Perilous time for the 2020 census. Troubling, there were reports indicating career officials at the Census Bureau warned the trump about significant problems that will delay the delivery of census data to late january or early february. After these reports became public, the director of the census, dr. Steven billingham, issued a Public Statement confirming problems were found, but provided no details. These developments were particularly troubling because they were not reported to our committee before we write about them in the press or before the census director made his Public Statement. Committee has jurisdiction, but nobody from the Trump Administration informed us about these problems or delays. For these reasons, the committee wrote a letter to the Census Bureau november 19. We asked for documents career officials prepared describing these data problems and the resulting delays. We also requested documents repaired for the department of commerce, including the commerce secretary
The committee stands in recess for five minutes. Recognizesow congressman raskin. You are now recognized, congressman raskin. We cant hear you yet. Rep. Raskin can you hear me now, madam chair . We can, thank you. Rep. Raskin is there any statistical benefit in requiring bureau to deliver apportionment data by the end of the year despite having to ssuspend Field Operations for three months . [indiscernible] statement. With that as far as risk of accuracy of counts is concerned, the shorter amount of time the bureau has to produce quality data, the higher the risk that something is going to go wrong. Rep. Raskin do you agree the couldion to rush the count affect the accuracy of the data assembled . Yes, sir. From a Data Processing standpoint, it does have risk. 150 days was to have of Data Processing. 90 days and now it is 77 days. It puts pressure on them to both identify anomalies and address hey identify. Es t rep. Raskin am i visible now . I am being told i was not on. You are now v
Are my own and not to be attributed to the trustees. Of the census accuracy is deeper and more complex than the latest chapter on anomalies. These are problems yet to be found reveal the consequences and risks. To help illustrate the challenges of 2020 census accuracy, i start with Research Conducted by Diana Elliott and i last year to explore 2020 census outcomes. This was precovid. We chose three risk scenarios and used Census Bureau research to simulate 2020 counts. The most optimistic scenario mimicked the performance of the 2010 census, which came in 0001 of population estimate. When we overlaid that performance over the 2020 projection, we discovered a net undercount of the population of 3 . Stated differently, had the pandemic never happened, people of color are historically undercounted, and our wonderful nation, have become more racially and ethnically diverse over the past 10 years. While this 2010 census was accurate for the total u. S. Population, it came at the expense of
This court construed section 5000 day of the Affordable Care even reate a choice, either adjust or pay the tax. In 2017, congress did not change sub a or b, it just reduce the amount of the tax of tax to zero. This still protects presents a choice, buy insurance and do nothing. That does not harm anyone or violate the constitution. Respondents insist that the 20 17th amendment to tear down the entire aca that rests on two untenable arguments, first respondents contend that congress transformed it into a command when it zeroed out the tax. That is contrary to this construction of the same tax, it is at odds at how congress and the president understood the amendments, and it would attribute to congress and intends to do exactly what this court said would be unconstitutional. Seconds, second, respondents argued that if this is unconstitutional, every other provision must also fall. The starting part of any remedial analysis would be the presumption in favor of severability, and here the t
This court construed section 5000 day of the Affordable Care even reate a choice, either adjust or pay the tax. In 2017, congress did not change sub a or b, it just reduce the amount of the tax of tax to zero. This still protects presents a choice, buy insurance and do nothing. That does not harm anyone or violate the constitution. Respondents insist that the 20 17th amendment to tear down the entire aca that rests on two untenable arguments, first respondents contend that congress transformed it into a command when it zeroed out the tax. That is contrary to this construction of the same tax, it is at odds at how congress and the president understood the amendments, and it would attribute to congress and intends to do exactly what this court said would be unconstitutional. Seconds, second, respondents argued that if this is unconstitutional, every other provision must also fall. The starting part of any remedial analysis would be the presumption in favor of severability, and here the t