[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CRITICAL BUDGET ISSUES AFFECTING THE 2010 CENSUS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY,
CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 16, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-58
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.oversight.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-196 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
TOM LANTOS, California TOM DAVIS, Virginia
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DIANE E. WATSON, California MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DARRELL E. ISSA, California
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
Columbia BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BILL SALI, Idaho
JIM COOPER, Tennessee JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Phil Schiliro, Chief of Staff
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
David Marin, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky BILL SALI, Idaho
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
Tony Haywood, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 16, 2007................................. 1
Statement of:
Wolfe, Otto J., Chief Financial Officer and ASA, U.S.
Department of Commerce; and Charles Louis Kincannon,
Director, Bureau of Census................................. 12
Kincannon, Charles Louis................................. 12
Wolfe, Otto J............................................ 12
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 3
Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, Bureau of Census,
prepared statement of...................................... 15
Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, letter dated October 15, 2007....... 9
CRITICAL BUDGET ISSUES AFFECTING THE 2010 CENSUS
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and
National Archives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Clay, Maloney, Hodes, and Cannon.
Staff present: Darryl Piggee, staff director/counsel; Jean
Gosa, clerk; Michelle Mitchell, legislative assistant, Office
of Wm. Lacy Clay; Jim Moore, minority counsel; and Jay
O'Callaghan, minority professional staff member.
Mr. Clay. The Information Policy, Census, and National
Archives Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee will now come to order.
Today's hearing will examine issues surrounding the fiscal
year 2008 continuing resolution and its affect on the 2010
census. The hearing will review plans to scale back, cancel, or
delay the 2008 dress rehearsal. We will look at issues
surrounding the contract for hand-held computers, as well as
the startup and staffing of the Census regional offices for the
2010 census.
In addition, we shall inquire about the effect of the CR on
the recently awarded communications contract and other issues
related to the 2010 census.
Without objection, the Chair and ranking minority member
will have 5 minutes to make opening statements, followed by
opening statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member
who seeks recognition.
Without objection, Members and witnesses may have 5
legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous
materials for the record.
I will begin with the opening statement.
Congress has routinely exempted the census from the flat-
line funding requirements of a CR in other years, most notably,
in 1998 and 1999 prior to census 2000. Early this year Commerce
Department officials testified before both the House and the
Senate and made it clear that a CR which did not exempt the
Bureau of the Census would have significant negative
consequences for the intricate decade-long plan for the 2010
census. Administration witnesses emphasized that without such
language, a CR would drastically jeopardize the accuracy, cost,
and coverage of the 2010 census.
Congress and the administration agreed on this CR without
this important language, and we are not faced with an apparent
crisis.
A the Census Bureau ramps up to the 2010 census, its annual
appropriations will grow exponentially. Indeed, in fiscal year
2008 the Census Bureau will receive almost a 40 percent
increase in funding. The dress rehearsal for the 2010 census is
scheduled to occur in less than 5 months. This is the last
chance to test the vast changes in the census design. What the
administration touts as the re-engineered census.
Census officials tell us that the CR may make it impossible
to fund the final phase of the dress rehearsal, which could
mean that the first time in 40 years we cannot test the final
census design, even as we undertake the most significant reform
of the decennial since the advent of the long form.
Our goal today is to start the process to ensure that, as
negotiations commence for the next CR, we take definite steps
to ensure that: one, there will be no scaling back,
cancellation, or delay in the dress rehearsal as planned; and,
two, nothing in the CR language will hinder, delay, or deny the
plan, funding, and execution of the contract for the hand-held
computers, the advertising program, the partnership program, or
the data capture program; and, three, that OMB will use every
means necessary to grant Bureau of the Census officials any
waivers or exemptions from administration spending restrictions
in order for them to meet these requirements.
We will look at some of the potential problems that have
arisen and how to solve or avoid these pitfalls. I look forward
to the testimony of the witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3196.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3196.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3196.003
Mr. Clay. I will yield now 5 minutes to the ranking
minority member, Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. I want to thank Chairman Clay for convening
this hearing. It is unusual for us to have a hearing on such
short notice, and ordinarily the minority might complain, but
in this situation we see a real emergency happening here which
requires Congress' immediate attention. In this particular
case, Congress actually bears the burden for creating this
crisis at the Census Bureau.
In a continuing resolution passed by Congress last month,
Congress failed to include the appropriate increase in funding
necessary to ensure the planning, testing, and development of
the 2010 census so that could continue. This funding error
creates a serious time crunch for the Census Bureau. For the
2008 dress rehearsal to be a serious test of census readiness,
it has to happen beginning April 1, 2008.
In an editorial last Tuesday, the New York Times made the
case by saying, ``On the chopping block, a test of the Bureau's
plans and procedures for counting people on military basis,
which was to have been part of the dress rehearsal at Fort
Bragg in North Carolina. With no additional funds coming in,
the Bureau has already had to advise the Federal contractor
working on the hand-held computers for the next census that it
will not be able to pay for the personnel it has contracted
for, necessitating layoffs. Any glitch in the computerization
increases the chances for inaccuracy.''
Oddly enough, the Times tries to blame the White House for
this problem--imagine my surprise--but the fact of the matter
is that the 2010 census is a constitutionally mandated
function, not just another program. The restructure of the
House of Representatives relies on an accurate decennial
census.
When the Republicans were in the majority, we insisted that
the Bureau receive funding and we didn't wait for White House
permission to start insisting. It is my hope that the Democrat
majority will do the same.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Clay. I thank the gentleman for his statement.
Now we will recognize the gentlelady from New York, Mrs.
Maloney, for her opening statement.
Mrs. Maloney. I thank you, Chairman Clay, and the ranking
member for holding this hearing today. And I thank our
witnesses for testifying. I especially want to thank outgoing
Census Director Louis Kincannon, who has done an excellent job
leading the Census Bureau for the past 5 years, and this Nation
owes you gratitude for your service.
This will probably be the last time you will appear before
us, and I want to acknowledge your dedication and your fine
work and publicly thank you.
We are here today to talk about a very serious problem that
could and should have easily been avoided. As my colleague, Mr.
Cannon, pointed out, the census is one thing you cannot put
off. It is mandated in the Constitution. It has to take place.
This mistake has delayed the funding, it has put off the dress
rehearsal, and we may not even be able to use new technology
that the Census Bureau had been developing to cut costs and be
more efficient.
The Government, as it has done in recent years, is
currently working under a continuing resolution for the
beginning of fiscal year 2008. This year the CR is set at
fiscal year 2007 levels. Many agencies can make do with funding
at the previous year's level for a few weeks, but 2 years away
from the 2010 census that is absolutely impossible for the
Census Bureau. They need to have their funding to get the job
done.
The Census Bureau funding for fiscal year 2008 was slated
to increase by 40 percent from last year, according to the
President's budget request, in order to fund the preparation
for the decennial census.
This is not a new problem. In 1998 and 1999, during the
ramp-up to the 2000 census, the Government was funded by a CR
at the beginning of those fiscal years. Those CRs made
provisions for the increased expenses of ramping up to the
census. While there may have been other issues that affected
the 2000 census, funding was not one of them.
The difference with this census seems to be that the
administration did not, for some unexplained reason, ask the
Congress to include routine language to exempt the Census
Bureau from the flat-line funding because of the importance of
the census. In 1998 and 1999 a Republican Congress included
these exceptions for the increased ramp-up of cost of those
years at the request of the Democratic administration, even
though the census in those years was itself a very contentious
issue.
This makes the question why the administration did not ask
for an exception even more puzzling. Was it just incompetence?
Let's be clear. This is not a hearing about a potential problem
or a threat, but a real actual damage to the 2010 census.
The ability of the career professionals at the Census
Bureau to carry out the census and provide the country with the
most accurate numbers has already been adversely affected.
Without an immediate exception to get funding to the census,
the accuracy of the 2010 census will suffer even more
dramatically.
I hope we can hear from Director Kincannon exactly which
components of the dress rehearsal and other key test exercises
that have been part of every census since 1970 have actually
been curtailed and canceled. I also want to hear what the
impact of the 400 person layoff from the contractor who
designed the new hand-held GPS devices will be. These hand-held
computers were designed to improve efficiency and accuracy and
save the census cost by at least $1.5 billion. Not being able
to go forward is costing the country not only financially, but
also in our efficiency and accuracy.
As I understand it, it means that the fielding of the
device for the 2010 census is now uncertain. I have been told
that the Census Bureau has already said that the scheduled test
of group quarters at Fort Bragg military base in North Carolina
will be canceled if the funds are not available before November
16th. A number of Members of Congress who represent the
military and military bases are very, very disturbed about
this, because counting them and their families in a census is
part of our Constitutional responsibility, but also honors the
work that they are doing for us that they are included in this
important census.
I hope we can hear about how we can get there, how we got
there, but what have we already lost, what is in jeopardy, and
what concrete steps can and should be taken to prevent any more
damage.
Along those lines, I do want to commend Commerce Secretary
Gutierrez for acting quickly on the committee's request to move
almost $7 million from Commerce activities to the census. This
was a very positive step. I want to find out from Director
Kincannon if, in fact, it can be done.
I would like to put in the record the letter that was
received from Commerce from Nathaniel Winneke, and I would like
to put the letter in the record, as we did receive this
document last night that they were moving the $7 million.
Mr. Clay. Without objection, the letter is in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3196.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3196.005
Mrs. Maloney. Director Kincannon, when you resigned, you
cited a lack of support for the census as one of the reasons
that you resigned, and I am sorry to say that, despite the
Secretary's effort in transferring $7 million, it sounds like
the census is still not getting the support that it wants and
that it needs. I hope you can tell us how we got here, and I am
particularly interested to hear from OMB and Director Nussle as
to what he thinks needs to be done.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you.
Mr. Clay. Thank you.
If there are no additional opening statements, the
subcommittee will now receive testimony from the witnesses
before us today.
I want to start by introducing our panel. Invited to appear
today were two gentlemen who are not here this morning, and
they are the Honorable Jim Nussle, Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, and the Honorable Jay Waite, Deputy
Director, Bureau of the Census. These gentlemen are not present
this morning; however, it is our hope that the witnesses that
are in attendance will help us examine what steps Commerce and
the Census Bureau are taking to make sure that going forward
the right decisions about resources and priorities are made.
In attendance and prepared to address the subcommittee this
morning we have the Honorable Charles Louis Kincannon, Director
of the Bureau of Census; and the Honorable Otto J. Wolfe, Chief
Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration of
the U.S. Department of Commerce.
As mentioned previously, the Honorable Charles Louis
Kincannon, Director of the Bureau of Census, was nominated by
President George W. Bush for Director of the Census on July 27,
2001, and the Senate confirmed him unanimously on March 13,
2002. Of course, Mr. Kincannon began his career with the Census
Bureau years ago, and we are all proud of his service to this
Nation. We certainly look to him for direction when it comes to
issues related to the census. I am certainly proud to say that
I know Mr. Kincannon and I look at him as a friend.
Mr. Wolfe was sworn in on August 7, 2001, as the Chief
Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration at
the U.S. Department of Commerce. As the CFO/ASA he oversees the
Commerce Department's $5.6 billion budget and its facilities
worldwide. He exercises Department-wide responsibility for a
broad range of administrative functions, including strategic
planning, financial management, budgeting, procurement,
financial assistant, security, human resources, civil rights,
small business utilization, and personal and real property
management. These duties include implementation of management
reforms throughout Commerce. Mr. Wolfe's career in public
service includes extensive experience in both the executive and
legislative branches of Government.
Let me welcome both of you here. Thank you for appearing
before the subcommittee today.
It is the policy of this subcommittee to swear in all
witnesses before they testify.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Clay. Let the record reflect that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
I ask that each of the witnesses now give a brief summary
of their testimony, and to keep their summary under 5 minutes
in duration. Your complete written statement will be included
in the hearing record.
Mr. Wolfe, let's begin with you.
STATEMENTS OF OTTO J. WOLFE, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND ASA,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; AND CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON,
DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CENSUS
STATEMENT OF OTTO J. WOLFE
Mr. Wolfe. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a prepared
statement. I would be more than happy, though, at the
completion, at your request, to answer any questions that you
may have.
Mr. Clay. Thank you very much. That is the briefest
statement we have had on record so far.
Mr. Kincannon, you may give us your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON
Mr. Kincannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I knew that would
be a prize winner in your score, and you get a gold star on
that.
Chairman Clay and Mr. Cannon, Mrs. Maloney, thank you very
much for inviting the Census Bureau to appear today to discuss
the critical budget issues affecting the 2010 census. In
particular, I will be addressing our current situation, which
has us functioning under a continuing resolution at fiscal year
2007 funding levels through November 16th. This is dramatically
less than the President's budget request, and is about half
what we need to continue the essential preparations needed for
the 2010 census.
The U.S. Census Bureau has been on record for quite some
time stressing that the effect of an appropriation below the
level of the President's request for any extended period of
time--that is sort of beyond November 16th--would have serious
consequences. Earlier this year in March, in April, in May, and
July we made clear in testimony before Congress and in answers
to questions for the record that we could not continue
developing all our systems for the dress rehearsal and the 2010
census in the event of funding below the President's request,
either the final appropriation or under a continuing
resolution.
We are preparing for the dress rehearsal in 2008. We are
simultaneously developing the major systems we need to conduct
the census, including the hand-held computers that will be used
in the 2010 census for the first time.
By law, the decennial census must occur as of April 1,
2010, and the results must be submitted to the President in
December of that same year. These dates cannot be altered when
preparations are delayed. We cannot buy back the time that we
are losing. When the appropriation requested in the President's
budget is delayed, we lose that time and cannot always make it
up.
Because of the delay in funding under the current CR, we
must now implement a plan to delay and down-scale the dress
rehearsal in order to manage through the CR period. Our to
police priority is maintaining the ability to test the hand-
held computers and the attendant data capture operations,
because they are essential to the re-engineered census. This
new system will enhance efficiency and accuracy, reduce the
amount of paper, and save money, but we cannot use the new
devices in the decennial without conducting a full systems
test; therefore, our plan now is to conduct a reduced-scope
dress rehearsal in late spring or early summer of next year
that focuses on testing the hand-held computers, including the
critical interfaces with the data capture system.
Under a reduced-scope dress rehearsal, other smaller but
important census operations will not be tested prior to 2010.
The operations we are removing from the dress rehearsal are
operations that we have done successfully in the past. We will
not test our procedures for counting people who live in college
dormitories, military barracks, prisons, or nursing homes, what
we call group quarters.
We also will not test the Be Counted Program, which
provides an opportunity for people who believe they were missed
to make sure they were included in the census counts.
These are just two of the important operations that will
not be tested in this dress rehearsal. I will provide a
complete list of operations affected for the record.
We will still conduct these operations in 2010, and we are
confident we will implement them effectively; however, because
the operations are currently planned using new systems and
somewhat changed procedures, there is some risk, some attendant
increase in risk for the 2010 census. If we have problems with
untested operations in 2010, it could result in an increase in
overall cost, and perhaps a reduction of census accuracy in
some way. However, because we have done these operations
before, we are willing to operate with this level of potential
new risk.
If funding is delayed beyond November 16th, the situation
becomes more dire for us. It will call into question our
ability to conduct the systems test at all. We cannot fly blind
into the 2010 census with a new system that is untested.
There was a recent GAO report published that asserted that
the level of risk in the 2010 census program was excessive and
we should be taking steps to mitigate the risk in the census
operations. We are looking at our options if we have to
function under a longer CR at fiscal year 2007 levels, and I
can assure you we are committed to conducting the best census
possible, whatever the situation, but we need the funding
levels in the President's budget as soon as possible.
Let me close by observing, as Mr. Maloney did, that this
may well be my last appearance before a congressional committee
as Director of the Census, but I have said that before and have
been proven wrong. I told the chairman that I might have to ask
the President for a pardon along with a Thanksgiving turkey to
release me from this. I wish the circumstances were happier,
and they may turn out to be quite happy, but perhaps some good
may still come of our present difficulties if we can create a
mutual result to avoid a situation like this in the future.
For years ending in seven, eight, nine, and zero budgets
for the decennial census typically increase significantly over
prior years. History teaches that we cannot count on the
appropriation process to meet the long-planned and agreed
program needs in the first quarter of the fiscal year. I don't
believe anyone wants to continue to repeat this predicament
year after year. The Census Bureau would like to work with the
committee to see if there is an arrangement that will avoid
getting us into this particular trap.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate
your attention to this, and I am happy to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kincannon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3196.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3196.007
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Kincannon.
We will now move to the question period for Members and
proceed under the 5-minute rule.
Mr. Kincannon, the Census Bureau indicates that, with the
reduction in funding resulting from the existing CR, they will
be forced to forego parts of the vital dress rehearsal, while
delaying and limiting the scope of others. As a result, a test
of group quarters in North Carolina involving the Fort Bragg
Military Base will have to be eliminated from the dress
rehearsal.
The subcommittee is generally aware that, as a result of
recent modernization of U.S. military bases as part of the BRAC
process and new leasing authorities that have resulted in new
family quarters being constructed, that there may be more
military dependents living on base as compared to 2000. This
will deprive the Bureau of an opportunity to test its plans and
make the requisite changes to ensure that our military
personnel are accurately and fully counted.
Director Kincannon, is this true? And what other decennial
planning activities has your staff had to cancel or delay as a
direct result of the lack of CR language to grant the Census
Bureau spending flexibility?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, the portion of enumeration on military
bases that we have canceled is of persons living in barracks,
not of persons living in houses and other kinds of situations
on bases. We are confident that we can do a good job of
counting military in barracks, and we would not put that at
risk if we do not do that in the dress rehearsal, although the
reason that the Fayetteville area was selected as a dress
rehearsal site was to make sure that this worked like
clockwork. But we are confident we can carry it out.
Mr. Clay. What is your drop-dead date for your decision to
cancel the dress rehearsal in North Carolina, and what is the
date for canceling it altogether?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, we won't make that decision until, I
guess, the week of November 17th, but then we have to face up
to whether we will be able to test the hand-helds and the
electronic system that receives all the inputted data. If we
can't test that in time to make corrections that would be
needed in the instruments that were going to be used before
heading into the census, then I think we have to reconsider our
plans and cancel the entire dress rehearsal.
Mr. Clay. You know, the field data collection automation
contract and the decennial response integration contract have
been given a limitation of funds notice, which will result in a
reduction of the pace of work on these two critical contracts.
This slow-down at this critical time will directly impact the
timing of the testing of data transmissions between these two
systems that is critical to the 2010 census. In 2010 these two
systems will be the core of the transmittal of information
between the field and Bureau headquarters.
If these systems cannot be tested soon, it will eliminate
the opportunity to prevent duplication and redundancy in the
non-response followup. What specifically is being done to
address the reliability and performance of the field data
collection automation program, including the hand-held devices
that are part of the 2010 enumeration activities?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, if the software can be completed in
time to conduct the dress rehearsal substantially as planned,
at least as far as mailing out and returning the questionnaires
and doing non-response followup with the hand-held computers,
we will be able to do a start-to-finish test of the
functionality of that whole system and the way the two systems
interact.
If we don't have that in a timely way, then we won't be
able to do that, and the risk of trying to use the hand-helds
untested is not warranted.
Mr. Clay. I thank you for that response.
How confident are you that these devices will perform as
intended during the 2008 dress rehearsal?
Mr. Kincannon. I have a high level of confidence, but that
doesn't mean I want to skate all the way out on that ice with a
backpack and half a million temporary workers trying to carry
them out. These devices, the hand-held computers, were used
successfully in the first phase of the dress rehearsal, the
local update of the address canvas, and the address canvas was
completed on time, but we did run into shortcomings in the
software that delayed some of the work and we had to install
software patches and so on. We discovered things that needed to
be modified. That is the purpose of doing the dress rehearsal.
We still were satisfied with the way that they worked, but
only a limited part of the functionality of the hand-held
computers was tested in address canvassing, so we still have
the major functionality to test and the non-response followup,
and that is where the main money is saved through using hand-
helds.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that.
Mr. Cannon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cannon. One wonders if we are kin. I may have made that
joke before.
Mr. Kincannon. I feel a kinship.
Mr. Cannon. Thanks for being here. Your job is terrifically
hard, as I have expressed in the past, and I am comforted
knowing that you are there doing it, and this is remarkably
important.
Let me just ask, in particular as it relates to the current
issue, at the end of the day it is our job here in Congress to
do this, to make sure the census is funded. It is
constitutionally mandated, and it bears directly on how the
House is organized.
What assurances have you had, Mr. Kincannon, from House
leadership that this matter will be dealt with and we will get
the testing done to make every single person count for the next
census? Have you talked to Houses leadership about assuring
that they will work to get these funds in the bill, in the next
CR?
Mr. Kincannon. Mr. Cannon, the House leadership has been
very reassuring, but they were also reassuring that the
President's budget would be passed before October 1st. The fact
is, no single person can assure an appropriation will pass a
certain way at a certain time. It depends on cooperation, to a
degree, but broadly, as you know, and that is not easy to do.
Mr. Cannon. That is certainly the case. But has the
majority leadership said they will make this a priority?
Mr. Kincannon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cannon. Great. Thank you very much.
We have talked in the past about the problem that Utah had
whereby a difference of a grand total of 36 individuals,
counted fairly or not. Utah ended up without a fourth
congressional seat. We are not going to make that up
legislatively by changing the number of Members of the House
and adding the District of Columbia, apparently, since the
Senate failed to see the urgency of that matter. So I am again
concerned about what we do to count missionaries who are
residents of States but serving for brief periods of time
outside the State. Is that an issue that you are dealing with
as you evaluate the next census, Mr. Kincannon?
Mr. Kincannon. We do not plan any effort in the next census
to count American citizens living overseas except those who are
serving in the military or Federal civilian Civil Service.
Mr. Cannon. We have actually been through that a bit. Of
course, the State that houses Fort Bragg has the tendency to
encourage people to identify with that State, even if they have
come from other areas, and I think that State has a tendency,
therefore, to have a bit of an advantage, but is there a reason
for not counting Americans overseas, who are overseas
temporarily, not forever, but also more than a few weeks on
vacation?
Mr. Kincannon. We don't know how to systematically,
uniformly count Americans resident overseas.
Mr. Cannon. Well, there are subsets of groups of people
that go overseas. There are 50,000 Mormon missionaries who are
missionaries around the world, including in the United States.
I am not sure how many of those are overseas or not. Baptists
have a fairly significant missionary force around the world. In
many cases, these are young people who can be counted with
their families. In many cases they are adult couples who spend
18 months overseas. That is a big deal for the State of Utah,
and Utah has been growing at a very rapid rate. I am not sure
we are lined up for a fifth seat yet, but at some point those
people, our Utahans, they have left for a relatively short
period of time. Is there not something we can do to help
identify those people?
Mr. Kincannon. I don't know. Perhaps it would be more
practical to encourage them to be home for a month in 2010 so
they can be accurately counted in Utah, and a little recharging
of their religious batteries and go back to the fray.
Mr. Cannon. These people only leave for a relatively short
period of time, so they actually don't need their batteries
recharged. Of course you are joking. At least I see at this
point a smile on your face as you say that. It is actually
quite a serious matter in Utah. Literally counting 36 people in
the face of, what, we had 13,000 people that were parts of
households. Have you thought of encouraging people to count or
can you count children that are over 19, over 18, who are
living outside the country as part of the household?
Mr. Kincannon. There are a set of what we call residents'
rules that we try to communicate to respondents to use in
understanding who they count in their household and who not.
Some of them are straightforward; some of them are a little
more complicated. The law requires that people respond honestly
to the census, and I think most people do. We have no way to go
back and say, did you count someone who is actually in France
for a year and a half? We can't do that. If people answer, we
assume they answer honestly, unless there is some manifest----
Mr. Cannon. What would be the honest answer if a 20-year-
old son is in France and has been there for a year and expects
to be there for another year, and his parents are asked how
many children they have in their household?
Mr. Kincannon. The honest answer, based on rules that date
back to the Census Act of 1790, is that they would not be
counted there.
Mr. Cannon. 1790 was a great year, but we didn't have
planes and phones and other kinds of things. Can we change that
rule?
Mr. Kincannon. It was an act of Congress, and if Congress
can agree to a change then they can direct it.
Mr. Cannon. So these are not rules that the Census
Department has issued? That is a congressional mandate? And can
you state for me what it is that makes a person a resident? If
someone is out of town for 2 weeks, I take it they are counted
by their parents appropriately.
Mr. Kincannon. Where they usually live most of the time. If
they are on a trip for a month but usually live in Salt Lake
City or Provo, then an honest answer would be Salt Lake City or
Provo. If they are gone for 2 years, I think an honest answer
would be they are not residing in the household.
Mr. Cannon. And you think that would take a change of law;
that is, a legislative act?
Mr. Kincannon. That is my understanding.
Mr. Cannon. I think the light is actually off, Mr.
Chairman. I suspect I have surpassed my time.
Mr. Clay. The gentleman's time has expired, but on the
point that you make, there are also those who are in State
institutions for extended stays also.
Mr. Cannon. Right.
Mr. Clay. And there is an issue about how we count those
individuals. Maybe there is a legislative solution.
Mr. Cannon. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would love to
work with you on this issue.
Mr. Clay. Right.
Mr. Cannon. For Utah it is a huge disproportionate fact of
our lives.
Mr. Clay. We would like to explore it also. Thank you.
The gentlelady from New York, Mrs. Maloney, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. I thank the chairman.
Now, Mr. Kincannon, I am not on the Appropriations
Committee, but I understand from my leadership and from
statements by various White House officials, even the
President, that the White House insisted over and over again
that they wanted a clean CR, meaning no anomalies or add-ons on
top of it. But, in fact, the OMB requested and the Congress
granted about a dozen such anomalies for the war in Iraq and
the DOD and the Homeland Security missions, and even for the
Department of Agriculture to be able to continue grading
cotton.
Director Kincannon, did you ask the Department for anomaly
language?
Mr. Kincannon. You know, discussions and ongoing process
and the ongoing process of the budget are internal to the
administration.
Mrs. Maloney. Pardon me? You did ask for it? Yes or no?
Mr. Kincannon. I didn't answer that question. I am not
going to answer that question.
Mrs. Maloney. Pardon me?
Mr. Kincannon. I am not going to answer that question. That
is not the practice that is followed in the administration, in
the executive branch of Government. We don't talk about our
individual budget discussions back and forth between the
different levels of review in the administration. The final
decisions were made based on large number of factors that are
considered, and that is what goes up.
I have worked 35 years in the executive branch, 6 of those
years at OMB, and I understand that is a logical practice and
not just somebody's directive.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, this is a congressional hearing, and we
are having a problem because you didn't get your funding, and
we want to find out why, because it is going to cost us money,
it is going to cost efficiency. It may delay the census on
which we base our Members of Congress and also the funding
levels for localities. It is very, very important. So you are
telling me that you can't tell me whether or not you asked for
the appropriate budget for your Department? Is that what you
are saying? That is a secret discussion?
Mr. Kincannon. No. We asked for the appropriate funding and
the President proposed it in the budget he sent up last
February.
Mrs. Maloney. OK.
Mr. Kincannon. And the Congress did not vote that
appropriation by October 1st.
Mrs. Maloney. OK. Did OMB ever reject your request for
funding? Did they request it? Did they reject it?
Mr. Kincannon. I consider that internal.
Mrs. Maloney. Pardon me?
Mr. Kincannon. I consider that an internal administration
discussion, and----
Mrs. Maloney. That is an internal administration
discussion?
Mr. Kincannon. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. Would the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. Maloney. I will yield at the end of my questioning,
not now. Not now. I am not yielding now----
Mr. Cannon. I support the gentlelady's inquiry.
Mrs. Maloney. OK. Thank you. OK. Did OMB realize the
consequences of not having this increase and anomaly? Did they
realize it?
Mr. Kincannon. I believe we have discussed so broadly the
consequences of not having the money appropriated that
appropriate people in OMB and the Congress and in our Advisory
Committees and in the various census support and user groups
all understood serious consequences would result from not
having that money at the beginning of the fiscal year.
Mrs. Maloney. So they thoroughly understood the
consequences for the dress rehearsal and the impact on the cost
and efficiency with the hand-helds and all the other census
planning? That was discussed thoroughly?
Mr. Kincannon. I believe that was discussed thoroughly with
many groups of people.
Mrs. Maloney. And what was their response? Did OMB tell you
how to solve these problems?
Mr. Kincannon. No. OMB did not tell us how to solve the
problem. They asked us how we were going to solve the problem.
That is the usual drill. And the committees, the Appropriations
Committees asked us how we were going to accommodate the CR,
and we responded in both cases consistently, of course.
Mrs. Maloney. So did OMB give you any directives or orders
on how to handle the funding deficiency in this CR?
Mr. Kincannon. No. They asked us how we were going to
accommodate the spending levels authorized in the CR.
Mrs. Maloney. Did they instruct you on any specific changes
to the census design that they wanted?
Mr. Kincannon. No, they did not.
Mrs. Maloney. They did not?
Mr. Kincannon. I don't know whether I would answer that if
I knew, if I knew an answer that was different than no, but
that is the----
Mrs. Maloney. And can you tell us specifically what
decennial planning activities your staff has had to cancel or
delay as a direct result of the lack of CR language to grant
the Census Bureau spending flexibility? Exactly what have you
had to cancel or delay so far?
Mr. Kincannon. What we will plan to do, but it will be on a
delayed schedule, and I can't say how much delayed now, we plan
to mail out questionnaires in the mail-out mail-back areas.
This includes the bilingual forms and neighborhoods that are--
--
Mrs. Maloney. Is this the American Community Survey you are
talking about?
Mr. Kincannon. No. This is in the dress rehearsal.
Mrs. Maloney. This is the dress rehearsal?
Mr. Kincannon. This is the dress rehearsal.
Mrs. Maloney. Yes.
Mr. Kincannon. We are continuing the American Community
Survey within the bounds of the continuing resolution because
it is a continuing program. It is accommodated there.
Mrs. Maloney. So you had to cancel certain aspects of the
dress rehearsal?
Mr. Kincannon. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. Specifically what aspects of the dress
rehearsal?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, what we won't do is the new
construction program, which is an opportunity for local
governments to come in and identify new housing construction
that occurred since the local update of census addresses. We
have canceled the update leave activity where the Census Bureau
delivers questionnaires at the same time that they spot a
location on a map for housing in rural areas mostly that does
not have city-type addresses or association of an address with
that housing unit if they get their mail at the Post Office or
if they get their mail from a box on a road somewhat removed
from the physical location.
We canceled the group quarters advanced visit, where we go
to arrange for enumeration timing and other info that we will
need to conduct an enumeration there.
We have canceled the group quarters enumeration, including
the groups that I mentioned before.
We have canceled service-based enumeration in the dress
rehearsal, including shelters, soup kitchens, and mobile food
vans.
We canceled enumeration of transient locations, including
campgrounds, marinas, and hotels and motels.
We have canceled questionnaire assistance centers, where
you could walk in and get some help filling out your
questionnaire.
We have canceled the Be Counted Program, where if you think
you haven't been counted, you can pick up in various locations,
like a Post Office, a Were You Counted Form, fill it out, send
it in, and we determined whether you have already been counted,
and if not we add you in.
We have, because we are not doing Be Counted, we have
canceled the processing whereby we would geocode those forms.
We have canceled the field verification of new addresses
reported on Be Counted forms, because there won't be any Be
Counted forms.
We have canceled all census coverage measurement housing
unit field operations other than the independent listing that
we are going to carry on.
And we have canceled all census coverage measurement
housing matching operations.
We have also canceled assessments of the operations that
were dropped, which is sensible. You can't do that, really.
There are some things still to be decided, like will we
conduct a partnership program for the dress rehearsal. All
these things are attached to the words ``dress rehearsal.''
We have not determined when census day will be for the
dress rehearsal because we don't know how long the delay will
be. We have not determined whether we will drop one of the
dress rehearsal sites, and, if so, which one and when. We do
not know whether we will drop the coverage followup operation.
We have not determined whether we would do race and Hispanic
origin response coding. And we have not determined whether we
will provide a telephone questionnaire assistance.
We do not know whether we will provide fulfillment for
questionnaires in English, Spanish, and Chinese.
We have not determined whether we will conduct all data
processing, response processing, and produce redistricting type
prototypes that would help States in planning their 2010
redistricting programs. Those are at-risk programs, but we
haven't decided those.
Well, there are only two more, I think. Will we conduct
person matching and person followup for the census coverage
measurement program? We don't know. Haven't determined that
yet. Depends on what other things are done.
And we have not determined whether we will use prototype
estimates of net and component coverage errors from the dress
rehearsal CCM program.
Mr. Clay. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mrs. Maloney. Could I just say that is quite a list.
Mr. Clay. It is quite a list. The gentlelady's time----
Mr. Cannon. I ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady's
time be extended for an additional minute.
Mr. Clay. Without objection.
Mr. Cannon. Would the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. Maloney. I will yield. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentlelady has really two issues here. One, who is at
fault for not having funding, and we have a different view of
that. I think the Congress has some responsibility. But I am
concerned about your answer, which is essentially that you are
not going to give us information. That is a bipartisan
response, I think that I represent, in dealing with that. There
are very, very limited contexts in which you can withhold
information. It is not an administration function. It is very,
very limited to how the President makes his decisions.
I think you are invoking or you are suggesting that you
can't answer about your discussions with OMB or with anyone
other than policymaking in the White House is not appropriate,
so I am sort of lecturing my colleagues here that we be tougher
on these kinds of issues, but also suggesting to you that the
authority of Congress to inquire into these issues is very,
very broad, and the exemptions are very, very narrow.
I thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Clay. Thank you. And I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from New Hampshire is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Hodes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing.
Mr. Kincannon, I would first simply like to followup on the
discussion we have just had to make sure I am clear. You said
that you couldn't talk to us about your discussions with the
Office of Management and Budget because those were internal
administration discussions; is that correct?
Mr. Kincannon. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Hodes. And are you claiming some sort of privilege in
your refusal to answer our questions about the discussions you
have had with the Office of Management and Budget?
Mr. Kincannon. If we have to draw a fine line of whether I
am claiming some sort of privilege, I guess I would have to ask
for counsel there. But it is a long-established practice, long-
disputed by the Congress on a bipartisan basis, that these
discussions about budget remain internal to the administration,
and we, through a set of deliberations, produce a proposal that
is the President's budget, and we defend that budget.
Mr. Hodes. Well, sir, you understand our dilemma. Mr.
Nussle was to come to this hearing. He is the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget. He is not here. You are, as
Director of the Census Bureau, right? So in the absence of Mr.
Nussle, we are trying to get some information about what OMB
had in mind when they didn't request from Congress in the CR
the money that you need to do your job. You understand that?
Mr. Kincannon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hodes. I would like you to reconsider right now
answering our questions about your discussions with OMB. If you
need counsel, seek that counsel, but I would ask you to
reconsider, because, although I am a new Member of Congress,
this is the people's House. This census is very important to
the United States and the conduct of our elections, and I know
of no privilege which would allow you not to testify because
you are under oath about the discussions we have asked so that
we can get the information we need from OMB. So if there is
somebody here for you to seek the counsel of, I would ask leave
from the chairman to give the witness a chance to seek that
counsel.
I would ask for a brief delay, Mr. Chairman, so the witness
can seek the counsel.
Mr. Clay. I tell you what. We can go to----
Mrs. Maloney. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Clay. Wait a minute.
Mrs. Maloney. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Hodes. I will yield.
Mr. Clay. Wait a minute. We will go to questioning of Mr.
Wolfe and allow Mr. Kincannon----
Mrs. Maloney. The gentleman yields. To me, I feel the main
question is what are we going to do going forward to get this
census working. That is what I would like to focus on, Mr.
Chairman, if we could hear what do we do now.
You just gave me a list of maybe 25 things that are going
to be delayed or canceled, so basically my question, Mr.
Chairman: is the $7 million that was transferred last night to
you going to address this and make it whole? Could he answer
that one question? Because the main thing is to get this census
out, have the dress rehearsal, and make it the most accurate
one we have ever had. That is my question.
Mr. Kincannon. I agree that is the question, Mrs. Maloney.
I appreciate that.
The $6.8 million in the transfer request that was submitted
to the Appropriations Committees last evening, if we get it by
Friday, would enable us to shorten the delay in conducting the
more limited dress rehearsal test of the hand-helds and the
data integration software. If it is not passed until November
15th, then it is not going to have any effect at all.
Mr. Hodes. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Kincannon----
Mr. Clay. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Hodes. Thank you.
Mr. Kincannon, so if you get the $7 million, you can go
forward in a limited way? Is that what you are telling us?
Mr. Kincannon. We can reduce the delay to less than 2
months, I am told.
Mr. Hodes. How much more money do you need to go forward
fully?
Mr. Kincannon. The gap between the appropriation a year ago
for 2007 in this period and the amount of the President's
budget for this 7-week approximately period is $76 million, and
by delaying things we have made some funding available, so that
amount is somewhere between $55 and $76 million.
Mr. Hodes. And is it fair to say that if you do not have
that money, whatever it is within the range you have talked
about, that things will be much more costly down the line?
Mr. Kincannon. I believe that is reasonable to say, yes,
because I think we would have to say we don't want to run the
risk of not testing these devices in a field situation and then
running around using them with half a million temporary
employees and running a risk of a failed census. That would not
serve the country and certainly not the House of
Representatives well.
Mr. Hodes. Now, I have heard estimates of perhaps a cost of
$1 billion if this $55 to $75 million is not provided in a
timely way to do what you need to do to test the systems and
conduct the research you need to conduct. Is that a fair
estimate?
Mr. Kincannon. I think the fair estimate is between $1.3
and $1.5 billion at this stage.
Mr. Hodes. That was a billion with a B?
Mr. Kincannon. Billion with a B.
Mr. Hodes. OK. So that if you could send a message directly
to Congress, it would be: give us the $55 to $75 million as
soon as possible in order to avoid a much greater expenditure
down the line?
Mr. Kincannon. We need the money requested in the
President's budget, whether that is through a different kind of
CR, if that is the way the Government is going to be run for
the rest of the year, or through passing the appropriation for
the Census Bureau and the rest of the appropriation.
Mr. Hodes. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Clay. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Wolfe, I will direct some questions your way.
Will the White House request language in the next CR for
fiscal year 2008 which would grant the Bureau of the Census the
spending flexibility necessary to stay on time and on track
with the administration's approved plan for the 2010 census?
Mr. Wolfe. Mr. Chairman, I have been assured that the
administration is very seriously considering that, and it is
looking very good at this point.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Wolfe, did you or your Department plan on the
possibility there might not be agreement between Congress and
the White House on the budget in time to make these important
expenditures in the beginning of the fiscal year? And how or
why is there such a crisis in these first 2 weeks of the fiscal
year if you used recent history as a planning tool? Didn't we
all see this coming?
Mr. Wolfe. I think the expectation was, Mr. Chairman, that
the Congress would pass an appropriation, at least our bill,
prior to the expiration of the fiscal year. When that did not
happen, it obviously moved very quickly, and we find ourselves
in this situation.
Mr. Clay. And you feel confident that by the time we get to
November 16th we will have worked out some language with OMB to
give the Bureau the flexibility?
Mr. Wolfe. I have every hope, sir, that is the case?
Mr. Clay. I thank you for that.
I recognize the gentlelady from New York for five more
minutes. I yield back my time and recognize you for another
round of questions.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
I tell you first of all, Director Kincannon, I just want to
express my gratitude on behalf of the American people for your
many years of service at the census and the fine work that you
have done. You have been a fine appointee, and I just want to
thank you very much.
So if we get the money there in place, you feel that we
will be able to go forward without the delays and have the
dress rehearsal and the dress rehearsal will be robust and that
you will test every final design element you have already
planned to test?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, we would not restore the things that
we have definitely cut. We will not recover a test in dress
rehearsal of group quarters enumeration. But these doubtful
things we should be able to remain, and the ones that are still
unresolved we should be able to----
Mrs. Maloney. And the new technology with the hand-held
computer----
Mr. Kincannon. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney [continuing]. Which you believe will be more
efficient, save $1.5 billion, will we be able to go forward
with the hand-held improvement with the new money that the
chairman and my colleagues have been talking about, the $1.3
billion I think you said you needed?
Mr. Kincannon. Yes, I believe it will.
Mrs. Maloney. Then we can keep the hand-held?
Mr. Kincannon. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Maloney. That is terrific.
How is the American Community Survey doing? Is the response
as good to that? What is the return on that? It is an ongoing
program?
Mr. Kincannon. The response rate, suggested response rate,
is about 97 percent.
Mrs. Maloney. That is amazing.
Mr. Kincannon. It is.
Mrs. Maloney. That was 97 percent?
Mr. Kincannon. We are surprised and very pleased.
Mrs. Maloney. Yes. That is terrific. And many people are
very concerned about the military bases and the counting of the
military personnel, particularly in North Carolina and
California. If we get the money, will the dress rehearsal in
North Carolina be able to take place on the military bases?
Mr. Kincannon. It will take place on military bases for
conventional housing, but not for barracks.
Mrs. Maloney. Pardon me?
Mr. Kincannon. Not for group quarters, for the barracks.
Mrs. Maloney. Not for the group quarters? Why can't we get
that into this testing?
Mr. Kincannon. Because we have already stopped certain
activities in order to direct the----
Mrs. Maloney. That long list you gave me, you stopped all
those activities.
Mr. Kincannon. No. Those are still doubtful. The first list
I gave you--and I will give you a copy of this for the record.
Mrs. Maloney. I would like to see it in writing.
Mr. Kincannon. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. There were two lists, one that you might have
to stop and one that you have definitely stopped.
Mr. Kincannon. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. I think the one you definitely stopped was
around 15 or 20 things, right?
Mr. Kincannon. Yes, a number of things. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. That is really distressing that lack of good
planning has resulted in that.
Mr. Kincannon. We planned what we needed and requested that
money and it was included in the President's budget. We cannot
delay it, you know. We have a clock that runs. We have to get
the dress rehearsal done in time to digest any corrections that
need to be made and incorporate that in the planning for 2010
and get that done. We cannot expand that time. There are
statutory limitations as to how much time we have to do these
things. It seems like a long way ahead, but if you are waiting
for an appropriation, you know, who knows how long it will
take.
We also were not silent in alerting everybody in town,
basically, about the need to have this money on time or its
implications for the dress rehearsal. Now those implications
have, in a limited extent, unfolded, and we can't recover that.
We have redirected that funding to the highest priority, which
is the testing of the hand-held computers and the data
integration system that will make the results useful and cost
saving.
Mrs. Maloney. Now, we have really had a CR in most of the
12 or 15 years due to budget struggles between either the White
House or the legislative bodies, the two legislative bodies,
and when you sit down with your budget folks and start working
on all of this each year and plan for the budget, don't you,
because for the last 12 or 15 years, most of which you have
gotten the exception or the anomaly to go forward outside of
the frozen CR, don't you have discussions about the possibility
of a CR and don't you make plans to work around such an
occurrence?
Mr. Kincannon. We can't work around a doubling of the
amount of funding for October and half of November between 2007
and 2008. We don't have a secret source of money.
In the case of 2-year money, we have some money that is 2-
year money. If there are unexpended balances at the end of the
year and we can legitimately obligate that on the next step in
that program, we do that, but----
Mrs. Maloney. Usually the CRs have a set line of what they
are going to pay the agencies.
Mr. Kincannon. Which is based on----
Mrs. Maloney. And because of incredibly important
institutions such as the census, such as the DOD and Homeland
Security, there are exceptions so that you get the money you
need to get the job done appropriately. So my question is: in
the past 12 or 15 years the exception has been written into the
law that has allowed the Census Bureau to go forward and get
the job done appropriately. This year it was not, which ended
up in delays, increased cost, lack of efficiency. My question
is: in these budget negotiations, when you were talking to the
appropriate people on both sides of the aisle and everywhere,
did you raise the need for a changed CR, an anomaly, an
exception so that you would get the funding that you need?
Mr. Kincannon. In every year we have raised that concern. I
don't know that we got an actual anomaly in last year's CR, not
until after the second seek of February, I think. It was
requested by the administration but it was not approved by the
Congress until I guess there was an omnibus bill of some sort
around February 8th or 9th, and then we received that money.
Mrs. Maloney. My time has expired.
Mr. Kincannon. OK.
Mr. Clay. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman from New Hampshire is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Hodes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kincannon, you have told us what you have already done
to cut costs since the signing of the CR, and I understand you
have two lists, one of items already gone by the boards and
another list of things that are next on the chopping block; is
that correct?
Mr. Kincannon. That remains to be decided, yes.
Mr. Hodes. Can you tell us what do the cuts that you have
already made mean for the efficiency, accuracy, and
effectiveness of the decennial census?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, I tried to cover that in my testimony.
The kinds of things that we discontinued, decided that we
weren't going to do in the dress rehearsal, are processes that
we have conducted in the past and that we are as confident as
we can be we can conduct successfully again, like the group
quarters enumeration. The process is not exactly the same as it
was in the last census because there is some new automation and
some slightly changed procedures, but still it is a risk that
we are willing to run.
Mr. Hodes. Now let's move to the items that are next on the
chopping block. Are those in a different category in terms of
their impact on the census if those are cut?
Mr. Kincannon. They are, in our view, more important to try
to do, if at all possible, yes. I can't quantify that for the
individual items. Some are very small. What day is census day
going to be? If we have a dress rehearsal there will be a
census day. That really is not going to----
Mr. Hodes. Now, I understand that you are planning right
now to move the North Carolina dress rehearsal out to
California?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, we are conducting a dress rehearsal in
San Joaquin, CA, and in nine counties surrounding Fayetteville,
NC. We have not decided to cancel at either of those sites.
Mr. Hodes. If you don't get the funding we have talked
about, what will happen in terms of your plans for doing both
San Joaquin and around Fayetteville?
Mr. Kincannon. We would have to reconsider whether we were
going to make those further modifications, but we don't have a
trigger point saying that if we don't get $20 million of that
we would cut this and cut that. There are a list of things that
we have to examine depending on the timing of action of the
Congress and the amount of money that we ultimately get.
Ultimately, everything, the entire dress rehearsal is on
the block if we don't get the funding timely.
Mr. Hodes. Are the rehearsals in San Joaquin and around
Fayetteville designed particularly to deal with how the census
is going to count rural communities?
Mr. Kincannon. Not particularly rural communities, but
group quarters and particular military bases was a rationale in
the Fayetteville choice, and also places without city type
addresses. There are a lot of those. The majority of those I
believe are in the nine counties surrounding Fayetteville. In
the San Joaquin test we were interested particularly in
language minorities. There are also some group quarters issues
in San Joaquin County. Those were major aspects that we were
looking at.
Mr. Hodes. And have you included in the dress rehearsal
with the current plans, with the current funds you have,
adequate dress rehearsals for rural communities?
Mr. Kincannon. I think I said that we have already dropped
update leave, and that is--I am sorry for the jargon, but it is
a process whereby, instead of putting the questionnaire in the
mail to 122 Main Street, the Post Office does not deliver mail
to the housing unit and we must take the questionnaire and try
and deliver it to the household, or if they are not at home we
leave it in a bag on the door handle. That is a phenomenon
mostly of rural areas, and there are a large number of those
kinds of addresses in the North Carolina test.
Mr. Hodes. OK. And did you say that those had already been
cut?
Mr. Kincannon. Cut. Yes.
Mr. Hodes. OK. All right. Is it fair to say that those are
processes you know about already and have done in previous
censuses and are well tested and tried?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, we think so, sir. Yes.
Mr. Hodes. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clay. I thank the gentleman.
I will recognize members of the committee for closing
statements. The gentlelady from New York.
Mrs. Maloney. First of all I want to thank our two
witnesses and again thank the Honorable Secretary Kincannon for
your service. I know that you understand more than most
Americans how important the census is and how important
accuracy in the census is for reapportionment, the
apportionment of representation in both Congress, the State
legislatures. Absolutely billions of dollars are distributed
based on census numbers, so it is only fair to fair
representative government to make it as accurate as possible.
I would just like to say that we have a difference of
opinion in how much information can be shared with us. We want
to explore that issue further, but, just as important, we need
to figure out how to fix this and move forward, correct as many
mistakes as we can, fund it to the proper level.
I would say we need to figure out how to communicate
better. You need to tell us what your challenges are. You need
to tell us when you are not getting the proper funding. We need
to be able to correct this going forward. I disagree that, as
my colleagues have so stated, that this information is
privileged conversation. It is not. But the main thing is we
have to get this funded. We have to get it right. We have to
correct as much as we can, get those dress rehearsals done, and
move forward in a positive way.
I yield back.
Mr. Clay. I thank the gentlelady for her statement.
Mr. Hodes.
Mr. Hodes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank both witnesses for being here today. Obviously, an
accurate population count is very serious business. The
Constitution mandates it. We use the population counts as the
basis for our voting system, our congressional districts, our
Electoral College, and really, I think, this is a completely
nonpartisan issue. There is no excuse for not addressing the
budgetary problems quickly. We cannot risk disenfranchising
voters, especially in harder-to-count communities, like in the
military communities, in rural communities, and other places. I
am sorry to hear that various things have already been dropped
that ought to be tested as things progress.
I will just say, Mr. Kincannon, I know you have served a
long time and this is probably your last congressional
appearance, so congratulations to you. As far as putting you on
the spot, I will say that there is a larger issue in terms of
the relationship between an administration which has not been
forthcoming, in my judgment, with Congress about all kinds of
information, and Congress' role as the people's voice in this
Government. We need accurate information, and we need to know
what people have said in order to do what we need to do to do
our work. I appreciate where you are and I hope you understand
that my questions are not personal but professional about that
relationship which will be carried on in other places.
But I think we are taking from this hearing certainly it is
my sense that we in Congress need to do whatever is necessary
and as quickly as possible to give you the tools to make sure
that the census goes forward in its best form possible. I will
certainly do whatever I can to make that happen.
Thank you both for your appearance here today.
Mr. Clay. I thank the gentleman for his closing statement.
Mr. Wolfe, I want to thank you for your appearance today.
You have certainly raised our level of comfort to hear that the
Department will be working with OMB to come up with a funding
solution for the Census Bureau.
Mr. Wolfe. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Clay. We appreciate that.
Also, I want to say that it is the hope of this committee
that nothing in the CR language will hinder, delay, or deny the
plan, funding, and execution of the contracts for the hand-held
computers, the advertising program, the partnership program, or
the data capture program, and that this administration will use
every means necessary to grant the Bureau of the Census
officials any waivers or exemptions from administration
spending restrictions in order for them to meet those
requirements and to run an adequate dress rehearsal.
Mr. Kincannon, would you please provide this committee with
those lists of cancellations or changes or possible
cancellation that you rattled off to us earlier? We would
appreciate that.
We pray, Mr. Kincannon, that this is your last appearance
before this committee, but it has certainly been a pleasure to
have you as a witness, and we certainly appreciate your service
to this country.
The panel is dismissed.
This hearing is adjourned. Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]