[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
CRITICAL BUDGET ISSUES AFFECTING THE 2010 CENSUS, PART 2
=======================================================================
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
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 30, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-125
__________
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
47-525 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York TOM DAVIS, Virginia
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DAN BURTON, Indiana
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah
DIANE E. WATSON, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York DARRELL E. ISSA, California
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
Columbia VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee BILL SALI, Idaho
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JIM JORDAN, Ohio
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
JACKIE SPEIER, California
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
Lawrence Halloran, 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 July 30, 2008.................................... 1
Statement of:
Murdock, Steven H., Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census;
Kenneth Prewitt, Carnegie professor of public affairs,
School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia
University and former Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census;
Marvin Raines, former Associate Director for Field
Operations, U.S. Bureau of the Census; and Glenn Himes,
executive director, Civilian Agencies, the MITRE Corp...... 5
Himes, Glenn............................................. 26
Murdock, Steven H........................................ 5
Prewitt, Kenneth......................................... 10
Raines, Marvin........................................... 17
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
Murdock, Steven H., Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census,
prepared statement of...................................... 7
Prewitt, Kenneth, Carnegie professor of public affairs,
School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia
University and former Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census,
prepared statement of...................................... 12
Raines, Marvin, former Associate Director for Field
Operations, U.S. Bureau of the Census, prepared statement
of......................................................... 19
CRITICAL BUDGET ISSUES AFFECTING THE 2010 CENSUS, PART 2
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2008
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 2:05 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Clay and Yarmuth.
Staff present: Darryl Piggee, staff director/counsel; Jean
Gosa, clerk; Alissa Bonner and Michelle Mitchell, professional
staff members; Charisma Williams, staff assistant; Dorian
Rosen, intern; Benjamin Chance and Molly Boyl, minority
professional staff members; and John Cuaderes, minority senior
investigator and policy advisor.
Mr. Clay. Good morning. The Information Policy, Census, and
National Archives Subcommittee will come to order.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled, ``Critical Budget
Issues Affecting the 2010 Census, Part 2.''
Without objection, the Chair and ranking 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.
As Congress considered the fiscal year 2008 budget 9 months
ago, this subcommittee held a hearing to review the
consequences of a continuing resolution on census operations.
The issue then was whether the Census Bureau had special needs
that would warrant an exemption or anomaly in the CR to address
its unique circumstances.
Last year, due to inadequate funding, the Bureau reduced
the scope of its dress rehearsal and canceled testing for other
important census operations.
Today, we will examine the impact of a potential fiscal
year 2009 CR on operational plans for the decennial census.
As the Bureau ramps up to the 2010 census, its annual
budget will grow exponentially. It is critical that the Bureau
have necessary funds to complete key census operations in
fiscal year 2009.
Without sufficient resources, the Bureau will be unable to
open local census offices in every Congressional District, hire
personnel and, most importantly, they will not be able to
conduct address canvassing. Delaying any of these operations
will be detrimental to the decennial. Cancelling address
canvassing will result in an incomplete and inaccurate master
address file.
The master address file is the data base used to mail
census forms to every household. If we start with an inaccurate
master address file, census accuracy is doomed. We cannot
afford to let this happen.
Let me thank all of our witnesses for appearing today, and
I look forward to your testimony.
Since Mr. Turner is not here, then we will go into
testimony right away. Let me start by introducing our
witnesses.
First, we will hear from the Honorable Steven Murdock,
Director of the U.S. Census Bureau and then from former Census
Director, the Honorable Kenneth Prewitt. Next, we will hear
from the Bureau's former Associate Director for Field
Operations, Mr. Marvin Raines, and our final witness will be
Dr. Glenn Himes, executive director of the MITRE Corp.,
Civilian Agencies Mission.
Thank you all for appearing before the subcommittee today
and welcome.
It is the policy of the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee 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 witness now give a brief summary of their
testimony and please limit your summary to 5 minutes. Your
complete written statement will be included in the hearing
record.
Dr. Murdock, you may start us off.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEMENTS OF STEVEN H. MURDOCK, DIRECTOR, U.S. BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS; KENNETH PREWITT, CARNEGIE PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS,
SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
AND FORMER DIRECTOR, U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS; MARVIN RAINES,
FORMER ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR FIELD OPERATIONS, U.S. BUREAU OF
THE CENSUS; AND GLENN HIMES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CIVILIAN
AGENCIES, THE MITRE CORP.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN H. MURDOCK
Mr. Murdock. Chairman Clay, ranking member, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to speak with you
today on the critical budget issues affecting the 2010
decennial census.
You asked that my testimony focus primarily on the amount
of funding required to ensure that no disruption occur to
decennial operations in the event that we are forced to operate
under a continuing resolution in fiscal year 2009 that begins
October 1st. That is just 2 months from now, and it is a
significant concern for us.
We have been working diligently to get the infrastructure
in place to conduct the most accurate and complete census
possible. We have made considerable progress toward that end in
getting our field data collection automation contract on track
and assuring that our other contracts are operating as
expected.
All systems are on track for rolling out our early local
census offices and for getting them staffed up for address
canvassing. Our integrated communications program is moving
forward on schedule. We are in the process of getting all of
our partnership specialists in place to begin their outreach
efforts, and all of these efforts are critical to a successful
census.
However, without adequate funding, these plans cannot move
forward. It is imperative that the Congress support the
President's 2009 request for the Census Bureau.
A continuing resolution that freezes funding at levels of
the previous year can present serious difficulties for the
decennial census program. This is because, as you well know,
our cyclical budget needs serially increase in the years
leading up the decennial census and decline thereafter.
Difficulties most often come up in years ending in nine and
zero, the years before and during the decennial census.
By the end of fiscal year 2009, only 6 months will remain
until census day, April 1, 2010. Clearly, operations and
infrastructure not fully in place at that time would seriously
compromise their operation.
The President's budget for the Census Bureau in fiscal year
2009 is more than two times the current funding level, at
almost $3.1 billion. This is compared with $1.4 billion in
fiscal year 2008.
Most of this increase is for implementation of the 2010
decennial census program, the cost of which nearly triples from
$1 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $2.7 billion in fiscal year
2009. So, as you can see, a CR that freezes our budget at the
fiscal year 2008 level would make it very difficult for the
Census Bureau to conduct operations critical a successful 2010
census.
For example, by October 1, 2008, the Census Bureau must
begin opening, equipping and staffing 150 early local census
offices around the country that will serve as the field offices
for managing address canvassing operations.
The early months of fiscal year 2009 are extremely critical
to completing final development and testing of equipment and
software to be used in address canvassing as well as the
operations control systems that manage the entire operation.
Finally, we will also begin hiring partnership specialists
in our core group of 680 field partnership specialists which we
hope to have onboard by January 2009.
Communications activities such as support of the
Partnership Program, creative development and testing, public
relations development, the Census in School programs and
outreach must continue.
Let me clear that we at the Census Bureau, the Department
of Commerce and the administration more broadly are all aware
of challenges that a multi-month continuing resolution would
present to the 2010 census program. We are currently analyzing
potential impacts and developing spend plans in case agreement
has not been reached on such bills by the beginning of the
upcoming fiscal year.
While we have not yet finalized this work, the
administration understands the situation and is committed to
ensuring that we have a successful, accurate census in 2010.
I will be happy to take any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murdock follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Dr. Murdock.
Dr. Prewitt, you may begin with your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH PREWITT
Mr. Prewitt. Thank you, Congressman Clay.
I think that there is probably no hearing in the run-up to
the census which is as critical as this one on the simple
principle that no money, no census.
Money, I think, in this conversation has to mean three
things: adequate money, timely money and flexible money. It is
maximizing all three of those principles which we believe made
the 2000 census successful.
I am going to talk a bit about the 2000 census because that
is what I can offer to this conversation, what worked and what
did not work in 2000.
It has been generally described as a very successful
census, not by me. It is not my right to claim that. However, I
would like to say the Bush administration, even though the
census was conducted under the Clinton administration, the Bush
administration, in the presence of Secretary Evans speaking
before the Senate, described it as the most accurate census
this Nation has ever conducted.
We take that as high praise from an administration that
wasn't always, from a party that wasn't always in line with the
way we were trying to do the census in 2000. But I just want to
stress the way in which we think that happened.
Just like this census, before we really got started, we
were under a lot of pressure. It was thought that we would not
have a good census. We had enormous critical oversight not just
by the subcommittee, of course, as it should have been, but
also by the GAO, by the IG, by the Congressional Monitoring
Board.
GAO, for example, had us as high risk, starting as early as
1997 and never took us off their high risk list.
In this environment, we did well. We reversed the decline
in mail-back response rate, which was critical.
More importantly, we drove down the under-count. The number
of missed persons was reduced dramatically from an earlier
census, and we reduced the differential under-count. That is we
counted proportionally, racial minorities, the unemployed, the
less well educated, the undocumented much better than we ever
had in previous censuses.
So I am happy to say, and Marvin Raines knows why it works
because he was there making it work, that we are proud of what
was accomplished in 2000.
The question is how did it happen, and it happened because
the Congress really was on the mark with respect to the funding
strategy: supplemental funding, emergency funding, certainly an
anomaly on continuing resolutions.
As we know, governments frequently find themselves in the
CR world, and you can't do a census, as the Director just said,
under a CR that flat-funds you when things are wrapping up and
as your own opening comment made clear.
We did not have that problem in 2000, and that made a huge
difference. The Clinton administration put a lot of high level
attention to getting the census underway, but the U.S.
Congress, including a Republican-controlled subcommittee, was
equally engaged in making sure.
Now I don't want to gloss over problems, and we had
problems in 2000.
You certainly have run into some difficulties getting ready
for the 2010 census with the Harris thing and the management
problems and so forth. We are all familiar with those. You have
already had your hearings on that. But that is behind us.
The Director has a plan in place right now, but this plan
can't happen without the three dimensions of funding I just
mentioned: adequacy, timeliness and flexibility.
Flexibility is important. You are going to run into the
unexpected, and you have to be able to move money around, to
move personnel around to sort of deal with some of those
unexpected circumstances.
I think a fact that is sometimes overlooked about the 2000
census is that, at the end of the day, we returned over $300
million to the U.S. Treasury. We came in under budget. That is
we produced a census, a good census on schedule and under
budget. That would not have happened without really successful
cooperation by the Congress.
So I compliment you on this hearing today. I will be
delighted, of course, to answer questions, but I think your
focus on the fact of what damage the flat funding could do as
you enter the 2009 fiscal year is extremely important.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Prewitt follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Dr. Prewitt.
Mr. Raines, you may begin your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MARVIN RAINES
Mr. Raines. Chairman Clay, it is an honor and distinct
pleasure to appear before you today to share my thoughts on the
impact of a continuing resolution on the ability of local and
regional staff to conduct a complete and accurate 2010 census.
My testimony today from the perspective gained during my
tenure as Associate Director for Field Operations will
hopefully provide context for your discussion and
deliberations.
There are a number of issues that I feel should be
addressed, but two are the most important for field operations.
They are the importance of local census offices and the
importance of reaching the hard to enumerate populations.
Any interruptions of funding, changes in resource or
schedule modifications would negatively impact each of areas as
well as others that are mentioned in my written testimony.
A local census office is one of the basic building blocks
for all of field operations. Approximately 500 LCLs must be
leased, furnished and staffed for the decennial census. The
leasing process is essential, and the space must meet size,
safety, transportation and local requirements to optimally
satisfy the needs of each region.
After a lease is signed, each LCL may require three to 6
months to become field operational. Each office has electrical,
telecommunications, security and special field infrastructure
needs and must pass a comprehensive checklist prior to becoming
and being declared operational.
A continuing resolution delaying the opening of LCLs would
have a domino effect throughout all of field operations and
would adversely impact the success of the 2010 census.
Another extremely important issue is addressing problems
concerned with the historically under-counted. The most likely
to be under-counted are minorities, the poor, individuals
living in rural and urban areas, undocumented immigrants, the
transient and homeless and children.
Those under-counted have been divided into two basic
categories: hard to count and hardest to count. Typically the
hard to count are those considered apathetic, uninformed,
misinformed or disinterested in participating. The hardest to
count are individuals with some barrier that prevents them from
participating in the census such as those with language
isolation or literacy challenges.
From my census 2000 experience, I learned that the
Partnership Program is one of the most effective means of
reaching the hard to count and the hardest to count.
Groundwork, networks and trust must be established in
challenging communities and reestablished in others to engage
the right partner or community leader to join in efforts to
count everyone.
In conclusion, I realize from firsthand experience that
planning and implementing a decennial census is complex, time-
consuming and rewarding.
However, in order to get to the part that is rewarding, you
must endure and work through the complex, challenging and time-
consuming parts. To do that, the Census Bureau staff needs
adequate resources and support to move completely into
decennial operations and programs without delay.
As proud as I am of our work during the 2000 census, I am
more proud of the quality and integrity of the data that was
collected. The public deserves the Bureau's highest and best
service, and local communities depend on the accuracy and
completeness of that data.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope I was able to add another
perspective to this hearing. I am available for questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Raines follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Mr. Raines. You do bring an
interesting perspective to the hearing.
Dr. Himes, you may finish off the testimony.
STATEMENT OF GLENN HIMES
Mr. Himes. Good afternoon, Chairman Clay, and thank you for
the opportunity you have given to the MITRE Corp. to update the
committee on the impact of a continuing resolution on
operational plans for the 2010 decennial census.
The MITRE Corp. is a not for profit organization chartered
to work in the public interest. MITRE manages three federally
funded research and development centers: one for the Department
of Defense, one for the Federal Aviation Administration and one
for the Internal Revenue Service.
Governed by Part 35.017 of the Federal Acquisition
Regulations, federally funded research and development centers
operate in the public interest with objectivity, independence,
freedom from conflict of interest and full disclosure of their
affairs to the respective government sponsors.
It continues to be our privilege to serve with the talented
engineers and other professionals who support the Census Bureau
in its efforts to prepare and conduct the 2010 decennial
census.
We are pleased to report that since MITRE's last appearance
before this committee on June 11th, the Bureau has demonstrated
continued improvements in managing and overseeing preparations
for the 2010 decennial census. These improvements include an
increase in activities to monitor program progress and to
identify potential risks.
Some of the highest risks to achieving a successful
decennial census pertain to funding. If funding for the
decennial census is delayed or insufficient, critical
activities may be delayed or reduced in scope. Delays would
increase the risk of accomplishing the census on time.
Reductions in scope would increase the risk that the quality of
the census data would not meet the needs of Congress or the
American people.
Finally, insufficient funding would require census managers
and executives to perform substantial replanning and
reprioritizing at a time when their workloads will be growing
enormously. We remain committed to helping the Census Bureau
prepare for a successful 2010 Decennial.
Thank you for inviting us to this hearing. I will be happy
to answer your questions.
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Dr. Himes.
Director Murdock, please tell the subcommittee what will
happen if the Bureau does not receive adequate for fiscal year
2009 and what operations will be affected.
Mr. Murdock. Let me summarize some of those because there
are many operations that are impacted. Among the majors of
those, of course, is address canvassing which we must open our
local offices in order for that to be successful.
It is hard to overemphasize the importance of address
canvassing. In many ways the census is a census of addresses
from which we get households from which we get the population
that we count for the decennial census. That particular
operation, therefore, is critical.
If you do not have a good address canvassing, you are not
likely not to have a good census. So that would be the first
major operation that would be impacted.
Also impacted and very importantly would be our Partnership
Program which, as you know, has been important in terms of
reaching the very populations that Mr. Raines referred to, the
hard to count populations.
We are scheduled to have 680 such specialists in place by
the beginning of next year. We now have 120. So we would be in
the process of hiring another 560 in this interim period of
time. Much of that would occur after the beginning of fiscal
year 2009.
There are certainly many others. We have contracts ongoing
for the operation or control systems, contracts for the
handhelds that will be used in the address canvassing. Nearly
all of our major contracts would be negatively impacted,
meaning nearly all of our subsequent operations related to the
2010 census would be negatively impacted.
So virtually all of our ongoing programs would be impacted
and, as indicated, certainly the opening of those local census
offices would be critical. That would not occur without those
finances.
Mr. Clay. That would have a detrimental effect on having an
accurate count.
Mr. Murdock. Yes.
Mr. Clay. Let me followup with Dr. Himes on that.
MITRE has done some consulting for the Bureau. Your work
has been helpful in ensuring that proper attention is given to
key operations.
We have heard from Dr. Murdock what could happen if the
Bureau does not get adequate funding for the census. Now I
would like to get your opinion. What are the implications of
not conducting the operations Dr. Murdock cited?
Mr. Himes. So we would concur with what Dr. Murdock, that
the address canvassing is really one of the key starting points
of having a successful, accurate census.
MITRE's involvement has been especially focused on FDCA,
the Field Data Collection Automation, in recent months. The
contracts to complete the infrastructure, to open the local
census offices, to complete the handheld computers, the
software, the testing, the training could all impacted by this.
FDCA alone has a substantial increase in funding from 2008
to fiscal year 2009, and obviously, there are other parts of
the census activities as a whole that Dr. Murdock also referred
to.
So if they are not able to hire the people and complete the
systems to support them, there would most likely be a delay or
they would have to reduce the number of offices that they
opened, and that would then have a very deleterious effect on
the quality of the data.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response.
Mr. Raines, what is the most critical problem facing
regional staff?
Mr. Raines. I don't know if I can actually characterize it
as one problem, but there are a number of different issues. All
of them, I think, are associated with timeliness.
Clearly, now that the new procedure that is one that will
involve pen and paper is going to be used, I like to refer to
the testing as there is a zero gremlin out there somewhere.
When I say zero gremlin, what I am talking about, I remember
when we did testing during the 2000 census.
We could try things out for 100 people or 100 cases or
1,000 cases, 10,000 cases. But somewhere between 10,000 and
100,000, the zero gremlin would get in there and create
problems, and we would have problems. When we got 100,000
cases, somehow things would just begin to get problems. So
testing is going to be one the major problems.
Recruiting and the competency of staff is another one of
those issues. Being able to have funding so that we can recruit
the proper staff and the competency of that staff is extremely
important.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that.
Gremlin was a make of a car, I believe.
Mr. Raines. Well, I am talking about that imaginary person
that gets in there and causes concerns. [Laughter.]
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response.
Mr. Prewitt, you are to be commended for the success of the
2000 census, and you stated that the Census Bureau returned
$300 million to the U.S. Treasury. I am not sure if that is
going to happen for 2010.
On a serious note, you talk about the proportional under-
count. With the limited time we have, let me ask you, was the
proportional under-count consistent in all demographic groups?
Did it go across the board and then how did you determine there
was an over-count and an under-count?
Mr. Prewitt. Right. Very important, Mr. Chairman, and I
will do this quickly. We assessed the magnitude of the under-
count two different ways in 2000. One is what is called
demographic analysis, and the other was an accuracy and
coverage evaluation.
Demographic analysis doesn't allow you to make fine grain
decisions about the nature of the under-count, but the coverage
evaluation survey did.
What we learned in 2000 is that with exception of the Black
population, all other racial groups were almost taken to zero.
That is the American Indian group, the Hispanic and the Asian
population groups, but the African American population was
taken down close to 1 percent under-count. That is from a
historic high of 5 percent earlier in the decade.
We have been progressively doing better on the under-count
but not the differential under-count, and 2000 is the first
census where we made real cutting into the differential under-
count.
We only knew that because we did a large followup survey
called the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Survey which
allowed us to measure the magnitude of how well we had done on
the differential under-count.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response.
Mr. Yarmuth is recognized.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one
question.
Dr. Prewitt, when you had to prepare for the 2000 census in
a relatively time because of the Supreme Court decision, how
would you evaluate how important funding was in the years
leading up to the census as opposed to the actual year of the
census?
Mr. Prewitt. Well, you are quite right. We had a bad patch.
When I got there, we weren't clear what kind of census we can
do. We didn't even know for the first 4 or 5 months what kind
of census design we would have.
So enormous work had to happen after the Supreme Court
decision to reconfigure the apparatus around what we call the
traditional census.
However, what we did not have to deal with were the kind of
problems that the Director and Marvin Raines just discussed.
The local offices were open. We were staffing them up. We had
an advertising campaign that was ready to go. We had hired the
partners.
All of the kind of apparatus we needed to make the new
design work was in place. We had a lot of design work to do,
but we did not have a staffing up preparation.
This is a much worse situation. A flat funding in fiscal
year 2009 of even for 3 or 4 or 5 months is a much worse
situation than what we had in 2000 with the Supreme Court
delay.
Mr. Yarmuth. I think that is what we are all concerned
about. We are really in a very critical juncture right now,
that what we do now will affect the integrity of the census in
2010. It is clear that we need to make sure that there are
adequate resources right now.
Mr. Prewitt. Yes. The issue is timeliness more than the
amount right now.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Yarmuth.
I saw Dr. Himes with this curious look on his face when the
bells were going off. The bells announced the beginning of a
series of votes.
So we will conclude this hearing. It will probably be one
of the shortest in the history of this institution. But I would
like to make one final point before concluding.
As Chair of this subcommittee, I am committed to ensuring
that there is adequate funding in fiscal year 2009 for the
Census Bureau to carry out effective and efficient operations
for the 2010 decennial census, and I am working with the House
leadership to bring this to fruition.
It is the expectation of this subcommittee that we will
have the full and complete cooperation of the administration,
the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau. This includes
being honest with Congress about operational problems and
funding needs before they become catastrophes.
Director Murdock, I trust that we can count on you and your
team to fulfill this obligation.
Mr. Murdock. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, and we are very
grateful for your efforts on behalf of the Census Bureau.
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much.
Mr. Yarmuth, if you have any closing remarks.
Mr. Yarmuth. Just that I appreciate all your work and your
testimony. It is something that we need to get right, and I
appreciate your input into the discussion.
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much.
Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:34 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]