U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

67–126 PDF 2011

S. Hrg. 112–244 

CENSUS: LEARNING LESSONS FROM 2010, 

PLANNING FOR 2020 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND 

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 6, 2011 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

JOYCE WARD, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN KILVINGTON, Staff Director 

WILLIAM WRIGHT, Minority Staff Director 

DEIRDRE G. ARMSTRONG, Chief Clerk 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Brown .................................................................................................. 3 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 41 

Senator Brown .................................................................................................. 44 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011 

Hon. Robert M. Groves, Director, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department 

of Commerce ......................................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Todd J. Zinser, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce ........... 8 

Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government Accountability 

Office ..................................................................................................................... 9 

Daniel Castro, Senior Analyst, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation .................................................................................................................... 25 

Thomas M. Cook, Ph.D., Co-Chair, National Research Council Panel to Review the 2010 Census .......................................................................................... 27 

Arturo Vargas, Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected 

and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund ....................................... 29 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Castro, Daniel: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 103 

Cook, Thomas M. Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 117 

Goldenkoff, Robert: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Groves, Hon. Robert M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Vargas, Arturo.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 120 

Zinser, Hon. Todd J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

APPENDIX 

Chart submitted by Senator Brown ....................................................................... 147 

Prepared Statement submitted for the Record by Wade Henderson, President 

and CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights ................ 148 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(1) 

CENSUS: LEARNING LESSONS FROM 2010, 

PLANNING FOR 2020 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m., in Room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Brown, and Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. The hearing will come to order. Welcome one 

and all. Senator Brown and I are happy to see you all. Thank you 

for joining us today on an important hearing, a very important 

hearing. 

I am going to make a brief statement and then turn it over to 

Senator Brown, and then we will introduce our witnesses and get 

this show on the road. 

Today’s hearing will examine the lessons learned from the 2010 

Census while identifying initiatives that show promise for producing an even more accurate and more cost effective census in 

2020. 

I want to begin by congratulating Dr. Groves; his predecessor, 

Dr. Murdock, who sat in this seat once or twice himself when he 

was our Census Director; and the career professionals at the Census Bureau who did an excellent job in carrying out the 2010 Census. As a result of their hard work, the Census Bureau was able 

to overcome a number of operational and organizational challenges, 

including shortcomings with critical information technology systems. 

The Bureau completed key operations on schedule, hired nearly 

900,000 temporary workers, obtained an acceptable participation 

rate ultimately of 74 percent, and managed to report its population 

figures in time to support redistricting so that we would know in 

Delaware we still would have only one at-large U.S. Representative. 

Despite these achievements, the 2010 Census was the most expensive in our Nation’s history by far, even taking inflation into account. The total cost of decennial operations escalated from an iniH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

2 

tial estimate of $11.3 billion to close to $13 billion. Even more disturbing is the fact that with all the modern scientific improvements 

and technological advancements that have been made over the 

years, the framework for conducting the 2010 Census was based off 

of a model that I believe was used in the 1970s. 

Although the methodological basics of the census have remained 

the same over the past 40 years, the cost of the census decidedly 

has not. The average cost per household was $98 in 2010, compared to $70 in 2010, compared to $16 in 1970. I have been told 

that the total cost of the 2020 Census could rise to as much as $30 

billion if we keep going on this track. In my view, that is not acceptable any more than budget deficits of $1.2 trillion are acceptable. It is especially not acceptable at a time when we are struggling to find solutions to the most serious deficit problems and the 

debt crises that our country is currently facing. 

We have spoken at previous hearings here about the need for us 

to look in every nook and cranny of the Federal Government—domestic, defense, entitlement spending, along with tax expenditures—and ask this question: Is it possible to get better results for 

less money? The hard truth is that many programs’ funding levels 

will be reduced. They need to be reduced. Even some of the most 

popular and worthwhile programs out there will likely be asked to 

do more with less, or at least to do more without a whole lot more 

money. The Census Bureau, despite the vital and constitutionally 

mandated nature of its work, cannot be immune from this sort of 

examination. 

While most Americans want us to reduce the deficit, determining 

the best path forward will not be easy. Many believe that those of 

us who have been sent here to Washington are not capable of doing 

the hard work and making the hard decisions that we were hired 

to do—effectively managing the Federal dollars, their tax dollars 

that they have entrusted us with. They look at our spending decisions that we have made in recent years and question whether the 

culture here is broken. They question whether we are capable of 

making the kind of tough decisions that they and their families 

have to make on an almost daily or weekly basis with their own 

budgets. And I do not blame them for being skeptical, and I am 

afraid that their skepticism proved to be well founded when looking 

at the kind of avoidable management failures that contributed to 

the growth in cost of carrying out the 2010 Census. 

Today we will look at the Bureau’s planning efforts for the 2020 

decennial, and although it is 9 years away, it is never too early to 

start thinking about ways to reduce costs and improve quality 

through more efficient data collection. More importantly, we need 

to make certain that the issues that lead to the failures and cost 

overruns that we saw in recent years have been addressed and will 

not reoccur. Taxpayers should not be expected to pick up the tab 

for them again. 

Looking ahead, the Bureau’s research should focus on how existing technology can be incorporated into the 2020 design. Obviously, 

the Internet is here to stay, at least for my lifetime, and according 

to the experts, an Internet response option could have saved the 

Bureau tens of millions of dollars in processing costs in 2010. Future research should not only focus on how to implement Internet 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

3 

data collection but also how to reap the benefits—financial and otherwise—of it and other technologies the next time around. We also 

need to make certain that the people who make up our growing 

and changing country are comfortable enough with the security of 

the data collection methods we use to allow for an accurate census. 

Moreover, steady leadership will also be critical in reversing a 

trend of decennial Censuses marked by poor planning and escalating costs. The 2010 Census experienced several changes in leadership and vast spans of time with acting or interim Directors, further putting the operation at risk. In the 27 months leading up to 

Census Day, the Bureau had, count them, not one, not two, but 

three different Directors. I plan to introduce legislation this year 

that would, among other things, make the Director of the Census 

Bureau a Presidential term appointment of 5 years. A fixed term 

would help avoid leadership gaps during critical decennial Census 

planning stages and facilitate the longer-term planning so vital to 

decennial Censuses. 

Senator Coburn and I introduced legislation last year to establish 

a term appointment for the Census Director and to make a number 

of other changes at the Bureau aimed at preventing serious problems in the future. It passed the Senate unanimously but failed to 

be taken up in the House. And I would like to work with you, Dr. 

Groves, if I can, if we can, to make whatever changes are necessary 

to put together something that addresses the lessons learned from 

2010 and can enjoy bipartisan support as our proposal did in the 

last Congress. 

We look forward to hearing from our witnesses today who will 

help us to identify ways to best balance the need for an accurate 

census with the need to ensure a reasonable cost for this endeavor. 

Senator Brown, 10 years from today, I suspect you will still be 

here, but I am not sure that I will be. I might, but I would not 

want to bet on that. But whoever does sit in the seats where you 

and I sit, I do not want them to be saying, ‘‘How do we end up 

spending twice as much for the census in 2020, as we spent in 

2010? How did we do that?’’ That is what we did from 2000 to 

2010, and we have done it again. I just do not want the folks in 

this Committee to go through that. I do not want the Senate to go 

through that. I do not want the people of our country to go through 

that. And I know the groundwork is already being laid today this 

year to make sure that we do not see history repeat itself. And we 

are anxious to learn how we can help to make sure that we end 

up in 9 years from now that we have a better count, a more accurate census, and we have done it not for twice as much money but 

maybe, if we are smart, the same amount of money. 

All right. Scott. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BROWN 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to note I am 

bouncing back and forth to the hearing, so I will only be able to 

stay for the first panel, depending on the time. But I do appreciate 

the opportunity to come. Sir, it is good to see you again. 

As required by our Constitution, as you noted, our country has 

conducted a census every year since, obviously, 1790, and it is a 

vital undertaking. The results, are utilized to apportion seats in 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

4 

the House, for redistricting, and determining the annual distribution of more than $400 billion in Federal and State funds. And 

while we must strive to ensure that every person is counted, we 

cannot afford to have the out-of-control spending that seems to be 

potentially going—well, going on and getting worse continually. 

The cost of counting each housing unit has escalated from around 

$16 in 1970 to $98 in 2010, and I have learned in my brief tenure 

here that we cannot simply continue to do things the way we have 

always done them. We have to think outside the box, modernize, 

get up with the times. I feel sometimes that I am—I know we used 

to have records, the little needle—I tell my kids and younger people, I say, ‘‘I used to listen to records.’’ They look at me like I have 

three heads. And sometimes—I mean, you all know what I am talking about, what a record is. But you look around, and you see how 

we do stuff in the Federal Government, and it is like I feel like I 

am back in the 1970s, talking about records, whether it is the Arlington National Cemetery and they keep wounded—our fallen heroes on cue cards, index cards, or—I just do not get it, with the 

amount of money that we spend on these things. So we have to find 

a way to do it better, to get a better bang for our buck. 

And for the most part the basic model of census taking has not 

changed since the 1970s, and we need to update, we need to 

streamline, consolidate, do it better. And we are relying on the oldschool way of doing things, and it is just not, I do not think, working just based on the costs that we are seeing and we will be talking about. 

With an array of Internet-based technologies, you have Facebook, 

Twitter, IMs, the whole range of ways that we can do it better, and 

I am hoping that we can kind of, with your leadership, sir, as we 

talked about, do it better. 

We are the world leader in inventing and commercializing technology and technological innovation, and it is something, being 

from Massachusetts, and Cambridge in particular—that is where it 

all begins. That is where the think tanks, many of them, are in our 

great country. And yet it seems like we are lagging behind a country like Canada, for example, in integrating the Internet into the 

census. 

I am convinced that we can break this cycle and do it better and 

be more cost effective, and I am excited to have the opportunity to 

discuss that with you. And while I expect the Census Bureau to say 

the right things about reforming the process in 2020, I have been 

here long enough, a little over a year, to know that the taxpayers 

and Congress have the right to remain skeptical based on past performance, not necessarily of this organization but of what we see 

throughout government today. And I am going to work with the 

Chairman, as we do on many, many things, to try to find a way 

to bring it out and potentially offer solutions, suggestions, find out 

how we can help through legislative or other types of either making 

regulation or eliminating regulation, and, finally, how we can get 

our tax dollars to be spent in a more efficient manner. 

I look forward to the witnesses speaking, Mr. Chairman, and I 

want to thank you once again for holding this hearing. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. I am glad we could do it together. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

5 

I am going to go ahead and introduce our panel. I think maybe— 

I might be mistaken, but I think you have all been here before, 

maybe a couple times. It is a good thing, Senator Brown, that we 

are not paying them on a per appearance basis. That would get 

pretty expensive. 

Let me just welcome, first of all, Dr. Groves, nominated by President Barack Obama to be Director of the Census in April and confirmed by the Senate last July. Dr. Groves is an expert in survey 

methodology and has spent decades working to strengthen the Federal statistical system, improve its staffing through training programs, and keep it committed to the highest scientific principles of 

accuracy and efficiency. Having once served as Associate Director 

of the Census Bureau, Dr. Groves knows how the agency operates 

and what its employees need to successfully implement the decennial Census and other programs. Welcome. Nice to see you again. 

Todd Zinser, also known as the Honorable Todd Zinser—and I 

was kidding him earlier when I came out here, Senator Brown, to 

say hello. I do not know if this ever happens. Do you know that 

every now and then we get phone calls at home from people, and 

we have these Do Not Call lists, and still people call. And if they 

were, like, calling from, like, the University of Michigan or Ohio 

State or someplace like that, and one day I got this call from a fellow at the other end of the phone, and he said, ‘‘Is Hon there?’’ And 

I said, ‘‘Pardon me?’’ And he said, ‘‘Is Hon there?’’ And I was trying 

to think, ‘‘Who could he be calling for?’’ And then I was thinking, 

‘‘Oh, Hon. H–O–N period, short for ‘Honorable.’ ’’ And so I said, 

‘‘This is Hon.’’ [Laughter.] 

And he said, ‘‘Oh, Hon, how are you doing?’’ I forget where he 

was calling from. But he said, ‘‘I am calling from so-and-so, and 

you have been great to support our charity or trust before. I just 

wanted to call and see if you could do it again.’’ And I said—so he 

made his pitch, and I said, ‘‘Hon have no money.’’ And he gives me 

about another 30 seconds, and I said a little more strongly, ‘‘Hon 

have no money.’’ And he comes back to me a third time and gave 

me his pitch, and I said, ‘‘Hon have no money. Call Hon Castle.’’ 

That is Mike Castle, our Congressman. ‘‘He has the money.’’ And 

so he said good-bye and he never called back. [Laughter.] 

But Hon. Todd Zinser, welcome. Todd serves as the Inspector 

General for the U.S. Department of Commerce. As Inspector General, Mr. Zinser leads a team of auditors, investigators, attorneys, 

and administrative staff responsible for detecting and preventing 

fraud, waste, and abuse in a vast array of business and scientific 

and economic and environmental programs that are administered 

by the Department of Commerce and its 13 Bureaus. Mr. Zinser 

holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from Northern Kentucky University and a master’s degree in political science from 

Miami University. Is that Miami University in Oxford, Ohio? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Home of the Bobcats? Is that what 

they are there? Ohio University? I think so. We are Buckeyes at 

Ohio State. 

Robert Goldenkoff is the Director of Strategic Issues at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) where he is responsible for reviewing the 2010 Census and governmentwide human capital reH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Groves appears in the appendix on page 46. 

forms. Mr. Goldenkoff has also performed research on issues involving transportation security, human trafficking, and Federal 

statistical programs. He received his Bachelor of Arts in Political 

Science and his Master’s of Public Administration degree from The 

George Washington University. All right. 

Your entire statements will be made part of the record, and once 

you have concluded, I am going to ask Senator Brown to take the 

first questions, and then I will take my nap while he is doing—no, 

I will not do that. But I will be listening intently to the questions 

and the answers. 

But, Dr. Groves, it is great to see you. Thanks for taking on this 

job. You are recognized. If you go a whole lot over 5 minutes, I 

have to rein you in, so just keep that in mind. Thanks so much. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. GROVES,1 DIRECTOR, U.S. 

CENSUS BUREAU, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. GROVES. Mr. Chairman, Senator Brown, I am happy to be 

here and thank you for the invitation. 

Although the Census Bureau has a formal program of evaluations and assessments on the 2010 Census, those are not yet complete. But I do have information I can share on preliminary quality 

indicators. 

My testimony in written form is really in three pieces: Evaluation of the census, our organizational change endeavors at the Census Bureau, and then lessons learned. I am going to concentrate on 

the third part. But I can note that the preliminary findings on the 

quality of the 2010 Census are positive in the majority and show 

improvements over the 2000 effort. I would be happy to expand on 

that. 

I want the Committee to know that we have also been engaged 

in a variety of organizational change initiatives that we care deeply 

about. We have basically concluded that our business model of collecting social and economic data faces severe challenges over the 

long run. We know we must innovate in order to remain useful and 

relevant to the country. Further, we know that this innovation is 

not likely to be funded by added resources. We must become more 

efficient and fund innovations from cost-saving measures, and that 

is what these programs are about. I want to mention three specifically. 

First, we have mounted a program that is seeking proposals from 

throughout all the employee groups for cost efficiencies. It was 

heart-warming to see last year that we received over 650 proposals 

from folk throughout the Census Bureau on how to make what 

they do more efficient, and we are pursuing a lot of the good ideas 

and saving money already. 

Second, we have partnered with other Federal agencies who 

sponsor surveys that we collect data for in order to find out ways 

that we can save money for them. This will have ripple effects to 

other agencies. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

7 

Third, we are vigorously trying to tear down the boundaries 

among the silos of the Census Bureau. We are trying to seek organization-wide solutions. Let me rattle off a few of those. 

We have instituted a corporate hiring program for new statisticians to assure that they will move across the organization in the 

early years of their career spreading innovation across the silos. 

We are moving aggressively on enterprise architecture solutions 

on the information technology (IT) front. This means a greater emphasis on the Internet and cloud computing, a consolidation of data 

storage systems that is already saving money. We have built the 

Technology Innovation Center to do quick prototyping of new solutions. 

We have greatly expanded our Internet data collection, soon to 

cover 60 of our sample surveys, allowing approximately 900,000 respondents the opportunity to respond online. And I want to note 

that increasingly people are using the Internet options we are providing on hand-held devices like iPhones and Droids and iPads. 

These changes together, in my belief, will make us a more unified, integrated organization, one that is ready to mount a successful 2020 Census, and that is what I want to turn to now. 

I want to go through eight lessons that I have learned personally, each of which has generated a principle for the organization 

of the development plans for 2020. 

Lesson one, the multi-decade cost increase of the decennial Census must be halted. Hence, we are attempting to design a 2020 

Census that costs less per housing unit than the 2010 Census 

while maintaining the quality of the results. 

Lesson two, the traditional non-response follow-up procedures 

that we have used over past decades are inefficient and costly. We 

want to make the census convenient to diverse groups using multiple modes of data collection. This means the traditional mail, but 

also phone, multiple Internet options, face-to-face, and other modes 

as they emerge. 

Lesson three, systems development that requires first-use perfection must be abandoned. We need end-to-end tests of production 

systems, ideally within real survey production environments. 

Lesson four, too few of the system and procedure developments 

of the 2010 Census were designed to benefit the entire institution. 

Thus, the fourth principle is that we want to develop systems within the survey production environments of the Census Bureau. We 

plan to use the American Community Survey as a chief test bed for 

the 2020 Census systems development. 

Let me skip to lesson six. We have concluded that a small number of large test censuses create intolerable risks for the Census 

Bureau. We want to do many small tests. We feel that the evidence 

of updating the Master Address List was partially—that partial updating in the last decade was successful. We want to build on that 

success. 

Let me sum up. Overall, we know of no single method of collecting census data that is optimal for all the diverse subpopulations of the United States. Some residents have told us they do not 

want people visiting their home. Some residents told us that information they have already provided in other government forms 

ought to be used. Some residents want to use the Internet at any 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Zinser appears in the appendix on page 56. 

time of the day on any device they favor to fit their lifestyle. And 

some want to speak by telephone to someone who speaks their language and understands their subculture. 

By making the census more convenient, we hope to reduce the 

size of the expensive field follow-up activities. This is the most important and most expensive part of the data collection. We are concentrating our efforts there to achieve a quality census. 

Those are my oral remarks. I would be happy to answer questions. 

Senator CARPER. Well, thanks for those oral remarks. We look 

forward to those questions and answers. 

Mr. Zinser, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TODD J. ZINSER,1 INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. ZINSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Brown. Thank 

you for inviting us to testify today about lessons learned from the 

2010 Census and how we might apply those lessons to the decennial Census in 2020. 

The 2010 decennial was an enormous undertaking with a current 

cost estimate of nearly $13 billion. It required more than a decade 

of planning, testing, and implementing dozens of operations as well 

as hundreds of thousands of employees, to accomplish. 

My testimony today is based on oversight we provided over the 

last decade to both the planning and execution of the decennial. 

Our oversight sent over 100 Office of Inspector General (OIG) staff 

to every State and the District of Columbia. We provided feedback 

to stakeholders on headquarters activities and from the field 

through reports, testimony, and real-time communications back to 

the Census Bureau. 

While the census has successfully completed its 2010 operations, 

this decennial carried with it a high cost and a level of risk that 

should not be repeated. Factoring in trends in population and cost 

growth, GAO recently estimated that the current design model 

could mean a 2020 decennial cost as high as $30 billion. Such cost 

growth is simply unsustainable. 

To achieve a quality count with much greater cost containment, 

Census must fundamentally change the design, implementation, 

and management of the decennial Census, and it must start now. 

My testimony today covers seven challenges for the Census Bureau 

to address for the 2020 Census. 

First, Census must revamp their cost estimation and budget 

processes to increase accuracy, flexibility, and transparency. 

Second, Census should use the Internet and administrative 

records to contain costs and improve accuracy. There are already 

numerous Federal agencies that collect similar information about 

U.S. households at significant duplicated costs. Use of existing administrative records could greatly assist Census in reducing the 

cost of many of its operations. It is a complex issue but not insurmountable, and a solid commitment to use the Internet for 2020 is 

imperative. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Goldenkoff appears in the appendix on page 72. 

Third, Census should implement a more effective decennial test 

program. Site tests for 2010 were scheduled at 2-year intervals. 

Each test transpired over 3 years of planning, implementation, and 

evaluation. The tests overlapped, which made it difficult to apply 

the results from one test to the next. Census now plans to conduct 

a larger number of smaller tests and more closely align its research 

with its testing program. 

Fourth, Census should effectively automate field data collection. 

Census tried to maximize the use of automation for the 2010 decennial but fell short, and as a result, costs and risks increased substantially. Census must shore up its IT processes early in the decade to prepare for successfully implementing automated data collection. 

Fifth, we recommended that Census avoid a massive end-of-decade field operation through continuous updating of address lists 

and maps. Instead of the large end-of-decade address canvassing 

operation, which cost $444 million and experienced a 25 percent 

cost overrun, Census is planning to update its address lists and 

maps continuously throughout the decade and is considering other 

options to meet its address and map requirements. 

Sixth, the Bureau should implement improved project planning 

and management techniques early in the decade. For the 2010 decennial, Census tracked more than 9,000 activities over several 

years for 44 different operations. We have made recommendations 

aimed at strengthening project and risk management. 

Finally, a Census Bureau Director position should be established 

to span Administrations. For the life cycle of the 2010 decennial, 

we counted six Directors and Acting Directors. Census would benefit from greater leadership continuity. 

Census has already embarked on its plans; however, it will need 

continued focus, engagement, and resources throughout the decade 

from the Department of Commerce, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), and Congress to help ensure that the 2020 Census 

fulfills the promise of better technology, methods, and operations. 

That concludes my summary, Mr. Chairman, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions you or other Members have. 

Senator CARPER. Good. And I will just telegraph an early pitch, 

Dr. Groves. When the questions come to me, one of the questions 

I am going to be asking is for you to walk through that list of seven 

recommendations from Mr. Zinser, and I want you to be prepared 

to comment on those, please. 

Mr. Goldenkoff, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GOLDENKOFF,1 DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Mr. Chairman, Senator Brown, I would like to 

thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss lessons 

learned from the 2010 Census and initiatives that show promise for 

delivering a more cost effective enumeration in 2020. 

The 2010 Census was an operational success in that the Census 

Bureau generally completed its peak data collection activities consistent with its plans and released the data used to apportion and 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

10 

redistrict Congress several days ahead of legally mandated deadlines. Nevertheless, in gearing up for the enumeration, the Bureau 

had to overcome a series of hurdles that jeopardized a complete 

count. 

First, internal issues, including longstanding weaknesses in its 

IT management procedures, threatened the Bureau’s readiness for 

the enumeration and led us to add the 2010 Census to GAO’s list 

of high-risk Federal programs. 

At the same time, external societal trends, such as an increasingly diverse population, have made a cost-effective head count inherently difficult. Much like going up a down escalator, over the 

past 40 years the Bureau has been investing substantially more resources each decade in order to secure a complete count. 

For example, as Senator Brown noted earlier, in constant 2010 

dollars the cost of enumerating each household has escalated from 

around $16 in 1970 to around $98 in 2010, an increase of over 500 

percent. This trend is unsustainable. 

Meanwhile, the 2010 Census, with a total cost of around $13 billion, was the most expensive head count in our Nation’s history. 

Simply put, the singular challenge facing the U.S. Census Bureau is how to control the cost of the 2020 Census while maintaining its accuracy. In this regard, my remarks today will focus on 

four key lessons learned from 2010 that will be important for the 

Bureau to address as it continues its planning efforts for 2020. 

The first lesson learned is the importance of fundamentally reexamining the Nation’s approach to taking the census. This is critical because simply refining current methods, some of which have 

been in place for decades, will not bring about the reforms needed 

to obtain acceptable results given ongoing and newly emerging societal trends. A fundamental re-examination means rethinking the 

Bureau’s approach to planning, testing, implementing, monitoring, 

and evaluating the census. Potential focus areas include making 

better use of administrative records, such as driver’s licenses, as 

well as social media, such as the Internet. 

The second lesson learned is the importance of tailoring key census operations to specific locations and population groups. The Bureau plans to complete over 70 studies of the 2010 Census. As this 

research is completed, it will be critical for the Bureau to assess 

the costs and benefits of each operation so it can allocate its resources more efficiently in 2020. 

The third lesson learned centers on institutionalizing efforts to 

address those areas that made the 2010 Census a high-risk area. 

This includes incorporating best practice for IT acquisition management, developing more reliable cost estimates, and ensuring key 

operations are fully tested under operational conditions. 

The fourth lesson learned involves ensuring that the Bureau’s organizational culture and structure as well as its approach to strategic planning, human capital management, and other internal 

functions are aligned towards producing more cost-effective outcomes. These actions are needed because some of the operational 

problems that occurred during the 2010 and prior censuses were 

symptomatic of deeper organizational issues, such as inadequate 

human capital planning. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

11 

Importantly, the Bureau has launched an ambitious planning 

program for 2020, taking such measures as reforming aspects of its 

IT management. As these actions gain momentum, it will be important that they enhance the Bureau’s capacity to conduct an accurate count, control costs, manage risks, and be more nimble in 

adapting to the social, demographic, technical, and other changes 

that can be expected in the future. 

In closing, the Bureau goes to great lengths each decade to improve specific census-taking activities, but these incremental modifications have not kept pace with societal and technological 

changes. The Bureau is well aware of this and has wasted no time 

in launching the planning efforts needed for a more cost-effective 

enumeration in 2020. 

It will also be important for Congress to continue its strong oversight of the census, and we look forward to supporting the Subcommittee in this regard. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Brown, this concludes my remarks, and 

I will be pleased to respond to any questions that you might have. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Goldenkoff, thank you very, very much. 

First of all, let me just ask you, if I could, Mr. Zinser and Mr. 

Goldenkoff, you heard Dr. Groves testify here today, and you have 

heard him testify a number of times before and have worked with 

him to help ensure that we get a better count going forward for less 

money. What did you hear from Dr. Groves today that you were especially pleased to hear? And what were the things that you did 

not hear that you wish you might have? Do you want to go first, 

Mr. Zinser. 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, I also had the opportunity to review Dr. 

Groves’s testimony before we came up today, and I have to say that 

I think that Dr. Groves’s observations, the observations from my office, and Mr. Goldenkoff’s observations are all right on the same 

page. I think that we are pretty much in agreement with what Dr. 

Groves has laid out. And I think that what we would want to see 

more of is more attention paid to some of the nuts and bolts management issues for budgeting and project management. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I am going to suspend right there. I 

said I wanted to ask Senator Brown to lead off because he has another hearing to run off to. I will come back and pick that up where 

we started. 

Scott, I am sorry. You go right ahead. Thank you. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So, Mr. Groves, the growth of completing the census has been 

unsustainable, as I talked about in the beginning, and where the 

measures of cost of counting each household, which has grown from 

$16 to $98 in 2010, from $4.1 billion to over $12 billion from 1990 

to 2010, and we cannot continue on. In your opinion, what has 

caused the explosive growth? 

Mr. GROVES. I think if you look over the decades, there are several drivers of it. One has to do—most of the drivers could focus 

in on the non-response follow-up procedures. People are sent mail 

questionnaires over the past decade— 

Senator BROWN. How much does the mail actually cost? Like, 

what does one of the mailings—because I know I got about 30 of 

them. That was after I sent it in. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

12 

1The chart submitted by Senator Brown appears in the appendix on page 147. 

Mr. GROVES. Well, what we said throughout the census this year, 

last year, was to return the mail questionnaire costs about 42 

cents. To call on your household costs us about $57. So that is the 

ratio that is so important in addressing your question. 

Senator BROWN. So it is still better, more effective, to do it via 

mail. 

Mr. GROVES. Yes. If mail worked 100 percent, it would be a very 

cheap census. It is a technique that works when it works. The 

problem is those rates are going down. As your chart1 shows, the 

black line is—the cost and the line are related to one another. 

When the returns do not come in, then we go out and knock on 

doors. We knocked on 47 million household— 

Senator BROWN. So you are saying that this—and people just 

looking, so that chart above the heads of everybody is the reduction, the 63 percent, which is the mail response rate and the 

money, the $98 million projected. That is not just mail. That is the 

follow-up of the phone calls, the door knocking. That is the whole 

shebang after. 

Mr. GROVES. Absolutely. And so this decade, we knocked on 47 

million household doors, and that cost a lot of money. So if you say 

how do you stop that trend, we are focusing on that follow-up procedure. What is driving those costs? And how do we reduce the 

number of households that require that expensive personal visit? 

Senator BROWN. And I know we had this conversation, so everyone who is listening is clear. So this is just people in households. 

This has nothing to do with people that are here legally or illegally. 

It is just people, period, right? 

Mr. GROVES. Our mandate under the Constitution, under the 

Census Act of 1790 that has been renewed, is that we count all 

residents. 

Senator BROWN. Whether they are here legally or not. 

Mr. GROVES. Correct. 

Senator BROWN. So do we have an accurate count of how many 

U.S. citizens are here? 

Mr. GROVES. The decennial Census does not have a question 

about citizenship. 

Senator BROWN. Isn’t that a little unusual? We are trying to find 

out, like, who is here, and we are giving monies to States and we 

are trying to make determinations as to who is representing who 

in Congress, and we do not even know how many U.S. citizens are 

in the States? 

Mr. GROVES. For purposes of the decennial Census under the 

law— 

Senator BROWN. Yes, but from— 

Mr. GROVES [continuing]. We count all— 

Senator BROWN. I know, but does it seem unusual that we would 

not do it that way as well and find out, okay, we have households 

and—and, by the way, we need to find out how many people are 

here who are United States citizens so we can divvy up the funds 

properly. Does that make sense, or am I missing something? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

13 

Mr. GROVES. There is a wonderful phrase in the Constitution, Article I, Section 2, that notes that Congress shall by law direct how 

the census is done. 

Senator BROWN. Right. 

Mr. GROVES. And I believe Congress has the power to change 

that. 

Senator BROWN. And I believe that is what we kind of talked 

about. We had a little bit of a go-round, and I appreciate you being 

consistent in making that recommendation. I am not sure if there 

is an effort to make that determination and give congressional 

guidance or change to do that. 

What performance measures should Congress track to ensure 

that the census keeps its promise to lower costs per housing unit 

in the 2010 and 2020 Census in the future? 

Mr. GROVES. I think there are various things that could be done, 

and they all go under the rubric of watching us over the early 

years of this decade. That is going to be key, to attend to our 

progress. We have constructed an integrated set of research steps 

that answer key questions, and every one of the questions is related both to cost and quality of the census. So we are going to be 

producing those answers over the coming years, if we are funded 

to do this. You should hear those answers, and you should be satisfied with those answers that we are moving in the right direction 

to keep that focus. It is critical. 

Senator BROWN. Could you do your job with half the money? 

Mr. GROVES. I do not know the answer to that. I think it is unlikely. I need to— 

Senator BROWN. Can you do it with $98 million for the next goround in 2020? 

Mr. GROVES. For $98 million or for— 

Senator BROWN. Or $98 per household. Do you— 

Mr. GROVES. I see. Per household. Well, I can tell you our goal 

is to reduce that red— 

Senator BROWN. Yes, what is the goal? Is it—to what? Do you 

have a number you are trying to shoot for? 

Mr. GROVES. We do not have a number. Let me tell you how we 

are addressing the cost estimation because this is relevant to Robert’s comments. We are doing modeling of different cost outcomes 

based on different scenarios, different assumptions. Our research is 

basically going to tell us as the months go by which of those assumptions are correct. So we will narrow in on the cost. But every 

research question we are addressing has cost impacts, and we want 

to share with you those answers to keep us honest on cost reduction. 

Senator BROWN. I want to apologize. I know the numbers we 

went over the other day and obviously earlier. I know it is about 

$12 billion to actually do what you did, and this is per household, 

$98. That is why I have these, and I do not use them enough, so 

I apologize. 

The 2000 Census included an Internet response option, yet the 

2010 Census did not as the census, again, relied on the same kind 

of mail-out, mail-back method used for decades. Meanwhile, the 

cost has escalated. Why decades into the Internet revolution did it 

not contain that option? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

14 

Mr. GROVES. This decision was made in the middle of the decade 

between 2000 and 2010. The reasons, I have been told, that led to 

that decision were concerns about security, IT security issues. 

At this point those are not valid. We are doing large numbers of 

sample surveys using the Internet. We have conquered the IT challenges on this quite successfully. As your chart shows, there are 

other countries that have been doing this for some time. We can 

do this. We are doing it. 

Senator COBURN. Do not give him credit for my chart. 

Mr. GROVES. Oh, I am sorry. Sorry. 

Senator BROWN. I am not. I am just reading down the order they 

gave me the questions here. [Laughter.] 

On that note I am not going to get the big guy mad, so here, I 

am all done. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Coburn, why don’t you jump in here. Reclaim your chart. 

Senator BROWN. I have seen his wrath. 

Senator COBURN. First of all, I want to say publicly how enthused I am that we have very super competent leadership at the 

Census, and I have great faith in Dr. Groves. I have seen what he 

took on, how he accomplished his mission, and his commitment to 

using science to make his organization more efficient. I am one of 

your big backers. I told you that in my office, and I appreciate the 

job that you have done and the people under you that have helped 

you accomplish that. 

How much do we spend on the American Community Survey 

(ACS) every year? 

Mr. GROVES. It is roughly $200 million. 

Senator COBURN. $200 million, and do you have plans to put the 

American Community Survey online? 

Mr. GROVES. We are actually in the middle of an Internet test 

on the ACS. It is a bigger challenge, I need to tell you, than the 

short form— 

Senator COBURN. Well, I understand. 

Mr. GROVES. But we are testing it right now. 

Senator COBURN. Just for history, the reason it was not on the 

Internet is there was a contract between Lockheed Martin and the 

Census to do an online test, and they came up with a garbage excuse that they could not manage the security when 72 percent of 

the income tax that is paid in this country, is online. 

This chart comes from England. I saw this in the paper last 

week, and I said I have to bring this and show this to Dr. Groves. 

The fact is that they are advertising, and they are saying get it 

done. Lockheed did it. The very contract we turned down they did 

for Great Britain, and it is working wonderfully over there. 

So we know it is possible I will not go through all of the questions that I have on Internet, but I think it is important. I know 

you are committed to bringing us up to speed, and we are going 

to save hundreds of millions of dollars annually if, in fact, we accomplish this task. 

What are the main management and operational challenges that 

you really faced during the 2010—I do not want you to take a long 

time with it, but what were your two big challenges? And how did 

you address them? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

15 

Mr. GROVES. Well, we had a fantastic team, I want you to know. 

The folks that followed up on the replanning efforts produced a lot 

of saved operations. The chief challenges were software challenges. 

We had a system that monitored the work flow that was not working properly for about 3 weeks. That was a scary time. We got it 

working, and it actually really purred along at the end. But the 

first few weeks were kind of scary. 

We were—well, let me stop at that. That was the chief management threat that we had. 

Senator COBURN. OK. For our GAO and IG witnesses, have either of you done any estimates on what you think the cost savings 

could be if we utilized the Internet in the census? 

Mr. ZINSER. We have not done an estimate like that, sir. 

Senator COBURN. OK. GAO? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. We have not either. You should know that 

there are some large up-front costs getting the system up and running, and those costs would need to be offset by the higher response rate. But we have not done any estimates as of yet. 

Senator COBURN. It is important that we go to the IRS and say, 

‘‘What are the problems you had in getting this going?’’ In other 

words, we learn from our experience rather than try to do it again. 

I hope that we are going to be doing that in terms of good correlation with their experiences and how they got this up and running 

and got the security going. We do not have to reinvent it every 

time we do something in the Government in terms of IT. 

Dr. Groves, let me go to one other question. Senator Brown asked 

you, Do you have the power to change the questions on the census? 

Mr. GROVES. On the decennial Census? 

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Mr. GROVES. The process by which the decennial Census questions are arrived at is a laborious one that brings in a whole lot 

of stakeholders. We then submit the questionnaire to Congress in 

the year that ends in 6, I think, and again in 7 for your review. 

So it is truly a collaborative process. 

Senator COBURN. Do we actually act on that? 

Mr. GROVES. I think that has varied over decades, Senator, on 

how Congress has reacted to that. 

Senator COBURN. Following up a little bit on Senator Brown, we 

could have a question in the decennial Census that asked: Are you 

a U.S. citizen? Are you a legal resident? Are you other? 

Mr. GROVES. That is a possible census— 

Senator COBURN. There is nothing that precludes us from asking 

that? 

Mr. GROVES. Not the way I understand it. 

Senator COBURN. OK. All right. That is what I wanted to make 

sure. 

The other thing is we had testimony by the IG. Why is it important to have a Census Director that spans Administrations? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Yes. What it comes down to is stewardship. 

The life cycle of a census spans the course of the decade, and several Presidential Administrations. To implement change, as you 

well know, can take years. And so what has happened in the runup to the 2010 Census, there was a lot of turnover among the Census Directors. If you look back, since 1969 the average tenure is 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

16 

about 3 years for the Census Director. The longest tenure was 5 

years. 

Senator COBURN. Yes. So my question to Dr. Groves: Are we 

going to get to keep you? 

Mr. GROVES. I do not believe I can answer that question. 

Senator COBURN. Well, if you were invited, are we going to get 

to keep you? 

Mr. GROVES. I do not know, Senator. 

Senator COBURN. I am saying it somewhat in humor, but it is not 

humorous. Continuity in agencies like this is really important. 

When we get great leadership, we should do everything to keep 

that leadership and to make sure that continuity and the management plan that goes with it is carried out. My hope and my wish 

would be that you, in fact—I will work on my side to make sure 

you get asked. You work on your side with your wife to make sure 

you can. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Just to follow up on Dr. Coburn’s last comment 

there, Senator Brown and I hosted a hearing in this room a couple 

of weeks ago with folks from the Department of Defense, GAO, and 

a couple of other witnesses, and the thing we focused on was major 

weapon systems cost overruns, which have grown from $42 billion 

in 2000 to $402 billion last year, almost a ten-fold increase over 10 

years. 

One of the things that we have learned, as Senator Coburn and 

I earlier drilled down in this stuff, is that it turns out that the folks 

in the Department of Defense at the senior level in charge of overseeing acquisition, development and acquisition of these major 

weapons systems, have huge turnover, an extended period of time 

where there is basically at the Assistant Secretary level nobody 

there. A lot of the direct reports are not in position, and no wonder 

we are just chasing our tail and not doing a very good job at it. 

So it is not just the census, but that is just—it is not uncommon, 

whether the President is George W. Bush or Barack Obama, to 

have something that looks like administrative Swiss cheese and 

Executive Branch Swiss cheese, and we have too many vacancies. 

One of the things that we have been working on—and Senator 

Schumer and Senator Alexander I think are providing good leadership here—is to reduce by about a third the number of positions 

that require confirmation. And we would love to not only do that, 

but also to be able to say that whoever is going to serve as our 

Census Director—and I hope it will be you—will serve for a 5-year 

term with the opportunity to go beyond that if there is interest in 

doing that. 

All right. I want to go back to the questions that I was asking 

of Mr. Zinser and Mr. Goldenkoff. What I was asking is what you 

heard from Dr. Groves in his testimony that you are very pleased 

with, and I think what you are saying is that the three of you, the 

entities that you represent, appear to be on the same page, which 

is nice to hear. And I will come back to you say what were maybe 

one or two things that you did not hear that you would like to have 

heard. But, Mr. Goldenkoff, let me ask of you first, what did you 

hear that you especially liked? And maybe mention a thing or two 

that you think that you would like to have heard. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

17 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, I think it is important to recognize that 

the Census Bureau sees that there are really two components to 

the challenges that they face going forward. The first component 

includes the need to refine and improve existing operations, in 

some cases develop new and innovative techniques, and bring on 

new technology, like the Internet. 

The second component, of course, is the internal management 

piece, things like human capital management, their organizational 

structure, and from what Dr. Groves said, he is addressing that as 

well. So it is important that they combat the issue of a cost-effective census from these two perspectives. 

What I would like to hear more about is a governance structure. 

The Census Bureau has a lot of tests; they have a lot of things in 

place, a lot of pieces of the puzzle. The big challenge going forward 

then is how is all this going to come together and how is it going 

to coalesce into a path to a more cost-effective census in 2020. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Zinser, anything that comes to mind that 

you did not hear that you would like to have? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, I think the things that we have pointed out in 

some of our reports deal with those kinds of nuts and bolts that 

Robert just talked about: Better budgeting, better project management. For example, with the number of activities and operations 

that make up a census, they need integration in their budgeting 

and project management documentation. 

I think risk management is an area where greater effort is called 

for. And I think if they can focus on those kinds of issues, eventually that will result in a more effective operation. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thanks. And on page 3 of your written testimony, Mr. Zinser, you mention top management challenges for 

the 2020 Census, and I think you mention maybe seven of them. 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Of those seven, just pick out one or two of what 

you think are the most critical challenges, and then I am going to 

ask Dr. Groves to comment on those, please. 

Mr. ZINSER. I think the most critical challenge that we identify 

is addressing the issue of the use of administrative records to help 

supplement the enumeration process. It is an area where— 

Senator CARPER. For example? Give us an example of that. 

Mr. ZINSER. Well, there are numerous Federal agencies that collect information about U.S. households, whether it is the Veterans 

Administration or the Social Security Administration, and there is 

a lot of data out there that other agencies have collected that the 

Census Bureau actually does use for some of its mission. 

I think that there are plans and exercises underway to try to figure out how to use that type of information, those administrative 

records, for the decennial. And I think if that type of information 

was used, we could reduce costs for many of the Census Bureau’s 

operations. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Would you comment on those points, Dr. 

Groves, please? 

Mr. GROVES. On the administrative records, let me frame the 

issue. When we examine our non-response follow-up outcomes, one 

negative sign in the 2010 Census is that 22 percent of the people 

where we knocked on their doors in a follow-up act, we never 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

18 

reached. We did not have data from them. And then under our 

rules, we seek information from a building manager or neighbor to 

determine the count of people inside those houses. 

Senator CARPER. Would you just pause for a second? Did you say 

22 percent of the people that you tried to follow up with because 

you had not heard from them initially, 22 percent never provided— 

Mr. GROVES. Right. And in— 

Senator CARPER. What percent would that be overall? 

Mr. GROVES. It is 22 percent of roughly 24 percent. So it ends 

up being a single-digit number in the— 

Senator CARPER. About 4 or 5 percent? 

Mr. GROVES. Yes, something like that. 

Senator CARPER. So roughly we heard from 95 percent of the people in the country, households or residents, and roughly— 

Mr. GROVES. Right, and that 22-percent figure should be compared in 2000 to 17 percent, so that is a move in the wrong direction. 

Now, I have also received e-mails of people saying, ‘‘Why are you 

asking me these questions? Because I have given you the answers 

already.’’ Now— 

Senator CARPER. In other formats? 

Mr. GROVES. Yes. They did not actually give them to us. They 

gave them to another Government agency. And they are right. And 

under our current procedures—under the old procedures we would 

not use those data in any way. So what the Inspector General is 

noting is that is a missed opportunity. We have people who would 

prefer us to use those data and not bother them again. But for a 

variety of reasons, we are not doing that. Some of them have to do 

with agreements with other agencies. 

Now, as a statistician, I think our first obligation is to answer 

the question, Could we get good data? What kinds of people are 

covered that way? What kinds of people are not? And we know that 

the records are inadequate for some subpopulation, so you would 

not want to use it that way. That could harm the quality of the 

census. And we need to check how the attributes of people are reported there. 

So you may recall, when I first testified in front of this Subcommittee after my confirmation, I noted that we added a test into 

the 2010 effort to see whether administrative records could cover 

the population. Well, we are in the middle of that test now, and 

that would be the first kind of technical answer. But I would hope 

Congress would talk about this because this is a change and we 

have to make sure everyone is comfortable with the change. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Well, we are pretty good at talking about 

things. We will certainly talk about that, too. Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Groves, the Commerce Department IG reported that the 

Census Bureau hired for the 2010 Census more than 140,000 temporary field employees who received training but worked 40 or 

fewer non-training production hours, costing the Bureau in excess 

of $80 million. What can be done in 2020 to avoid this waste of taxpayer money? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, we went back and diagnosed some of that. 

First of all, the IG’s figures I do not doubt. A lot of that occurred 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

19 

in the early operations. Let me tell you what happened. We actually underestimated the ability to recruit, hire, and train people 

that did a good job and stayed with us. We used production models 

from the 2000 cycle where the unemployment rate was much lower 

than it was in the 2010 cycle. We were able to hire people who 

really wanted the work. They put in a lot of hours. They were very 

good. They finished the work faster than we thought. 

One of the problems is, looking forward, getting good estimates 

of productivity next time that takes into account what the labor 

market conditions are at the time. We undershot what the production actually was. 

The second thing is sort of risk management on that. It is a very 

common tendency in production processes to make sure you 

produce on time, on schedule, and one way to reduce the risk as 

a manager is to overhire, and then you complete your test. We need 

to manage that process better, and we are talking about how to do 

that. 

Senator BROWN. Well, I know you also had some inquiries for 

folks that actually were not doing it the right way, and I know you 

and I talked about that a little bit. You seem to be the—Friday 

night you get a call from somebody saying, ‘‘Hey, by the way, did 

you know that this census worker did A, B, C, or D?’’ On one occasion, I guess, brought his dog to work with him, then he was told 

not to, and, in fact, then got— 

Senator CARPER. We actually have Senators who do that, don’t 

we? 

Senator BROWN. Yes. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. And they do not always behave well in the 

halls. 

Senator BROWN. These do. Nice try. 

Could you explain a little bit about those situations and how you 

handle them? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, there were a lot of situations. When you have 

600,000 people out on the street knocking on 47 million household 

doors, a lot of things happen. Some of them are wonderful things. 

Some of our enumerators actually saved lives because they knocked 

on a door where someone was in the middle of a heart attack and 

they— 

Senator BROWN. Probably because you guys were coming, that is 

why they had the heart attack. [Laughter.] 

Mr. GROVES. Others were bad things, so there were 700 incidents. About 35 percent of them against our enumerators, where 

people drew weapons on our enumerators. So it is a very complicated process. You have to watch it every day. We have wonderful people who jump on these incidents very quickly and manage 

them. We have pretty strict termination rules, so these are temporary employees— 

Senator BROWN. How many did you actually terminate then? 

Mr. GROVES. I actually do not know. I could get you this. I would 

be happy to do so. But there were a lot of terminations because 

there is not a lot of working with folk— 

Senator BROWN. If you could let the Chairman and I know how 

many folks were terminated during this last census for inapproH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

20 

priate behavior or just failure to do their jobs, that would be appreciated. You can just pick up the phone and call us. 

Mr. GROVES. Sure, I would be happy to do that. 

Senator BROWN. Do not reinvent the wheel. I do not want to do 

that. 

Just to explore a little bit what Dr. Coburn said, if you are going 

to use the Internet like that, what are the fraud prevention mechanisms in place in something like that? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, a lot has to do with IT security, encryption 

procedures— 

Senator BROWN. I mean just on the individual. How do you know 

the individual is—forget the illegal/legal issue, but what if it is 

somebody just visiting out of the country? 

Mr. GROVES. I think the key quality control procedures are similar on the Internet as they would be on paper. The same thing can 

happen on paper, and so we have reinterviewing procedures to double-check things. We have a lot of statistical techniques to look at 

outliers, data that do not look right, and we follow up on those 

cases. 

Senator BROWN. What about the availability of private industry 

technology such as mapping and address database systems? It 

seems like this group that you all—not you per se but the Census 

Bureau actually reinvents the wheel every 10 years. Is there any 

way to kind of incorporate everything that other people have been 

doing for generations now? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, on the mapping side, we are— 

Senator BROWN. Computer generations I mean. 

Mr. GROVES. Yes. All of these things we are pretty actively 

partnering in and reaching out to private industry. This is especially true on the mapping and geographical systems. We are doing 

a lot of work with a variety of companies. We are planning. Our 

great hope is to save the country money in about 2019 by continuously updating the address file, and we think that can be done with 

a lot of new partnerships. So if we can do that, you will see even 

more of that, hopefully. 

Senator BROWN. Great. Well, I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I 

have to get to the next hearing. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. I just want to say before you head for 

the next hearing, Dr. Coburn and I were here when the presentation was not as good and the news was not as good. 

Senator COBURN. In the 1960s. 

Senator CARPER. No, not in the 1960s. I think 6 years ago—not 

even that, 4 years ago. This is a lot better. I like to say if it is not 

perfect, make it better. We have room for improvement. What does 

Johnny Collins say about me? He says I am one of those people 

who believes in every pile of horse manure is a pony. [Laughter.] 

That is one of many things he says about me. 

All right. If I could, maybe a couple questions for Dr. Groves and 

then maybe one for Mr. Goldenkoff, maybe even one for Mr. Zinser, 

and then we will turn it over to our next panel. 

Dr. Groves, what is the Census doing to ensure that its plans for 

an Internet response option will succeed in 2020 given our experience from 2010? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

21 

Mr. GROVES. Well, we are doing a variety of things, and maybe 

the watch word on this is integration. I believe that the Internet 

operations we are using on other sample surveys are relevant to 

Internet usage in the 2020 decennial Census. We want to learn lessons from those. 

Second, the tricky thing for us this decade will be to do enough 

testing of the Internet that will stay nimble on devices. So the devices that will access the Internet in 2020 will be multi-fold. Some 

of them have not been conceived of yet. We want a modern set of 

alternative tools, devices to access the Internet, because we think 

that is the way to achieve this higher convenience. So we need a 

lot of tests of Internet, little, small tests, in order to learn incrementally and to stay fresh. We cannot lock into device-specific solutions. 

So the way we are avoiding that, we are spending a lot of time 

right now getting the base architecture straight. So these early 

years ought to get the infrastructure both technically and procedurally articulated, but allow the device-specific solutions to be unspecified at that time. Get the architecture right, then go forward, 

and at the last moment fix the device types. 

Senator CARPER. All right. What are the risks that the Census 

anticipated for employing an Internet response option? And what 

actions are planned to mitigate these risks? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, I have talked already about the IT security 

side, and the mitigation on that is actually the things we are going 

through now in production sample surveys. So I am pretty sure— 

I am confident that our IT security group is staying current with 

all of the threats that we have on IT systems, and they need to 

stay current, and they need to pay attention to our Internet tests 

on that. 

I think the other unknown will be the reaction of the American 

public, especially groups that are traditionally hard to enumerate, 

to Internet options as the decade goes by. As broadband access disperses throughout the different income groups, we need to watch 

in order to predict carefully how they are adapting to Internet use. 

And so our studies have to be wise on that so that we can estimate 

the costs, which will be related to what proportion choose the Internet for the 2020. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Goldenkoff, we are going to come back and 

talk a little bit more in this question with you about the Internet. 

We see from Dr. Coburn’s poster over here that—is this Canada? 

Senator COBURN. England. 

Senator CARPER. England. We see that in England they have 

been using the Internet, and as it turns out, I do not think they 

are the only country that has been using it. Some have done so 

with some success. Others have done so with failure. 

First of all, I do not know if you can mention a couple of countries that you think might be pretty good role models for us to look 

at and see what they are doing right, maybe a couple to look at 

to see what they did wrong. But how do we engage the assistance 

of other countries that have succeeded—my question here says how 

do we engage other counties, but I think it is how do we engage 

other countries to see where they have succeeded and where they 

have failed. The National Governors Association (NGA) has someH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

22 

thing called the Center for Best Practices, and it is an opportunity 

for Governors from States across the country to share what is 

working and to help other States that would like to learn from 

them. 

I do not know that we have a Center for Best Practices for nations like ours that want to learn how to do a census, conduct a 

census every 10 years and do it more accurately and most cost effectively, but it would be nice if we had something like that. So 

point us in the right direction. How do we engage the assistance 

of other countries that have done well doing this and have not done 

well? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. On the Internet alone or— 

Senator CARPER. Yes. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF [continuing]. Just a general census? 

Senator CARPER. No. Internet. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, Canada has been using the Internet, 

some other countries as well. I believe Brazil has used the Internet. 

I guess the Census Bureau—I do not want to speak for it, but are 

there liaisons or folks who liaison with other countries? 

Senator CARPER. Go ahead, Dr. Groves. Feel free. 

Mr. GROVES. Robert is right. We have an ongoing interchange 

with Statistics Canada that has actually been quite aggressive. We 

may have people up there right now. They are preparing for theirs. 

And we have gone back and forth. 

Brazil was a very interesting census this last year because they 

used hand-held devices for the entire country, so we sent a delegation down there. We are watching the U.K. It turns out that there 

is a small family of census people around the world who keep in 

touch. 

Senator CARPER. Isn’t that nice. 

Mr. GROVES. They are nice people. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. All right. Well, that is good to hear. That is 

good to hear. 

Maybe one for Mr. Zinser. The Census Bureau has a variety of 

ongoing evaluations in place to measure the overall effectiveness of 

the 2010 design. What steps should it take to ensure its researching and testing results drive decisions for future decennial operations? 

Mr. ZINSER. Well, I think the evaluations that they have underway right now are the best opportunity we have to know whether 

or not the census was of quality. If you ask the question right 

now—was the census a success—I do not think you can actually 

answer that until you get the results of their evaluations. 

I think Robert is right that the operations were a success and 

that the counts were delivered on time. But in terms of the overall 

quality of the census data, I think we need to wait for those evaluations, and then that will inform you in terms of how good the census actually was. 

Senator CARPER. OK. All right. And, Dr. Groves, back to you for 

another one, if I could. I think there has been some mention here 

that the Census is looking, I think it was said, at six different design options for the 2020 Census. Give us some idea when the Census will decide on a final design and what criteria will it use to 

make its final decision? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

23 

Mr. GROVES. We anticipate that late 2015 into the 2016 period 

we would have enough of the findings that the outlines of the design could be articulated. We are looking at right now six different 

alternatives, and I will not go through all of them, but they vary 

on how we keep up—how the address list works, how we keep it 

up; how we enumerate people, different modes at different sequences; and then how we organize the management of the census, 

how decentralized it is—remember, we had about 500 different 

local census offices this time—versus how centralized could it be. 

And that will determine infrastructure costs. 

So we are looking at all three of those dimensions, and we are 

narrowing things as each month goes by. As we get research findings, we will be able to drop options, and we would love to keep 

you up to date with our progress on that and tell you our decision 

process and our recommendations. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. Thank you. 

The last question is a question I ask panelists but on a wide 

range of issues, and that is, what should we be doing in this 

branch of government, the Legislative Branch of Government, to 

help make sure—in this case, how do we make sure that we get 

a more accurate census 9 years down the road and we get it in a 

more cost-effective way, better results, less money? And we are 

going to introduce legislation that is very similar to what Senator 

Coburn and I introduced last year that passed unanimously in the 

Senate. We are going to introduce legislation probably—when 

would you say? Tomorrow afternoon? Tomorrow morning? Maybe 

not that soon. But we would like to have your advice on what ought 

to be in there, and maybe what ought not to be in there. We would 

welcome that. I would ask you to give us that for the record. Folks 

on our Subcommittee have 2 weeks to submit questions, and if you 

would just respond promptly, we would be grateful. But one of the 

questions we will be submitting in writing is as we go forward with 

this legislative process, look at the legislation we offered last time, 

what is good about it, what should be changed, maybe what should 

be dropped, and we would appreciate your constructive criticism. 

And my sense, Dr. Groves, is that you are warming to your job, 

and it sounds like you have a good team around you. A friend of 

mine is a basketball coach. He has been coaching high school basketball in Delaware for about 25 years. I ran into him a couple 

months ago at the Special Olympics basketball tournament, which 

is hosted by the University of Delaware. It was a great day, a great 

weekend. And I walked into the Bob Carpenter Center there at the 

University of Delaware where the basketball tournament was going 

to take place. And while walking in with my basketball coach 

friend, we were talking about the lessons that we learned for life 

from athletic competition, all kinds of lessons we learned by virtue 

of playing sports. And he talked to me—I mention this as kind of 

timely coming right at the end of March Madness, but he said, ‘‘In 

basketball the best players are not just the ones who shoot the 

best. They are not necessarily the ones who rebound best or dribble 

best or pass best.’’ He said, ‘‘The best basketball players are the 

ones who make everybody else on the team better.’’ 

Think about that. The best basketball players are those who 

make everybody else on the team better. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

24 

Part of what GAO does and what our IGs are doing is trying to 

make sure that everybody on the team that you lead is better. And 

I think we are seeing improvement. Clearly we need to see more, 

but I am encouraged by the direction that we are taking. 

We thank each of you, one, for your leadership and, two, for your 

persistence in this goal to get better results for less money. Thank 

you. 

With that, we will dismiss this panel and invite the second panel 

forward. Thank you so much. 

Gentlemen, welcome. Good to see you. 

Dr. Thomas Cook, right now the State of Delaware, Governor 

Jack Markell, has a secretary of finance, and guess what his name 

is? 

Dr. COOK. Tom Cook. 

Senator CARPER. Thomas Cook. We call him ‘‘Tommy.’’ 

Nice to see you, Mr. Castro. We have one doctor, and should I 

call you Dr. Castro or is it just Mr. Castro? 

Mr. CASTRO. Mister. 

Senator CARPER. OK. And how about Mr. Vargas? Is it mister? 

Mr. VARGAS. Mister. 

Senator CARPER. OK. So it is. Two misters and a doctor. All 

right. I am going to just give a short introduction for each of you. 

We are happy that you are here. We appreciate your presence and 

your testimony before us. 

Daniel Castro is a Senior Analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, specializing in information technology policy. His research interests include health IT—that is one 

of mine, too—data privacy, e-commerce, e-government, electronic 

voting, information security and accessibility. He has experience in 

the private, nonprofit, and government sectors. Before joining the 

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Mr. Castro 

worked as an IT analyst at GAO—is that right? 

Mr. CASTRO. That is right. 

Senator CARPER. All right—where he audited IT security and 

management controls at various government agencies. He has a 

bachelor’s degree in foreign service from Georgetown University 

and a master’s degree in information security technology and management from Carnegie Mellon University, two very fine universities. 

Dr. Cook, Thomas M. Cook, is co-chair of the National Research 

Council’s Panel to Review the 2010 Census. He was elected to the 

National Academy of Engineering in 1995 for leadership in advancing operations research within the transportation industry, and he 

has served as President of the Institute of Management Sciences 

and the Institute for Operations Research and the Management 

Sciences (INFORMS). Pretty clever. He holds a master’s degree in 

business administration from Southern Methodist University—does 

that make you a mustang? 

Dr. COOK. It does, yes. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, a mustang—and a Ph.D. in operations research from the University of Texas. A longhorn, indeed. Hook ’em, 

horns. 

Finally, Mr. Vargas, Arturo Vargas, is the Executive Director of 

the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

25 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Castro appears in the appendix on page 103. 

a national membership organization of Latino policymakers and 

their supporters. Prior to joining the National Association of Latino 

Elected and Appointed Officials, Mr. Vargas was Vice President for 

community education and public policy at the Mexican American 

Legal Defense and Education Fund, where he supervised and directed the organization’s community education and leadership development programs. Mr. Vargas is nationally recognized as an expert in Latino demographic trends, electoral participation, voting 

rights, the census, and redistricting. That is a pretty good portfolio. 

All right, gentlemen. We are glad you are here. We appreciate 

your preparation for today’s hearing, and your entire statements 

will be made part of the record. If you would like to summarize, 

that would be fine. If you go over 5 minutes, that is all right. If 

you go way over 5 minutes, that is not all right, so I will rein you 

back in. But why don’t you lead us off, Mr. Castro. Again, welcome. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL CASTRO,1 SENIOR ANALYST, 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION FOUNDATION 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I commend you for exploring ways to use information technology to improve the census. 

As we heard today, the 2010 Census cost approximately $13 billion, 

more than any census before it, and in my view did not use IT efficiently or cost-effectively. This afternoon I would like to discuss a 

few specific recommendations for how the Census Bureau can better use IT in 2020. 

First, Congress should require the Census Bureau to allow individuals to submit their census form online. Worldwide, more than 

30 countries are providing or experimenting with an Internet response option for their census, including Canada, Singapore, Norway, and Australia. Allowing individuals to submit their form online would increase convenience, accessibility, and usability for citizens and improve accuracy, reduce costs, and increase security for 

the Census Bureau. 

For citizens, online forms can be made more user friendly than 

a paper form by providing contextual help and multilingual support. 

Some people with disabilities find an online form is easier to 

complete and return than a paper form because of the accessibility 

features available on computers, such as large text and screen 

readers. 

Collecting data online can also improve data accuracy over 

paper-based methods by better handling atypical responses, using 

automated error checking, and eliminating the errors that can 

occur during the scanning, decoding, and transcribing process. 

And perhaps most importantly, of course, using the Internet to 

collect census data can help reduce the cost of data collection by 

reducing the mailback costs, processing costs, and then the followup cost. 

In addition to allowing individuals to submit their census form 

line, the Census Bureau should incorporate current technology 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

26 

trends into its planning and operations. I want to briefly discuss 

three trends. 

First, cloud computing. Cloud computing is a term that refers to 

the practice of selling information technology as a service. Essentially, cloud computing allows organizations to rent computing 

power on an as-needed basis. An organization can scale up or down 

its IT usage according to demand. Organizations benefit from the 

flexibility that cloud computing offers them as they do not have to 

make long-term commitments or have fixed costs. Government 

agencies, for example, can better align cost with output by only 

paying for their actual use of IT rather than having to overbuild 

capacity based on potential demand. 

The concepts behind cloud computing—on-demand, scalable, and 

pay-per-use—make it ideal for applications such as the census, 

which have variable demand for resources. The computing resources needed by the Census Bureau peaked sharply during the 

rather short period of time when individuals and census workers 

are submitting responses but go unused at other times. This means 

that if the Census Bureau or its contractor use cloud computing, 

they would not need to invest in a large amount of IT infrastructure but could instead only pay for the actual resources used, and 

this can, of course, help eliminate government waste. 

The second technology trend that the Census Bureau should take 

into account is the proliferation of low-cost, high-performance mobile devices, such as smart phones and tablet PCs that access the 

Internet. Using a mobile device for data collection and address canvassing can allow census workers to enter data more accurately 

and efficiently. Rather than developing proprietary and expensive 

hand-held devices, as the Bureau chose to do in 2010, in the future 

it should use low-cost, off-the-shelf equipment, similar to what 

Brazil did. 

By developing platform-neutral mobile apps that run in the 

cloud, the Census Bureau can build data collection tools for census 

workers that will work on tomorrow’s mobile devices. In addition, 

if the Census Bureau uses off-the-shelf products in 2020—for example, a consumer-grade tablet PC—it could then donate these computers to low-income schools after the census is complete. 

Third, the Census Bureau should more actively engage with individuals who use social networks and mobile devices, which is an increasingly large share of the U.S. population. This can help achieve 

higher response rates and reduce the need for non-response followup, one of the most costly aspects of the census. 

In 2020, individuals will increasingly access the Internet on mobile devices. Therefore, the Census Bureau should be sure to incorporate tools to make it easier for individuals to complete the census 

using these devices. For example, technology like QR codes, which 

are kind of matrix barcodes, could give individuals the ability to 

point the camera of a smart phone at the census form and automatically be directed to their personal census form online. 

In short, the Census Bureau should use IT in the 2020 Census 

to not only improve existing operations but to find innovative ways 

to use technology to deliver more value to citizens. For example, 

the Census Bureau or even Congress may eventually decide that 

collecting data every decade no longer makes sense in a world that 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

27 

1The prepared statement of Dr. Cook appears in the appendix on page 117. 

demands real-time intelligence, and instead turn to population registers or other sources for this information. Given the rising cost 

of conducting the decennial Census, the Census Bureau should welcome the opportunity to use IT to reduce costs and improve quality. 

Certainly, technology is not a panacea, but it can help organizations like the Census Bureau achieve their mission more efficiently 

and effectively. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. That was really good. That was one of 

the best explanations of cloud computing that I have heard. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. And even I could understand that, so that is 

good. 

Dr. Cook, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. COOK,1 PH.D., CO–CHAIR, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL PANEL TO REVIEW THE 2010 

CENSUS 

Dr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, thank you for asking me to testify before you today. I am Tom Cook, co-chair of the National Research 

Council’s Panel to Review the 2010 Census. As such, I am pleased 

to be able to summarize the panel’s recently released interim report, ‘‘Change in the 2020 Census: Not Whether But How.’’ 

I also speak in the capacity in which I accepted the panel chairmanship in 2009—as an experienced systems engineer viewing the 

challenges of the decennial Census from anew. I trust that you understand that I speak on the panel’s behalf and the National Academies’ behalf when commenting on the panel’s interim report, but 

that, particularly when answering any questions you may have, my 

opinions are strictly my own and should not be construed as formal 

guidance from the panel or the Academies. 

The Panel to Review the 2010 Census is charged to provide an 

independent evaluation of the 2010 Census with an eye toward 

suggesting research and development for a more cost-effective 2020 

Census. In support of that work, the panel held five public meetings during the first year of operation, but many of our panel’s impressions were formed through the extensive series of 58 site visits 

conducted during 2010 to local offices, regional census centers, data 

capture sites, and other census support facilities. 

Our panel is not yet in a position to provide a thorough evaluation of the 2010 Census; much remains to be learned from the Bureau’s Census Coverage Measurement program and its procedural 

evaluations. But I think it is safe to note some broad outlines as 

a prelude to 2020 planning. Through our site visits, we were uniformly impressed by the dedication of the local and regional census 

staff—a workforce of exceptionally high quality. Yet the great paradox of the 2010 Census is that this high-quality workforce was 

made to execute plans and procedures that largely follow the 

scripts of the 1970 census. Moreover, in several key respects—including the failed attempt to fully develop the handheld computers, 

and the 2006 decision not to permit Internet response—the 2010 

Census was arguably more hindered than enabled by technology. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

28 

From our 18 months of work, I think that the panel is convinced 

that it is possible to make the 2020 Census much more efficient 

and cost-effective than its predecessors. However, the central 

premise of the report is that these significant efficiencies are possible if, and only if, there is a major transformation from the 40- 

year-old, paper-driven processes to processes that are facilitated 

using today’s technology. Successfully executing that major transformation will require: 

One, a senior management commitment to change that is publicly announced early in the process and continuously communicated throughout that transformation process; 

Two, continued and frequent involvement and oversight in the 

planning process from senior management representing key departments, including the field organization, not just headquarters; 

Three, adequate early investment in the research and planning 

phases of the transformation process; 

And, finally, external help for all phases of the transformation 

process from research and planning through development, testing, 

and implementation. I think this last point is really important. 

In the report, the panel’s core recommendations are attitudinal 

in nature. We suggest that the Census Bureau needs to put some 

stakes in the ground that should not be subject to debate, once 

agreed upon. As our ‘‘Not Whether But How’’ subtitle suggests, we 

think the Census Bureau should explore possible changes as real, 

viable options but not as purely hypothetical ideas. As has been observed in the past, increased use of administrative records data has 

been thought of as the ‘‘next big thing’’ for the next census, for at 

least the past three decennials. Until the question changes from 

simply whether a change could be made to precisely how and to 

what degree a change could be made, promising innovations will 

remain as merely hypothetical. 

In our report, we explicitly recommend that the Census Bureau 

set clear and publicly announced goals. We argue that the Bureau 

should commit to significantly reducing, not just containing, the 

per housing unit cost of the census, while limiting the extent of 

census error. Our experience with successful reengineering projects 

like the one we are anticipating in both the public and private sector is that setting bold goals is essential to underscore the need 

and the importance of that reengineering—again, to avoid it being 

a purely hypothetical exercise. 

The panel report identifies four high-priority topic areas for research and development for 2020 planning: 

First, the application of operations engineering to census field 

data collection operations; 

Second, emphasizing multiple modes of response to the census, 

including response via the Internet; 

Third, the use of administrative records-based information to 

supplement a variety of operations; 

And, fourth, the continuous improvement and updating of the 

Bureau’s geographic resources. 

A point to emphasize is that the Census Bureau should not reinvent the wheel but should build on the work from external experiences. It should learn from other countries, like we discussed earH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

29 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Vargas appears in the appendix on page 120. 

lier. We spent a lot of time in Canada, at least we spent a couple 

days in Canada—not a lot of time but a couple of days in Canada. 

Senator CARPER. Did it seem like a lot of time? 

Dr. COOK. Yes, it seemed like a lot of time. But it was very good 

time spent because they made huge progress with the Internet, but 

not only with the Internet but with the field automation as well. 

Senator CARPER. Those Canadians are clever, aren’t they? 

Dr. COOK. Yes, and we can learn a lot from them. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. 

Dr. COOK. The use of administrative records is an area where 

‘‘not whether but how’’ is particularly salient. As our report states, 

the idea of records as a wholesale substitution for the census is no 

longer the most interesting question, if it ever was. What is interesting or important to study is the extent to which records might 

be used throughout the census process—for updating the address 

list and inventories of group quarters facilities, a substitute to asking neighbors or landlords in ‘‘last resort’’ or proxy enumeration or, 

more critically, for possible cost reduction—as a possible supplement to non-response follow-up. 

To be sure, there are thorny legal and practical issues that must 

be worked through regarding the use of records, but the existence 

of those challenges should not stymie active exploration of the costquality trade-offs involved in using them. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I think I am out 

of time. 

Senator CARPER. Your time has expired. All right. Thanks so 

much, Dr. Cook, for that testimony. 

Mr. Vargas, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ARTURO VARGAS,1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS (NALEO) EDUCATIONAL FUND 

Mr. VARGAS. Good afternoon, Chairman Carper. Thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you again today— 

Senator CARPER. It is our pleasure. 

Mr. VARGAS. —on behalf of the NALEO Educational Fund, this 

time to discuss the results of the 2010 Census and planning for 

2020. 

We are one of the leading organizations in census policy development and public education. In 2010, we led the largest and most 

comprehensive privately funded census outreach program targeting 

the Nation’s more than 50 million Latinos. This effort included the 

participation of thousands of elected officials, community leaders, 

national and local organizations, schools, churches, businesses, and 

a partnership with the Spanish language media companies 

Univision, ImpreMedia, and Entravision. 

We believe the 2010 Census was generally a success in counting 

every single person living in the United States on April 1, 2010, as 

is constitutionally required, and we commend the Bureau for its 

undertaking. However, we believe that there was not a full count 

of the Latino population because of significant barriers, many of 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

30 

which are relevant to Census 2020. So we offer recommendations 

that we hope the Census Bureau will take into account. 

First, as has been previously discussed, we support the independence of the Census Bureau Directorship, making it a 5-year appointment, not coterminous with the Presidential Administration, 

and we will support provisions of law that you will introduce on 

that. 

There were several improvements in the 2010 Census questionnaire. The Bureau redesigned the format and wording of the questionnaire on race and Hispanic origin to obtain more accurate responses. However, confusion regarding the differences between the 

race and Hispanic origin questions persist. We encourage the Bureau to continue testing these questions to secure better data. 

The Bureau mailed out bilingual English and Spanish language 

forms directly to certain households for the first time. The Bureau’s 

own analysis shows this strategy led to higher mail response rates 

and, thus, cost savings. However, we experienced difficulties in obtaining information about the dissemination of these questionnaires. We urge the Bureau to consider how to make the information on distribution of bilingual questionnaires more useful to its 

partners and examine data in large centers of Latino population to 

determine where to distribute the bilingual form in the future. 

We applaud the Bureau for disseminating regular information on 

response rates. The Bureau provided this information in real time 

on its Web site, which is critical for local outreach efforts. However, 

we note that the Bureau’s Spanish language Web site was not as 

comprehensive as it was in English. 

The Bureau and its outreach partners experienced significant 

challenges in Texas’ colonia areas. Much of this was as a result of 

miscommunication between the Census Bureau personnel and the 

local community. In essence, the local community was not adequately informed by the Bureau of the strategies that the Bureau 

would use to count in the colonias, that they would not be receiving 

the form in the mail. This resulted in extreme confusion and mistrust of the Census, and as a result, local leaders lack such confidence in the 2020 Census that they are challenging the count. 

Senator CARPER. Say that again? 2020? 

Mr. VARGAS. 2010. I am sorry. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. VARGAS. We commend the Census Bureau for seeking the 

input of stakeholders such as ourselves and acting on several of our 

recommendations with regard to its media plan. However, despite 

our urging, the Bureau did not implement a significant communication strategy targeting native English-language-speaking Latinos. 

The Bureau and its contractors failed to recognize that a communications strategy aimed only at Spanish-dominant Latinos will not 

reach all of the Latino population. The Bureau needs to have a 

dual strategy of reaching both English-language-dominant and 

Spanish-dominant Latinos. 

We believe in a robust Partnership Program in making the census a success, and there were numerous cases where the vitality 

of local partnerships played a role in the success of initial local outreach. We recommend that the partnership specialists continue 

their efforts throughout NRFU operations. Many partner organizaH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

31 

tions had otherwise no avenues of contact with the Bureau when 

the mail-it-out/mail-it-back process ended. The Bureau should enhance its Partnership Program and make it an ongoing component 

of its outreach efforts on all census activities and between 

decennials. 

Now, with regard to promoting trust in confidentiality, we recommend that the Federal Government establish an interagency 

task force to educate all Federal agencies about the importance of 

promoting the Census 2020 and provide guidance on activities that 

promote public trust in the confidentiality of the census. The task 

force should develop best practices for State and local governments 

so that the public receives a consistent message regarding confidentiality. 

Before the census began, there was significant doubt among 

many whether the PATRIOT Act superseded other Federal law 

guaranteeing privacy in the census. The Department of Justice 

issued a letter only a month before Census Day stating that the 

PATRIOT Act did not override Title 13 of the U.S. Code. If the PATRIOT Act is renewed by the Congress, the Department of Justice 

should reissue a statement regarding the supremacy of census confidentiality well in advance of 2020, and the Bureau should actively 

publicize this fact. 

We also found a need for better communication and coordination 

between the Bureau’s national office and regional and local operations. At times national policies were not communicated effectively to local offices, and national headquarters was not aware of 

problems in the field. There were often inconsistent interpretation 

and implementation of practices between local offices. 

We believe that the Census Bureau’s Advisory Committees 

played an important role in guiding and monitoring critical census 

policies for 2010 and other census operations. The charter of the 

Decennial Advisory Committee has expired, and we appreciate Director Groves’ having worked with the committee to solicit recommendations for future advisory committees. We urge the Bureau 

to implement the recommendations so that a new advisory committee can provide input in the earliest stages of Census 2020 planning, including such discussions that we are having today about 

Internet responses. 

Finally, the Congress is considering a continuing resolution (CR) 

for fiscal year 2011. The House-passed version of the continuing 

resolution would appropriate 15 percent less than the President’s 

request. This proposed funding would have a detrimental impact on 

several important census activities, including planning for 2020. 

We urge the Senate to reject the House-passed version of the CR 

and to ensure that the Census Bureau has the resources needed to 

conduct the ACS and Census 2020 planning in a cost-effective manner. 

Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to testify before you. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you so much. 

I am going to come right back to you, Mr. Vargas, if I could, and 

I will ask each of you the same question, just a very brief question, 

and I would just ask for a very brief response. Then we will come 

back and follow up. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

32 

Mr. Vargas, do you think with respect to the census it is realistic 

for us to try to achieve in 2020 a better result, maybe a more accurate result for less money? 

Mr. VARGAS. Oh, absolutely, and I think some of the strategies 

we are discussing here about Internet responses are an important 

topic. However— 

Senator CARPER. You can just stop right there. I will come back. 

We will come back. 

Mr. VARGAS. OK. 

Senator CARPER. Same question, Dr. Cook. 

Dr. COOK. Absolutely, but I think that you should guard against 

overly conservative budgets. You should have a bold budget, an aggressive budget. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. Mr. Castro. 

Mr. CASTRO. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. That was pretty short. Good. Right to the point. 

All right. Mr. Vargas, you are sitting on that side of the table. 

If you were sitting on this side of the table, what would you be 

doing as a member of the Legislative Branch to try to ensure that 

in 2020 we actually achieve a better result, a more accurate result 

for less money? So if you were sitting over here, if you were Senator Vargas, the Honorable Vargas. 

Mr. VARGAS. The Honorable Vargas, not Hon. Vargas. [Laughter.] 

What I would do is set up certain milestones for the Census Bureau to reach between now and 2015 when the Bureau decides on 

the design of the 2020 Census. 

The one thing I was going to say with regard to Internet responses or any new way of taking the census, what we need to ensure is that we have the cooperation of the public. And however the 

census is conducted, it must be done in a way that the public actually trusts the confidentiality of the census. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

Dr. Cook. Senator Cook. We actually had a Senator Cook for 

many years, the mother of secretary of finance Tom Cook. 

Dr. COOK. What I would do is make sure that immediately ‘‘or 

very soon’’ you get a third-party, objective opinion, and maybe another one, of what the planning process is all about. That is one 

thing. 

The second thing is I would make sure that the planning process 

is adequately funded. That is where the cost will be driven, by the 

quality of that process. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Dr. COOK. And I would again suggest that it is a major overhaul, 

it is a blank-sheet-of-paper approach. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you, sir. Mr. Castro. 

Mr. CASTRO. I think the biggest challenge that I see in 2020— 

which would be a repeat of 2010 and 2000—is that the Census Bureau and many Government organizations are very risk averse to 

applying new technology and to have innovation, to have— 

Senator CARPER. Why do you suppose that is? 

Mr. CASTRO. Well, because they are judged mainly on performance, not cost savings, and Dr. Groves alluded to this when he 

talked about overstaffing and personnel. People overstaff on techH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

33 

1Gomez, Anna. June 23, 2011. http://www.naleo.org/2011—Images/Anna%20Gomez%20Broa 

dband%20Session.pdf (accessed August 15, 2011). 

nology as well. They use—but they know they will not get in trouble for—not what is innovative and new and exciting, and that is 

a real risk. 

Senator CARPER. That is a great point. All right. 

Mr. Vargas, back to you. A similar kind of question, but instead 

of having you put on a Senator hat and sitting on this side of the 

dais, put your hat on where Dr. Groves was sitting and you are the 

person who is the Director of the Census Bureau. What would you 

be focusing on to make sure we get better results for less money? 

Mr. VARGAS. Two things. One is I would continue to promote the 

Partnership Program so that the relationships that the Bureau established with community organizations and with community leaders are sustained as he suggested in his written testimony, so that 

come 2018, 2019, we are not investing large amounts of money to 

promote Census 2020. 

Number two, I would also make sure that I work with the Congress to ensure that every household has access to the Internet and 

to broadband. There is a disparity right now between African 

American and Latino households and white and Asian households 

in terms of access to the Internet. 

Now, responding to the census via the Internet would be terrific 

if you have the kind of capacity and accessibility that everyone else 

has. 

Senator CARPER. Give us some idea what the difference is between Internet access between families, say, of different ethnic origin. 

Mr. VARGAS. Well, certainly it is a cost factor. 

Senator CARPER. No. I am looking for percentages, like 50 percent, 60 percent, 70 percent. Do you know that? Do you have any 

idea? 

Mr. VARGAS. I do not know off the top of my head. 

Senator CARPER. We will just ask you to respond for the record. 

Mr. VARGAS. I would be happy to. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. 

INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD

According to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA), 68.8 percent of Asian, 68.3 percent of White non-Hispanic, 49.9 percent of 

Black, 46.1 percent of Native American and American Indian, and 45.2 percent of 

Hispanic households use broadband in the home.1

Senator CARPER. Dr. Cook, same question, please. 

Dr. COOK. If I were Dr. Groves, I would immerse myself in this 

planning process and make it the number one priority for the next 

several years. 

Number two, I would try to get some external help because I do 

not think all the resources required exist at the Census Bureau. 

And number three, I would make sure we had adequate funding 

for that planning process. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. You are on message. In 

my business we say that if you repeat the same thing over and 

over again, you are on message. That is good. Mr. Castro. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

34 

Mr. CASTRO. I would look to using technologies, specifically the 

Internet and mobile devices, for the communications side. We 

talked about the cost, 42 cents to send out a mail piece. It is a fraction of a cent to send out an e-mail or online notice on Facebook. 

In 10 years everyone is online, even the distributions with different 

demographics based on race. It is much higher when you talk about 

mobile phones and how different demographics use mobile phones 

for Internet access. It is very easy to communicate, and it is a lot 

cheaper. You might not get 100, but if you can do 90 percent at 

a fraction of a cent, that is a lot cheaper than 42 cents. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Dr. Cook. 

Dr. COOK. One other thought. If I were Dr. Groves, I would— 

Senator CARPER. You would get rid of that tie, wouldn’t you? 

Dr. COOK. Yes, first of all. But I would put some stakes in the 

ground. I would say we are going to do the Internet, we are going 

to automate the field, and we are going to look at other census bureaus for best practices. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. Thanks. 

Let me just ask maybe a couple of follow-up questions, and then 

we will call it an afternoon. I have to go over and start voting in 

a little bit. 

Let me come back, if I could, Mr. Vargas, to you for this next 

question. Much of the success of the 2010 decennial can be attributed to partnerships—you have alluded to that—with communitybased organizations. Could you just describe for us the value of the 

Partnership Program and assess for us, if you will, its overall effectiveness in ensuring fuller participation of hard-to-count groups? 

And what should the Census Bureau be doing in 2020, between 

now and 2020, to keep stakeholders better informed? 

Mr. VARGAS. Well, the value of the Partnership Program is that 

you have a staff of outreach workers who are developing relationships with trusted messengers in local communities. Individuals 

like myself who are willing to stand up and tell the people who believe me, telling them to believe the Census Bureau when they say 

that the census is safe and confidential. So the Partnership Program is absolutely key in that. 

But another thing that also worked extremely well in both 2000 

and 2010 was the paid advertising campaign, and that is something that I think the Bureau needs to continue investment in. 

What was important about the role of nonprofits organizations, 

though, this time around is that there were very little resources 

provided by State or local governments as there were in 2000—or 

in 2010 for organizations such as my own. 

Senator CARPER. Say that again? There was less? 

Mr. VARGAS. There was less. For example, California in 2000 

spent $24 million to promote the census within California. 

Senator CARPER. In what year? 

Mr. VARGAS. 2000. And in 2010, the amount was less than $1 

million. 

Senator CARPER. Did it have anything to do with their financial 

situation? 

Mr. VARGAS. It had everything to do with the recession, which 

is why the role of private foundations was so important. So I would 

also encourage the Bureau to maintain relationships with those 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

35 

foundations so that they are primed to be able to fund independent 

efforts come 2018 and 2019. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Good. Thank you. 

One for Dr. Cook and for Mr. Castro. In your statements, I believe you mentioned that other countries have used—in fact, I 

think each of you mentioned other countries have used the Internet 

to collect census data, and we have heard that from others, Senators as well as witnesses. But what has their experience been like, 

to the extent you can comment on it? Do you have any estimates 

of the range of the savings, the magnitude of the savings that could 

be expected, reasonably expected by using the Internet? What steps 

should the Bureau take to minimize security risks? Three parts. 

Dr. COOK. As I said, we spent some time in Canada, and they 

did not go on the Internet for an initial response because of a costsavings motivation. It was mostly because they basically thought it 

was the right thing to do. They did not know what the cost consequences would be before they went. They found that—well, what 

they say is a 30-percent take-up rate is their breakeven; if they get 

more than 30 percent, they start making lots of money on the 

Internet. But another interesting thing they found was that the 

quality of the response was significantly better on the Internet, 

and, therefore, they did not have to redo them. 

When they calculated the cost savings of the Internet, I am not 

sure they captured all the cost savings because some of those savings are probably hidden. For example, if you are on the Internet, 

you have real-time information of who has responded and who has 

not, which would avoid the necessity of somebody knocking on the 

door two or three times. 

The same thing is true with the field operations being automated. If that information is real-time and you can say do not go 

to that next house because we just received an Internet form, those 

things, that real-time response, I do not think they have even tried 

to measure the cost-effectiveness of that. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, that is a good point. 

Dr. COOK. I think that is a big one. 

Senator CARPER. That is a good point. 

Mr. Castro, do you want to take a shot at those couple questions? 

Do you want me to repeat them or are you okay? 

Mr. CASTRO. I think I have them. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. 

Mr. CASTRO. I will focus on what we can learn from other countries. In Canada, I think what was really interesting in 2011 this 

year, as they prepare to conduct their census, is that they are not 

spending a lot of money to rebuild their program. They are using 

what they did in 2006 with a small upgrade. That is a huge savings right there. Once you do it once, you do not have to keep doing 

it again and again. And as we see, once you do it for ACS or another survey program, you do not have to reinvent the wheel every 

time. 

The second big savings that I think we can see in a country like 

Singapore, what they have done is they have promoted the Internet 

response option as a cost-saving measure. So what that means is 

first you are given a mailing that says do it online; then you maybe 

are given another mailing saying do it online. Then you are given 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

36 

the option to do it by telephone in an automated manner, then 

through mail, and then through—so you get to the most expensive 

ways last, and that is another way of really driving costs in the 

right direction. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. Maybe one more, if I could, for 

you, Mr. Castro. You spoke in your testimony about cloud computing, but I want to come back and focus on it just a little bit 

more. But help us understand how the census can use cloud computing. And what specific applications do you see, since this is contracting for—you mentioned the needs for the technology, for the 

computer technologies, goes up and down. It is variable over the 

life of the census. And the Census Bureau would seem to be kind 

of an ideal candidate for this sort of thing. But just help us a little 

bit understand better how the census can use cloud computing. 

What specific applications do you see the census contracting for? 

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. So I guess in 2007, I did a model looking at 

the numbers that we had for the 2010 Census to look at the cost 

savings that were there, and one of the challenges that the Census 

Bureau cited at the time, the reason that they said an Internet response option might not have cost savings, is because it is so difficult for them to predict the response. So one of the great things 

about using cloud computing is you do not have to know this kind 

of intelligence ahead of time about what the actual response will 

be online. You do not need to know if everyone will go at 6:00 p.m. 

when they get home the day the forms arrive or if they take 2 

weeks to respond. You can just buy the capacity and buy the bandwidth and the server space and the processing power, and you will 

pay a fixed cost for that. It does not matter how much you use or 

when you use it because there is that much capacity available. And 

it is really important, I think, when we are talking about this that 

we talk about the option. There are different types of cloud computing. There are public clouds and there are private clouds. Right 

now most governments have been operating on the private cloud, 

which is basically spending a lot of the money and sharing it 

among government people. So, you are sharing resources within 

government. It is a lot cheaper when you share resources among 

everyone, including private companies and, public cloud offerings. 

So I think it is very important, when we look at cloud computing 

and how the Census Bureau can use it to drive savings, that public 

clouds are definitely on the table. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much. 

Sometimes I like to at the end of a hearing just ask you all if 

you would like to—I will not ask you to give the benediction, but 

I would like for you just to share with us a closing thought or two. 

And then I will offer a thought or two, and we will call it a day. 

Mr. Vargas, do you want to lead us in the benediction? Any closing thought? Maybe something that just pops up given the discussion we had with this panel, maybe looking back at the earlier 

panel, or just something that has been triggered by virtue of this 

conversation. 

Mr. VARGAS. I guess my final thought would be that I would express my appreciation to Director Groves, who stepped into a role 

that I do not think many people would have really been delighted 

to do, but he did so in an admirable fashion, and I think his leaderH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

37 

ship was critical at the time to make sure that this census was executed as well as it was, given everything that he inherited. 

And I would also express appreciation to the thousands and 

thousands and thousands of Americans across the country who 

partnered with the Census Bureau to pull it off. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. Dr. Cook. 

Dr. COOK. I guess my one thought is that the leadership of the 

Census Bureau ought to make the design of the 2020 Census the 

number one priority now. 

Senator CARPER. Really? 

Dr. COOK. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. 

Mr. Castro, any closing thought? 

Mr. CASTRO. I will be a little more specific on mine. I think it 

is interesting that the census, part of the Commerce Department, 

the Commerce Department is releasing a National Strategy for 

Trusted Identities in Cyberspace on Friday, and that is something 

that was not mentioned today, but I think that has huge implications for how the census can be done in 2020. I would just encourage you to look at that as well. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. 

A couple questions for Mr. Castro. I think I noted in your biography that you worked at GAO for a while. When were you there? 

Mr. CASTRO. In 2006. 

Senator CARPER. For one year? 

Mr. CASTRO. For one year. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Was it a pretty good year? 

Mr. CASTRO. It was a good year, got a lot done. 

Senator CARPER. What was your job then? 

Mr. CASTRO. I was an information security analyst. 

Senator CARPER. OK. I thought each of you did just a very nice 

job with your testimonies, and I thought you did an especially nice 

job taking some fairly complex concepts and making them, even for 

guys like me, understandable, which is no small gift. 

Dr. Cook, in looking at your background, I think you went to 

graduate school, maybe got your Ph.D. at the University of Texas? 

Dr. COOK. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. They have great athletic teams as well as good 

academics, and I am trying to remember last—was it last night 

when we had the women’s NCAA playoff? 

Dr. COOK. That was A&M, yes. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, it was A&M, but A&M and Notre Dame, 

and Texas A&M won. 

Now, I know from some of my friends who have gone to A&M 

and others who have gone to Texas that they do not always see eye 

to eye and there is like a friendly rivalry, kind of like Ohio State 

and Michigan. 

Dr. COOK. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Is there still that rivalry? 

Dr. COOK. Oh, yes, big time. 

Senator CARPER. When Texas A&M, the Aggie women basketball 

team, take it all and win the NCAA, how do they feel at the University of Texas about this, the home of— 

Dr. COOK. I have no idea. [Laughter.] 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

38 

I was in graduate school there and had no time for athletics. 

Senator CARPER. I understand. All right. 

I think the last thing I want to mention here is sort of putting 

all this in context—and I will go back to where I started off. We 

face huge budget deficits. We also have a growing population and 

a need to count us well, accurately, and so the next time that we 

try to figure out how many U.S. Representatives are going to go to 

particular States, large and small, what should they get? We want 

to be able to ensure that when city councils or county councils are 

apportioned that they actually get the numbers right and the apportionment right. One of the reasons why that is because we want 

people to sort of trust and believe in their political system. Democracy is a hard enough system anyway, but it is important that we 

get the numbers right and the apportionment right so that the 

right number of people get the right amount of representation. 

The other thing is that a fair amount of money is apportioned or 

distributed based on population, and we want to ensure that we do 

the best job that we can. So sort of putting this in context, why is 

it important for us to have an accurate census? Well, because there 

is a lot of money that flows from the census, either to the right 

places or, frankly, not the right places. And the other thing is sort 

of the basic bedrock of our democratic society is making sure we 

know how many people live in a particular place so they get the 

appropriate representation, at least the numbers of representation, 

hopefully the appropriate representation, too. 

And, last, to put it in context, we are having this battle not over 

the long-term budget. We are having what I call a skirmish now 

in terms of what are we going to pass for a spending plan for the 

next less than 6 months to fund the government to the end of this 

fiscal year, the end of September. Those are important issues, but 

the really big issues of what are we going to do for the next 6 years 

or the next 16 years to ratchet down our deficit and get it back in 

control. And we need to look in every nook and cranny of our Federal Government in order to find ways to do a lot of the traditional 

things that we have done better, more accurately, and more costeffectively. And some of the new things that come along, to be able 

to use—really to put in place what I call a culture of thrift in all 

aspects of our government. 

You all have been very helpful in your testimony today in helping us to look through this lens just a little differently, maybe look 

through a little different lens, to get us to that outcome, which we 

all seek, and that is better results for less money, or at least better 

results for not much more money. 

Dr. COOK. Less money. 

Senator CARPER. Maybe less, that would be good. That is what 

we are shooting for. 

All righty. Again, Members of our Subcommittee will have a couple of weeks to submit questions to you, and we would ask that if 

you get any questions, respond promptly. One of the questions you 

will probably get from me is the legislation that Senator Coburn 

and I sought to move last time, we are going to try to move similar 

legislation this time. We would welcome any thoughts that you 

have as to how we might amend our earlier version from the last 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

39 

Congress and add an aspect or two or maybe take something away 

or amend something. So we would welcome your input there. 

Again, you all have done a very nice job, and we are grateful to 

you for your time and for your input. 

With that, this hearing is—and I also want to say to our staffs, 

too, to our Democratic staff, to our Republican colleagues, how 

much we appreciate the work that they have done in preparing for 

this day and for the follow-up that will flow from it. 

All right. With that having been said, this hearing is adjourned. 

Thanks so much. 

[Whereupon, at 3:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(41) 

A P P E N D I X 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.001
42 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.002
43 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.003
44 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.004
45 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.005
46 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.006
47 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.007
48 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.008
49 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.009
50 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.010
51 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.011
52 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.012
53 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.013
54 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.014
55 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.015
56 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.016
57 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.017
58 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.018
59 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.019
60 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.020
61 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.021
62 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.022
63 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.023
64 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.024
65 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.025
66 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.026
67 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.027
68 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.028
69 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.029
70 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.030
71 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.031
72 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.032
73 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.033
74 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.034
75 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.035
76 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.036
77 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.037
78 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.038
79 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.039
80 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.040
81 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.041
82 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.042
83 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.043
84 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.044
85 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.045
86 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.046
87 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.047
88 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.048
89 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.049
90 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.050
91 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.051
92 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.052
93 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.053
94 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.054
95 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.055
96 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.056
97 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.057
98 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.058
99 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.059
100 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.060
101 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.061
102 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.062
103 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.063
104 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.064
105 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.065
106 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.066
107 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.067
108 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.068
109 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.069
110 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.070
111 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.071
112 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.072
113 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.073
114 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.074
115 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.075
116 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.076
117 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.077
118 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.078
119 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.079
120 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.080
121 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.081
122 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.082
123 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.083
124 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.084
125 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.085
126 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.086
127 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.087
128 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.088
129 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.089
130 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.090
131 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.091
132 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.092
133 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.093
134 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.094
135 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.095
136 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.096
137 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.097
138 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.098
139 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.099
140 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.100
141 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.101
142 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.102
143 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.103
144 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.104
145 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.105
146 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.106
147 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.113
148 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.107
149 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.108
150 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.109
151 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.110
152 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.111
153 

Æ 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67126.112