ad info

 
CNN.comTranscripts
 
Editions | myCNN | Video | Audio | Headline News Brief | Feedback  

 

  Search
 
 

 

TOP STORIES

Bush signs order opening 'faith-based' charity office for business

Rescues continue 4 days after devastating India earthquake

DaimlerChrysler employees join rapidly swelling ranks of laid-off U.S. workers

Disney's GO.com is a goner

(MORE)

MARKETS
4:30pm ET, 4/16
144.70
8257.60
3.71
1394.72
10.90
879.91
 


WORLD

U.S.

POLITICS

LAW

TECHNOLOGY

ENTERTAINMENT

 
TRAVEL

ARTS & STYLE



(MORE HEADLINES)
 
CNN Websites
Networks image


Crossfire

Are the Questions on the U.S. Census Too Personal?

Aired April 5, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

MARY MATALIN, CO-HOST: Tonight, making sense of the census.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I understand why people don't want to give a lot of information about their private lives to the government. I don't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: The Republicans have been trying to frustrate this census from the beginning. They don't want more people counted because they think it serves their political purposes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATALIN: Are the questions too personal? Should you refuse to fill it out?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill Press; on the right, Mary Matalin. In the CROSSFIRE, Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney from New York, ranking member on the Census Subcommittee, and Steve Dasbach, national director for the Libertarian Party.

MATALIN: Good evening, and welcome to CROSSFIRE. Good citizens, you have less than a week to mail back your census form. And for the one in six Americans who received the long form, do not wait until the mail-back period ends, because the aptly named long form contains 54 multipart questions. Critics find it not just cumbersome, but invasive, with questions ranging from your military service to your sewer conditions. Census advocates claim they need answers to so many seemingly private questions in order for the government to do its job. Predictably, politicians are differing on the government's right to know.

Republican nominee Bush and Majority Leader Lott, while encouraging compliance, are empathizing with long form skeptics. Democrat leaders say such talk turns skepticism into cynicism about government. As heated as the arguments have become, the 2000 census rate of return is comparable to past censuses, but less than what was hoped for. While the national debate rages, census enumerators will soon fan out across the country and knock on the doors of census scofflaws.

So tonight, the census is in the CROSSFIRE. Does the government really need so much information about us? Are they promoting our well-being or invading our privacy? Or are government critics hurting the system -- Bill.

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Mr. Dasbach, you are national director of the Libertarian Party, which is, I understand, basically means the less government the better.

STEVE DASBACH, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, LIBERTARIAN PARTY: Absolutely right.

PRESS: So I want to start at the very beginning with you. Should we have a census at all?

DASBACH: Absolutely. It's one of the few constitutional things that our government does. Every 10 years, we need to have an accurate count of all the citizens in our country to make sure that we fairly apportion representatives among -- in the Congress.

PRESS: Well, then, if we're going to all of that trouble, I don't understand what this whole flap is about to be honest with you, but let's just ask you, if we're going to all of this trouble to find out how many we are, wouldn't it be -- seem wise while we're at it to find out who we are? Not just a head count, but such information as they ask -- how many rich, how many middle class, how many poor, how many young, how many old, how many Latino, how many African American? I mean, right? A portrait, not just a count.

DASBACH: Well, what happens is the more questions you ask on the form, the lower the compliance rate gets. Every 10 years, we've seen the rate go down and down and down. People get these long forms, they look at the invasive questions, they at the number of questions they are going to be asked to answer. On the long form, it's 54 questions for the first person, and then 32 questions for each additional person in the household, and they set it aside, or they throw it away, and they don't respond with the number of people in the household, which means the accuracy of the count is hurt, and the people who are least likely to be counted are the people who are poor, the people who are here illegally, the people who don't want -- who are most concerned about having the government have access to personal questions.

PRESS: Bill, but I don't think you get to the essence of the question, and I dispute that these questions are invasive, by the way, and I'll ask you specifically about these questions. But unless you're advocating the triumph of ignorance, I mean, let's take Delaware for example. There are about 750,000 people in Delaware. Well, that's good to know. But isn't it also good to know where, for example, the poor people in Delaware, the people who may need some housing rehabilitation loans, the areas that may need some additional telephone service? I mean, why not go for that and then encourage people to fill out the form? If the politicians would encourage people to comply instead of falling into the lap of ignorance, couldn't we have both?

DASBACH: Well, we're not talking about just encouragement. We're talking about under penalty of law. If you don't fill out the form, you can be hit with a $100 fine. Supply false information, it can mean a $500 fine. There's nothing wrong with government doing some sampling to collect some statistical information. But to mandate that every citizen provide all of this information, including what racial category they're in, what -- you know, if there's a long form, some of these other types of invasive questions about your plumbing facilities or whether you have trouble learning and remembering is, frankly, not what the purpose of the census is.

PRESS: Could I say for the record there are three flush toilets in my house. I do not consider that an invasive question.

MATALIN: Thank you for sharing information we didn't want to know.

PRESS: There it is. I mean, that's ridiculous.

MATALIN: OK, OK, let's just get real here. No one is urging -- no politician is urging anyone not to comply. What Bush and Lott are saying, in particular, is they empathize with people who would be nervous about this government's, in particular, ability to protect our privacy. This very president was cited recently of a criminal violation of the privacy act for releasing letters of a White House staffer about which he said the following.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When the decision was made to release those letters, I didn't even have any conversations with anybody about the Privacy Act. I never thought about it. I never thought about whether it applied or not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATALIN: Well, putting aside the fact that that is -- that has to be an untruth, that he didn't talk to his lawyers about releasing -- say he did it out of ignorance, the point is, when the government wants to use information about you for their own purposes, the president just proved it as not loathe to do that. Don't people have the right to be nervous about this government and the protection of our privacy?

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY (D-NY), CENSUS SUBCOMMITTEE: Well, first of all, Mary, the census is absolutely confidential. No government agency can get any information from this census. And it is basically the same census that your President Reagan and Bush endorsed and encouraged people to fill out the forms. In fact, it is four questions less than the 1990 census. And to have major leaders in this country stand up and more or less say that filling out the census is optional, I find unpatriotic, just plain wrong, and poor leadership. It is the law.

I have got to say, Mary, it's got to be first time in the history of this country that a presidential candidate has literally stood up and encouraged people not to follow the law, and it hurts people. It hurts residents in Texas.

MATALIN: In the era and the administrations of President Reagan and Bush, there weren't 900 FBI files in the basement of the White House on their opponents, there weren't letters from paramours released, there wasn't Pentagon leaks on opponents' personnel files, and there wasn't the use of the IRS to attack his opponents. Kate, that did not happen in previous governments, so we didn't have the skepticism that we have today about this particular administration and its use of this information. And I am not accusing them of it, but you have to concede that in the past eight years, people in this country have the right to be nervous about this government's ability to protect our privacy, because they haven't.

MALONEY: And we didn't have major leaders, major senatorial leaders like Senator Lott and Governor Bush literally asking people or directing people that the census is optional. The census is vital to the planning of this nation. The census numbers are used by local governments to plan where schools and hospitals are. It's used by the federal government to distribute over $180 billion a year in federal aid that is tied to census numbers. So when major leaders stand up and say you don't have to fill out or answer all the questions, they're hurting their own constituents. It's not responsible. It's wrong. We need the census data to get an accurate picture of where we are as a nation and where we're going.

And I must say, Mary, I want to just show you all the editorials that came in across this nation criticizing the leadership of Governor Bush and Senator Lott in standing up and saying that the census long form is optional.

MATALIN: You try to compare those with the number of editorials criticizing the president for releasing personal information for having FBI files in his basement over there and saying it's a bureaucratic snafu. That's just the point. Just say they're not trying to invade our privacy. People do not have confidence in the ability of the government to protect our privacy. Polls show that. Can they keep it confidential, the government? No, 50 percent: Can the Census Bureau protect the information? No, 60 percent don't think that this government can protect the information in a digital age.

MALONEY: Well, it's absolutely confidential, and it will be protected.

PRESS: I want to ask you about -- first, see -- you know, to turn the census into another anti-Clinton attack really, I tell you, boggles the mind.

DASBACH: I should point out that we were against the 1980 and 1990 census as well.

PRESS: I was just going to say, I think your opposition is a lot deeper and far beyond another anti-Clinton attack. But let me just ask you about this privacy question. Number one, what questions do you find invasive? You've used that word twice now. DASBACH: Let's start with the one that's on the short form, the race question. Asking Americans to classify themselves into 18 different racial categories. That's 14 more than the government of South Africa required, and far from the notion of this data has never been used, OK. It was used in World War II to find out where the Japanese Americans were and to put them in internment camps. So the fact that this is innocuous information that could never be turned against the citizens of this country has been demonstrated to be wrong.

PRESS: I still don't understand what is invasive about somebody asking you what ethnicity you are. I mean, most people are proud of their ethnicity. They're proud to put down they're Latino, or Polish- American or whatever it happens to be. What's invasive about that? What's invasive about the flush toilet? What's invasive about how many grandparents in the house? What's invasive about how many bedrooms? What -- they're not asking you if you robbed a bank or if you smoked pot?

DASBACH: Well, in the case -- let's talk specifically about the race question, OK. The racial data that's gathered in the census is the basis for all of these race-based programs that we're allowed to build up over the years, where we start to pigeonhole people based on the color of their skin. If our goal is that of Dr. King, that we have a colorblind society, then we need to stop putting people in pigeonholes based on what their skin color is.

PRESS: But there are more programs -- government programs, that specifically target minority, racial minority communities, Latino communities for example, in Texas, in California, where I come from. Now this doesn't, as you know, this data, as the Congresswoman said, is, by law, they cannot release it just -- only in the aggregate. They can't release names or addresses for 72 years. So you're not talking about one particular name, but why is it important? I'll to you what is important in the state of California, to know where the Latino population is. It moves around. It's not all in East L.A., and it changes in 10 years. That is important to know, wouldn't you agree?

MALONEY: It's very, very important for voting rights and many other cases. The one question that has really been ridiculed the most by Senator Lott and some of the talk shows is the question about whether or not you have plumbing. But believe it or not, maybe George Bush would be surprised to know that there are areas in Texas that don't have plumbing, and we need to know where these areas are so the government can address these concerns and make efforts to people. The census is about helping people.

DASBACH: Congresswoman, are you saying that the people -- the politicians in East Texas don't know which communities in their area don't have complete plumbing, that only this once every 10-year census is the only way they know to find out where these problems are? I can't believe that people -- politicians aren't better in touch with their constituents in knowing what those problems are to have to wait for the census.

PRESS: You'd be surprised.

(LAUGHTER)

PRESS: We're going to take a break. When we -- we have to take break. When we come back, here's the big question: If you don't answer the census, is somebody going to come knocking on your door? When we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

Nothing's easy these days, not even the census. In the past, it used to be a nonevent. This year suddenly a huge controversy. So many questions some members of Congress are even advising people to break the law and not answer them all. Is the government asking too much, Or is it just gathering vital information? Debating the census tonight with Steve Dasbach, national director of the Libertarian Party and Congresswoman Carol Maloney, Democrat from New York -- Mary.

MATALIN: All right, congresswoman, I am not making a Clinton attack. I was just trying to point out how easy it is and how often it is that the government uses this information for unintended purposes. Steve mentioned one from 1942 when the Army used the census list to round up Japanese-Americans. According to our own current general accounting office, the GAO, census responses have been use for government housing code crackdowns. In other words, they're carrying out where there is overpopulation in public housing, and the effect of this is to evict low-income people, minorities, Hispanics, African- Americans who are in these projects who are being evicted based on their having answered the census. GAO is saying that, not me, not a Clinton bashing -- this is our own...

MALONEY: Well, I am going to call for a public hearing on that statement. I don't believe it's true. The census is used to help people. It is confidential. It is not tied to a person's name or address. The statistics are compiled to give a portrait of America, and who we are and where we're going as a country. All of these politicians that have been complaining about the questions, everyone received this document that listed every single question, the statute that it was tied to that Congress passed, the funding formula that it's tied to, and why the information is needed for the public good and for public planning here in our country. And to come out at the late -- this last late date, two days before census day, and start saying that it's optional...

MATALIN: I'll quit attacking Clinton if you quit attacking Mr. Lott and ...

MALONEY: Mary, Mary, can I point out one thing?

MATALIN: Let me go back to my point here?

MALONEY: The Republican record on this is very telling and very chilling. They have tried to close down the government twice over the census, trying to attach a language that would not allow modern statistical methods. They attached anti-modern statistical method language to the disaster relief bill, thinking that President Clinton would not veto the bill when many Americans were suffering over the census, but he did to get an accurate count.

(CROSSTALK)

MALONEY: They called it an emergency. We've had the census forever.

MATALIN: Oh, no emergency calls from the Democrats.

MALONEY: Congresswoman, let's just agree.

MATALIN: They have tried to stop...

(CROSSTALK)

MATALIN: OK, I'll agree the Republicans are cromagnum. Let me say for the purposes...

(CROSSTALK)

MALONEY: For the record...

MATALIN: She's not going to get off of this. Let's move on to what the census woman spokesman said about what I just told you, where the census data was used for housing code violations. She said -- quote -- "You balance the need for small-area data with the possibility that it could possibly be used for purposes for which it was not intended. I am not talking about politics here. I am talking about an admission from this census bureau that the data has in the past and in recent times been used for purposes not intended. And it's not protected, for which this president has proved, and there is no way in the digital age to protect our privacy. There is no way.

Quit talking about the Republicans and the Democrats and making this partisan and give us some assurance that this data isn't used, as a Census Bureau spokeswoman said that it was, for unintended purposes.

MALONEY: Well I'll tell you, you cited the really unfortunate occurrence, when the Japanese were rounded up and interned. The president has apologized for the nation for that action. We are a very different nation than we were back then. We were at war. It was wrong then. But we were a different country then. And because of that action, we passed all kinds of laws to protect the privacy and to make sure that it's kept private and confidential, and served for the purpose of helping people and knowing where the needs are so that we can address those needs.

PRESS: Some -- some of these questions, if I may, do seem intrusive, maybe, and some of them do seem irrelevant. But I think it's important that everybody understand a couple of points, which you and I can probably agree on.

No. 1, some of these questions that seem so curious -- the family income question, how much money your family makes a year; the plumbing facility question -- they've been on the census form in this country since 1940, correct?

DASBACH: Oh, absolutely.

PRESS: I mean, so this is not something that Clinton invented or...

DASBACH: No. And as I said, we've been opposed to this in the previous censuses as well.

PRESS: Secondly, some of this information, you wonder -- you wonder what good is it. Let me just give you three examples.

One example -- I'm sorry -- about this -- we have talked about the plumbing facilities and the flush toilets, as we've kidded about. And by the way, I've got, you know, pages here if you look at the Census Bureau Web site they tell you what government agencies use which information for what purposes.

On the plumbing facilities, Housing and Urban Development looks at those numbers to figure out where rehabilitation loans in this country are needed. Health and Human Services looks at those numbers to find where there could be problems with groundwater contamination. Farmers Home Administration -- Housing -- Home Administration looks at those numbers to find out where there may be money needed for -- in rural areas for construction loans or repair loans.

So if you deprive the agencies of the information, aren't you really saying -- depriving them of the ability to do their job?

DASBACH: Census commercials tell us this data is needed to know how many schools to build and what size classrooms. But you know, I was talking...

PRESS: Well, what about that? What about that?

DASBACH: I taught for 21 years. I sat down and worked with the funding proposals. And you know what? Census data is not in there at all. That's not what determines how much money comes in. It's not what the schools look at in deciding to build new schools. And it's one more case of the Census Bureau magnifying this way out of proportion, coming up with anything under the sun that they can think about.

PRESS: Just -- just a second. There's $185 billion in federal money that goes out from this capital to the states and to the localities, and you're just saying they ought to throw it out there with no information?

DASBACH: No, it goes out there. It's based on the number of kids who are in school lunch programs. It's based on the number of kids that you have signed up in special ed.

PRESS: Based on the census.

DASBACH: The census does not show up in the formula at all.

PRESS: Based on the census.

(CROSSTALK)

MATALIN: ... used to expand the welfare state...

DASBACH: That's right.

MATALIN: Let me just say that in a short form for you, and thank you for joining us, Steve. Congresswoman, thank you so much.

Good luck on your future hearing. Here's the data you need for that. Bill and I will be back, and maybe I'll tell you how many toilets I have in my home. Stay with us for our comments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATALIN: Bill and I aren't done yet. We still have more to say, and we'll be joining Judy Woodruff on CNN's "NEWSSTAND" at 10:00 p.m. Eastern. Join us there. Join me here.

PRESS: We'll be there.

MATALIN: Join me here! The first census was taken in 1790, and it was posted publicly. And within one generation, citizens were complaining that. It was pulled down. They were concerned about their privacy and being taxed and having their sons taken away and what not.

The congresswoman kept saying all kinds of laws have been put in place to avoid our privacy invasions, but they have either been purposely violated ad nauseam or we live in a digital age where it cannot -- they cannot -- this information cannot be protected.

PRESS: You know what this is? Paranoia, pure paranoia.

Let me just tell you something: No. 1, it's the constitution. This is so silly. It's the Constitution, No. 1.

MATALIN: To count...

PRESS: No. 2, it's...

MATALIN: Not to manipulate us!

PRESS: No. 2 -- let me finish, please. I didn't interrupt you. No. 2, it's the law. OK? No. 3, it's important information. No. 4, it's easy. Skip our makeup guy -- right? -- filled out the long form. It took him 10 minutes.

Are you telling me every 10 years you don't have 10 minutes to give to your country? Mary.

MATALIN: Well, he's a genius. Skip is a genius.

PRESS: Ten minutes. From the left, I'm Bill Press.

Good for you, Skip. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

MATALIN: And from the right, I'm Mary Matalin. Do fill out your form. And join us again tomorrow night for another edition of CROSSFIRE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

 Search   


Back to the top  © 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.