 15 could state, ``Multiracial
persons can but are not required to report more than one race''
instead of ``Persons of mixed racial origin can but are not
required to report more than one race.''
Second, some of the leadership of the other minority
communities just do not like the term ``multiracial.'' Their
irrational fear of loss of numbers was addressed during the
last hearing. It is simply ridiculous that multiracial children
should have to have the sanction and approval of other minority
groups in order to have their own identity.
Equally disturbing is the lack of information on how
persons who check more than one box will be counted. The
recommendation speaks of tabulation in algorithms. They say
they won't be able to figure it out until January 1, 1999. The
recommendation states, ``Data producers are encouraged to
provide greater detail about the distribution of multiple
responses.'' Encouraged but not mandated.
There are 10 additional combinations under the ``check one
or more scheme.'' Six persons who check two boxes, three
persons who check three boxes, and one person who would check
four boxes. That's it; 10 combinations is all we're talking
about.
The only accurate and complete way for the government to
report the breakdown of this racial group is to report on the
additional 10 categories under the major heading of
``multiracial.'' It should be mandatory to report this way. Not
only is it the most accurate way to count, but it gives us the
information absolutely necessary for medical purposes. To allow
people to check more than one box and then revert to some kind
of scheme to reaggregate them into one racial category is
discriminatory.
It doesn't take 50 task forces and 50 government
statisticians running around to find out how other countries do
this, to see how it can be done accurately. It certainly
shouldn't take 2 years, and it should have been decided in the
4 years of OMB investigation. Thus, we are being asked to
comment on a recommendation which has not answered a very
important part of the outcome.
I listened to comments of Representative Tom Sawyer the
other day about sampling on the census. He repeatedly said,
``The goal is accuracy.'' If the goal is accuracy for the
argument of sampling, then the goal should be accuracy in
counting people who do fill out their census forms. Can we
afford to have two different standards when it comes to the
accurate portrayal of the makeup of race in America?
Further, it must be made very clear that respondents to
race can report more than one race. It is not enough to have it
hidden within OMB's Statistical Directive 15; it must be stated
clearly on forms. The Project RACE recommendation, which we
presented before, ``if you consider yourself to be biracial or
multiracial, check as many as apply,'' is far more preferable
to ambiguous language. We must have clarity if accuracy is our
goal.
I want to wrap up with talking about who is confused here.
President Clinton said last week that his high profile panel on
race would focus on multiracialism, yet his administration is
afraid to define ``multiracial.''
One of the reasons given by the Interagency Committee under
``Findings not favoring adoption of a method for reporting more
than one race,'' is that there are no Federal legislative
requirements for information about the multiracial population.
But there are also no Federal legislative requirements for an
African-American identifier either.
This subcommittee should recommend passage of H.R. 830 so
that no one is confused or, as Mr. Conyers from Michigan said,
we should include a multiracial category with the same
questions and checkoffs below it. That would also be another
way that we could do it.
The recommendation is for an implementation of the ``mark
one or more'' scheme by the year 2003. Is this so confusing
that it will take 6 years to implement? My son, who first
testified on this issue when he was 8 years old, will be 18
years old in the year 2003. He will be old enough to vote and
still not have a multiracial classification. I wonder who he
will vote for?
When I told my son Ryan about the interagency
recommendation, he looked at me and said, ``Mom, what's the
Federal Government going to call me next--gray--Why can't they
let me be multiracial?'' Perhaps you can answer that question
for him better than I.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Graham follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.384
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.385
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.386
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.387
Mr. Horn. We thank you for your testimony. It has been very
helpful.
Without objection, the testimony of Representative Carrie
P. Meek will be put in the record at the end of the Members'
panel.
We now go to Carlos Fernandez, coordinator for law and
civil rights, the Association of Multiethnic Americans.
Mr. Fernandez.
Mr. Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Carlos Fernandez. I am here speaking for myself
and also on behalf of the Association of Multiethnic Americans.
I am the association's coordinator for law and civil rights,
and served as its founding president in 1988.
The Association of Multiethnic Americans is a nationwide
confederation of multiethnic, interracial groups, representing
thousands of people from all walks of life, and includes
individuals and families of various racial and ethnic origins
and mixtures.
On June 30, 1993, I had the opportunity to testify on
behalf of AMEA before the House Subcommittee on Census,
Statistics, and Postal Personnel, to present for the first time
an overview of our concerns with respect to the acknowledgement
of multiracial, multiethnic people by our government.
I hereby incorporate that testimony herein by reference.
Mr. Horn. Without objection, it will be put in the record
at this point.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.388
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.389
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.390
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.391
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.392
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.393
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.394
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.395
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.396
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.397
Mr. Fernandez. Thank you.
I submitted written testimony to this subcommittee, in May
of this year, reviewing the legal and constitutional issues
which pertain to the Government's racial and ethnic
classifications as they affect multiracial, multiethnic
individuals. I hereby also incorporate that testimony herein by
reference.
Mr. Horn. Without objection, it will be put in at this
point.
[Note.--The information referred to can be found on p.
558.]
Mr. Fernandez. Following the enactment of the 1965 Civil
Rights Act, the newly created Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.
Mr. Horn. 1964. I think you mean 1964.
Mr. Fernandez. Excuse me, it is a typo. Yes.
The newly created Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
required employers to report on the numbers of Negroes,
Orientals, American Indians, and Spanish-Americans, and
produced Standard Form 100 for this purpose. Other agencies
followed suit.
By the 1970's, racial statistics gathered from agencies of
government at all levels were becoming unwieldy and
standardization was deemed necessary. Mindful of this, the
Office of Management and Budget produced Statistical Policy
Directive 15 in 1977. Directive 15 remains to this day the
supreme authority for racial classifications in the United
States, affecting all Governmental agencies, including the
census, the public schools, Social Security, and so forth.
The directive also dictates classification policy to the
private sector through the EEOC, the Small Business
Administration, as well as by way of example. OMB Directive 15
sets forth five racial ethnic categories: white, black, Asian/
Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaskan Native, and Hispanic.
Additionally, the directive requires reporting in one category
only for each individual counted, the so-called ``check one
only'' rule. ``Other'' is not one of the reporting categories.
Directive 15's stated purpose is to require government
agencies at all levels to design their racial and ethnic query
forms in such a way that the information provided can be
reported in terms of one of the Directive 15 categories only.
Thus, people whose parentage encompasses more than one of the
designated categories cannot be counted except monoracially. No
reason is stated as to why an individual must report in only
one category.
The OMB's Interagency Committee for the Review of the
Racial and Ethnic Standards announced this month its
recommendations regarding OMB's Statistical Directive 15. In
particular, the Interagency Committee recommended that
Directive 15 be amended to permit multiple checkoffs on
government forms whenever racial and ethnic information is
requested.
Additionally, the Interagency Committee specifically ruled
out the addition of a new classification for multiracial
individuals. The Interagency Committee did not issue any
proposed draft for the amended Directive 15. The committee
recommended that the proposed changes be used in the 2000
decennial census and that all agencies conform to the changes
no later than January 1, 2003. There wasn't any mention as to
whether any agency might be permitted to implement the proposed
changes before the year 2000.
The Association of Multiethnic Americans and allied
organizations and individuals regard the Interagency Committee
recommendations as a necessary and revolutionary change. If
implemented appropriately, we believe the proposed changes to
OMB Directive 15 will meet our most fundamental concern;
namely, acknowledgement by our government that multiracial/
multiethnic people do, in fact, exist and have a right to be
counted.
Additionally, the proposed changes will resolve the legal
and constitutional problems presented by the current Directive
15, which I pointed out to this subcommittee in May.
While we have proposed that the directive be changed to
also include a new classification for multiracial/multiethnic
individuals, a proposal that we stand by, we nonetheless regard
the Interagency Committee's recommendations as the best
compromise possible at this time, and will wholeheartedly
support them.
There are, however, three major concerns we have about the
final wording about the amended Directive 15, all of which are,
in our view, critical. One, Directive 15 must ensure that the
total number of individuals returning multiple responses to
racial and ethnic questions can be discerned.
The tabulation procedure to be adopted must be one that
allows us to distinguish both the numbers and composition of
people returning multiple responses. Our understanding is that
the OMB wishes to ensure this, as well, and has solicited
assistance in devising a practical means to accomplish this.
Without such a tabulation, the numbers of multiracial/
multiethnic people will be lost among the other
classifications. Among other things, this would impede
assessing the health needs of our population and would serve no
fathomable purpose.
Directive 15 must include clear language that will allow
for multiple checkoffs for individuals who are both Hispanic
and non-Hispanic. It would be grossly inconsistent, and again
would serve no fathomable purpose, to single out one particular
segment of the population by denying them the same right to
indicate, in a factual manner, their identity.
The Interagency Committee's recommendations were unclear on
this point, making reference only to racial identification, and
saying nothing about whether the amended Directive 15 will
retain its dual interchangeable formats, one of which
racializes the Hispanic classification, the other which treats
Hispanics as an ethnic group.
Third, Directive 15 must not include any prohibition on the
use of a multiracial/multiethnic classification by any
government agency. The Interagency Committee recommended
against the addition of a multiracial/multiethnic
classification but said nothing about explicitly prohibiting
the use of such an identifier by any agency subject to
Directive 15.
The committee explained its position by saying that
``Having a separate category would, in effect, create another
population group, and no doubt add to racial tension and
further fragmentation of our population.''
We do not agree with this opinion of the Interagency
Committee and still believe that a multiracial/multiethnic
classification should be included, albeit only together with
the multiple checkoffs that have been recommended. However, we
believe that the probable intent of this opinion was to explain
why they were not recommending a new classification in the
directive itself and not a prohibition on its use.
Several States and other public bodies have already
legislated the use of a multiracial classification. We believe
these laws should stand and that, prospectively, other public
bodies be permitted to enact such laws, as long as they are
amended or enacted to include multiple checkoffs.
We disagree that a multiracial/multiethnic classification
would ``create a new population group.'' The population group
to which they refer already exists and is growing rapidly. We
also take issue with the opinion that a multiracial/multiethnic
classifier would ``add to racial tension'' and ``fragment our
population.'' The essence of the multiracial/multiethnic
population is one of racial and ethnic unity.
As we have stated before, our community is specially
situated to confront racial and interethnic issues, precisely
because of the special experiences and understanding we acquire
in the intimacy of our families and our personalities. Of all
populations, ours has the unique potential to become the stable
core around which the ethnic pluralism of the United States
can, in fact, be united.
We thank the subcommittee for hearing our views.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fernandez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.398
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.399
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.400
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.401
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.402
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.403
Mr. Horn. We thank you very much for coming.
Our next witness is Harold McDougall, the director of the
Washington Bureau of the NAACP.
You have the title of, I think, one of your predecessors,
who was one of the finest people that ever walked Capitol Hill,
and that was Clarence Mitchell. He happened to be one of my
three mentors when I came to the Hill, in 1960, as a Senate
staff person. So you are filling a very honorable office.
Mr. McDougall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm also trying to fill very large shoes. As you mentioned,
he was referred to as ``the 101st Senator'' and ``the Lion of
the Lobby.''
I am Harold McDougall, the director of the Washington
Bureau of the NAACP, the Nation's oldest and largest civil
rights organization, over 600,000 members in the 50 States and
the District of Columbia, and around the world.
I would like to summarize my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and
have it incorporated into the record.
Mr. Horn. Without objection, all testimony is automatically
incorporated the minute I introduce you.
Mr. McDougall. Certainly.
Mr. Horn. Feel free to summarize.
Mr. McDougall. Also, I will just make the formality of
requesting that my May testimony be incorporated, as well.
Mr. Horn. Absolutely. Without objection.
[Note.--The information referred to can be found on p.
307.]
Mr. McDougall. Thank you.
Currently, the Federal Government uses race data for
statistical and administrative purposes, including monitoring
civil rights compliance pursuant to OMB Directive 15. The data
cumulated under OMB Directive 15 has been used to help enforce
the Voting Rights Act, State redistricting plans, to monitor
discrimination in the private sector, and to establish,
evaluate, and monitor affirmative action plans.
As Congressman Conyers indicated, the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act is impacted by census data, as well as the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act, desegregation plans in the public
schools, minority business development programs, the Fair
Housing Act, and to monitor environmental degradation in
communities of color, just to name a few.
So this data, obviously, is very important. As I think some
of the members in the previous panel indicated, much remains to
be done with respect to racial discrimination in this country,
and the data, of course, is so very important in that respect.
Racial discrimination is still prevalent in American life, and
the residual effects of past discrimination continue to limit
the advancement of African-Americans and other racial
minorities.
I did get an opportunity to take a look at Mr. Gingrich's
testimony. One of the things that he said was that it would be
good if we could just call each other ``Americans'' and all
this would be behind us. It's as if we could change reality by
changing what we call ourselves.
For those who say our society is color-blind, I have to
reiterate that saying is not the same thing as doing. If we are
to reach the deep roots of the legacy of slavery, involuntary
servitude, segregation, discrimination, and hate violence, we
must commit ourselves not merely to undo the words of forced
division but also to undo the consequences of oppressive acts.
The census has been critical in documenting for the
American public the deep racial inequalities which still exist
in virtually every dimension of American social, economic, and
political life. Under these conditions, any effort that
threatens to complicate, retard, or thwart the collection of
this useful data will meet vigorous resistance from the NAACP.
I want to talk briefly about the aspirations of individuals
with multiple racial heritages.
Mr. Horn. Why don't we, at that point, have a recess so
that you can finish your statement.
We are faced with this situation on the floor: We have one
vote now. The 15 minutes will end in 4 or 5 minutes, and I need
to get over there to vote. There will then be a series of 5-
minute votes. So I suggest--and I'm aware of Ms. Katzen's
problem, and we will get you out of here by 12:40--but I think
we're going to have to be in recess till at least 10 of 12.
Mr. McDougall. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Horn. So let's all relax, and we will come back to hear
the rest of your testimony.
[Recess.]
Mr. Horn. The hearing will resume.
Mr. McDougall, please pick up where you left off.
Mr. McDougall. Maybe I'll let you catch your breath, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Horn. No, I'm in good shape.
Mr. McDougall. OK. I was just emphasizing that, for us, the
question of the integrity of data collection over time is of
utmost importance in terms of the vigorous enforcement of the
civil rights laws.
I also wanted to make some comment about the aspirations of
individuals with multiple racial heritages. The NAACP has
always supported the right of individual self-determination and
self-identification in defining one's racial makeup. For
medical reasons and for reasons of possible discrimination
against individuals precisely because they are of diverse
racial backgrounds, the NAACP supports the legitimate
aspirations of this community for a fair and accurate count of
their numbers.
I want to talk a little bit about the Interagency Committee
recommendations of ``select one or more'' rather than a
separate multiracial category. In Chapter 6, the committee
recommended that the method for census respondents to report
more than one race should take the form of multiple responses
to a single question; i.e., select one or more rather than a
separate multiracial category.
The ``select one or more'' option, according to the
committee, gives the most accurate picture of changing racial
and ethnic identification among our citizens without creating
discontinuities with historical data collection, such as those
associated with a separate multiracial designation.
This accords with my earlier testimony in which the NAACP
expressed concern that creation of a separate multiracial
category might disaggregate the apparent numbers of members of
historically protected minority groups, diluting benefits to
which they are entitled as a protected class under civil rights
laws and under the Constitution itself.
We know that a small minority of advocates from the
community of persons of multiple racial backgrounds continue to
advocate for a multiracial category exclusively, apparently
because they wish to be considered a new race. The NAACP
believes that all people of color, all facing discrimination
and with similar aspirations, should, wherever possible, work
together and not in opposition to one another.
The proposal by the Interagency Committee of a ``select all
that apply'' approach rather than a multiracial category
approach facilitates that process. Let me reiterate the NAACP's
continued opposition to the collection of the data, in the
first instance, in any multiracial category.
The Interagency Committee cautions that the use of a
separate multiracial category rather than a ``select one or
more'' approach would create needless confusion. It gives an
example in the fact that the States of Georgia, Indiana, and
Michigan define ``multiracial'' as having parents of different
races; whereas, California is now considering legislation which
would define ``multiracial'' as having parents, grandparents,
or great-grandparents of different races.
Now, under those definitions, I, myself, would be black in
Georgia, Indiana, and Michigan, but I would be multiracial in
California. So now I'm getting confused.
So I think we have to be very careful about this. Speaker
Gingrich, in his testimony, indicated that he wanted to avoid
the creation of subgroups to further fractionate America. I
would caution, then, about developing a multiracial group for
that very reason. I guess, in that respect, the Speaker and I
agree.
We must take care not to recreate, reinforce, or even
expand the caste system we are all trying so hard to overcome.
The NAACP believes that most individuals of diverse racial and
ethnic backgrounds do not think of themselves as a new race,
but instead wish to celebrate all their heritages rather than
blend them into a new category reminiscent of the ``colored''
category of South Africa's very sad history of apartheid. For
those who treasure each and every forebear, a ``check one or
more'' option should suffice.
I want to talk a little bit about the methods of data
tabulation and get past the cultural questions. The remaining
question now is not the collection of data. The ``select one or
more'' option of the Interagency Committee has admirably split
the Gordian Knot that separated many of the traditional civil
rights organizations from the emerging multiethnic and
multiracial groups. As people of color, we greatly appreciate
that.
Now the question moves further down the pipeline of the
data process to the point of tabulation. What is needed now are
protocols to modify existing tabulation procedures to
accommodate census responses reporting more than one race. Our
concern, obviously, is that such protocols maintain the
integrity of civil rights enforcement.
In addition, we must bear in mind that multiple race
respondents might encounter discrimination as people of mixed
race, as people visually identified with one or more of the
single-race categories, either, or both. Under those
circumstances, we believe it is important to be able to count
all the acts of discrimination that an individual might face.
The interagency report identified three possible tabulation
methods. There are some others, somewhat more esoteric, that we
don't find satisfactory. I think my colleague, Dr. Waters from
Harvard, will go more deeply into those.
But the three that we found most interesting were presented
by the interagency report as bridges between existing
classification systems and those to be developed. And they are
the single-race approach, the all-inclusive approach, and the
historical series approach.
The single-race approach approximates the use of a
multiracial category. It involves assigning single-race
responses to a single race category and multiple-race responses
to a multiple-race category. Now, how the responses to the
multiple race category would be then disaggregated and
reaggregated, we don't have any guidance, and obviously that's
something we would be very interested in finding out about.
The all-inclusive approach, obviously, we like. Congressman
Conyers indicated that adding up to more than 100 percent of a
person is a problem for capitation, not for the ability to
track instances of discrimination. The all-inclusive approach
involves assigning all those who check more than one race into
every category that they check off.
Tiger Woods, ``Cablanasian,'' as he calls himself,
Caucasian, black, Native American, and Asian, would be counted
four times. Now, you know, I think a lot of us would like to
see four Tigers out there.
Each community of his diverse heritage would have the
opportunity to claim him, without an unseemly parents' battle
to be resolved Solomon-like by offering to cut him into
quarters. Each community would also have the ability to protect
him from each active institutional or individual discrimination
he might face, whether as a member of a single race group or as
a mixed race individual.
As the committee notes, this would result in percentages
for each of the four separate racial categories exceeding 100
percent, because multiple-race responses would be counted in
each reported racial category. Still, the report continues, the
all-inclusive approach would provide information on the total
number of times the racial category had been elected.
It would also enable organizations like the NAACP to record
the number of times that an individual might face different
kinds of discrimination. So we, obviously, favor that approach.
We wish to know each time such discrimination occurs, for
whatever reason.
The third approach, the historical series approach, seeks
to fine-tune the tabulation so that multiple-race respondents
are assigned to single race categories from the outset, based
on the likelihood that persons who check off at least one of
the historically protected categories, black, Asian or Pacific
Islander, and Native American, will encounter discrimination.
This approach meets many of the goals of the all-inclusive
approach in keeping track of likely acts of discrimination,
while also meeting many of the objectives of the single-race
approach in keeping the capitation or head count at no more
than 100 percent of the population. The only problem area, and
it may be a small one, exists with regard to multiple-race
respondents who check off more than one protected category.
Tiger Woods, again, is our example.
Tiger would not be assigned to white, because he also
checked off a protected category. He would not be assigned to
Asian, black, or Native American, because he could be claimed
by all three, driving the capitation rate in each single race
category over 100 percent. Instead, he would stay in a
multiracial category. This, obviously, needs to be examined
further.
In conclusion, we can say that it may be that the single-
race, the all-inclusive, and the historical series approaches,
singly or in combination, might be used by different agencies
for different purposes, in the kind of aggregation and
disaggregation exercises that Congressman Sawyer referred to
earlier in the day.
What is important for our purposes is that evidence of
every act of discrimination be preserved. What would be
important from the standpoint of the Census Bureau and the
Federal agencies, and obviously Congressmen concerned about the
size of their districts, is that protocols be adopted that
would enable the different agencies and the different formulas
to talk to one another and share data in a meaningful way.
As a general matter, we favor the all-inclusive approach
and would not favor the single-race approach, and the
historical series approach appears to us to be a compromise.
All in all, we appreciate the spirit of compromise and
creativity the Interagency Committee has shown, and look
forward to a successful resolution of the remaining questions.
Surely this is a matter we would all like to get past and
through, so that we can focus on issues of fair and accurate
methods of assuring that the entire population is actually
counted. In this regard, the issue of statistical sampling,
which was mentioned earlier in the day, is key.
Such modern methods of ensuring an accurate count are
necessary in our ever-changing society. Just as we have been
innovative in resolving the issue of how our citizens identify
themselves, so, too, we hope for innovation in ensuring that
all our citizens are fairly counted, especially minorities and
the poor.
I thank you for your time and for receiving my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McDougall follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.404
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.405
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.406
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.407
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.408
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.409
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.410
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.411
Mr. Horn. We thank you.
We are going to adjust panels. I had planned that Dr.
Waters would sit with both panels. So if we can get some extra
chairs in there, I'm going to have Ms. Katzen first, because
I'm conscious of her time commitment. If the staff will move
some extra chairs in there, we're going to keep this panel;
we're going to add to it the administration panel; and we're
going to get to a dialog once we get through the testimony and
the formal statement each one wants to make.
As I say, Dr. Waters, we're not going to forget you. You
are going to help bring peace and harmony here.
All government witnesses can come forward, and we will just
integrate you. So we have Sally Katzen, the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget; we have Isabelle Katz Pinzler, Acting
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Department of
Justice; and Nancy Gordon, Associate Director for Demographic
Programs, Bureau of the Census.
All who are going to be testifying, including staff backing
you up--if you turn, for instance, to Ms. Wallman--I want them
all taking the oath. So if you will all stand, with all staff
that are going to be testifying sometime in the course of this
hearing.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Horn. All witnesses have affirmed, including staff. The
clerk will make a note.
Dr. Katzen, I'm aware that you have a tight time schedule.
You have appeared here many times, and you and I have talked
privately on this, but let's get it on the record as to where
we are, how we got there.
I think the basic question that everyone has asked, the
members of this panel as well as congressional Members, and Ms.
Meek mentions it in her testimony, which I've put in the
record--she couldn't make it this morning--and that is, how are
we going to realistically use those data to help us in civil
rights enforcement, in benefits received, and so forth?
I am assuming that you will get into some of that.
STATEMENTS OF SALLY KATZEN, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET; ISABELLE KATZ PINZLER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND NANCY GORDON,
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR DEMOGRAPHIC PROGRAMS, BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS
Ms. Katzen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate your inviting me here today. As in the past, I
want to commend you for your leadership in this area, and the
series of hearings that you are holding. I think they are very
beneficial.
I have found sitting here and listening to the witnesses
who preceded me to be very informative. I appreciate having the
opportunity to add a little bit of background and perhaps a
little bit of prognosis of where we are going from here to the
discussion that we have had so far.
As you will recall, the last time I testified was on April
23. At that point I gave you a detailed report of our progress,
but we had not yet received the results of the last of a series
of tests in the research that was a very important part of our
work.
Our work was a two parallel track study: one of public
comment and public suggestions, and one of research and
testing. We received the results of the last research in May,
and then I received from the Interagency Committee its
recommendations and report, which we made available to the
public in a Federal Register notice on July 9 of this year,
requesting comments for a 60-day period.
What you have heard this morning underscores some of the
salient facts. First, this is the report of the Interagency
Committee that consists of 30 Federal agencies that use or
generate data. Second, the recommendations were unanimous.
There was not a single dissent or separate concurrence, which
is somewhat unusual when you gather 30 Federal agencies
together on any issue of policy.
Third, there has been a lot of discussion this morning
about the recommendations. With the exception of Congressman
Sawyer, who mentioned one or two of the others, the witness
have been focusing on the treatment of persons who have
multiple racial heritages.
All of the recommendations of the Interagency Committee are
set forth in Chapter 6 of the document. I would encourage those
who have an interest in this area to look at Chapters 1 through
5, as well, because I believe that they provide both a context
and the basis for the Interagency Committee's recommendations.
I also want to emphasize here, as I have in other
instances, that while this hearing is talking about the
implications for the decennial census, OMB Directive 15 applies
to all Federal forms for statistical and administrative or
programmatic reports.
As a result, it is not just the census, but these
standards, these minimum sets of categories that would be
determined, would apply for housing assistance applications,
for school registrations, and for medical research. It is not
just the census, although that has been the sole issue that has
been discussed to date.
I also would like to mention, in light of some of the
comments that I heard this morning, that this is the
recommendation of the Interagency Committee. OMB has asked for
public opinion on it. What I am saying now will be drawn from
the report and recommendations.
Ultimately, at the conclusion of the public comment period,
I will be making a decision with respect to changes, if any, in
the existing standards. I am assuring myself that I will keep
an open mind and listen to all comments. Therefore, if I'm
making a statement, it is drawn from the report that we have
received rather than representing my own or OMB's views of
this. Our views will be made known in October.
I think, however, one comment that may be appropriate is to
respond to the comment that this is an attempt to compromise,
or that it is seeking to appease one group or another. My view
is that this is the effort of professional statisticians
wrestling with--and I think that is the appropriate verb to
use--wrestling with a very difficult statistical policy issue,
and that they were addressing it as professional statisticians.
Indeed, over the 4-year period, we have had very little
comment, and certainly very little negative comment about the
process that we have used to keep this on that basis. The
objective was not to read the tea leaves or figure out what
might be a politically attractive solution, but actually to try
to come up with the best policy for the government for
statistical purposes.
Therefore, rather than viewing this as a compromise, I
believe they believe it is a principled accommodation of the
legitimate interests that have been presented.
I also would note in this connection that we have heard
some talk about how long it has taken. I believe actually
that's a sign of the seriousness of purpose that was addressed
to this. It has been 4 years. There has been a comprehensive
review, which is what I committed to in a congressional hearing
when we started this.
There was also some question in terms of the timing. The
recommendation of the Interagency Committee is that all Federal
agencies implement whatever changes are adopted no later than
2003. In answer to Mr. Fernandez, yes, some can implement them
sooner.
The 2003 date was used because any changes will be
reflected in the decennial census, and the results of the
decennial census will not be available until the early part of
the next millennium. Since they provide the denominator for
many of the programmatic offices, it may be inappropriate for
some of the Federal agencies to use the revised forms before
then. But it is an outside date, not necessarily an end date.
I guess the other comment I would make as a general comment
is that we heard this morning a number of comments about the
good work that was done. I want to emphasize that whatever
kudos were given or compliments stated, they belong to the
Interagency Committee, which is a group of professional
statisticians from the civil service, under the leadership of
Clyde Tucker, who is in the audience, from BLS, and under the
supervision of Katherine Wallman, who is the Chief Statistician
and head of my Statistical Policy branch.
Whatever good has been done, it is to their credit, and not
to mine or to OMB's generally. This is their effort and their
work. I have been, in some instances, a spokesperson on this
issue, but they deserve whatever credit is received on this.
Now, you have already heard a lot about the actual
recommendations, and I think it is not very useful to go
through them again, except to underscore a few points that may
clarify what many of the previous witnesses have been talking
about.
You have heard that there should not be a separate racial
category, a box to be checked off, called ``multiracial.'' One
of the findings, again, from the Interagency Committee report,
is that the term ``multiracial'' frequently was misunderstood
by respondents to mean not only persons of mixed race, using
the four general categories of race that we have previously
identified, but also to include multiethnic heritages.
Irish-Americans, or someone with a parent who is Irish-
American and a parent who is Italian-American, identified
themselves as multiracial, as did persons who had a Jewish
parent and a non-Jewish parent, because they saw Judaism as not
only a religion but a race. There were a number of different
variations in the testing that showed that the term
``multiracial'' had a variety of meanings.
The other finding of the Interagency Committee was that
``multiracial,'' standing alone, was not particularly
informative, since even if it were limited to combinations of
the four categories that are already provided for, it would be
unclear from simply checking a box, ``multiracial,'' whether
the person had a parent or heritage that was both black and
white, or whether it was American Indian and Asian-American, or
black and Asian-American, or one of the other combinations. So,
standing alone, a multiracial box was not particularly
informative.
There was a call this morning for accuracy and clarity. The
finding of the Interagency Committee was that a multiracial box
standing alone did not provide that.
On the other hand, the committee was very clear that
individuals should be able to check one or more of the
historical categories. This, I think, reflected the Interagency
Committee's belief that, as you, Mr. Chairman, pointed out in
your opening statement, this is a deeply personal, individual
issue. On self-identification, persons should be able to
celebrate their entire heritage and not be forced to choose. As
a matter of principle, this was very important to the
Interagency Committee.
One of the recommendations of the committee that has gotten
the most attention this morning is how these data will be
reported. I think there is unanimity of opinion that that is
the most telling point. Our goal is accuracy; our goal is
clarity. So the recommendation of the Interagency Committee is
that, when the data are reported, a minimum of one additional
racial category designated ``more than one race,'' would be
included, so long as the criteria for data quality and
confidentiality are met.
We also envision appreciably more data being available. In
response to the questions that have been raised, I don't have
answers, but I am aware of the importance of providing as much
data as possible.
I have said that I am from the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs. ``Information'' is my first name, and I
believe that we should have robust information that provides
the kind of information that would be used in different
circumstances. Remember, this applies to a variety of different
types of forms, and therefore, in many different circumstances,
different presentations of the data can be more informative
than others.
We are in the process, even as we speak, of compiling a
group of experts, drawn from those who worked on the
Interagency Committee in doing the research, to begin to put
together recommendations for the tabulation. Our mandate or our
charge to this group is to provide as much information as
possible, in as many different ways as possible, so that we
will have this information available for the purposes that we
might like. And we need it to be done in a way, as Congressman
Sawyer said, that is rational and consistent with historical
data, so that we do not lose the data that we have over the
last 20 years.
This is a not insignificant issue, and I am not at all
surprised by people who say, ``But you don't have all the
answers yet, and yet you want us to comment on your proposal.
We need more information.'' The reason for our proceeding as we
have is because of the tremendous interest that was generated
in the underlying report. Until the final research was
concluded in May, we were not in a position to receive the
basic recommendations. But as those are being formulated, as I
say, we are putting together a group to do the follow-on work
and present recommendations and guidance for the reporting and
tabulating of this information.
Because the time this morning is short, I will just
identify other areas that are important for those who are
interested in this issue.
In addition to the multiracial question, there is the set
of issues surrounding the request for information on ethnicity,
Hispanic origin, not of Hispanic origin, and the sequencing of
that question with the racial questions: whether it should be
combined, whether it should be separate, and whether it should
precede or follow. We have, again, interagency recommendations
on that that are supported by the findings, that should produce
more complete data, both on Hispanics and of non-Hispanics that
would be very useful.
There is another area of the report that deals with whether
additional categories, apart from a multiracial category,
should be included. We heard from Middle Easterners, Arabs,
Cape Verdeans, European-Americans, German-Americans, Creoles,
all asking that they have a box identifying them.
The Interagency Committee's recommendation was that there
should be no racial or ethnic categories added to the minimum
standards, and I stress ``minimum,'' because in the long form
on the census, we have a lot of national origin type questions.
In other kinds of surveys, you can always ask additional
classifications, so long as they can be reaggregated to the
major categories.
But if you set a minimum standard and you include
additional boxes, if you will, then those additional boxes
would have to appear on each and every Federal form. We have
found that the size and the geographic concentration of several
of these populations would mean that the inclusion of these in
all of the forms would yield very little data. That's not to
say they can't be included where they are needed or necessary.
There also was a lot of discussion in the hearings that we
had and this is reflected in the report on where Native
Hawaiians should be included. I have already had one briefing
with members of the Hawaiian congressional delegation on this
issue. There were also questions about terminology that were
raised.
What I am trying to do here is simply reflect that, while
the attention has been on the multiracial issue, this report
goes well beyond that. This report speaks to a much broader
base and covers a lot of other issues. Again, I would encourage
those who are interested to read the whole report, and then
comment. We are in the middle of a comment period. We want to
hear what the American public thinks about what has been
recommended to OMB.
There is a set of general principles that has guided this
review. They may well serve as a very good basis for people to
comment, to see if we have met our principles. We think it is
very important that what we end up with is something that the
American people understand and appreciate and accept, because
then we will have greater responsiveness and even more accurate
data. So I cannot overemphasize how important the public
comment period is.
I'm sorry I've run over my time, but I wanted to respond to
some of the issues that were raised this morning. I thank you
again for your leadership in this area.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Katzen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.412
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.413
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.414
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.415
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.416
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.417
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.418
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.419
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.420
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.421
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.422
Mr. Horn. Let me begin the questioning. Each Member will
have 5 minutes. We will go a second round, if we can, and then
we will get to the other witnesses.
I know you have to leave. Let's just get a few facts
straight. When you mentioned the national origin question,
that's on the long form only.
Ms. Katzen. Long form of the census, yes.
Mr. Horn. And how many people get the long form, what
percent of the American citizenry?
Ms. Katzen. One-sixth.
Mr. Horn. One-sixth get the long form. Is that national
origin based on where they came from or where their parents and
grandparents came from?
Ms. Katzen. Nancy.
Ms. Gordon. The question is left for the respondent to
answer. It follows the same principle of self-identification,
so it's the person's desire to express whatever national origin
he or she identifies with.
Mr. Horn. Has the Census Bureau, which you represent, ever
followed up with an interview to see just how accurate that
is--to know how people are interpreting it and whether the data
of any use based on that variety of self-identification?
Ms. Gordon. There was a small reinterview program for the
1990 census, and I could get you the results of that for the
record.
Mr. Horn. Do you remember offhand just the general
conclusion?
Ms. Gordon. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with it.
Mr. Horn. Without objection, it will go in the record at
this point.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.423
Mr. Horn. Now I'm interested in who will make the
decision--the President, the Director of OMB, or Administrator
Katzen--after you summarize all the Federal Register comments?
That's the hierarchy, isn't it?
Ms. Katzen. That is the hierarchy. The Vice President is
there as well.
Mr. Horn. He is not in the hierarchy. Sorry, he is a
legislative official. Presidents can give him assignments, but
there is no Constitutional assignment for him.
Ms. Katzen. The Director of OMB has asked me to supervise
this process. On an issue like this, I fully expect to keep him
well informed of my thought processes when we reach that stage.
And I believe, actually, that this will be reflected in an OMB
directive, which would then be signed by the Director of OMB.
Mr. Horn. Very good. Now the real question everybody is
sort of asking is, how do we avoid double counting? What is
your view on that?
Ms. Katzen. My view is that, where we provide different
cuts of the information, we can use the information in a way
that assures the most precise measure for the purposes needed.
In some instances, one can provide, as we recommend here, at
least one alternative that adds to 100, so there is no double
counting. In other instances, I wouldn't call it double
counting.
If one were interested in finding out, for example, the
aggregate number of persons in this country who view themselves
as Asian-Americans, it would be fair, I believe, to include all
of those who check Asian-American and only Asian-American, plus
those who check Asian-American and one other or two others or
three others, because such persons are saying they view
themselves, in whole or in part, as Asian-American. If one is
looking for a number, that is one way of presenting it.
Now it is true, if you were to add up all the people who
check all the boxes, but we don't need to get there, so
depending upon the purposes for which the information is being
used, you may have different cuts of the same data. One of the
attractive features that we have heard or that I have heard
spoken of about the Interagency Committee's recommendations is
it provides those different cuts, so that the most appropriate
tabulation would be used for the purposes needed.
Mr. Horn. OK. On my time, Dr. Waters, since you are our
expert witness on both panels, is there a question you would
like to ask Ms. Katzen before she leaves, based on your own
research?
Ms. Waters. I don't think so. I think her testimony covered
and the report covers everything.
Mr. Horn. Very good. Would any other members of panel III
like to ask Ms. Katzen a question while she is here?
OK. Mr. Fernandez. Pull a chair up here, Mr. Fernandez.
We're going to lose track of you. Just grab one of those
chairs. We can do what we want with this room. We want our
witnesses happy.
Mr. Fernandez. Yes, I am interested in the handling of the
so-called ``ethnic question.'' In essence, we're really
discussing the Hispanic population, and in particular, with
reference to those individuals who are both Hispanic and non-
Hispanic.
Now, in the census, the question appears as a separate
question, and it asks you to indicate whether you are Hispanic
or non-Hispanic, in which instance, I would answer both
questions. I would answer yes and no. And there are a growing
number of individuals who could do that, and who could also
give a multiple response on the race question. Many Mexicans
are of Native American and Spanish or European ancestry, and
many Puerto Ricans are part African and part European, as well,
and understand this.
What is not clear from the recommendations is the
concentration on the racial categories in the discussion of new
permissiveness, as far as the multiple checkoffs is concerned.
I'm not sure that that was intended, but maybe it was. What I'm
asking is for some clarity as to how you're going to handle
that.
Ms. Katzen. That is a very good question. I think the
Interagency Committee took some steps toward providing
information on that, but has not provided answers to all of
your questions.
One of the steps that they had talked about was that where
there is self-identification there would be two separate
questions. Where there is not self-identification, as in, for
example, death certificates or emergency rooms, where a person
is not able to self-identify, that you could have a combined,
and then check all that may be appropriate.
There has also been some significant discussion that would
ensure that, regardless of how one responded on the ethnic
question, one had full opportunity to choose among all of the
different racial questions, as well.
But those are, I think, several steps toward an answer to
your question. It is not a complete answer. This is one of the
issues that we would be very interested in receiving additional
consultation and help as we go through the public comment
period.
Mr. Fernandez. I will be happy to provide that. There was
one other aspect of that which I raised in my testimony and in
other venues, and that relates to the ultimate appearance of
the new OMB 15.
The current OMB 15, as I understand it, is in two
interchangeable formats. In other words, you are supposed to be
able to integrate the two formats when you get the numbers
together. In one of them the Hispanic category is treated as a
race, and in the other it's treated as a so-called ``ethnic
group.'' If that problem is not resolved regarding the multiple
checkoffs applying or not applying to the Hispanic group, and
the two interchangeable formats are retained, I think you're
going to have a serious dilemma.
Ms. Katzen. I think, on the latter point, the
recommendation of the Interagency Committee would be that where
there is self-identification to have two separate questions,
with the ethnic question preceding the racial question. It
would be only in the instance where self-identification is not
possible that you would use a combined. So they wouldn't be
interchangeable formats; they would be alternative formats,
depending on whether it was self-identification or third-party
identification.
But, again, this is in the report and the recommendations,
and this is an area in which, if there are issues that we have
not anticipated, or if there are unintended consequences of
some of the recommendations that have not yet been fully
discussed, the purpose of the public comment period is to bring
those to our attention. We very much would like to work with
your group and other groups in answering those questions.
Our objective is to enhance the accuracy and the utility of
this information, not to confuse or complicate the issues. So
we appreciate your assistance.
Mr. Horn. We thank you.
I now yield 5 minutes to Mrs. Maloney, the ranking
Democrat. I'm sorry, we're going to have to, because of the
timing, but we will try to get it in.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Ms. Katzen, we've heard from a number of witnesses that,
while the interagency recommendations are indeed a step in the
right direction, the problem of how this data will be used
remains a major obstacle.
It's my understanding that it will be sometime in 1999
before that guidance will be offered. That concerns me for two
reasons: First, it seems to be premature to change the way the
information is collected prior to determining how it's going to
be used. And second, it means another 2 years of uncertainty
for those who rely on this data for enforcement purposes and
for discrimination cases, and so forth. What can be done to
shorten this timeframe?
Ms. Katzen. We, too, were concerned about proceeding with a
recommendation without having answered the followup questions
regarding reporting and tabulation, therefore, we have chosen
to accelerate that timeframe appreciably. We are already in the
process of putting together the committee, and I have asked the
chair of the committee to please do absolutely everything
humanly possible to have preliminary recommendations for the
reporting and tabulating guidance by October of this year, when
we have to reach our final decisions.
I got a sort of stony, cold, ``OK. We'll do what we can.''
But I think it is important, and I'm going to put as much
emphasis on that as possible, because those questions need
answers.
Mrs. Maloney. Do we have any guidance from the courts
regarding how they would evaluate statistics in discrimination
cases which include people who claim mixed ancestry?
Ms. Katzen. I would prefer to defer on this question to our
witness from the Justice Department who may know of past cases.
For the future, I hope we would be able to present to the court
compelling reasons to look at the various ways in which we are
tabulating this information and the justification for using the
best information available.
Ms. Pinzler. If you like, I can respond to that question.
There is no case law specifically on that point. But I would
echo what Ms. Katzen said, that we would obviously try to frame
arguments to use this data in the best way possible for
enforcement mechanisms.
Mrs. Maloney. As you know, we have certain protected
categories for civil rights and voting rights. My question is,
how would those persons who check mixed ancestry be treated?
Would they be treated as a protected status? Just to come down
to a specific example, under your proposed guidelines from the
Interagency Committee, how would you count a person who is
half-black and half-Asian, for the purpose of litigating
employment discrimination cases, for example, and other
discrimination cases, for example? Would that be a protected
category?
Ms. Pinzler. Again, I think that that is part of the
information that has to be developed, on how it is going to be
tabulated. But I think that it would depend, frankly, on the
particular kind of case, the facts of a particular case you
were trying to develop, assuming that you had the data
available, that a certain number of people were in both
categories. It would also depend on the region of the country,
whether there was a significant number of people who fell into
that category to even register on the published data.
Ms. Katzen. I would add that, in terms of the protections
that have been afforded based on past discrimination, I do not
belive a person should lose equal opportunity because he or she
is a member of two different minority groups that have been
discriminated against in different ways at different times.
As I illustrated earlier, in the different ways of
tabulating the information, it seems to me that, for purposes
of determining whether there has been discrimination against
Asian-Americans, one would look to see the number of Asian-
Americans who view themselves wholly as Asian-Americans and
therefore checked only one box, but also include those who
checked Asian-American along with whatever other categories
they saw, because they do see themselves as Asian-American as
part of their heritage which they want to celebrate and to
defend.
Mrs. Maloney. To simplify the question, for the purpose of
litigating discrimination cases, is the option to check several
racial categories more useful than a general multiracial
category?
Ms. Katzen. Absolutely, because it tells you which
categories they are in. You would have much better, more
precise information, and therefore I believe that you will have
a more accurate picture; again, based on the findings and the
recommendations that the Interagency Committee has presented,
and still waiting to hear the public comment.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, under the proposed changes, how would
you count a person who indicated a black and white racial
heritage, for the purpose of evaluating the impact on minority
voting dilution under the Voting Rights Act?
Ms. Katzen. For purposes of determining that, if they saw
themselves as black, and black is a group that is, under these
circumstances, protected?
Mrs. Maloney. That would be protected.
Ms. Katzen. They are protected. They are not less protected
because they also claim white heritage.
Mrs. Maloney. Now, just to clarify, who will be tabulating
how this will be determined? Will your interagency task force
do this?
Ms. Katzen. These would be guidelines for how the Federal
agencies and programs that have programmatic responsibilities
for the particular areas are to treat the data. So I would look
to the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, the
Equal Opportunity Employment Commissions and others.
Mrs. Maloney. Just to clarify, each agency, then, will be
allowed to determine how to tabulate the data for civil rights
programs; is that correct?
Ms. Katzen. Subject to the overall guidance that will
presumably be set to use the most accurate data for the
purposes selected, but it is the Federal agency that will
better understand the particular purposes for which it will be
using this data.
Mrs. Maloney. But if we go back to the agencies, won't we
be going back to the same chaos that we had before we had
Directive 15, with each agency determining. Didn't Directive 15
come out to clarify?
Ms. Katzen. Well, in that instance, they were using
different definitions for the different categories.
Mrs. Maloney. Oh, I see. So you will have the same
definitions, but each agency will tabulate.
Ms. Katzen. That's correct.
Mrs. Maloney. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Horn. Five minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Davis, for questioning the witnesses.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Katzen, you indicated that you felt that the
interagency task force had done an outstanding job, and I
certainly share that. I think, from what we've heard, there are
many others who also share that position. Do you feel that,
professionally, they answered the main questions, seemingly,
that individuals have raised in terms of the ability to
identify, in a concrete way, with their racial roots?
Ms. Katzen. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. If that be the case, in terms of the
additional information that would be generated as a result of
the ability to generate that information, do you see any other
useful--I mean, what other purposes, perhaps, could one suggest
that information would be useful for?
Ms. Katzen. One of the questions that the Interagency
Committee struggled with initially was whether the number of
persons who would choose a multiracial box, if there were an
opportunity to do so, was large enough to acknowledge and was
growing. I think what we might see, if this recommendation were
accepted, would enable to better track the increase in
immigration and in interracial marriages that are occurring.
Some speak of the melting pot. We will now have, I think,
better information. That's one form of information that may
come from a ``mark one or more'' approach that is the essence
of this.
As to other types of use of this information, I would defer
to the experts in the social sciences who may foresee other
uses. But our attempt has been to, again, reflect, as
accurately as possible, the demographics of this country and
not create new categories or new protections or new areas in
that regard.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Did I understand you to say or
suggest or indicate that, in your mind, protected categories
that already exist, in all probability, would not lose their
protection, even though they may secondarily, or even not
secondarily, designate that they are part of another race?
Ms. Katzen. That would be my view, as I look at the
materials that are being generated. I'm reflecting here what I
believe to be the view of the Interagency Committee that sought
to enhance the accuracy without diluting in any way the valid
information that we have from the past, and without affecting
in any way the protections that Congress has already decided.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I would suggest, if ultimately that
was the case, and we had the acceptance of the task force's
recommendation in terms of the ultimate, then those individuals
would maintain their protection; other individuals will have
had an opportunity to be accurately depicted, in terms of their
sense of being. I think that this task force would have just
done the American people a tremendous service. That's the
position that I hold.
I just have one other question, and that is, has there been
much conversation about providing instructions for people in
such a way that it would perhaps decrease the likelihood of
their making an error because they just didn't quite understand
what was being asked for?
Ms. Katzen. Yes, and one of the tasks of this committee
that we're pulling together now to work on the tabulation and
reporting is to include training--actually the wording of the
instructions on the forms themselves, as well as the training
of those who would be administering them. This is, again,
another effort that would be governmentwide, to enhance the
accuracy of the information.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I thank you very much.
I would like to ask Ms. Graham; Ms. Graham, from listening
to the dialog today, do you feel that the interagency task
force's recommendation takes care of some of the concerns that
you have expressed?
Ms. Graham. It does take care of some of the concerns. As I
said in my testimony, it's as if we got half a loaf. It takes
care of children like mine having the ability to check more
than one, so that they don't have to choose to be the race of
one of their parents or deny, actually, the race of one of
their parents. But it still does not give them the ability to
have a sanctioned category called ``multiracial,'' or even a
sanctioned name called ``multiracial.''
It's very interesting, the day after the interagency
recommendation came out, the media started to say ``mixed
race'' again. Up until that point, they were using
``multiracial.'' And then the recommendation was no multiracial
category, and it reverted back to ``mixed race,'' and some
other things. But the word ``multiracial'' was suddenly gone,
and that's what we are fighting to keep.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. You were here when Representative
Owens made a comment this morning relative to the creation of
new races, in some instances. Did that bother you any, in terms
of the possibility of not just the designation but actually the
creation of a new racial group?
Ms. Graham. That bothers me, as well, and that is not what
we are trying to do at all. As a matter of fact, our
recommendation has always been to have a multiracial identifier
with ``check all the apply'' underneath that. So, actually,
we're talking about the same thing and not creating a new
racial category. We are in agreement.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I think the only concern would be
that oftentimes intent is not the same thing as result. I'm
saying, oftentimes we intend one set of things, but something
other than what we were seeking ends up being the result.
I thank you very much, and I have no further questions.
Mrs. Maloney. And we have to go vote.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. And we've got to go vote.
Mr. Horn. Yes, I'm conscious that we have to vote here, and
I'm conscious that the Assistant Attorney General also needs to
be somewhere else. I do want to hear her testimony.
Let me ask my colleagues. If we recessed until 2 o'clock,
would that be convenient for you. Would you be here, or are you
on an airplane?
Would that solve the Assistant Attorney General's problem,
if we could recess till 2 o'clock? We have got two or three
votes here.
Ms. Pinzler. Well, I'm already--my 1 o'clock appointment
with the Attorney General is already--I'm late. That will be
fine.
Mr. Horn. All right. If we can, let me just end this
session, before Ms. Katzen leaves, we appreciate very much your
testimony. We know we've detained you here. Mr. McDougall did
have a question, and I'd like him to be able to ask it.
Mr. McDougall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I was just interested in Ms. Katzen's description of some
of the instances in which self-identification would not be
possible--for example, death certificates and emergency room
certificates.
I wondered, Ms. Katzen, if you could identify for us if
there were any other circumstances in which self-identification
would not be appropriate or possible?
Ms. Katzen. I'm not aware of any offhand. Again, this would
depend largely upon how the Federal forms are being used in
different circumstances. One of our very important principles
was self-identification, but we have to recognize that there
are certain circumstances where it simply is not possible to
rely upon the individual to respond.
Mr. Horn. Well, we thank you. We are in recess until 2:05
p.m.
Ms. Katzen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[Recess.]
Mr. Horn. The subcommittee will resume.
We thank you for your patience today. We had an unusual
series of votes on the floor, and I know it wrecked everybody's
schedule, but that's democracy in action. Since this is
democracy in action when we work in committee, we're glad we
could have our key witnesses back.
Assistant Attorney General Pinzler, I'm going to start with
you, and then Ms. Gordon, and then Dr. Waters, since I'm using
you as an expert on two panels. Please all stay there, and we
can have a dialog and solve some problems, perhaps.
So, as you know, we put your statements immediately in the
record, and you can summarize them. Generally, we'd like you to
do it in 5 or so minutes, so we can have time for questions.
And I know you've got a busy day anyhow.
So Attorney General Pinzler, if you will start.
Ms. Pinzler. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I
am pleased to join my colleagues on this panel.
The Department of Justice participated on the Interagency
Committee and commend its efforts to address this difficult
issue. We believe that the country will be well served by the
changes recommended by the Interagency Committee.
If adopted, they will address the concerns of those members
of the public who find the existing standard does not allow
them comfortably to report their identities, while at the same
time allowing the Federal Government to continue to collect
accurate and reliable data, thus enhancing the effectiveness of
the enforcement of the civil rights laws.
It will be necessary to evaluate this newly collected data
so that their use is consistent with historical precedent. This
will ensure that the information is presented in a fashion that
is reliable and useful to agencies and organizations, such as
the Department of Justice, that have law enforcement
responsibilities.
Since my administration colleagues have already presented
the recommendations of the Interagency Committee and the work
that is ongoing, I thought it would be helpful to tell you how
the Department of Justice relies on racial and ethnic data to
carry out its law enforcement mission.
The Civil Rights Division of the department, of course,
enforces the civil rights laws that were enacted by Congress to
combat historical and continuing discrimination against racial
and ethnic minorities, among others. The evidence of
discrimination that served as a basis for enacting those laws
has been compelling, as reflected in legislative history, and
led to overwhelming support that these laws garnered when
enacted.
The division relies extensively on demographic data in the
course of our efforts to identify and remedy violations of the
civil rights laws for which we have enforcement responsibility,
including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act
of 1965, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, and the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act.
Our law enforcement efforts depend heavily on demographic
data that are accepted by the courts as reliable and presented
in a usable format. They also depend on data that allow
individuals to identify themselves as members of groups that
are subjected to discrimination on the basis of race or
ethnicity.
I would like to just briefly outline some, but not all, of
the ways that the division relies on race and ethnicity data in
our law enforcement work. Obviously, I can't be exhaustive in
the time allowed. We need accurate data for purposes of
enforcing the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act, both of which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race
and national origin.
The data assist in a variety of ways in determining whether
a housing or a lending practice is unlawful. For example,
having accurate information about the racial composition of
neighborhoods is critical in determining whether a real estate
company is steering minority homeseekers away from white
neighborhoods.
Racial and ethnic census data are particularly useful in
our efforts to ensure that lenders do not discriminate in
making home mortgages and other types of loans. This helps in
determining, for example, whether a lender designating its
geographical service areas has excluded areas where large
concentrations of racial minorities live.
Race and ethnic census data also assist in analyzing
marketing practices. For example, we consider whether a lender
used methods such as direct mail solicitation in select areas
that avoid minority borrowers, or on the other hand, targeted
minority borrowers for predatory lending practices, such as
very high-priced mortgages.
Our fair housing and lending cases require complex
statistical analysis usually designed to determine the extent
to which racial and ethnic differences in mortgage in prices or
the denial rates could have occurred by chance. Here we control
for various combinations of racial, ethnic, and economic data
to assess their possible impact on the price or denial of rate
differentials. Accurate identification of race and ethnicity of
borrowers is critical to such analyses.
Accurate data play an essential role in our enforcement of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. As you may know Title VII
prohibits employment discrimination, and we enforce Title VII
as to State and local governments. Race and ethnic data are
essential to establish a prima facie case that an employer has
engaged in an employment practice that has either intentionally
disadvantaged individuals or has had an illegal discriminatory
impact on the basis of race or national origin.
In general, a statistical prima facie case depends on
comparison of, for example, the racial and ethnic composition
of a relevant labor pool as compared to the racial and ethnic
composition of those hired for a particular position. The
absence of accurate aggregated race and ethnic data that can be
used to determine the impact of an employment practice would
hurt the department's ability to pursue cases of illegal
employment discrimination.
In the area of voting rights, these data are particularly
important for the enforcement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act, which requires covered districts to obtain preclearance of
proposed changes in election practices to ensure that they do
not have the purpose or effect of disadvantaging minority
voters on the basis of race and ethnicity. Under Section 5,
census data provide decisive information in cases when it is
alleged that the proposed election rules will have differential
impact.
Enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act also
requires accurate data, especially when courts must determine
whether a State, county, or local redistricting plan has the
effect of diluting minority voting strength. These data are
also crucial to demonstrating polarized racial bloc voting
patterns, which the Supreme Court has found to be of importance
in proving a violation of Section 2.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly address the issue of
the multiracial category versus the ``one or more'' races
debate. The Division has been concerned that the inclusion of
additional categories, such as ``multiracial,'' or ``other,''
or an open-ended response would fragment the racial and ethnic
group data and make enforcement more difficult, because the
additional categories would confuse respondents, lead to less
reliable data, and make it difficult to prove that members of a
particular racial and ethnic group are subject to
discrimination.
The research conducted by the Interagency Committee bore
out our concerns. The committee concluded that the best means
of measuring the growing multiracial population while
continuing to conduct an accurate census and to collect
reliable demographic data would be to choose, as appropriate,
the ``one or more'' races rather than the single
``multiracial'' category, and we agree.
In addition, further work is needed, as has been pointed
out, to ensure that these data will be used so as not to have
adverse impact, in particular, on relatively small groups with
relatively high intermarriage rates, such as AsianPacific
Islanders, Native Americans, and Alaskan Natives, as indicated
by the research conducted by the Interagency Committee.
Federal statistical agencies who are members of the
Interagency Committee will continue to look at how the newly
collected and complex data will relate to the historical use of
race and ethnic categories, and we look forward to working with
these agencies to address these issues.
The question has come up, as I've heard it, of double
counting people. What it caused me to think about is that this
``problem'' has been raised in the past with respect to women
and minorities, whether black women are counted twice or
Hispanic women are counted twice, and it simply hasn't been a
problem.
What we do is, we disaggregate the data. If we have a sex
discrimination case, then all women, black or white, are
regarded as women for those purposes. If we have a race
discrimination case, then all members of whatever the protected
minority in question is are counted for those purposes.
In our litigation, I would presume that we would continue
to handle the data in that fashion, to disaggregate it when
necessary and not when it is not necessary. A lot of our cases,
especially in the area of employment discrimination, are
combined cases. Not only are they race and sex, but they may be
on behalf of a number of racial minorities, and therefore this
additional data can only help, actually.
The questions raised by Federal measures of race and
ethnicity are difficult and often emotional ones, and have been
well addressed by the Interagency Committee, and we commend
them. The bottom line for law enforcement for the Civil Rights
Division is that we need complete, accurate, and reliable data
in order to combat effectively the types of discrimination
against racial and ethnic minorities that are prohibited by
these vital laws passed by Congress.
We look forward to continuing to work on the question of
how to interpret the data that are collected. I look forward to
any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pinzler follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.424
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.425
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.426
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.427
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.428
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.429
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.430
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.431
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.432
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.433
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.434
Mr. Horn. We will proceed with the two other witnesses,
then we will have general questions.
The next witness is Nancy Gordon, the Associate Director
for Demographic Programs of the Bureau of the Census.
Ms. Gordon.
Ms. Gordon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure to appear before you again today to
testify.
Mr. Horn. Now remember, you did take the oath. Tell the
truth now.
Ms. Gordon. Yes, I do remember.
Mr. Horn. OK.
Ms. Gordon. And I promise that I will tell the truth, and
it is a pleasure to be here again today. [Laughter.]
What I think perhaps might be most useful, in terms of the
time available--but I am seeking your advice here--is to make a
brief opening remark or two, and then go directly to the
section at the end of my testimony that deals with the
implications of the recommendations of the Interagency
Committee for the Census Bureau's programs.
Mr. Horn. That's fine if you'd like to proceed that way.
Ms. Gordon. Let me observe, then, that if the OMB does make
any changes to Directive 15, the Census Bureau intends to
collect and produce data consistent with those changes. We
believe that it is essential that there be such standards for
use by all Federal agencies to ensure that data are consistent
and comparable.
The Census Bureau's role in this process has been primarily
to conduct research. The second of the major tests we conducted
was the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test. Some results from that
work that relate especially to recommendations of the
Interagency Committee are summarized in my statement. If we
turn to the bottom of page 7, that starts the section on
implications of the recommendations for our programs, and in
particular for the decennial census.
We have reformatted the forms we currently plan to use in
the Census 2000 dress rehearsal, which is planned for 1998, to
determine the feasibility of accommodating the changes
recommended by the Interagency Committee, should they be
adopted by the OMB.
We have, therefore, placed the Hispanic origin question
before the race question, used the instruction ``mark one or
more races,'' and made the proposed changes in terminology. We
were able to do so without any technical difficulties or
lengthening of the form. We published a Federal Register notice
about questions on race and ethnicity on July 17, and public
comments will be accepted during the following 60 days.
We plan to capture multiple responses to the race question
with the data capture hardware and imaging technology,
regardless of whether or not Directive 15 is modified. We also
expect to be able to capture unrequested multiple responses to
the Hispanic origin question. Doing so was recommended by our
Hispanic Advisory Committee and brought up earlier today by Mr.
Fernandez. We plan to do that in order to provide the
information for further analysis and research on the topic of
multiethnic responses.
This imaging technology can read written characters as well
as marked circles. While some technical issues remain about the
exact coding of the write-in responses and about the exact
format of the permanent electronic census file, we intend to
maximize the amount of information we retain.
As in the past, Census 2000 will collect more detailed data
on race than the minimum required by the Office of Management
and Budget, and those data will be processed in such a way as
to maintain maximum flexibility for data users. Census data,
including those on race, will be available to users through the
Census 2000 tabulation and publication series, all of which
will follow whatever standards and guidelines the OMB
ultimately issues.
The Data Access and Dissemination System will allow even
more options and broader access for users to generate
customized tabulations. This system will be available through
the Internet, so that people can either access tabulations that
have already been produced by the Census Bureau, or they can
create instructions and then automatically receive the tables
that they are interested in.
Selected micro data files will also be available, but the
confidentiality of individual respondents will always be
maintained.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gordon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.435
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.436
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.437
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.438
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.439
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.440
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.441
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.442
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.443
Mr. Horn. We will get to that shortly.
We now have Dr. Waters, professor of sociology, Harvard
University.
Dr. Waters.
Ms. Waters. Thank you for inviting me to talk with the
subcommittee today.
I am just going to summarize my written statement and talk
a little bit about some of the issues that have been brought up
in earlier testimony.
I think that the interagency report synthesizes an enormous
amount of new research that the government has done in the last
4 years, and that it will really be a while before we've been
able to go through all of the research that they have come up
with. But I was very impressed with the interagency report and
the ways in which they incorporated that new research into
their recommendations.
I have three reactions to the interagency report. The first
has to do with tabulating results. In my written statement, I
went through five different methods of tabulating results that
were mentioned, even if briefly, in the interagency report. The
first three were discussed by Harold McDougall earlier in his
testimony.
The first was the single-race approach where everyone who
checked more than one would go into a multiple response
category. The second was an all-inclusive approach in which we
would sum up to more than 100 percent. The third was the
historical series approach, which was defined in detail in the
rate report.
The fourth was the proposal for an algorithm that
distributes responses from a multiracial category in proportion
to the distributions of the current single-race categories, and
I think that was rightly dismissed in one sentence in the
report.
The fifth was the idea that there are algorithms currently
which take people who either put themselves in an ``other''
category or, in some States, into a multiracial category, that
use certain characteristics of people to try and match them to
the existing historical categories. So that's another
possibility.
Then there were two others that I outlined in my written
report that we have actually used looking at ancestry data,
which does come in in multiple categories. One is to assign a
weight to a person, and this is something statisticians and
demographers do all the time, although it sounds kind of awful
when you describe it as doing to a person. You're certainly not
doing it to a person; you're doing it to a number.
What you would do is count somebody in both, say, the Asian
and the white categories, but you would give them a weight of
0.5. Then you would add all of your percentages in the end, and
you would come back out to 100 percent. You wouldn't have any
more people counted than you had people.
Then the seventh would be to just randomly assign people in
proportion. So if you were half and half, half of the people
who said that they were that combination would be put into one
race and another.
I'm sure there are other ways, actually, to tabulate. These
are just some of the ones that were mentioned and a few that
we've used before. I think that the issue which was raised by
many people earlier this morning, the concern about double
counting, is something which is definitely for professional
demographers and statisticians to worry about how you would
actually do it. It actually is common to have to do that for
particular kinds of counts.
In a way, actually, you can think about the Hispanic and
the race question as already doing that, to some extent,
because people are in the Hispanic question and they are in the
race question. So sometimes, when you are looking at, say,
incomes, people may appear in the Hispanic category, and they
may also appear in the white or the black category, depending
on how savvy the researcher is who is actually preparing those
reports.
So I think we do have some experience with dealing with
this overlap, but of course it really will be a new question as
to how those tabulations are done. Of course, there are a lot
of political implications for what choice you make about how to
do that.
Let me just talk briefly about two other questions which
came to my mind reading the interagency report. One is the
issue of the implementation of how these data are actually
gathered, and the question that was touched on briefly before
about different agencies that collect data by observer and by
self-identification. The question really is, and I'm not sure
we have enough research to tell, whether or not observers might
assign more races to people or less races to people than the
people themselves would.
The question would be, if you allow more than one race, how
will that affect data that is gathered by observers? That
happens, for instance, in school data. Often teachers will sum
up how many kids of particular races there are. The error rate,
I am sure, if somebody is guessing about multiple races, is
going to be greater than if they are guessing about one race.
So that's a question I think that we need some research on.
Second, the instructions to respondents will be extremely
important in how these data are collected. I think that there
should be some attention paid to whether or not the word
``identify'' is in there or not, sort of whether people feel
like they are being asked for their genealogy or sort of who
they think they are. Sometimes that has been confused in
earlier questions on earlier censuses, so I think we need to
pay attention to that.
The third reaction I had to the report, and it's really
just been reinforced sitting through everyone else's testimony
today, is that, politically, all of the attention has been on
blacks and whites. Most of the attention has been on African-
Americans and whites, and that's very understandable given our
political history.
But all of the research that is summarized in this report
points to the fact that it's American Indians and Asians who
will be most impacted by this change, because they have very
high intermarriage rates, because they have a very high
population that could claim more than one ancestry, and because
they are small groups, so that a few people changing can have a
greater proportional impact.
The research actually finds that a lot of these changes
won't have much effect at all on the overall counts of blacks
and whites, but it will on American Indians and Asians. So I
would stress that I would want to get reactions from the
American Indian and Asian communities to this issue, because I
think they really are the ones who stand to have the most
impact.
I think that the question that came up often today about
the tabulation and how that will be handled really touches on
the issue where there are competing principles at play here,
which is the issue of historical continuity with earlier data
and self-identification.
That's kind of why the issue has come up in the first
place. People are trying to say we have more than one race, and
historically we haven't let that happen. So the question of how
you bridge historical data to the current data that you're
going to collect, which will allow people to have more than one
race, is very important for this census.
I think the thing I would also stress is to really think
about the fact that you are also setting up for the censuses
that will follow, so the 2010 census. One point that is very
important to make is that, if you make a small change now, that
will provide perhaps the bridge to the society that we will be
in 2010, which may have even very different things that we
can't even foresee. But putting off making the change would
make a much greater disruption, I think, in the historical
series.
So there may be a real disjuncture between this issue of
self-identification and historical continuity. It may play out,
I think, in terms of this issue of responding categories and
reporting categories. How you tabulate may be different than
how you collect.
That's a question that I would like to see the OMB describe
the real--maybe even have a matrix. If you answer these
particular categories, where will you end up, in what kind of
tabulations?
[The prepared statement of Ms. Waters follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.444
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.445
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.446
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.447
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.448
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.449
Mr. Horn. Well, thank you very much.
Let me pose a basic question here. The whole reason for the
census, very frankly, as we all know, the first one being done
in 1790, is how you apportion the House of Representatives, so
each representative truly does represent even numbers of
people. What was 30,000 at one time is now 600,000 and we have,
by our own action, stopped the size of the House at 435
Members.
Now, let me give you an example. Let's say this is a
congressional district. And I'm particularly interested in the
Justice Department, because this is what people that draw up
reapportionment lines have to think of. To take California, the
last time the majority in the legislature, their action, was
vetoed by the Governor of an opposite party, and it was thrown
into the Supreme Court of California. This was the 1990 census.
The Supreme Court said, we really don't know much about it.
Let's appoint three retired judges, representing both parties,
and have them go and examine the evidence, draw the line. I
call the 1990 apportionment the only honest apportionment since
California became a State in 1850, because the three judges did
a terrific job.
But one question comes to mind, and that is the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, as amended--I underline the ``as
amended''--the judges felt they could not diminish the voting
strength of a minority population. So they reached out to try
to combine as much of that minority population as they could.
In a sense, they diluted the strength of the minority
population, because whereas it was in two congressional
districts, it became overly focused in one congressional
district.
When you go at this situation of the historic racial
discrimination in this country, I think the Supreme Court
recognizes--and you can correct me if I'm wrong--that obviously
the black African-American race has had the most
discrimination. That doesn't mean Mexican-Americans aren't
discriminated against; and it doesn't mean Asian-Americans
weren't discriminated against. They were in California. They
never were in voting, to my knowledge. Mexican-Americans in
Texas were discriminated against.
So there are different patterns for other minorities as to
whether there was a historic discrimination that relate to
certain areas of government policy. So I would be curious what
you're thinking would be on; were the judges right to combine
the minority population across several districts because they
didn't want to dilute their voting power? Yet, they would have
had more voting results by being spread over two congressional
districts, or three congressional districts.
How do you tackle that one?
Ms. Pinzler. Well, as you rightly point out, this is a
very, very complex question. There are a number of variables
that anyone drawing districts has to consider. The first being
one person, one vote.
Mr. Horn. That's the easy one.
Ms. Pinzler. Right. Then, not diluting minority voting
strength or retrogression from previous strength, which is the
Section 5 standard, I have to tell you that I'm not familiar
enough, if at all, with the California reapportionment, so I
don't really feel that I can comment on that with any degree of
intelligence. I do think, apropos of what we're discussing
here, which is the change in data collection, that how people
will be tabulated for these purposes is a very key question and
is the question which is still undergoing analysis.
So I know this comes across as a dodge, but the truth of
the matter is, I don't know the answer.
Mr. Horn. Well, you're absolutely correct. It's a very
difficult value judgment call. Maybe you could go at it this
way, saying, based on your experience as a civil rights lawyer,
what are the courts' standards when different cases come before
it? For example, one basic question is, do women have the same
imprimatur of the Constitution on their issues, compared to
African-Americans? I wish you would give us a little summary
there of how the court has, over the years, adopted sort of a
hierarchy to worry about.
Ms. Pinzler. Well, the 14th amendment's equal protection
analysis, at one time, created basically two categories: those
categories which were subject to the so-called ``strict
scrutiny'' test, which was only race and national origin and
religion, on the one hand, and all other kinds of categories or
classifications that the legislature might do, which was
absolutely everything else were subject to the ``rational
basis'' test.
In other words, urban versus rural, and income distinctions
were all subject to the rational basis test, which is a fairly
low test as compared to the strict scrutiny, which is a very
stiff test. Over the years, starting around 1970, there was a
so-called ``intermediate level'' test that was developed by the
courts, which is referred to as heightened scrutiny or
intermediate scrutiny, and that's the classification to which
gender has been subjected.
It is sometimes viewed as being between the two, although,
with the most recent Supreme Court decision on this matter, the
Virginia Military Institute case, moved it closer to strict
scrutiny, it's not all the way there.
So the short answer is that classifications or
discrimination on the basis of gender does not have the same
degree of scrutiny by the courts as discrimination on the base
of race, national origin, and religion. Even though women, of
course, didn't get the vote until 1920, they are not covered.
Sex discrimination is not covered under the Voting Rights Act
at all. Race discrimination and national origin discrimination
are.
On the other hand, just to sort of close the circle, gender
is included, for instance, in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination. For those
purposes, with one exception that doesn't really apply to this
discussion, it's the same standard for gender and race, if that
was what you were looking for.
Mr. Horn. Well, it's just, as I'm saying, the court has had
different values to review in different periods.
Ms. Pinzler. Right.
Mr. Horn. There is a steady evolution, however, and you
sort of summed up where it is now. But when you have, let's
say, a district of 14 percent white, 40 percent black, 35
percent Hispanic, 10 percent Asian, 1 percent American Indian,
that is not a myth. Those are real districts in the State of
California.
Then I would try to say, what does the tabulation from the
various racial checkoffs mean when judges, in this case,
retired judges, if we go that route again, or legislatures,
have to look at it and say, well, which group in there seems to
be the most discriminated against? Well, historically, you
would have to say the black voter--or nonvoter, because they
wouldn't let them register--was the most discriminated against.
As I said, in Texas, Mexican-Americans were discriminated
against in Texas. That was not true in California. Some might
say it is, but the facts are, you didn't have a problem
registering. And American Indians, for various other reasons,
have probably a low registration turnout because of moving from
reservation to urban America and back, and so forth.
That's what they are going to have to deal with, and I just
wonder if one would like to speculate on whether adding those
checkoffs, that is now being recommended by the Interagency
Committee, will either enlighten us and we will be able to make
better reapportionment decisions, or simply confuse us.
Ms. Pinzler. As I said in my testimony, I think, on
balance, that it's a step in the right direction. The fact is
that our society is more complex than it was previously, and
that's a reality that the courts and Congress simply have to
deal with.
I also should say that, as I said, precisely that question
of the tabulation, the use and interpretation that this data
will be subjected to for purposes of redistricting, is not
something that there is a specific recommendation on at this
point.
As an attorney, I always depend on demographers and
statisticians, frankly, to tell me what the best approach is.
I'm not an expert in that respect.
Mr. Horn. Well, let me put another factor in here.
After 13 years on the Civil Rights Commission and being on
the drafting team for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the fact is, there is one basic
factor that nobody ever faces up to, and that's socioeconomic
class and income. They used to just look at me with glazed-over
eyes when I would raise the obvious.
What you have to do--you're not dealing with Ralph Bunche;
you're dealing with the person that's poor. How do we relate
those data? A lot of government programs are relevant to it.
When we get to voting data, perhaps also economic class should
be taken in to see if there is an under or overrepresentation
in a particular area, and how are these people registered?
Ms. Pinzler. Mr. Chairman, there is obviously an
interaction of those factors, and socioeconomic status is very
important. It's also true that Ralph Bunche could be subject to
discrimination on the basis of race. In fact, Deval Patrick,
the former assistant attorney general, you know, had taxicabs
pass him by outside the White House. So we can't ignore race in
these discussions, when we're discussing discrimination.
Mr. Horn. I don't want to ignore it; I want to get it into
realism though.
Ms. Pinzler. Well, again, as I say, my eyes don't glaze
over when you talk about socioeconomic data, because I do, in
fact, believe that that's a very important factor. One of the
things that these data allow you to do, by the way, is to see
what the overlap is, to see to what degree race and poverty,
frankly, correlate.
Mr. Horn. Right.
Ms. Pinzler. That's an important piece of information to
have. It's true with educational data as well. I mean, just
across the spectrum, it's very important, and we would use that
kind of data for various purposes, in a regression analysis,
for instance. So basically--I agree with you.
Also, as I mentioned when I was talking about equal
protection analysis, of course, the Supreme Court has
steadfastly refused to take into account socioeconomic status
and give it any form of heightened scrutiny, and that's the way
the law is right now.
Mr. Horn. Dr. Waters, do you want to comment on any of this
discussion?
Ms. Waters. Well, I think that one advantage of this way of
collecting data is that, for the first time, we will actually
have information on, say, whether people who are black and
white, or Asian and white look similar to people who are black
or people who are white, or have their own characteristics.
One of the questions earlier was, should people who are
part one race and part another be subject to equal protection?
Should they be subject to antidiscrimination laws specifically
for them? One of the problems up until now is that we haven't
had the data to answer the question as to whether or not their
incomes are higher or lower, whether their infant mortality
rate is higher or lower. This proposal would actually allow you
to begin to describe the demographic characteristics of those
people.
So it might actually reassure us that some things are
better than we thought, or it might point us to some problems
that we hadn't thought about before.
Mr. Horn. Would anybody from some of the advocacy groups
like to question the administration witnesses at all? Let's see
what your concerns are and their answers, and vice-versa.
Mr. McDougall. Yes. It's really more in the way of a
comment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
Mr. Horn. Mr. McDougall from the NAACP.
Mr. McDougall. I want to thank Ms. Pinzler for her example
of the cases in which women and minorities are discriminated
against, because, for me, that crystallizes the whole issue.
Mr. Conyers earlier today said it wasn't rocket science. And I
was thinking to myself, au contraire, you know. But I think she
just really broke it right down.
I think the difficulty that everybody is having, and
particularly the representatives who are concerned about
apportionment.
I think I said in my testimony that the interagency group
had cut the Gordian Knot by moving the issue down the pipeline.
In other words, we are now no longer concerned, or at least
hopefully we won't be if some of these little nuances get
fixed, we won't be concerned with the way the data is
collected. And the data is going to be collected in a way that
seems to meet everybody's concerns.
The issue now is, how do you put Humpty Dumpty back
together again? I mean, does he have an arm, all of those
pieces? Is he now twins?
As long as we understand that the data is going to be used
for different purposes, I think we can kind of come away from
this hearing with fairly clear heads. One of the principal
purposes, of course, for census data is capitation or head
count. There's nothing inconsistent with collecting data this
way and having an exact tabulation of the number of people that
there are who live in a certain area, in the United States
generally, or a certain congressional district.
You can then use the data, as it has been collected, to
demonstrate that there are a certain number of women in the
population in a certain metropolitan economic market area, and
you can determine that they are overrepresented or
underrepresented in terms of certain levels of employment.
The same thing with race, as, you know, Ms. Pinzler so
aptly pointed out. They have never had problems like this. This
data has never created a problem. You can disaggregate the data
to show all the women that there are. You can disaggregate the
data to show all the members of minority groups that there are.
And now, the way that the data is being collected, we will
be able to show all the people who are of one race or who are
partially of that race. And having that information might very
well be useful. So I just want to emphasize that the double
counting problem in some ways is a red herring. I think that
the Census Bureau has already demonstrated that they are able
to handle that.
As I mentioned earlier, we continue to be concerned about
instances in which people are identified by the observers
rather than through interview, because once you are identified
by an observer, we fall back into some of the problems that
we've had before. I think we've heard already that those
instances are situations where you're talking about a death
certificate, or you're talking about an admission into the
emergency room of a hospital, let's say. There might be other
circumstances. Obviously, we would be very concerned about
which ones those would be.
Finally, just to emphasize the piece about wanting to be
able to track all instances of discrimination, which is the
NAACP's primary concern, again, Ms. Pinzler has given us, I
think, the light that shines through that. I thought about this
over lunch. Think about a guy, we'll call him Joe Walker, OK,
who is part Native American, he's part black, and he's part
Asian. He lives on a reservation in California, or he has
family on the reservation. He has enough contact with the
reservation so that he gets a certain allotment from the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, and we need census data to make that
allotment.
He goes off the reservation and he looks for a job. He is
discriminated against looking for the job because he's black,
or he's part black. We want to know that.
Let's say that he's part Asian, because his grandfather was
Japanese, who was interned in an internment camp in California
during World War II, and his grandfather was one of the people
who was owed reparations under the Korematsu decision. We would
want to make sure that he got what was coming to him.
So the way that this data has been collected enables us to
perform all three of those operations. And the notion that Joe
Walker becomes three people instead of just one, I think Ms.
Pinzler and the people from the OMB have demonstrated to us, is
a statistical absurdity that we don't have to get into.
So I stuck around here today because I wanted to hear what
the rest of the folks had to say. I must say, I've been
enlightened by their testimony.
Thank you.
Mr. Horn. Ms. Graham, do you have a comment?
Ms. Graham. I agree with what Mr. McDougall said.
Mr. Horn. Pull the microphone close to you. It's hard to
hear with this system.
Ms. Graham. I agree with what Mr. McDougall said on
tracking all instances of discrimination, and I think that's
very important. I'm not a lawyer, or a statistician, and I'm
really trying to understand this. Maybe some people on the
panel here can help me out.
I'll give you a real live instance. You've met my son Ryan.
He's been here; he's testified. He's testified twice before
Congress. When he was in kindergarten, his kindergarten teacher
decided, at the end of the school year, that he should not be
passed to first grade.
She also decided not to pass to first grade one other child
in the class whose last name was Rodriguez, who had a black
Hispanic father and a white mother. They were the only two
multiracial children in the class.
We went to the principal. We proved that Ryan was indeed
able to be passed. He's now an honor student in middle school,
so I think it worked out well for us. The Rodriguez child was
put back into kindergarten again.
Now, these children are both multiracial. It's important--
and I'm sure that Mr. McDougall will agree--to track black
children, minority children in the schools to see who are
placed into the remedial classes, who are put into the advanced
classes. We do track those by race for a reason.
In this instance, if I said, well, my child was
discriminated against because two multiracial children were
going to be held back out of the entire rest of the population
of the class, from what I'm hearing, what I would get back is,
no, one of them is black and white, and one of them is black
and Hispanic, so they are not the same.
This is not going to be acceptable to our part of
discrimination problems, and I'm wondering how this would be
worked out under the interagency recommendation.
Ms. Pinzler. May I?
Mr. Horn. Please.
Ms. Pinzler. We should probably talk later. But may I ask
you, were there black and white children in those classes, or
were all the rest of the children white?
Ms. Graham. Predominantly white.
Ms. Pinzler. It is possible, and you can't really draw from
a sample of two and make any kind of a statistical analysis,
but if that were large, you might begin to see a pattern of
discrimination against children who are mixed race, the animus
being about that. There is nothing in this formulation that
would keep us from making that analysis. In fact, it would be
very helpful in making that analysis.
Ms. Graham. You can look at all the children who are of
mixed race as a whole, then?
Ms. Pinzler. Absolutely. Yes, sure.
Ms. Graham. OK.
Ms. Pinzler. You could take all the various categories and
do that, if that's what you thought was happening, if you had a
large enough sample to believe that that was what was
happening. This would present no problem with respect to that.
Ms. Graham. Let's you and I talk later, then.
Ms. Pinzler. As I said before, there are race and sex
discrimination cases, and every once in a while you will have
somebody being required to pick, was it race or sex
discrimination that happened to you? And sometimes you don't
know until you get into the process. Again, we can look at
those kinds of cases and analyze it, and it may be both there,
or it may be a combination.
So I'm not troubled, from a perspective of making
discrimination cases, by the fact that it would be reported in
a more varied way, that you would have more information rather
than less information.
Ms. Graham. That's why, to us, seeing how this is going to
be reported and tabulated is important.
Ms. Pinzler. Oh, yes, and we all agree with that.
Mr. Horn. Let me ask this question for the record and see
what your response is to it. Assistant Attorney General
Pinzler, the written testimony seems to mention a variety of
areas in which data on race are used to enforce civil rights
laws. Often you need to know the size of the minority
population in an area, as we both noted, a labor pool, a
housing market, for example, in order to see if the population
is underrepresented and possibly facing discrimination.
Now, how would you count a minority population, for these
purposes, under the Interagency Committee recommendation? Would
multiracials who check black as one of their races be counted
as black? If this were the case, how would you avoid
overcounting when you consider more than one minority group in
the same area?
Wouldn't firms find themselves vulnerable to charges of low
minority representation even if they employ the right
``percentage'' for their labor pool, because many in that labor
pool will be counted twice or more; isn't that true?
Ms. Pinzler. No, actually, I don't think so. I was actually
heartened by what Ms. Katzen had to say about that, that you
could disaggregate the data so you wouldn't be counting people
more than once. You might have more and varied categories, but
you wouldn't be counting people more than once, so you would
know how many people of the various groups. Black and Asian or
black and white, those might all be counted as minorities.
It really depends on what the local labor market looks
like, and what the employer's labor pool looks like, as to
whether that even becomes a factor, statistically, frankly.
Mr. Horn. Well, I can recall a State official in California
coming to my campus. He was off-the-wall on his understanding
of the Civil Rights Act. Since I'd had something to do with it,
I knew it, and I just kept quiet. We just simply had everybody
write a memo when he drifted around the university.
What he said to one of our people was, ``I'm not interested
in the discrimination against blacks. I'm not interested in the
discrimination against American Indians. I'm here strictly to
help women or to help Hispanics.'' Now, you know, this is a
civil rights enforcement officer.
Could not a firm simply play games, though, with this
system, where if you're taking all the mixtures here, and they
say, ``OK, they want to see Hispanics? Great. Run that
tabulation through the pool where we've got people that are
Hispanic. Give them that one, and see if that keeps them
quiet.'' Or you could say, ``Run the black data census through
the pool.'' Isn't that subject to manipulation?
Ms. Pinzler. Well, again, no, I don't think so, if it's
properly tabulated. And I'm sorry that a civil rights enforcer
had that kind of view. It is, I think, a very unusual view
among civil rights enforcers.
Mr. Horn. That's what his supervisor told him after we got
fully fed up with him.
Ms. Pinzler. I imagine so.
Mr. Horn. He said my interpretation of the law was correct.
Ms. Pinzler. My experience with various groups or
organizations that may represent specific groups is that they
interact on that. I spent most of my career, prior to coming to
the government, doing women's rights cases, sex discrimination
cases. If we looked into a situation and saw that there might
be data indicating race discrimination, we always took notice
of that.
I really don't know how else to answer your question. I'm
put in mind of the famous quote from Sojourner Truth, ``Ain't I
a woman?'' A black woman may be discriminated against because
she's a woman, or she may be discriminated against because
she's black. Any kind of sophisticated look at these situations
will want to have as much information as possible.
That's the best answer I can give you to that question.
They are always, I suppose, subject to possible abuses with
these things, but we would hope that that would be at a
minimum.
Mr. Horn. Dr. Waters.
Ms. Waters. I think whenever you're dealing with multiple
responses on any one question, you do have to be extremely
careful about how you calculate the denominator and how you
calculate the numerator. I would say that there is a danger, if
you have different agencies using different methods of
tabulating the denominators and numerators, and if you don't
have some standardization from OMB.
And maybe you need three sets of standardization for three
different kinds of purposes: one for apportionment, one for
discrimination, and one for something else. But you can get
very confused. In fact, you can even see it sometimes if you
look at reports that include Hispanics with racial categories,
in terms of reporting things.
Sometimes people themselves, analysts, are confused as to
whether or not somebody is in both categories or not. So I
think you're right to be worried that there is a potential for
confusion there, but the potential is different, I think, than
saying you can't do it.
I think it really does rest on OMB or someone having some
rules about--and maybe you have to have different sets of rules
for different purposes, but you do need some rules so that
agencies can talk to one another, especially since denominators
often come from the Census Bureau, numerators come from
National Health Statistics. If one is double counting and one
is using weights, or something like that, it could be a
statistical nightmare.
So I do think you have to pay attention to it. That's not
to say that you can't do it at all.
Mr. Horn. Now, we don't have anybody here representing,
say, the Centers for Disease Control, but to what degree have
they been involved in approving of this interagency report? Ms.
Wallman might know.
I think it would be important to get that on the record,
since some diseases are ethnic or race-related. It would be
helpful, I think, in health data to know that. Perhaps this is
one way to go, as a result.
Ms. Wallman. Why don't you identify yourself for the
record.
Ms. Wallman. Thank you. I'm Katherine Wallman, from the
Office of Management and Budget, and I was sworn in.
Mr. Horn. Chief Statistician of the United States.
Ms. Wallman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Horn. It has a nice ring to it.
Ms. Wallman. Thank you.
Mr. Horn. Go ahead.
Ms. Wallman. I would like to confirm that multiple parts of
the Department of Health and Human Services were involved in
this 30-agency task force, including the National Center for
Health Statistics, which is part of the Centers for Disease
Control. There was actually another representative directly
from CDC, as well. There were other folks from the department
overall.
So the health agencies, indeed, were quite well covered in
this initiative and were part of the 30-agency group that has
been referred to.
Mr. Horn. So they are very supportive of this
recommendation?
Ms. Wallman. Indeed they are.
Mr. Horn. OK. Any other questions any of you would like to
ask?
I have two things left to do, then. I'm going to read into
the record the Speaker's remarks. He's still in negotiations
with the Senate, and we're trying to clear a few things out of
here to prove we did cut taxes, we did cut spending, and we did
save Medicare.
So let me just read his statement, and then I want to thank
the staff that has been involved with this hearing. And I thank
all of you as witnesses. I'm sorry we had to go through all
these votes on the House floor, but you've been very patient,
and we appreciate getting your thoughts in the record.
The Speaker's comments are these:
``Mr. Chairman, America is a Nation of immigrants. We have
in America people who have, for various reasons, come to
America for a better opportunity. Before there was a Nation
called the United States, Pilgrims, fleeing religious
persecution, landed in a place they called the New World.
``In the 1800's, the Irish came to these shores fleeing a
famine which had devastated their country. As recently as the
1970's, Vietnamese fled a homeland wounded by decades of war.
These and so many others saw hope and opportunity in America.
They came here for a chance to succeed. They made the conscious
decision to become a part of a new family, to become Americans.
And becoming an American is a unique experience which comes
with certain responsibilities, certain habits that one has to
absorb and accept to successfully finish the process.
``An American is not `French' the way the French are, or
`German' the way the Germans are. You can live in either of
these countries for years and never become French or German. I
think one of the reasons Tiger Woods has had such a big impact
is because he is an American. He defines himself as an
American. As Tiger described himself, `I just am who I am,
whatever you see in front of you.'
``I think we need to be prepared to say, the truth is, we
want all American to be, quite simply, Americans. That doesn't
deprive anyone of the right to further define their heritage. I
go to celebrations such as the Greek festival in my district
every year.
``It doesn't deprive us of the right to have ethnic pride,
to have some sense of our origins. But it is wrong for some
Americans to begin creating subgroups to which they have higher
loyalty than to America at large. The genius of America has
always been its ability to draw people from everywhere and to
give all of them an opportunity to pursue happiness in a way
that no other society has been able to manage.
``Andria Brown, writing in the Chicago Tribune on April 18,
1997, wrote about Tiger Woods: `We might be saved by the
amazing grace of golf. And by a kid with a swing whose mixed
heritage could be a recipe for hope, proving to the world that
it's not what color you are but the way you carry yourself, the
way you persist to reach your dreams. When he steps to the tee,
Tiger Woods does not represent the struggle of African-
Americans. When he sinks a putt, the athletic future of
Chinese-Americans does not rest on his shoulders. Rather, what
Tiger Woods does embody each time he walks a golf course is the
potential of youth and the reward of diligence. What Tiger
Woods typifies is the best of what we all can be.'
``America,'' says the Speaker, ``is too big and too diverse
to categorize each and every one of us into four rigid racial
categories. The administration has made a decision to force us
to choose artificial categories that do not accurately reflect
the racial identity of America. Millions of Americans like
Tiger Woods or my constituent, Ryan Graham, who testified
before you earlier this year, have moved beyond the Census
Bureau's divisive and inaccurate labels. We live in a
technicolor world where the government continues to view us as
only black and white.
``It is time for the government to stop perpetuating racial
divisiveness. It is time to treat individuals as individuals
and to adopt the attitude about or fellow Americans that Lou
Ann Mullen, a Native American Texan who fought valiantly to be
allowed to adopt two black children, expressed about her own
family when asked about their multiracial makeup.'' said Ms.
Mullen, `` `We are often described that way, but I don't think
of us that way. To me we are just my family.' ''
Said the Speaker, ``That should be our goal for the way we
as Americans feel about one another. That is why, ideally, I
believe we should have one box on Federal forms that simply
reads, `American.'
``But if that is not possible at this point, we should at
least stop forcing Americans into inaccurate categories aimed
at building divisive subgroups and allow them the option of
selecting the category `multiracial,' which I believe will be
an important step toward transcending racial division and
reflecting the melting pot which is America.''
[The prepared statement of Hon. Newt Gingrich follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.450
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.451
Mr. Horn. Now I would like to thank the following people
that have prepared this hearing: Our staff director and counsel
for the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology is Russell George. The one directly responsible for
most of this hearing is John Hynes, professional staff member,
on your right, my left. Andrea Miller, our clerk, and her staff
of interns I thank as well.
David McMillen for the minority, professional staff member;
Jean Gosa, clerk for the minority. The interns are Darren
Carlson, Jeff Cobb, John Kim, and Grant Newmann. Our court
reporter is Barbara Smith.
Thank you very much. With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
-
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.452
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.453
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.454
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.455
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.456
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.457
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.458
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.459
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.460
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.461
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.462
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.463
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.464
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.465
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.466
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.467
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.468
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.469
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.470
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.471
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.472
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.473
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.474
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.475
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.476
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.477
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.478
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.479
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.480
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.481
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.482
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.483
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.484
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.485
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.486
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.487
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.488
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.489
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45174.490