>> thank you, secretary. i am proud on behalf of all of my colleagues to report to the american public the 2010 census national and state population terms and the apportionment results for the u.s. house of representatives. this is the 23rd time that this country has done this. at that time, we were just a nation of 3.9 million people. this is the time when all of us come together to counter ourselves and make possible critical steps in our democracy. we began this release with the as of april 1, 2010. the population on that date is the cumulative effect of generations of americans growing and

this first craddock reflects the growth. 100 years ago in 1910, there were 92 million people in this country. by 1970, the population had more than doubled. 10 years ago, the resident population, that is, population of the 50 states and the district of columbia, was 281,421,906 persons. 10 years ago. under a constitutional mandate, the census bureau was charged with the job of conducting the 2010 census to update that number. following that, in early 2009, our staff visited every street in this country to update our list of addresses. in 2010, we mailed or delivered 132 million forms. we worked with over 250,000

community and civic organizations to promote the census. to knock on about 50 million doors are around the country to collect data in person. we optically scanned 166 million forms. we built and reviewed very large data sets stripped of personal identifiers. at this point, i am happy and proud to note, we have finished the work required to produce our first 2010 census product. i ask that secretary locke and that is secretary blanktelevisi, the official april 1, 2010 population count. as of april 1, 2010, according to the 2010 census, the resident

u.s. population is 308,745,538 that should do it. great, great. this 2010 census population represents a growth of 9.7% over the official population count of 2000. now i am going to provide more details, including the counts, r review the results of the

reapportionment of the house of representatives. first, let's break down the country,figures to see showing different -- geographical variation in population growth. here we see the continuation of a multi-decade trend in the growth in the southern and western regions. the northeast grew by a rate of 3.2% over the last 10 years. the midwest grew by 3.9%. the south, already the region with the largest population, grew by 14.3%. and finally, the west grew by 13.8%. if you look at a staff -- the state map, qc large variation across the state. many different circumstances have combined to contribute to the population growth or decline in each state. the state with the largest rate of population growth over the

last 10 years is nevada with 35.1%. i note that nevada showed s 16% growth before. michigan saw a decline of 0.6% and pr a decline of 2.2%. in the census 2000, no state experienced a 10 year decline. but in the 1990 census, four states experienced a decline. now let's go into each region. you will see variation across states. in the northeast, we see in rhode island with 0.4% growth compared to new hampshire with 6.5% growth. in the midwest, we again see the decline i south dakota. in the south, there was a great range among individual states.

louisiana with a 1.4% growth and west virginia with 2.5% growth can be contrasted to texas with a 20.6% growth. in the west, there is an even larger difference between montano what 9.6% growth and again nevada with 35.1%. now i turn to the implication of the 2010 official census results on the membership of the u.s. house of representatives. as you know, the constitutional purpose of the senses is the redistribution of the membership of the house of representatives across states, proportional to their populations. since 1940, the law has specified that the census bureau use the method of equal proportions to assign seats to states. this method is based on the population of the 50 states, excluding the district of

columbia, supplemented by the federal-affiliated overseas population. if we look at the congressional apportionment each decade since states, and a tendency to lose seats from the midwestern and northeastern states. in fact, since 1940 there has been a net shift of 79 seats to the south and west. the affect of the official 2010 population count at the state level on congressional apportionment is a shift of 12 seats affecting 18 different states. those states gaining seats include arizona, florida, georgia, nevada, south carolina, texas, utah, and washington. as you can see on the graphic. those losing seats are illinois,

iowa, louisiana, massachusetts, michigan, missouri, new jersey, new york, ohio, and pennsylvania. for 32 states, there is no change. texas gained the most seats this decade, a total four, and indeed has gained seats for seven consecutive decades. the next graphic shows the national staff shot of the 2010 census apportionment of the u.s. house of representatives. california will have 53 seats. texas will have 36. new york and florida will each have 27. seven states will have only one representative. the average population size of each house district will be

710,767 persons, and this is up from 646,952 at this time in 2000. i might note that in 1790, each representative represented 34,000 people overall. population change. over the last 100 years, the rate of growth of the u.s. population has gradually slowed, and this is as you can see from the red line on this graphic. there are two notable decades here. between 1930-1940, the small growth rate of 7.3% is thought to be related to the great depression of the 1930 loss. between 1950-1960, the high growth of 18.5% sun reflects the

so-called baby boom. the percentage growth this last decade, as i stated earlier, 9.7%, is thus the second lowest of the past century. the census bureau also tracks the center of the population each decade. in 1790, the center for population was in kent county, maryland. it has consistently moved west and in more decades, noticeably south. in the year 2000, it was in southern missouri. we've not computed the new center. we cannot wait to see whether the center of -- will remain somewhere in the state of missouri or move south to arkansas. we will let you know as soon as we know. another way of looking at change in the population over

time is to consider the relative sizes of the four major regions of the country. in 1910, the west region comprised only 7.7% of the national population. in 1990, for the very first time, the northeast became our smallest region with 20.4%. in contrast, by the 2000 census, the west was 22.5% versus that earlierbased on the 2010 resulte note that this is the very first decade in our country's history that the west region is more populous than the midwest. with the largest and smallest populations in the country. in 1910, four of the five most

populous states were in the northeast and midwest, with texas as a fifth. starting in 1940, california displaced texas. by 1970, texas rejoined the top five. in 1990, florida joined the top five. new york is the only state that has ranked among the five largest in each decade -- in fact, this is been true since 1790. what are the top five most populous states as of april 1, 2010? they are california, texas, new york, florida, and illinois. and you see there population counts there in the graphic. the identities of the five least populous states vary all little

less over the decades. if we look for example at alaska, i note that it grew from 64,000 as a territory in 1910 to 627,000 in the year 2000. it has always been among the least of the populous states. we note that delaware and vermont on the east coast are also consistently among the least populous states. today, according to the 2010 census, the least populous states include wyoming, vermont, north dakota, alaska, and south dakota. i have been talking about the size of populations, so let's turn to percentage change, the rate of growth of populations over the decade. between 1920-1930, michigan grew at a rate of 32%, reflecting the

growing manufacturing sector in the state. between 1950 and 1960, florida grew at a fast rate of 78.7%, reflecting a larger migrations from the york and other northern states, the prevalence of air conditioning, and economic conditions in the state. arizona has been among the five states with high as population growth for nine of the last 10 decades. starting with a growth rate of 63.5% between 1910-1920, and then more recently in 1990- 2000, 40%. based on the 2010 census data, the five states with the fastest growth rate during the past decade are nevada, arizona, utah, idaho, and texas. and you can see their growth rates there on the graphictherel

for the states with the slowest growth or declines over the past century. the1920's saw the greduring thn 1930's and 1940's, many residents of the great plains were forced to leave. also consider west virginia, where the population declined for two decades, then rebounded strongly in the 1970's, reflecting the changing fortunes of coal mine. losses there can be temporary. the five states with the slowest growth included michigan, rhode island, louisiana, ohio, and new york. to the geographical dispersion of the population. we are a large country geographically, but our population is not evenly spread throughout it.

population density, measured by the average number of people per square mile. i been talking a lot about movement east to west, but it is important to note the five states with the highest population density have remained the same for the past 40 years in this country. they are new jersey, rhode island, massachusetts, connecticut, and maryland -- all of these part of the original 13 states. the five states with the lowest population density have remained the same for the last 20 years, although the ranking varies somewhat. they are alaska, wyoming, montana, north dakota, and south dakota. states with some of the larger land mass. let me sum up. this really completes our first look at the results of the 2010 census. there is much more to come,

revealing how our nation has changed over the last 10 years at levels as small as a city block, school districts, counties, and cities throughout the country. i want to end this press conference with a thank you. to the nearly 309 million residents of this wonderful country, i thank you on behalf all of us at the census bureau for your civic participation in the 2010 census. i want to thank the thousands of census bureau's staff throughout the country, and congratulate them for a job well done in the 2010 census. and especially to secretary locke and deputy secretary blank, you phrase did precisely correctly. this is a team with a leader in secretary locke that allow us to keep our eye on the prize throughout this endeavor.

with his input and leadership throughout the senses, we produce for the country a wonderful senses. i want to thank you for the hundreds of hours, both of you, that you spent assuring that this census was successful and importantly for me was conducted in a nonpartisan and so professionally statistical way -- statistically valid way. i want to thank you for coming today. i know how packed your schedules are and i thank you for your continuing support. this ends my remarks today. steve. [applause] >> will we give the secretary and deputy secretary a chance to get back to their duties, a couple of announcements and we will open it up. if you are on twitter, to

consent a question to 2 uscensubereau. will start with questions in the room. and if you want to go to our web site, this presentation and materials we are now handing out to the press are available on a website for download right now. >> please wait for a microphone. >> we will ask that of everyone. >> what do you attribute the slow growth in louisiana to? how much was an impact of hurricane katrina? >> 1 attribute of these numbers is that we have looked at them only for a few days, adjusted you have only seen them for a few minutes.

the growth in any state is yet to be discovered in terms of what the root causes are. the you want to handle the -- yes. do you do you have a question on the fun? >> please identify yourself. >> what is the significance of the population center, and you suspect it will be in arkansas? >> this is spent -- the significance of the population center the same amount and we balance the country by geography, where with the center. the? -- where would the sadr point be? i think that it teaches us how we have changes the country. this movement south and west is

really a very simple way to note how we as a population have changed in how we have moved over the decades. >> we will go to a question on the phone. >> thank you for doing this. i have a question about the rate of growth. since it is been this low since the 1930's, of what are the main reasons for that? is it because of the immigration issue or because of fewer births? >> growth in our country comes both from of those who live here and part of the growth is due to that in this country and part of the growth is due to immigration. based on our demographic analysis, it looks at 60% of the growth over the state is due to

these natural increases, and maybe 40% to immigration. >> we have a question from twitter. when and where do we get a copy of this? >> starting in february, state by state, the census bureau will release the data they will be used by the states for redistricting. that information gives down to the block level. you can assemble blocks up to county level from that data. in february through the end of march, and then we will have profiles and other styles released they will give results on all sorts of geographical affirmation. >> way back in the room here. >> you spoke about the plays

that the population growth, and could is specifically speak about california? we grew by 10%. how much of that was immigration and how much of that was natural birth? california is different from the rest of the country in this area. >> on december 6, and we released estimates of the population based on birth and death certificates, it in migrants and out migrants. that data and process do not permit us to go down to the state level. the answer to your question, we do not really have. we have a wonderfuleople reportr were they live in the prior year. they would be one way of going about answering that question. i do not have that data with me. >> let's check to see if we have a question from the operator. >> new haven, conn.

>> thank you and good morning. of what like to know the actual budget from congress where the 2010 census. what is the actual dollar amount? >> secretary locke referred to the 2010 fiscal year budget, opa collection and operations, and the beginning of the processing activities. of the $7.4 billion, we will able to return 1.8 $7 billion. we saved a enough money to return that t when paul $87 bi. we save that much money to return it to the -- $1.87 billion. we saved enough money to return that to the treasury.

>> we count residents, whether they are citizens are not, whether they are documented or not, we did that in 2010 just as we have done it every 10 years since 1790. as you may recall from your census questionnaire, we did not have a question on whether you were a citizen or not, which status was. and from these accounts, we cannot answer that kind of questions that some have about the proportion of the population that is new immigrants based on the census data. >> from the other side of the room, this gentleman in the back row. >> the mcclatchy newspapers. am i correct in remembering that 1910 was the last time the number of members of the house of represented swim up to its current level of 435? that is part one.

since the district's keep getting larger, will there be a point were the census bureau will have to consider increasing the number of districts? does that require an act of congress? >> on the first question, the 435 seats in 1920, the 1920 census did not lead to a reapportionment of the 1920 house. doubt was the one decade or the census was not used for reapportionment. on your second question, that is a matter for congress. the census has no role in determining or recommending the number of seats. that is a matter for the congress itself. jim and i think we have another question on the phone.

>> i have two quick question. in new mexico, there was an undercount. answered, the response in -- the response rate. what did you do to make sure that new mexico had an accurate count? >> there great question, because it allows me to go over how we do it. we mailed or delivered questionnairesat is the first he senses. any household could deny return the questionnaire we sent them was followed up in will be called and non-response follow. that amounted to 47 million households. we knocked on those doors repeatedly, we visited as many as six times throughout the process. so the relationship between the

male return rate and a complete count is quite fuzzy because we followed up on every household. at the end of this process, for every household. power master address file, we have a resolution. we have a population estimates, of population count through all of our processing and data collection. so the senses, as much as we can know from our operations, is complete in all those areas. >> we have another question from twitter. it is the female to male ratio changing. >> as you can tell from the conference, we have not released counts by gender. we'll do that over the coming months, and we can look at this ratio. because we have

the ratio of male to female by age from the registration system. most people believe those to be pretty good numbers. as soon as we get the same, what we call, sex ratios, we will compared those to compared demographic analysis to the senses. that will give us insight into how good the demographic analysis census is. but we do not have the gender ratios. >> the gentleman here in the second row. >> can you talk about the variation in size, the ratio of constituents per member of congress under this apportionment? and which states were next in line for seats? >> i am not prepared to talk on the variation, although within

seconds, given the data you have, we can all do this. i just have not done that. it can easily be done. take the population of the state, divide by the seats, and you'll see the variation. the method of apportionment tried to reduce that. that is why it has been used since 1940. and your second question? the 435th seat was given to minnesota. minnesota did not change its number of seats. the next eight in line -- state in line 436 would have been to north carolina. the population difference that would have switched between minnesota and north carolina was 15,700 and some mod. that is the largest discrepancy

in half a century. that is a pretty good spread between the 435th and 41 to 36. -- 436th. >> time for one more question right over here. >> mcclatchy newspapers. i believe that you set the decade between the 1930's, the decade of the great depression was the slowest growth rate? >> 7.3%. >> i wonder if you have calculated how this recession affected the 9.7% growth rate? and where does their rank in terms of the smaller growth rate? >> you quoted me right. if you think about this for a minute, this is an assertion on the part of historians that the great depression depressed growth rates. we don't have anything to compare to it.

when you look at that trend in growth rates, i think the case is pretty attractive to make that the depression hurt the growth rate. but teasing out a marginal effect of the great depression versus all of the other things happening in that decade is just as hard as trying to answer your question, what is the marginal effect of the recession on our growth rate. i do know that a lot of developed countries around the world are slowing in their growth rate. this is a pattern that is worldwide. a part of that is that and part of that maybe the recession. we will never real --