Chuck, I was at the hearing and thought the tenor was more neutral and fact finding than any sort of a witch-hunt or antagonistic. Be forewarned that I am not an expert observer and I, like everyone, have my own sort of selective-perception mechanisms. In fact, this was my first ever committee hearing. Below are some notes I put together that are intended to compliment the written testimony. Three committee members were present: Miller (Chairman), Maloney (Ranking) and D. Davis (Dem from Chicago) Mr. Miller opened the hearing and outlined what he perceived was the American publics' discontent with the Long Form. He pointed to issues of privacy, the intrusive nature of government on people's lives and private businesses. He then laid out 5 questions that the ACS must answer before Congress could make a commitment to support it. 1) Is the ACS cost efficient? 2) Should the ACS be a mandatory or voluntary survey? 3) Are rural areas getting quality and timely data? 4) Will it be implemented in an accurate, efficient and consistent manner? 5) Does the ACS address the privacy concerns of the American people? Ms. Maloney's opening statement went into why we need the Long Form and how important data is for the decision process. She also took some time to address the importance of several specific Long Form questions. Mr. Davis spoke to the genuine needs of data, but did remark that some folks may choose not use any data and that is their right--it is just one of the freedoms we have. He did add, that it was his opinion that "the more information we have the better off we are." Mr. Miller wrapped up the opening statements noting that this hearing was the beginning of a long process. A process that had lots of issues to delve into and that was laying the groundwork for the next census. At several times throughout the day this point was reiterated. The hearing was structured to have three panels. Panel One Only two of four representatives scheduled presented testimony. Ms. Emerson (R-MO) pointed out that the current census data was too old by the time it gets released and not capable of picking up the rapid changes that have been occurring in rural America. As a result, she alleged that rural America is not properly accounted for in the distribution of public benefits. She stated that the rural caucus would be pleased to work with this committee on having accurate and timely data that is so critical to rural America. Under questioning Mr. Miller wondered if the surveys Agriculture does would suffice. Mr. Collins (R-GA) promoted his Bill, HR4138, which is targeted at eliminating the penalty for not completing the census form. Both Ms. Maloney and Mr. Davis expressed the sentiment that this was the only thing that was mandatory for the U.S. population (except for jury duty) and did not show the same concern as Mr. Collins. The issue came up again during the discussion with Panel Two. Panel Two Mr. Spotila from OMB spoke to the legal importance of the Long Form. He noted that OMB has formed an interagency committee of 40 federal agencies including all the federal statistical agencies to review the questionnaire content and its use. That committee would be working with Congress and reporting back. (I thought I heard 18 months but it is not in the written testimony). Mr. Prewitt (Census Bureau) then spoke to the importance of the ACS, its need, and workability. In his review of the need for the data, he noted that there have been 35 bills introduced into the 106th Congress that would require Long Form data. He then spoke to some of the mechanical details of the ACS stressing that from an operational and planning standpoint it is "critical" to maintain the schedule that the Census Bureau recommended. During the questioning, Mr. Miller expressed concerns about when the Congress would be brought into the OMB review committee process. Mr. Spotila noted that this has to be a cooperative--collegial process. During the ensuing questioning, which Mr. Miller likened to "a working session", the following issues by the committee surfaced. A) Sample size seemed to be the number one concern. It was clear that the committee would like to have some discussion on sample size verses the level of geography needed. At one point a separate hearing on just this issue was suggested. The trade-off between sample size and geographical aggregation will have to be addressed. B) Mandatory participation versus voluntary participation is a concern. The speculation is that voluntary participation would cost more but how much and how it would relate under an ACS framework needs to be understood. C) The approval process for ACS questions should be articulated and work needs to be done on what data is needed and why. It was clear that the Committee wants to understand why each question is asked. Obviously, how this was explained coming into the 2000 Census did not work. D) How would ACS data be used? Would it be used in the same way as the current long form data? There seemed to be some trepidation on the committee with the concept of a floating average. E) The costs of the ACS versus the Long Form. No one directly answered the cost questions. F) The ability for the Census with the ACS to be at a competitive advantage in the market place when it comes to "underbid" private sector firms on government work. (Although the Census does not actually bid on government work they do have several contracts and working agreements.) Overall, the reoccurring issue that kept coming up was "at what level of geography is the data needed?" (This is a point we transportation folks need to drive home) Another point that came up but I heard two different numbers thrown out dealt with geographical specificity. I was hearing Census Tracts and numbers like 15,000 population and then later someone said 5,000. This to me was very discerning since I was not hearing Block groups or anything approaching what we all know as a TAZ. Panel Three The third panel was invited "outside" individuals. There testimony can be found online at. http://www.house.gov/danmiller/census/hearing/hearing.html For a different take on the same hearing the Washington Post ran an article in Monday's July 24, 2000 paper. http://washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?articleid… "Chuck Purvis (MTC)" wrote: