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

50–095 PDF 2009

2010 CENSUS: ASSESSING THE CENSUS BUREAU’S

PROGRESS

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY,

CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 11, 2008

Serial No. 110–172

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

——— ———

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

LAWRENCE HALLORAN, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

BILL SALI, Idaho

TONY HAYWOOD, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 11, 2008 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Murdock, Steven H., Director, U.S. Census Bureau, accompanied by Arnold A. Jackson, Associate Director for Decennial Census, and James

T. Tyler, Chief, Budget Division; Matthew Scire`, Director, Strategic

Issues, Government Accountability Office, accompanied by David

Powner, Director, Information Technology Management Issues; Jason

F. Providakes, Ph.D., senior vice president and general manager, Center for Enterprise Modernization, the MITRE Corp., accompanied by

Glenn Himes, executive director, MITRE; and Michael P. Murray, vice

president, census programs, Harris Corp. .................................................. 14

Murdock, Steven H. ................................................................................... 14

Murray, Michael P. ................................................................................... 55

Powner, David ........................................................................................... 39

Providakes, Jason F. ................................................................................. 39

Scire`, Matthew ........................................................................................... 22

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 8

Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 5

Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York:

Information concerning content determinations ..................................... 74

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 104

Murdock, Steven H., Director, U.S. Census Bureau, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 17

Murray, Michael P., vice president, census programs, Harris Corp., prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 57

Providakes, Jason F., Ph.D., senior vice president and general manager,

Center for Enterprise Modernization, the MITRE Corp., prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 42

Scire`, Matthew, Director, Strategic Issues, Government Accountability

Office, prepared statement of ....................................................................... 24

Waxman, Chairman Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the

State of California, prepared statement of ................................................. 3

(1)

2010 CENSUS: ASSESSING THE CENSUS

BUREAU’S PROGRESS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, JOINT WITH THE SUB- COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND

NATIONAL ARCHIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND

GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2154,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry A. Waxman (chairman

of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) presiding.

Present: Representatives Waxman, Maloney, Kucinich, Clay,

Watson, Sarbanes, Davis of Virginia, Shays, Turner, Issa,

McHenry, and Foxx.

Staff present from the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform: Kristin Amerling, general counsel; Karen Lightfoot, communications director and senior policy advisor; Mark Stephenson

and Anna Laitin, professional staff members; Earley Green, chief

clerk; Jen Berenholz, deputy clerk; Ella Hoffman, press assistant;

Zhongrui ‘‘JR’’ Deng, chief information officer; Larry Halloran, minority staff director; Jennifer Safavian, minority chief counsel for

oversight and investigations; John Cuaderes and Larry Brady, minority senior investigators and policy advisors; Patrick Lyden, minority parliamentarian and member services coordinator; Benjamin

Chance and Chris Espinoza, minority professional staff members;

and Ali Ahmad, minority deputy press secretary.

Staff present from the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives: Darryl Piggee, staff director/counsel;

Michelle Mitchell and Alissa Bonner, professional staff members;

Jean Gosa, clerk; and Charisma Williams, staff assistant.

Chairman WAXMAN. The meeting of the joint hearing of the committee and the subcommittee will come to order.

Two months ago, this committee held a hearing to examine a

contract to use hand-held computers to conduct the 2010 census.

We learned that due to serious mismanagement, the Census Bureau was forced to abandon its plans for the hand-held computers

and to revert to a paper census. These changes will cost the taxpayer up to $3 billion.

The costly decision to return to a paper census was avoidable.

For years, the Government Accountability Office and others auditors raised concerns about the Census Bureau’s management of the

contract. But the Census Bureau failed to respond to these concerns with any sense of leadership or urgency.

2

At the April hearing, the GAO witnesses described the situation

as unacceptable and a failure in management. Chairman Clay and

I called today’s hearing to find out what progress the Census Bureau has made since early April.

As promised at the April hearing, the Census Bureau has completed a re-plan for the paper-based non-response followup, an integrated project schedule and a software testing plan for address canvassing. The Bureau also has given its contractor, the Harris Corp.,

a new set of requirements for non-response followup. Today we will

ask GAO and the MITRE Corp. to provide their independent assessment of these plans and whether they provide a road map for

a successful 2010 census.

Already there are warning signs of further problems. After the

April joint committee hearing and at the request of Chairman Clay,

the Census Bureau directed MITRE to review Harris Corp.’s $1.3

billion cost estimate. MITRE concluded that the revised contract

with Harris Corp. should cost just $726 million, almost half of the

contractor’s original estimate.

The decennial census is an essential, constitutionally mandated

program. Its results have implications for congressional representation and for billions of dollars in Federal funding decisions. We

cannot afford to get this wrong. The 2010 census will take place in

less than 22 months. This date cannot be changed and it cannot

be delayed. The committee will not stop its efforts to determine

what went wrong, but our primary goal today will be getting the

census back on track.

Mr. Davis, I want to recognize you for an opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Henry A. Waxman follows:]

3

4

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Chairman Waxman, and

Chairman Clay. I appreciate your calling this hearing to continue

our committee’s oversight into the problems with the 2010 census.

As some of us have known for quite some time, and at our hearing on April 29th, it was revealed the decennial census is in peril.

Unfortunately, little has changed since we last met. While we do

need to continue to examine the root causes of the problem, our primary focus needs to be on the future and ensuring that the enumeration is successful.

Mr. Chairman, what worries me the most is that we are still no

closer to a solution today than we were 2 months ago. There is no

agreement between the Census Bureau and the prime contractor

on a revised technology platform. The decision to revert to a paper

system for non-response followups is still in planning stages. We no

longer have the luxury of measuring progress in months or even

weeks. Progress has to come daily, with very little room left for further error.

At the current glacial pace, I am afraid the Bureau will not be

ready to meet the one deadline that cannot be extended: the constitutional mandate to count all Americans in 2010. The situation

didn’t arise yesterday or even last month. GAO warned us of this

possibility 3 years ago. MITRE’s initial report containing serious

alarms about the technology program was issued a year ago. The

Census Bureau acknowledged the crisis 8 months ago. A decision

was made to dramatically alter the previous census plan 4 months

ago. Yet today we have only minimal progress toward finalizing

critical requirements and validating cost estimates for a successful

census.

Still, some of those warnings finally seem to have hit home. The

Census Bureau and the Commerce Department have focused on

linger problems with a new sense of urgency. Just as importantly,

improved communication and cooperation between the technology

contractor, Harris Corp., and the Bureau reduce the risk of continued sideways drift in the implementation of critical, time-sensitive

census preparations.

We should bring the same sense of urgency to our efforts to get

the 2010 census back on track. First and foremost, we need to help

the Bureau identify and secure the funding needed for the revised

2010 census plan. To do that, we need well-supported, should-cost

estimates of key census tasks and components. But today we will

be confronted with widely divergent figures.

I hope testimony at this hearing clarifies cost projections, flushes

out conflicting and unsupported assumptions and begins to reconcile those important numbers. Every minute and every dollar

matters as the clock ticks relentlessly toward 2010. This hearing

and others we will need to convene should mark essential benchmarks toward a successful census. I look forward to continuing a

constructive bipartisan approach to these issues.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Davis follows:]

5

6

7

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Chairman Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on

the progress of the 2010 census.

The first hearing of the Information Policy, Census, and National

Archives Subcommittee in the 110th Congress was entitled

‘‘Progress of the Reengineered 2010 Census,’’ and held on April 24,

2007. At that hearing, the subcommittee received testimony from

the Census Bureau, GAO and the Harris Corp. on several issues,

including the mobile computing devices, as the hand-held computers were called at that time; the Bureau’s plans to conduct a shortfrom only census; replacement of the long form with the American

Community Survey; and the Local Update of Census Addresses

Program, all critical components of the reengineered census.

At that hearing, GAO expressed concern about the lack of performance requirements for the field data collection automation program. Since then, we have learned about other serious problems,

problems that prompted the full committee to hold a joint hearing

with the subcommittee to examine the status of FDCA. The Census

Bureau and Harris vowed to work together to address this problem.

Since April 9th, the staff of the committee and subcommittee

have held a series of briefings with the Census Bureau, GAO, the

MITRE Corp. and Harris Corp. to get updates on the progress

made since the hearing. Staff has been assured by the Bureau and

Harris that progress is being made. We will find out today.

Mr. Chairman, although it is important to know what happened

and why it happened, my major interest today is in solutions; what

are the Census Bureau and the contractor doing to resolve all outstanding issues and get the 2010 census back on track? I do not

want to hear excuses. We are running out of time. We are less than

2 years away from census day. I expect to hear concrete and viable

plans today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]

8

9

10

11

12

13

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Clay.

Without objection, the record will stay open for any opening

statement that Members wish to put into the record.

We have with us for our witnesses the Honorable Steven H.

Murdock, the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau. Dr. Murdock is

the former State Demographer for Texas. He is accompanied by

Mr. Arnold Jackson, Associate Director for decennial census and

Mr. Jay Tyler, Budget Director for the Bureau.

Before we recognize the witnesses, I do want to recognize our colleague, Mr. Turner, for an opening statement.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you for allowing

me to make a statement. I apologize for running a little bit late to

get to the hearing. I want to thank you and our ranking member

for your attention to this issue on the progress of the 2010 decennial census.

It has been 2 months since our last hearing on the revamped

plans for the 2010 census. It has been 2 months, and yet many believe we have seen little progress. The Bureau has completed their

planning for the paper-based census, but little to no progress has

been made on key programs, such as addressing canvassing and

non-responsive followup.

Why is it that we are 1 year removed from the address canvassing dress rehearsal and yet the Bureau is just now presenting a

plan on how to move forward on this aspect of the 2010 census?

Clearly, this plan could have been presented and implemented

much earlier.

It has been 4 months since the Bureau changed to a paper nonresponsive followup, yet the Bureau just settled 5 days ago on the

requirements of this key aspect in 2010. In fact, it will be likely

mid-August until we know if the plans that they now have for the

paper census are even accomplishable.

Mr. Chairman, the Bureau is measuring success by their ability

to have plans. We should insist success be measured by their ability to run a census and not what they can produce on paper. The

decennial census is important for every person living in the United

States. It is important to me and for every Member of Congress

who wants to understand who their constituents are. We should

not settle for mediocrity, especially when we know this is something that can be done. After all, this is our country’s 23rd census,

so we know what we are asking for can be accomplished; we know

it can be done.

I hope this committee continues to oversee this very important

issue and I appreciate your holding these hearings. It is imperative

we get to the 2010 decennial census, that it get back on track. I

yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much.

Dr. Murdock will be joined by Mr. Arnold Jackson and Mr. Jay

Tyler. Mr. Matthew Scire` is the Director of Strategic Issues at the

GAO and oversees GAO’s work on the 2010 census. With him is

Mr. David Powner, Director of Information Technology Management Issues at GAO. Dr. Jason F. Providakes is the senior vice

president and general manager of the Center for Enterprise Modernization at MITRE Corp. Dr. Providakes has wide experience in

advising the Federal Government on information technology proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:43 Jul 22, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50095.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
14

grams. He is accompanied by Dr. Glenn Himes, MITRE’s executive

director. Mr. Michael Murray is vice president of census programs

at Harris Corp., and is responsible for the field data collection automation and MAF/Tiger programs.

We are pleased to welcome all of you to our hearing today. It is

the practice of this committee that all witnesses who testify do so

under oath. So I would like to ask everyone that is going to participate in answering questions and giving testimony to please rise

and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman WAXMAN. The record will indicate that all the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

Dr. Murdock, we want to start with you. Your prepared statements, and this is true for everyone, will be part of the record. We

would like to ask, if you would, to try to limit the oral presentation

to 5 minutes. We will have a clock, I will turn it on in a minute,

it will be green for 4 minutes, then the last minute it will turn yellow, then when the time is up, it will turn red. When you see the

red light, please plan to conclude.

There is a button on the base of the mic. Be sure it is on. We

are looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

STATEMENTS OF STEVEN H. MURDOCK, DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, ACCOMPANIED BY ARNOLD A. JACKSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR DECENNIAL CENSUS, AND JAMES T.

TYLER, CHIEF, BUDGET DIVISION; MATTHEW SCIRE` , DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID POWNER, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ISSUES; JASON F.

PROVIDAKES, PH.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, CENTER FOR ENTERPRISE MODERNIZATION, THE MITRE CORP., ACCOMPANIED BY GLENN HIMES,

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MITRE; AND MICHAEL P. MURRAY,

VICE PRESIDENT, CENSUS PROGRAMS, HARRIS CORP.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN H. MURDOCK

Mr. MURDOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I would like to thank all of you for the opportunity to brief

you again on the status of the 2010 census, and in particular, our

ongoing efforts to address the problems associated with the Field

Data Collection Automation [FDCA], program.

Recent hearings have appropriately focused on our contract with

the Harris Corp. and our efforts to rescope the FDCA program. As

you know, addressing the problems associated with FDCA has been

my priority since I arrived just a little over 5 months ago. After the

problems became clear, I established the risk reduction task force,

chaired by former Deputy Director William Barron. The task force’s

work was then reviewed by an expert panel established by the Secretary. The task force’s recommendations were confirmed by the expert panel and the Secretary made the decision that we should

move forward on a paper-based non-response followup operation,

while retaining the use of the hand-held computers in address canvassing.

15

In addition to our decision to move to a paper-based non-response followup operation, we have been laying the groundwork to

ensure that the remaining FDCA operations are successful. We are

making progress in our work with Harris and have begun embedding Census Bureau staff in Harris’ operations and incorporating

staff from Harris into the 2010 census operations. As a result, communication has improved. We produced our final requirements for

the paper-based NRFU operation on June 6th, and we have secured an agreement with Harris to provide their final cost estimates by July 15th.

We also have initiated a contingency planning process that is assessing our options relative to the FDCA process and contract. You

will hear today about the independent cost estimate we asked

MITRE Corp. to develop as part of our preparation for the upcoming negotiation with Harris, which we initiated in response to subcommittee Chairman Clay’s recommendation. This work by MITRE

has been extremely valuable to us.

As we work with Harris to finalize the terms for building and implementing an efficient and successful FDCA system, we will consider the independent cost estimate, as well as the specific information in Harris’ cost estimate, and our own understanding of the

critical functionality that the FDCA system must contain to ensure

a successful 2010 census. My commitment to the committee is that

our final contract will be clearly justified and that our management

of the contract will be transparent and rigorous.

I last appeared before this committee on April 9th. At that time,

I committed the Census Bureau to meeting three significant

deliverables. In 30 days, we would produce the detailed plans for

the paper-based NRFU operation. This was necessary because of

the decision to change the operation that had been made by the

Secretary.

In 45 days, we pledged to complete development of an integrated

schedule for all 2010 census operations. This was needed due to the

effects of the changes in the 2010 design, their impacts on other

parts of the census operations.

Finally, we committed that in 60 days, we would establish the

testing plan for the address canvassing operation. This was necessary because the task force had indicated and the expert panel

concurred that the existing plan for testing needed supplementation. Since that hearing, our decennial census staff has worked

around the clock, and I am proud to report that we met our deadlines for completing each of these three building blocks. As you requested, Mr. Chairman, we also have briefed your staff on each of

these deliverables.

In addition, we finalized the 2010 project management plan, developed the 2010 census risk register and finalized the 2010 census

risk management plan. This is a substantial body of work, and it

reflects the commitment of the Census Bureau staff and leadership

to establishing a framework to ensure a high quality 2010 census.

I am submitting each of these products for the record.

This work does not begin to cover the full range of 2010 census

operations. But the fundamental components of our work to address the problems with FDCA are now in place, and key work

products are at or nearly completed to ensure a successful 2010

16

census. It is important to remember that the FDCA contract is only

part of the 2010 census. Mr. Chairman, in our work together, it is

vital for this committee to be fully appraised on the full range of

ongoing decennial census operations. I will come back to the committee to discuss other crucial operations, including the communications program, the partnership program, the local update of

census addresses program, and other automated systems.

Thank you for the opportunity to bring you up to date on the

2010 census. I am joined by Arnold Jackson, the Associate Director

for decennial census, and Jay Tyler, chief of our Budget Division.

We will be happy to take your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murdock follows:]

17

18

19

20

21

22

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Murdock.

Mr. Scire`.

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW SCIRE`

Mr. SCIRE`. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee and subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the 2010 decennial census. With me is David Powner, Director

with GAO’s Information Technology Team, who has been reviewing

the Census Bureau’s major information technology investments.

Two months ago, we appeared before this committee to discuss

the Bureau’s plans for conducting the 2010 census. We highlighted

a number of challenges the Bureau faced and the need for action

along several fronts, including the redesign of the largest census

field operation non-response followup.

Today we can report that the Bureau has taken some important

steps toward preparing for 2010, though there remains uncertainty

and substantial risk. In April, the Director set the Bureau on a

path to produce three documents intended to strengthen implementation of the 2010 census. The Bureau has produced them, and as

a result of this committee’s continuing attention, the Bureau is another step closer to being prepared for conducting the 2010 census.

I will briefly outline some of the steps the Bureau has taken and

some of the uncertainty that remains. Last April, we noted that

moving to a paper-based, non-response followup operation would

mean that the Bureau may be unable to conduct a full dress rehearsal of its critical and largest field operation. At that time, we

said it would be important for the Bureau to specify how it would

provide assurance that this operation will be tested in the absence

of a full dress rehearsal.

On May 8th, the Bureau produced a NRFU operational concept

which provides an overview of the major activities, information

flows and systems that will be needed to complete non-response followup operations. However, it is not certain when and how the Bureau will test its revised plans for this operation.

In April, we also said that the Bureau needed to establish plans

for working around limitations in the technology to be used in address canvassing. The Bureau has done more to describe its workaround for large blocks, and last Friday produced an address canvassing testing plan. This plan describes various testing of operations and systems, including testing of software to be used in

large blocks. The plan also envisions conducting a partial re-do of

the dress rehearsal to validate the functionality of the entire system.

I will defer to my colleague in describing the Bureau’s plans for

testing this key field data collection automation system.

Three weeks ago, the Bureau produced an integrated schedule of

over 11,000 activity milestones, as well as a summary of 175 key

operational milestones. Nonetheless, the Bureau does not include

among its list of key milestones a date when it expects to complete

testing of its systems and operations for non-response followup.

Last week, the Bureau produced a revised summary of high-level

risks. But it has yet to assess project risk associated with its movement to a paper-based operation.

23

We are currently reviewing in greater detail the summary of key

milestones, the integrated schedule of milestones as well as the recently completed risk management documentation. Going forward,

it will be important for the Bureau to ensure that among the key

milestones and activities highlighted for oversight are those whose

success or failure represent the greatest impact on the ultimate

cost and quality of the 2010 census.

The Bureau has taken some additional steps to manage its revised operations. It added temporary action officers to its 2010 governance structure. These officers ensure tasks and milestones for

six key objectives, including preparing a testing plan, are met. The

Bureau has also established regular status reporting from teams

and action officers and the Bureau Director has a standing weekly

meeting with the Deputy Secretary.

In April, we emphasized the urgent need for the Bureau to address significant and longstanding weaknesses in managing information technology. We do so again today. In April, we said that the

Bureau needed to finalize requirements for its field data collection

automation contract. Today, the Bureau has finalized these requirements, but does not expect to finalize costs until mid-August.

Going forward, it will be important for the Bureau to aggressively

manage its key information technology investments.

I will turn it over to Mr. Powner to expand on this. Before I do,

I want to thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you

today. As in the past, we look forward to supporting this committee’s efforts. I would be glad to take any questions that you may

have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scire` follows:]

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Powner.

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. POWNER

Mr. POWNER. Chairman Waxman, Mr. Clay, Ranking Members

Davis, Turner and members of the committee, thank you for holding this hearing. I have a few brief comments to make on the

FDCA re-plan.

First, Commerce Department Executive Director Murdock and

Mr. Jackson deserve credit for strengthening the FDCA program

office leadership and governance. They have assigned a seasoned

program manager to the FDCA program, hired an IT expert to help

in overseeing the contractor and have improved oversight of and

communication with the contractor.

In addition, their use of MITRE in evaluating FDCA costs and

providing expert advice in other areas has greatly assisted in contractor oversight.

Regarding FDCA’s costs, the difference between the Harris rough order of magnitude estimate of $1.3 billion and MITRE’s independent estimate of $726 million raises significant questions and concerns. Starting with some history here, MITRE provided independent cost estimates on the FDCA program prior to contract awarded

in April 2006 and again in the fall of 2007. Both of those estimates

turned out to be roughly $20 million higher than Harris’ estimates

at that time. This is typical, as independent estimates are usually

higher than program or contractor estimates.

We agree with Mr. Murray’s written statement, which says we

should not expend too much energy comparing the rough order of

magnitude estimate to the detailed estimate and that the key comparison needs to occur after Harris delivers their detailed estimate

on July 15th. I would like to stress that it is extremely important

to have this estimate by mid-July to have ample time to analyze

and reconcile the estimates and to explore all options. But given

how MITRE and Harris estimates have been relatively similar over

the past 2 years, to have a nearly $500 million to $600 million

delta at this point in time is mind-boggling and makes no sense.

These differences need to be reconciled. Moving forward, it is important that once Harris delivers their detailed estimate by midJuly that these estimates and their assumptions are completely understood and reconciled so the Government can explore all options

and aggressively renegotiate a reasonable, revised contract cost for

the FDCA program.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your oversight and I look forward

to your questions.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Powner.

Dr. Providakes.

STATEMENT OF JASON PROVIDAKES

Mr. PROVIDAKES. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity

you have given to the MITRE Corp. to update the committee on the

U.S. Census Bureau’s progress in achieving successful 2010 decennial census.

Today I will focus on the progress since we appeared before this

committee on April 9th. Accompanying me today is my colleague,

40

Dr. Glenn Himes, the executive director of civilian agencies at

MITRE, plus enterprise modernization as well.

The MITRE Corp. is a not-for-profit organization chartered to

work in the public interest. MITRE manages three federally funded

research and development centers [FFRDCs], one for the Department of Defense, one for the Federal Aviation Administration and

one for the Internal Revenue Service. A federally funded research

and development center is a unique organization that assists the

U.S. Government in scientific research and analyses, development

and acquisition and/or systems engineering integration of large programs.

FFRDCs are established and designed for the purpose of engaging with Government, over the long term, to address these longterm, complex problems. FFRDC operates in the public interest

with objectivity, independence, freedom from conflict of interest

and full disclosure of their affairs to their respective Government

sponsors. It continues to be our privilege to serve with the talented

engineers and other professionals who support the Census Bureau

in its efforts to prepare for the 2010 census.

We are pleased to report today that the Bureau has demonstrated substantial improvements in the last 2 months. In April

2008, the Director of Census Bureau asked MITRE to provide recommendations on how to improve the Bureau’s management of the

FDCA program. MITRE worked with the census leaders to define

and implement a program improvement road map that consisted of

plans, schedules and processes. Census assigned action offers to

lead and be accountable for progress in each area. Each action officer developed milestones and reported status to the Director on a

regular basis.

Although these activities began only 2 months ago, substantial

progress has been accomplished. Census developed or updated its

program management plan, its risk management process, its communications plan, a program testing plan and an integrated schedule over the past 2 months. An operations center and Web site are

being developed to improve access to key program status and information for full transparency. Managers are responding quickly to

requests for document reviews and approvals, which is creating a

faster decision tempo. As a result, the Census Bureau has improved its ability to monitor and control its programs.

The decision to implement a paper-based non-response followup

operation represented a major change to the decennial census that

required substantial changes to existing plans. In only 2 months,

census developed and delivered an operational concept that depicts

the major steps in the non-response operations and highlights the

related information flows. The documentation describing the reduction in scope for the paper-based non-response followup was delivered to the Harris team on schedule on June 6, 2008. Accomplishing these urgent activities was another major accomplishment for

the Census Bureau.

Finally, based on a request from this committee, the Director of

the Census Bureau asked the MITRE Corp. to update the estimated costs of the FDCA contract to account for changes, primarily

reductions in the scope of the program. MITRE completed the update in May. Our estimate of the life cycle costs for FDCA is $726

41

million. This is substantially lower than the rough order of magnitude estimate of $1.3 billion provided by the contract of the Harris Corp. The assumptions behind our cost estimate and the general methodology have been reviewed by members of your staff, the

Government Accountability Office, the Office of Management and

Budget, the Department of Commerce, the Commerce Office of Inspector General and the Bureau of Census and the Harris Corp.

MITRE has high confidence that the program can be accomplished at the estimated cost. Although some of the check technologies that are relevant to the program have changed in the past

2 years, we believe technology is sufficiently mature to perform the

program at the estimated costs. Our confidence in our estimate is

not based solely on the maturity of our cost model. Our confidence

is also based on our ability to develop a technical reference model

that can be rapidly implemented of a proof of concept demonstration on a commercially available hand-held computer.

We remain committed to helping the Census Bureau overcome

the current challenges to the FDCA program to enable a successful

census. Thank you for inviting us to this hearing. We would be

happy to answer all your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Providakes follows:]

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Murray.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. MURRAY

Mr. MURRAY. Chairman Waxman, members of this distinguished

committee, thank you for the opportunity to update you on Harris

Corp.’s role in supporting the U.S. Department of Commerce and

the Census Bureau in the modernization and automation of the

2010 decennial census.

In April, we reported to this committee on the status of the field

data collection automation project for which Harris is providing

contract support. At that time, we were working with the Census

Bureau to address the next steps in this critical project. I would

like to provide an update on our progress in supporting the most

technologically advanced census in our country’s history.

Together we are making solid progress toward the implementation of a fully integrated system for the 2010 decennial census. The

Harris team is confident that based on progress to date, both the

mobile computing environment and the office computing environment will be ready to support a successful decennial address canvassing operation. The dress rehearsal address canvassing conducted in April 2007 was a valuable field operational test. Some

items worked very well. For example, the hand-held computers

used in dress rehearsal were intuitive, secure and easily used by

people with limited experience. Map spots were collected for over

500,000 addresses. The Harris team demonstrated the ability to

successfully provide secure, over-the-air software upgrades during

operations to correct problems and maintain operational effectiveness.

The dress rehearsal provided insight and feedback into areas

where improvements were needed, which was the reason for conducting dress rehearsal. Since that time, Harris has worked closely

with the Census Bureau to incorporate these needed improvements.

There are three key accomplishments that have been completed

since the last hearing: the completion of the system requirements

review, the completion of the detailed design review and the start

of the production process for the 150,000 address canvassing handheld computers. These milestones reflect the most recent progress

and there are other important milestones that must be met in the

coming months.

For example, by December of this year, just six short months

from now, we must ensure that 150 early local census offices are

in place and fully integrated into a nationwide census network in

support of the decennial address canvassing operation. This is a

milestone that will require tremendous cooperation and will mark

a significant achievement toward the 2010 decennial census goal.

In recent weeks, there have been questions about the differences

in cost estimates provided for this project. I would like to address

these differences and explain how they arose. In January, Harris

was asked to provide a rough order of magnitude [ROM], to project

the total budget impact as a result of the updated requirements.

Harris developed this ROM over a short, 2-week period.

56

In April, the Census Bureau tasked a separate contractor, the

MITRE Corp., with developing an independent Government cost estimate model in response to the subcommittee’s recommendation.

There are significant differences between the ROM delivered by

Harris and the estimate prepared by MITRE. However, the numbers projected separately by Harris and MITRE cannot be compared because they were based on independent assumptions. Harris is jointly working with the Census Bureau to develop a detailed

proposal consistent with the requirements which will include the

updated program costs. The updated program cost, developed with

complete transparency, will be formally delivered to the Census

Bureau in mid-July.

I would also like to note several positive changes that have taken

place in the relationship between the Department of Commerce,

the Census Bureau and Harris Corp. over the last 2 months that

are making a difference in the long-term success of this project.

Specifically, through enhanced communication and collaboration,

we are making more timely decisions, elevating and resolving problems, and are setting the framework for a more structured program

execution.

Finally, I would like to remind both the committee and our colleagues that we have a shared goal, and that is to ensure the 2010

decennial census is the most accurate, most complete and most secure in our Nation’s history. We are grateful to Secretary Gutierrez

and Director Murdock for their commitment in fostering commitment and collaboration. Time is of the essence, and we must focus

on the important benchmarks and near-term milestones that we

will need to meet in the coming months to reach that shared goal.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the

opportunity to testify before you, and look forward to answering

your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murray follows:]

57

58

59

60

61

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Murray. I thank

all of you for your presentation to us.

In March, the Government Accountability Office designated the

decennial census as a high-risk area. This came after years of

warning from GAO about weaknesses in operational planning, contract management and cost estimation, among other issues. At our

April hearing, the GAO witnesses warned that the redesign of the

decennial census created new risks that the Census Bureau would

need to manage. Asked about the specific risks that he would focus

on, Mr. Powner listed stabilizing requirements for the Harris contract, managing the interfaces between systems, and the need for

extensive testing.

Mr. Scire` and Mr. Powner, it has been 2 months since you

flagged these risks at our last hearing, has the Census Bureau

taken adequate action to mitigate these risks?

Mr. POWNER. Regarding the requirements, there has been a fair

amount of work, and credit, as Dr. Providakes pointed out, is warranted here in the requirements area. I would refer to the requirements as stable now. There still will be some changes, but we are

not in a requirements instability phase. So good progress there.

In regard to the interfaces and the testing, there is still a lot of

work that remains. Those test plans need to be put in place, then

ultimately the execution of those test plans are where the rubber

is really going to meet the road, and we are going to see whether

there is progress with actual data in hand.

So testing is still a major TBD.

Chairman WAXMAN. Let me ask a question more generally. What

are the key risks still facing the decennial census as a whole, and

what more would you do to mitigate them?

Mr. POWNER. There are several key risks. First of all, I think we

need to come to agreement on the cost here. This wide range, I

know we have a delta, we need the final estimate from Harris in

mid-July, then really reconcile those differences, because there are

opportunities to whittle that cost down from the $1.3 billion.

Going forward, schedule is the major risk. There is a lot to do

with little time. So we are going to face schedule risks in all these

areas, whether it is the technologies, and I will defer to Mr. Scire`

to talk about getting the key operations in place.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Scire`.

Mr. SCIRE`. What I would add to that is, the key areas that we

think need to be focused on are the non-response followup operations and the testing that they need to do to demonstrate that

they will be ready to go forward with this paper-based operation.

We don’t yet see the specifics in terms of plans for how they are

going to test or what sort of assurances that they will be providing

for you, that they will be prepared to conduct non-response followup.

I would also draw attention to the operations control system,

which is another deliverable for the contractor. And of course, that

is the brains of the operation. It is used in all the different field

operations. It has had some problems in its use in the paper-based

operations that have been tested so far, where the field ended up

having to work around and use manual systems.

62

So I think it important that we keep attention on the progress

in getting the operations control system in place and for demonstrating that it will perform what is expected of it.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you.

Dr. Murdock and Mr. Jackson, would you care to respond? Do

you agree that these are the key risks to the Decennial moving forward?

Mr. MURDOCK. Certainly these are very important risks that we

are taking very seriously and making very concerted efforts to address them. I will let Mr. Jackson talk in more specific terms.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, the risks that were cited I think

were cost, schedule and testing. Cost will be negotiated in the July

15th replan negotiations. We are very confident moving forward

that we will be able to reconcile what might appear to be major differences. Now there are, as Harris Corp. pointed out, and MITRE,

assumption differences that need to be reconciled. Our approach

has been to not pre-negotiate or to negotiate in public but to take

the MITRE information and to seek a fair price for the work we

need when those negotiations ensue July 15th. I am confident that

we will be able to do that.

Second, regarding schedule, schedule is tight. The decennial census process is typically done in the framework of a tight schedule.

We are in the process, however, of developing contingencies and

rapid decisionmaking, other tools and techniques to try to mitigate

the risks of a tight schedule. But I would not deny that the schedule is tight and has gotten tighter as we have heeded GAO’s recommendations and MITRE’s to do more testing, which I think was

the third risk mentioned.

In the whole area of testing, our testing program is targeted

around the sequence of operations that need to be done. According,

the address canvassing operation, which launches next April, we do

have a test plan, and to date, the interfaces part of that plan has

been completed. While we would prefer to have it all done, we will

then proceed to non-response followup testing, which will start in

January 2009. We are still, as was said earlier, working toward a

firm end date.

I would just say, as a note on the non-response followup, when

we remove the hand-held computer and return to a paper-based

non-response followup, while the need for testing did not diminish,

it certainly declined in terms of its importance, in a sense. We have

done paper-based non-response followup many times, and that is

just one point. The real point is that the remaining systems in nonresponse followup are very similar to the back-end systems that are

in address canvassing. You have heard mention of paper-based operations. Well, that is what non-response followup is.

So the testing that is now left to be done of the automated systems will be done, it will be rigorous. However, we bear the benefit

of those systems mirroring the systems that back up address canvassing.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. At the last hearing, talking to Mr.

Murdock, the April 9th hearing record I think is unequivocally

clear in pointing to the failure of the Bureau to identify, articulate

63

and deliver to Harris in a timely manner the requirements that

were needed. Although the Bureau was turning to a paper-based

system, there remained several technology aspects of the FDCA

program that have yet to have all the requirements fully defined.

At the last hearing, you indicated to this committee that the only

FDCA requirements remaining were those having to do with the

decision to revert to a paper-based NRFU. We have documentation

that shows this is really not the case.

Why is it that the Bureau continues to change the NRFU requirements at this late date, after testifying that it wouldn’t?

Mr. MURDOCK. When we look at these requirements, we see

them, many of them, as clarifications. I think one of the great

strides forward that we have had in the last couple of months is

working out with the Harris Corp. our disagreements, if you will,

our differences relative to how we evaluate specific aspects of our

program. That is one of them. We believed at the time and we believe now that those are not new requirements; but rather, in many

cases they were specifications or clarifications of the requirements.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Isn’t it reasonable to say the program remains in crisis until the requirements process is really wrapped

up?

Mr. MURDOCK. We believe the requirements process is basically

wrapped up. We provided the last set of requirements, and I think

Mr. Murray would agree with us, we have basically clarified that

and there are not questions out there, to any great extent, on differences in requirements.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. In most cases, you are still adding costs

and changing the scope of the program by adding requirements,

even if you define the requirements needs of the Bureau as only

clarifications. Now, considering the increased costs and the expanded scope, do you agree that the amount of clarifications need

to be kept to a minimum?

Mr. MURDOCK. We certainly are trying to stabilize the program

to ensure that we all have a clear and consistent and agreed-upon

road map going forward. I believe that is happening.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. What do you have in place to make sure

that requirements, both new and clarifications, are kept under control?

Mr. MURDOCK. We have a very clear process of decisionmaking;

we have created a management plan that requires that changes go

through a change review process; and that process goes through

several layers of decisionmakers to ensure that any changes that

are made are absolutely essential. They end up on Mr. Jackson’s

desk, where he makes the ultimate decision regarding such potential changes.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Why is it taking so long to finalize the

requirements for address canvassing?

Mr. MURDOCK. We believe those are finalized. As I indicated a

minute ago, there were disagreements about some of those, but we

believe that process is basically completed now.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Well, the dress rehearsal ended in June

2007. You supposedly had the final requirements identified in January 2008. But we are still negotiating requirements or clarifications. Given the amount of time from the dress rehearsal until

64

now, are you telling me now that we are through with the requirements, that this is the clarifications, that it is done as we sit here

today? Or are there still clarifications and issues that we have not

come to closure on?

Mr. MURDOCK. We believe that the requirements have basically

been resolved to both of our—we agree to them and that we basically have resolved those issues and that we are today sitting at

a place where we know jointly, ourselves and the Harris Corp.,

where to go, how to get there and are proceeding to do so.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Let me ask the other participants, do you

agree with that? Mr. Powner.

Mr. POWNER. Regarding the requirements, there were requirements delivered on January 16th and June 6th. Now, are they perfectly locked down? No. There are still some requirements that are

trickling in. Our analysis of this situation——

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. So the key word there is basically, meaning it is not done yet, right?

Mr. POWNER. There are still clarifications that are going on. I

would refer to the requirements situation now as stable. There still

are some changes going on, some clarifications, but overall where

we have been, the requirements aren’t perfectly locked down, but

we are a lot closer. I think we are at a point now where we actually

can move forward with a reasonable cost estimate from the Harris

Corp. That is the way we view it. I know there are a lot of different

opinions about whether these are new requirements or not. Our

take on this is consistent with the Director’s, that most of the discussion is around those January 16th requirements being clarified.

I would not refer to those as new requirements, but they are just

discussions that are ongoing to make sure they are well understood.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Chairman, can I juste ask one additional question? For the Bureau, last week you unveiled a test

planning for address canvassing, even though you have known

about address canvassing problems since the dress rehearsal ended

in June 2007. Why are we just now getting around to focusing on

the problems of address canvassing?

Mr. MURDOCK. Among the reasons for re-addressing that issue is

the task force and the expert panel that reviewed the assessment

of the task force, and the task force had indicated that there needed to be supplementation of the testing program, not only in address canvassing, but in other parts as well. So we could not, until

we had evaluated the suggestions of the task force, complete that

testing program. We have done that in a very expedited fashion.

Mr. CLAY [presiding]. Thank you.

Mr. Murdock, I commend you and your staff for the hard work

you have put toward getting the census back on track. At the April

9th joint hearing, the Bureau stated that it had not scrubbed the

numbers provided by Harris in the rough order of magnitude. What

are the Bureau’s plans for verifying the cost estimate that Harris

will submit on July 15th, and how do you plan to analyze the figures?

Mr. MURDOCK. We have done a number of things related to that.

As you know, in accordance with really sound practices, just as we

had had, before we let the contract, we had a cost estimate done.

65

We repeated that process and as you know, had MITRE complete

an independent Government cost estimate for us to indicate what

they thought of the reformulated program, what the costs were.

We have in turn obtained the services of a contractor that is an

expert in the area of IT and in the costs related to IT. Mr. Jackson

will in concert with such other professionals and processionals in

our organization be taking the cost estimate, be taking the cost

proposal as it is developed by the Harris Corp. and working toward

a cost proposal and for a contract that we think successfully will

get us to a successful census and that is appropriate relative to

work to be done.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Powner, to quote your testimony, you found that $500 to $600 million difference is mind-boggling and makes no

sense. At the April 9th hearing, I requested that GAO analyze the

cost estimate. I would like to make that same request today. What

are your plans for verifying the cost estimate to be submitted on

July 15th?

Mr. POWNER. We have been through the MITRE estimate in

great detail, and once the Harris estimate is delivered, we plan to

brief your staff on our findings on where the differences are and

why we have differences. I can tell you right now that there are

some different assumptions, and our written statement points this

out, in the areas of software development and common support.

There are different assumptions made on the amount of software

development that needs to be completed between now and the 2010

census. And also, when you look at common support, there are differences in terms of the level and numbers of middle level management associated with the contract. So those are some areas that we

are going to be focused on keenly.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Mr. Murray, given the urgency of this matter, is there any way

to complete contract negotiations before August 15th?

Mr. MURRAY. One of the key steps that we are taking in working

with the Census Bureau is we have invited them in, and they have

started to attend our actual proposal development. So they are participating in, day to day with us, reviewing our basis of estimates,

and looking at the details that we are preparing. We have also

worked with them to determine, developing more of a streamlined

technical approach and technical proposal that can be provided, so

that we can first meet the dates of July 15th. After July 15th to

August 15th is the time to actually definitize. So in order to speed

up the definitization process, the key thing that needs to be done

is to make sure that you have that continued involvement up to

July 15th, so that on July 15th when the proposal is submitted,

there are no surprises to the Bureau.

We have followed that process on the MAF/Tiger program, where

we worked the proposal jointly with the Census Bureau. We are

trying to do that the same on the FDCA program. On MAF/Tiger,

when we submitted a final proposal, it was close to accept as is.

There were some questions and some clarifications that had to followup after we submitted it. But the actual definitization of that

contract went very quickly, because we had side by side involvements throughout the process in developing the proposal. We are

doing that today with the Census Bureau.

66

Mr. CLAY. Is that a yes or a no? Can you complete negotiations

by August 15th?

Mr. MURRAY. Can we complete negotiations?

Mr. CLAY. Before August 15th, considering the urgency.

Mr. MURRAY. We can complete by August 15th.

Mr. CLAY. You said you are starting the production process of the

hand-helds.

Mr. MURRAY. Correct.

Mr. CLAY. Does the Bureau know the functionality of the handhelds and actually agree with Harris as it relates to the hand-held

devices? Does the Bureau know what they are purchasing and do

you know what the Bureau wants?

Mr. MURRAY. What I was referencing in my testimony is the actual production of the hardware device itself. The Bureau is aware

of that. They have been engaged in the development of that device

and they understand what they are getting with the hand-held

itself. The next step, then, and what we are working on right now,

is the actual software application that rides on top the hand-held.

The hardware device itself is stable, and the high-tech computing

corp is off procuring the material to go build those devices so we

can get them in. The next challenge is completing the actual software development activity and the software application to ride on

that hand-held to give the Census Bureau the user interface and

the screens that they are looking for.

Mr. CLAY. And that will be completed when?

Mr. MURRAY. The hand-held device will be delivered in October.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Mr. Turner, you are recognized.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Obviously I know that in all the recent hearings we have had,

everyone has expressed just how disappointed we are that we have

all come to this point. Millions of dollars have been wasted; the

program has been placed at list. The Senate and the House have

repeatedly held hearings. Our subcommittee, when I was chair,

had numerous hearings. Our current chairman had numerous

hearings. The full committee has had numerous hearings on it, the

Senate the same thing, with the intent of trying to, with the help

of the GAO, which has repeatedly laid out the to-do list or tasks

that needed to be completed on trying to get this program back on

track.

One of the issues, obviously, when you have a program that is

going awry is to look to the issue of accountability. For accountability, you look for who is in charge. I have a question here that our

staff has proposed.

In looking to the briefings that our staff has received, they have

been told, and Mr. Murdock, you also today emphasize that the Associate Director in charge of the Decennial, Arnold Jackson, is the

Bureau’s single point of contact on resolving Decennial problems

going forward. Yet our staff has concerns, because some of the information that they have received suggests that others in the Bureau may still be making significant changes to the field data collection automation program, without Mr. Jackson or around Mr.

Jackson. Their concern goes back to what we saw when this proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:43 Jul 22, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50095.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
67

gram really begin to go off track, and that was the issue of too

many cooks in the kitchen.

So I have to ask, and I will start with Mr. Jackson, your

thoughts on your ability to coalesce authority and what additional

assistance that you might need or problems or areas where you see

that perhaps we still might have too many people involved in the

decisionmaking.

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you for that offer, Mr. Turner. I think in

the last, I say 3 or 4 months that I have been involved at the head

of the program I have been able to garner the support necessary

from not only Director Murdock but from the Department of Commerce to make the decisions that need to be made as quickly as

possible with the information that is needed. I would be the first

to admit that we probably have fallen into a pattern of slow or bureaucratic decisionmaking.

I have, I think, instituted a different culture. I am in daily contact with Mr. Murray at Harris Corp., around issues, around requirements, such that we are able to, whenever possible, resolve

matters frequently within 24 hours or less. That is not perfect, but

we are, I think, moving in the right direction.

I am not sure who at the Census Bureau thinks that they are

making decisions on FDCA that I am not aware of, but I am pretty

confident that I have a structure in place to make sure that the

responsibility and accountability is focused on me. I think there are

several examples that Mr. Murray and I could give of decisions

that are either pending or have been made, that I made with my

staff in consultation in a very rapid and focused way.

Mr. TURNER. I appreciate that reassurance, because we are certainly looking forward to the effects of your leadership.

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Murdock, any comments?

Mr. MURDOCK. We have certainly increased management intensity substantially at the Bureau. Mr. Jackson, I am sure, hears

from me more times a day than he would like sometimes. We are

constantly in interaction. We have increased not only the number

of meetings and the times that I meet with him and other people

in his program, we have instituted a number of other actions and

are briefed weekly, for example, by the MITRE Corp., which is embedded in many of our team processes throughout the FDCA program and other parts of the census to keep abreast of what is happening.

We are having substantial support from the Department of Commerce in this regard as well. I think our management team could

not be working more effectively together than they are. It is very

much a hand in glove operation with a single goal, and that is to

produce an accurate and timely 2010 census.

Mr. TURNER. On that issue of chain of command, Dr. Providakes,

could you please comment on that and also, Mr. Murray.

Mr. PROVIDAKES. Comment on?

Mr. TURNER. On the issue of chain of command and the census

and your belief of its effectiveness.

Mr. PROVIDAKES. I am positive on the current program management structure and the decision processes which have been put in

place in census. We talked about risks and concerns. We tend to

68

get hung up on, I think to date, on the requirements process. I

agree with Dave Powner and company that the key requirements

are stable and have been stable for some time. They are a set of

clarifications which occur as part of not the requirement process

but the development process. We seem to lose sight sometimes that

there is a development process that needs to occur to come up with

the design and implementation of that design to fill the capability.

The clarification process is in fact not unique, it is natural, it

should occur, it should occur regularly and should it be conceived

or perceived as a cost dimension to the process.

So we have to transition from requirements process to development process, and that entails a close interaction between the Government side on the requirements and on the contractor’s side as

they begin to develop their design to go forth with an implementation.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Murray.

Mr. MURRAY. I want to echo what Mr. Jackson said. I would

agree with his comments, the collaboration and cooperation between Harris and census has significantly improved. Mr. Jackson

and I probably communicate two, three, four times a day to include

Saturdays and Sundays. We are working very closely together at

the executive level.

At the working level team approach, we are working well together on that front as well. We have invited the Census Bureau

to attend our cost reviews, our system requirements reviews, our

detailed design reviews. The Census Bureau has invited us to attend their FDCA strategy session, so the cooperation and collaboration has improved significantly.

Mr. TURNER. Do our GAO panelists have any comment on this?

Mr. POWNER. We agree that the communication is improving. I

think the decisionmaking pace, we are also seeing a quickening

with that. As an example, there was one time we were talking

about cost estimates coming in in the September timeframe. I

think there was a push to move those dates up, so that we could

renegotiate contracts sooner than later. That is one example where

we see that pace quickening, and we just need more of that.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, is recognized for

5 minutes.

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Scire` or Mr. Powner, the decision to abandon the hand-helds

with respect to the non-response followup, was that a result of testing or was that a result of other things that came up, making folks

realize that it wasn’t going to happen?

Mr. SCIRE`. I think it is a result of the experience in the address

canvassing operation where the Bureau knew, going back into June

of last year, that there were concerns about use of the technology.

There was also some concern, I think, at the time, when the risk

reduction task force was looking at this as to whether or not the

Bureau had confidence that Harris could produce a solution for

non-response followup in addition to producing a solution for adVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:43 Jul 22, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50095.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
69

dress canvassing and the operation control system and field infrastructure. So I think it was a combination of those factors.

Mr. SARBANES. So the testing that is yet to happen, what are the

possible outcomes of that testing? I guess they could range from

concluding that the thing that you wanted to use, whatever technology is being developed for, that is not even going to work, right?

That could be one result? What is the range of possible outcomes

or conclusions that could come from the testing that is yet to happen?

Mr. SCIRE`. There is testing that is yet to happen, both in terms

of the address canvassing operation, but also in terms of non-response followup. So there are corrections that the Bureau could

make to operations potentially, in both of those, to the extent they

are able to simulate an operation. So far as the software and the

performance of the systems and devices, there is still opportunity

to make changes there as well. I would defer to my colleague in

terms of the technology.

We talk about testing in the non-response followup operation.

There are some things that the Bureau has not had a chance to rehearse, even though there are many things as a part of that operation they have done in the past. For example, they have never

done a second mailing before. This is sort of getting into the operations. And the late mail return that they are going to be doing has

not been tested in a dress rehearsal. So there is testing that we

think they could do, or other ways that they might be able to provide you assurance that these operations, which are really going to

be new in many respects for 2010, and in the case of late mail return, totally new, to assure that it will work.

Mr. SARBANES. I guess what worries me is that there is an absolute deadline.

Mr. SCIRE`. Right.

Mr. SARBANES. So you can envision a situation in which, at a certain point, you just start throwing things overboard, because you

know you have to meet the deadline. And you have to start cutting

corners, based on testing or maybe you haven’t been able to test

something fully, so you decide either to throw it out or just go with

it without having tested it fully and come what may. So that is

what I think is producing high anxiety here, and the fact that testing and other things has been pushed back so far has contributed

to that.

Let me go on. I am really interested in what the consequences

are of not being ready. In other words, let’s say we go into the census and we are only 80 percent ready when we started it and implemented it, or executed it. So what suffers? I would imagine that

in the address canvassing portion of it, and in the non-response followup and other elements that we haven’t even discussed, that the

impact of it not being done well falls unevenly across the populations that you want to capture in the census. I am just guessing

at that.

But I would imagine there are certain households that are easier

to address canvass than others, and there are communities, constituencies, whatever it is, populations out there who, if the system

is not fully developed and tested, will come away from the census

70

having been harmed in one way or the other. Of course, we know

we use this information for all kinds of things.

So speak to that. What are some of the impacts of not being

ready in terms of the ultimate information we are trying to collect?

Who might suffer more than others?

Mr. SCIRE`. The ultimate impact is that this could affect the quality of information, the quality of the count. It can affect the cost.

And the Bureau tries to front-load a lot of its resources, so that in

the event they need to throw more resources at an operation, it

can. That is one risk mitigation technique that it is using.

But you only have a finite amount of time, essentially, to do the

work. So if you are not able to get it done within that amount of

time, that could have ripple effects on subsequent operations. It

could affect the quality of the data that you are collecting. And you

are right, there are certain areas that are easier to canvass, to understand what the addresses are. Communities where there is not

a lot of change in either new construction or other changes, you

might have a more stable address list. In other communities, that

may not be the case.

The Bureau has worked over the decade to improve addresses

and maps. So in some areas, especially that have changed, you may

have a greater difficulty in those locations.

The non-response followup, some households are more likely to

respond than others. So you are going to——

Mr. SARBANES. We always have this aftershock from the census

where there are different communities that come in and argue that

they haven’t been fully counted as a result of the process, because

of various factors that are at play. What I am worrying about is

that we are increasing the potential for that to happen if we are

not ready. Then you are going to get these communities coming in

later, making the case, then of course the cow has left the barn

there, whatever the expression would be, at that point. There is not

a whole lot you can do to compensate adequately for it.

I have one real brief question. I just wanted to get a sense from

the GAO, in terms of the intensity of focus, we were not very encouraged at the last hearing, has the Census Bureau now ramped

up so that they are at 100 percent intensity in terms of what needs

to happen between now and when this thing is executed? Or in

your view, are they at 80 percent and need to get to 100? Or are

they at 100 and have to stay at 100? Where would you say they

are?

Mr. SCIRE`. Let me just briefly answer in terms of the operations,

then I will turn it over to my colleague in terms of technology. The

one thing where we do think there needs to be greater attention,

I realize that the NRFU operation is something that has largely

been done in the past. But there are some things that have not

been done, there are also interfaces with systems that were not

used before, and that in fact are being developed right now.

So we think it is very important for the Bureau to be able to

specify when it will complete and what it will do in terms of testing

and other methods for assuring that operation will be ready to go,

to get at your point about having sort of a drop dead timeframe.

So we think that is very important for the Bureau to do.

71

We also think it is very important for the Bureau to take a close

look at the risks that are represented under the revised non-response followup operation and reassess the project level risk of that

operation.

Mr. POWNER. I would say they are 100 percent focused now. The

question is execution. And on that focus, I think they deserve credit

for seeking the help of others. MITRE has played a large role in

this. They mentioned the IT expert, Mr. Ron Ponder, who they

have hired. He has a lot of experience in the telecommunications

industry, managing contracts. Those are all steps in the right direction.

So the focus is there. Now we just need to execute.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Mr. Issa, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Murdock, do you agree that Congress has a lot at stake in

getting an accurate decennial census?

Mr. MURDOCK. Absolutely.

Mr. ISSA. And do you agree that it is important for us to stay engaged, as an oversight committee, to that end?

Mr. MURDOCK. Yes, absolutely.

Mr. ISSA. And do you agree that an honest dialog between Members of Congress and the Bureau would be constructive to that end?

Mr. MURDOCK. It is.

Mr. ISSA. Then I would ask, even though I know you personally

would not have the time to do every meeting, would you be willing

to make sure that in your stead, a senior staff person is made

available at the request either of the chairman or the ranking

member of the full committee, on a bi-weekly basis, if requested?

Mr. MURDOCK. If requested, we certainly would provide someone,

yes.

Mr. ISSA. I appreciate that.

Additionally, staying with sort of the same line, would you say

that clearly, both by statute and by constitution, you have to get

an accurate count at this 10 year mark?

Mr. MURDOCK. Yes.

Mr. ISSA. Would you also agree that since this is the 23rd that

it has to be substantially as accurate and substantially similar in

procedures of accuracy to the previous 22 counts?

Mr. MURDOCK. Our goal for every census, I think, is to ensure

that we have as accurate a census as possible. So accuracy and

timeliness are the two paramount virtues of the census.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. If the Congress demands that the 2010 decennial census count every person living in the United States, any

territory or possession of the United States or the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico and all Federal civilian and military personnel serving abroad, and that it is the sense of Congress that conducting the

2010 decennial census, the Secretary of State should use all legal

and reasonable means to count every person living in the United

States, any territory or possession of the United States, or the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Federal civilian and military personnel serving abroad, if Congress demanded that, is that

what you believe you would be doing as of today?

72

Mr. MURDOCK. Yes. Our goal is to provide a timely census and

a complete census.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, to that end, I would ask that House

Resolution 1262 be considered tomorrow at the markup as a timely

reflection of today’s hearing, recognizing that at this late date it

may be difficult. But I believe you will find the resolution which

staff has is really consistent with what these many hearings have

done. I will ask that in lieu of asking that excerpts of Groundhog

Day be put into the record. [Laughter.]

Mr. CLAY. I will take a look at the resolution and then consult

with Chairman Waxman about the schedule for tomorrow.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you very much. The groundhog part really got

to you all, didn’t it? [Laughter.]

It is interesting that we are back here again. To that end, let me

ask probably the most important question for me, as a mid-term

Congressman. I have been here 8 years, I expect to be here eight

more, the Lord and the voters willing, particularly the latter,

maybe. If the voters will, it could happen. So I would hope, in fact,

maybe to be here long enough to see the next census.

But let me ask a question. If the statute were changed after this

census to call for a perpetual equivalent—I come from industry. We

long ago gave up doing inventory by closing the factory for 2 or 3

or 4 days at the end of every fiscal year, telling the workers to go

home and just having inventory managers count. It wasn’t very accurate, it was difficult and it was inefficient.

In your opinion, and I think it goes up and down, but if in fact

we authorized and began providing the funds to convert to a perpetual census, and I know you do updates, but a perpetual census

that allowed for a strategy of counts, obviously you might do an additional 10-year count to verify the accuracy of all the work you

have done, but going to a perpetual count, so that the Census Bureau at all times was constantly updating, and at any time would

have the highest level of accuracy it could have as a result of this

perpetual, which is what we do in inventory, at least in the electronics industry, where I come from, would that be something that

you believe Congress, with your help, should begin exploring?

Mr. MURDOCK. We would certainly need to have our legal people

and others look at this. I don’t know all the issues that might be

there legally or constitutionally. Certainly many countries have

equivalents of population registers, where there is a continuous

registering of moves and supplemented by censuses. But certainly

we would be interested in looking into that.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, just a quick followup. I am assuming

that we get over both the statute and constitutional hurdles, so

that we in fact are not dealing with that part. But from a standpoint of your agency, continuous operation at a level where your

work force is steady, substantially steady, where your constant canvassing of regions or however you are doing it similar, the equivalent to what we do in industry, the question is, is that a goal that

is reasonable to get a world-class system, or do you believe we

should stay with the do it once every 10 years, and quite frankly,

reinvent the wheel every 10 years? That is really the question I

would hope to get your thoughts on today. Because 12 years from

now is very close.

73

Mr. MURDOCK. It is a goal that we have already implemented in

part in terms of what we refer to as the long form, the detailed

questions, income, education, etc. We developed the American Community Survey. This now provides ongoing data for small areas on

annual basis. And as you probably know from using the census in

previous decades, if you were using 1990 or 2000, what you found

is that as you went on in the decade, those data on those factors

became less and less applicable, because changes had occurred.

Certainly we have done that in this area. I think steps to be

taken that would get us toward such data on the basic population

issues would certainly be desirable.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. You are welcome.

The gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and Mr. Waxman and Mr. Davis, and for your vigilance over

the management of the census 2010, which is just 22 months away.

I have several questions really about where you personally stand,

Mr. Murdock, on the directives from the Commerce Department to

turn the census into a sweepstakes lottery, or plans to experiment

with an internet response, and why the largely successful census

in the Schools program from 2000 is being cut back.

But central to all of these questions is standards. I would like to

focus on really, what are your standards in evaluating any

changes. Basically, when you evaluate the census operations that

will be added or changed in the coming months—we only have 22

months—and what scientific standards the Census Bureau has

published or at least has in place to make a judgment on these

changes.

For example, I have here an October 2006 decision memo from

the Census Bureau on the evaluation process used to consider

changes to the race question on the decennial survey. I ask unanimous consent to have it placed in the record.

Mr. CLAY. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

Mrs. MALONEY. In this case, the Census Bureau made several decisions not to change the format of the race question. They made

these decisions based upon criteria that was publicly shared and

articulated in advance. Among the criteria listed in this memo are

‘‘Changes to the Census 2000 question should be based primarily

on evaluation of test data that demonstrate improvement to the

quality, completeness and relevance of the data. Change will improve the results,’’ ‘‘adherence to protesting standards.’’

That last point is important. The Bureau insisted that no change

to the questions should be implemented in the 2010 census unless

the changes were tested in the field. Now, we have to stress that

the standards used here were ad hoc standards. That is, they were

created just for the evaluation of the race question. The Bureau

was not using uniform, Bureau-wide, pre-established and debated

standards. But at least they used some standards on this race

question.

So my specific question, Director Murdock, is if the Census Bureau insisted on public, pre-set evaluation standards on the race

question, what are your public established standards for evaluating

the sweepstakes lottery and shrinking the census in schools program?

Mr. MURDOCK. Let me comment first on the specific programs

that you have indicated. Those are both looking at incentives and

looking at issues related to several other matters that have come

from members of the Senate Oversight Committee. Senator Carper

indicated an interest and asked us if we would look at this.

But whether we are looking at this or any other issue, we would

use a clear set of factors. The first thing I think that a director,

myself or any other one here looks at is, will this impact the two

major goals of the census, and that is timeliness and accuracy. If

we think that it does, then we look at it, then we obviously don’t

go forward after an evaluation has been done.

Within those, then we have to look at more detailed things, what

does it mean in terms of cost, what does it mean in terms of schedule? Could it delay that census and key parts of that census, so

that we couldn’t interrelate the various processes successfully? We

have to look at technical capabilities: are there things that we simply can’t do in those, and we can’t do because it will affect our two

primary factors? And we have to look at regulatory requirements.

Is there some way, for example, that what a certain process might

do would impact Title 13 provisions and jeopardize the security

that we provide to respondents in terms of what they are doing and

what information we are providing from them?

So we look at these and make our decisions relative to those

kinds of basic criteria. It is often a tradeoff of a variety of issues.

These two are very much just in the basic evaluation issue. If you

look, for example, at the incentives project, what we have provided

to the point in this is to provide people from the Department of

Commerce with our past studies. There have been several in past

censuses. Personnel from the Department of Commerce are taking

the lead in looking at some of these issues.

We will make that final decision and we will make that final decision on the basis of these kinds of criteria that I have just outlined for you.

93

Mrs. MALONEY. But basically my question is, with the race question, there were standards that were out there that we could look

at and that scientists could look at. We haven’t seen any standards

or publicly established standards for the sweepstakes lottery and

the census in the schools program. So I am very concerned that it

doesn’t appear that you or the committee have any standards to

make these decisions, and we now have billions of dollars in increased costs with the likelihood of a less accurate census because

of that.

Mr. MURDOCK. I obviously would not agree with your first

premise, and that is that we have no standards, that we are not

interested in——

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, then, could you give the committee the

published, established standards for evaluating the sweepstakes

lottery and the shrinking of the census in the schools program?

Mr. MURDOCK. I cannot at this point. But we do not, we will not

go forward with those programs unless they are compatible with

our other goals and the other decision issues that I laid out for you

today.

Mrs. MALONEY. Basically when you make these decisions, you

should have standards and they should be established and published, as you did with the race question. That is my point.

My time is up, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.

Mr. McHenry is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for testifying today. We just, we have done this a

number of times, a census in this country. It should be regular

practice. But I think the concern for Congress is to make sure that

everyone is counted. To that end, I just want to ask the Census Bureau, what are you doing to ensure that every individual is counted? In my State of North Carolina, the ramifications are pretty

large. We could gain another congressional seat, whatever that

means, but we could gain another congressional seat based on an

accurate counting of the population. I would like to hear your

thoughts, Mr. Murdock, Mr. Jackson, on how you are ensuring that

is done.

Mr. MURDOCK. We have a variety of programs, as you know, our

whole goal is that, to ensure that everyone is counted. Some of our

key programs in this area are a communications program which is

ensuring that everyone knows to the fullest extent possible what

it is that, the importance of the census and responding to the census. Even more important is our partnership program, which involves the hiring of specialists to work, particularly with hard to

enumerate populations, to go out and find mechanisms that will increase their confidence in responding to the census and their feelings of safety and security in doing so. These specialists work with

thousands of local organizations, not just Government, but Government as well, in looking at options that will increase the count, to

ensure that we get as complete a count as possible.

Mr. MCHENRY. To that end, Mr. Murdock, you had the dress rehearsal a year ago and it took a full year to address the problems

that arose out of that dress rehearsal. Why the holdup?

94

Mr. MURDOCK. In general, I am not sure of which specific problem you are talking about. But certainly, the dress rehearsals are

just that, they are ways that we test how we are doing and then

from there, determine how we can streamline processes and do

what we are doing more effectively.

Mr. MCHENRY. The schedule is tightening, is it not?

Mr. MURDOCK. It is.

Mr. MCHENRY. Do you foresee being able to get a full and accurate count by roughly the equivalent of the 2000 accounts, by the

deadline?

Mr. MURDOCK. Our goal is to get absolutely the best count that

we possibly can, and our goal is always to be as good as past censuses.

Mr. MCHENRY. Are you on schedule to do that?

Mr. MURDOCK. I believe we are getting back on schedule. Certainly we still have challenges, we have risks that have been laid

out here today. But we are getting back on schedule and I am confident we are going to.

Mr. MCHENRY. So you are not quite back on schedule yet? So you

are saying you are not on schedule but you are getting there?

Mr. MURDOCK. We have made some major steps in getting back

on schedule. We are still challenged relative to the fact that we

have a lot to do in a short period of time. I believe we can do all

of it, and I am confident that we will make all our deadlines. I

think what we are seeing today is a number of other groups here

today that are seeing that the same way.

Mr. MCHENRY. What do you need from the Congress in order to

get this done?

Mr. MURDOCK. I think we need your ongoing support in terms of

our programs, our budget and things as we go forward in time.

Mr. MCHENRY. So is that financial? Do you need a larger appropriation to get this done?

Mr. MURDOCK. We have that addressed in materials that are before you, and that will be in subsequent budgets.

Mr. MCHENRY. OK. Going back, there is a, well, I would just

mention this. UPS delivers an estimated 400 million packages a

month. If you need some outside help, there are folks that actually

know how to find houses in the private sector, and that have devices with which to track 4 billion packages a year. So what you

are talking about is small in scope compared to a FedEx or UPS

or a number of these other outside groups. Get some expertise in

there. We have given you a substantial budget to do that.

Back to the question for the GAO, much of what is discussed at

this hearing is about the cost estimates, and with the Harris Corp.,

who is here, and MITRE, about their various cost estimates. Harris

accounted for $1.3 billion for the followup, those that don’t respond.

And MITRE said, I guess the update is $717 million. It looks like,

to me, just the obvious thing is that they are comparing apples to

oranges. You can’t have a doubling using the same underlying

premises and the same modeling.

Can you talk about the modeling? How is the modeling for these

cost estimates? Is there a more accurate way that we can get a better cost estimate?

95

Mr. PROVIDAKES. Let me try to address that a little bit. I don’t

think it is comparing apples and oranges. You start with the requirements. We spent an exhaustive measure looking at what we

believe are the key requirements, which we believe have stabilized.

We took those, we took like you said, our commercial practices regarding our model, we took the last 2 years to assess the performance of the contractor, which is important to have as well.

We looked at technology maturity, which again has advanced

over the last several years significantly in this area. And you combine all that, you end up with an independent cost estimate. This

is not something new that we haven’t done before. We have done

it considerably many times in the past, and as the GAO has mentioned, you generally find these cost estimates to be on the high

side. They tend to be conservative.

Mr. MCHENRY. Let me ask the GAO to address the question. At

the end, I will give Mr. Murray an opportunity to respond as well.

But if you could address the differences here. It looks like there are

two different models. And I am not casting blame, I want to make

sure that we have an accurate assessment.

Mr. POWNER. I think it is important to understand that the

rough order of magnitude is a rough order of magnitude. What

MITRE has is a detailed estimate. So the true comparison will

occur once the detailed estimate is delivered from Harris July 15th.

Then we can really look at differences.

But some of the areas that we know, and this is in our statement, that there are differences, if you roughly compare rough

order of magnitude to the detailed estimate, it is in the software

development and common support area. There are huge differences

there, $200 million in software development and $300 million

roughly in common support. We should not have differences that

are that wide, even with the ROM. That is our professional opinion

on that.

Hopefully, we will see that shrinking, once the detailed estimate

is delivered by Harris.

Mr. MCHENRY. Mr. Murray, do you have any response to that?

Mr. MURRAY. I agree with Mr. Powner. Essentially, we clearly

had different assumptions between our ROM and the MITRE

model. Instead of going and vetting the differences between those

two, we are really trying to look forward, we are working with the

Census Bureau to develop a very detailed comprehensive cost proposal. We are going to provide complete transparency for them to

have insight into that proposal. It will be delivered on July 17th,

and GAO and MITRE are welcome to review that document as

well.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you.

One final thing, Mr. Chairman, if I may, to Mr. Murdock. To followup on the partnerships that you have, are there programs—my

district is largely rural, a large portion of my district is rural. What

are you doing to ensure that rural areas are included in your partnerships?

Mr. MURDOCK. Rural areas are part of the partnership program.

The partnership program isn’t only an urban program, it is a rural

program as well. So for example, the State that I am originally

from, Texas, the partnership specialists have played a very imporVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:43 Jul 22, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50095.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
96

tant role in the past census in getting to communities that were

in very sparsely settled areas and to ensure that they get as accurate and complete a count as anyone in a larger, major city does.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. McHenry.

Ms. Watson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. WATSON. I sincerely want to thank the panelists for the information you are providing us. Address canvassing is the first

major operation of the decennial census, and one that sets the

stage for the success of the census. If an address is not added to

the master list during the canvass, the people living at that address will receive a census form, will not have an enumerator come

to the door and could be left out of the count. So training for address canvassing begins, as I understand, January 2009. And address canvassing dress rehearsal last year revealed problems with

the hand-held computers, as has been mentioned, help desk and

other essential systems. These are needed to be fixed before April

2009, when the canvass begins.

Mr. Scire` and Mr. Powner, GAO has reviewed the problems identified in the address canvassing dress rehearsal and the Bureau’s

supposed solutions. I understand you are most concerned about the

performance of the hand-helds and the compressed time line for

software testing.

So what do you see as the key risks facing the Census Bureau

with regard to address canvassing?

Mr. SCIRE`. I think it is completing the testing plan that they

have laid out and maybe being even more aggressive in the time

line that they have established. One of the things we pointed out

in our statement is that the timeframe that they lay out for integration and testing of the hand-held computers actually overlaps

with the operation for address canvassing. Obviously we will want

to complete that before the operation actually begins.

The time lines are very, very tight. So it is important for the Bureau to stay on top of this very vigorously to make sure that they

are ready to go. There is another piece here, and that is the redesign for address canvassing is actually taking a dual track, if you

will. For large assignment areas, the process will be different, or

I should say large blocks, the process will be different. So we think

it important that the interfaces and the linkages from the results

from both of those operations are tested, and also that whatever

sort of operational training or material or what have you that

might be needed as a result of it, that’s also tested and in place.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Powner.

Mr. POWNER. I have nothing further to add.

Ms. WATSON. OK. Mr. Providakes.

Mr. PROVIDAKES. I don’t think I would have a lot more. Again,

I want to get back to this notion of the risks associated with the

program and trying to converge on the development. You do have

this large discrepancy between the cost differences that—I believe

Dave Powner is correct—have to get resolved when the detailed

costs come in from Harris. Your date you had mentioned regarding

the time all this has to get done, we have to quickly close on this

issue regarding the development of the hand-held. As we had mentioned earlier, August 15th doesn’t give a lot of time after that if

97

there is a major issue regarding convergence on costs and performance associated with the contract negotiations.

Ms. WATSON. Are you suggesting moving that time up?

Mr. PROVIDAKES. I agree with the chairman, if you could move

that time line up, it would be fantastic. The census has done great

strides moving it up already. It was originally even later than that.

Moving it to July 15th or 17th is great. By August 15th is cutting

it very close. You look at the test plans and converging, and how

you go forward to meet the deadlines of testing and integration, of

the integrated schedule and so forth.

Ms. WATSON. Dr. Murdock, can it be moved up?

Mr. MURDOCK. We have pushed that up substantially. I think we

are a place now where we have come to an agreement about when

we can obtain the information that is necessary. We continue to

push to get information from these sources in a timely manner. I

think we are doing about as well as we can on this, I think we have

pushed this a great deal and that we will expedite everything after

those decisions to make sure we can meet the goals.

Ms. WATSON. I represent a State, California, and it is the first

State in the Union that is a majority of minorities. I have somebody who sits on the Census Board who reminds me all the time

that there are patches of, say, South Pacific Islanders that seem to

get lost in the count. I know in parts of my district, I represent Los

Angeles, Culver City, Hollywood, that area, parts of South Central,

we always have a double digit under-count.

So how are we preparing with the new technology to be sure that

we count people who might not be in the State through the proper

channels, but they are there? Children are going to school. And I

am concerned, I have to call the enumerators into my office every

decade and say, did you go over the liquor store, did you go over

the cleaners, did you go to the playground on Sunday when people

come from Mass and they have all their children out there? Because an under-count means that we cannot qualify for programs

based on certain populations and numbers.

So I am really concerned that we get it right this time. And anyone who would like to can comment.

Mr. MURDOCK. We certainly are very concerned as well. We recognize the kinds of difficulties that you are talking about. Our programs and our regional directors through the partnership programs

and other aspects are certainly addressing these issues. But any

help anyone can give us, if your office can help us in terms of identifying areas that we might otherwise miss, we would be glad to

work with you to ensure that we get a complete count of all the

people in your district if possible.

Ms. WATSON. Yes, we are going to work with you on this, because

I want to be sure you are going to the places where people actually

live. One person might come to the door, but there will be 12 people sleeping in those beds in that apartment. So I want to be sure

that we do it correctly and accurately. Thank you very much.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Ms. Watson.

Mr. Providakes, given the gap in estimates, it might take some

time for the Bureau and Harris to come to some agreement on the

final costs of the contract. In your professional opinion, what deadVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:43 Jul 22, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50095.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
98

lines should the Bureau set for final agreement and what criteria

should the Bureau set for a decision?

Mr. PROVIDAKES. I think August 15th is an important period.

You need to converge on the cost, schedule and performance associated with negotiation of the contract. That is an important time.

We are in a situation where the schedule is fixed, there is cost in

this performance and as the schedule continues to slip, you start

sacrificing performance, as was mentioned earlier. At the same

time, costs will continue to also increase.

Mr. CLAY. Considering the level of uncertainty surrounding

FDCA, would it be prudent for the Bureau to have contingency

plans?

Mr. PROVIDAKES. Most definitely. It is not so much, I think when

you are dealing with risk, risk is about having options. The Bureau

always has options in developing IT. That is an important dimension to have.

Mr. CLAY. What should Bureau officials include in the emergency

plan, in the contingency plan to avoid irreparable damage from further contract delays?

Mr. PROVIDAKES. The set of options, clearly you need to look at,

from the hand-held perspective, the viability of the technology and

having in place what you can do in trading off performance. So

there is a degree, what I can mention, there are key requirements

that need to be captured and there are other requirements. The

Bureau has already identified and prioritized those key requirements. As you go forward, if you decide that other options have to

be put into place after August 15th, I think you could step back

and look at the performance issues and what other vehicles do you

have to provide the technology, in this particular case, a hand-held

device that may be viable.

I know that from our perspective, helping us better understand

the interpretation of those requirements and coming up with a cost

estimate, we ourselves developed what is called a technical reference model, a design, and looked at the viability of that design

that could be hosted on commercial hardware and commercial software best practices to better understand the degree of risk that the

Bureau may be facing as we go forward.

Mr. CLAY. What was your conclusion from your test?

Mr. PROVIDAKES. This is not advanced technology, that is a

myth. The technology is readily available today, to go forward with

a hand-held device that would help augment, and as Director

Murdock suggested, help the effectiveness and efficiency and accuracy of the count to get some of those issues. That technology, I

think, is important to visit, and the technical reference model, as

we have discussions with Harris in terms of their design. Understanding the difference in cost could be as simple as, one, do they

understand the requirements from a contractor perspective, why

the delta in costs, why they have those additional risks built into

their costs, and perhaps the approach methodology that was used

several years ago, there may be a way to modulate that to get us

back in line based on cost, schedule and performance. That is part

of the negotiation process that would occur once we have a detailed

model between July 17th and August 15th that we can get together

and really work through.

99

Mr. CLAY. I look forward to that. Thank you for your response.

Mrs. Maloney, any more questions?

Mrs. MALONEY. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Director, as you know, I wrote you yesterday, asking that

you be prepared to answer some questions today on the issue of fingerprint. As you know, the census staff a few weeks ago said the

decision was made to go ahead and plan to implement procedures

to fingerprint all the temporary employees who were working the

census at a cost of $340 million and run their prints through the

FBI data base.

Then we were told that the decision was not made, and that it

would be made by Commerce. And now we are told that the answer

is yes, you are doing it.

In 2000, the Bureau asked and was given a waiver from the

fingerprinting requirements, although all employees’ names were

checked, not just their fingerprints, because of the expense and the

impact the procedures would have on the census operations.

So I have a few questions about this. Why was the decision just

made last night—we are 22 months away from the census, and we

could have used some planning. What were you waiting for, and

what information from the 2000 was used to make this decision?

Mr. MURDOCK. Let me say in terms of the decision, I can’t say

why it wasn’t made 22 months ago. I can say that there were details being worked out that have just come together. The decision

was one that was recommended by the Bureau, to go to

fingerprinting, and in turn, that the Secretary concurred with and

has made a similar recommendation.

Let me explain a little bit the details of that, and why we are

where we are. This is a very difficult process, it is a very difficult

decision for a lot of reasons. One is that it is a costly process and

we have been funded to look at this during this year and to come

up with some alternatives on cost. So whatever you have heard in

terms of cost, I wouldn’t be tied to that particular figure. We are

looking at different ways of doing the process.

But it is an expensive process. And some of the questions that

you forwarded to me yesterday indicated, when you look into those,

it would be very costly per individual, if the records of the 2000

census are correct. We find four cases, if you will, of Census Bureau employees that were accused of crimes and in all cases, our

records show that either charges were dropped or they were acquitted in terms of those particular factors.

There was a lot more of our enumerators that were costed in a

variety of ways in terms of the process. So from a cost standpoint,

it is a difficult one. It is also difficult because we are concerned

about the inhibiting effect of fingerprinting on obtaining the kind

of work force that we need in some of the most difficult areas of

the country to count. So both of these factors are there.

On the other hand, we have a prime responsibility to ensure the

safety and the security of the American people. We have been advised by OPM that we should do fingerprinting. And although the

Federal Bureau of Investigation has provided us with an indication

that here are some ways that we could obtain an exception, they

say they recommend that we do fingerprinting. I think it would be

irresponsible for the Director of the census to leave to his or her

100

successor the issue of deciding not to do fingerprinting, when the

implications of even that rare event occurring I think would be absolutely devastating to the census. One would find oneself, if you

will, in front of a group trying to explain why you didn’t do everything you could do to prevent that, particularly when it was the

law of the land.

So we made this very difficult decision, I made this very difficult

recommendation on the basis of balancing off those factors.

Mrs. MALONEY. As you know, many of us have been strong supporters of your budget, so I would like to ask a few questions about

the budget. Yesterday, Mr. Director, OMB sent up to Congress a

budget amendment for fiscal year 2009, apparently asking for an

additional $546 million for census to begin to cover the increased

costs of doing the census using paper and not the hand-held for

non-response followup. Mr. Director, how much did you ask for?

Did you ask for more than $546 million? How much did you ask

for?

Mr. MURDOCK. This amount that we received we believe is sufficient to address the needs that we have. It will allow us to do the

very important things that you are aware of in terms of the new

redesigned and remodified census. It is an amount that we believe

will be successful.

Now, where the uncertainties are, for example, are that this, as

we go forward, what we have to rely on in terms of contractor

costs, because we have not yet renegotiated the contract, is we

have to use those from the previous ROM analysis. So those will

obviously be changed. They will obviously be different when we go

forward.

But we believe this is a budget that will get us what we need

and will be successful.

Mrs. MALONEY. Did you get all that you requested? That is my question. How much did you ask for? They sent $546 million. Did

you ask for more?

Mr. MURDOCK. That is the increase that we received, yes.

Mrs. MALONEY. But did you get all you requested? How much did

you ask for in your budget request?

Mr. MURDOCK. I would have to check the exact details. We obviously, I don’t think, in a budget process, one never gets everything

that one asks for.

Mrs. MALONEY. That is true, but I think as an oversight committee, we are entitled to know what you felt you needed and I think

you should go back to the office and send us the information.

Mr. MURDOCK. I will be glad to provide that information.

Mrs. MALONEY. Because maybe we want to fight for what you

thought you needed in your budget request.

Mr. MURDOCK. We will certainly provide all appropriate information that you desire.

Mrs. MALONEY. And are there any operations that you needed to

fund which were not fully funded or were not funded at all?

Mr. MURDOCK. One of the aspects of our budget that I think is

very important to understand is that we were provided with a large

contingency aspect to our budget. In that, one of the things that we

will need to address if we decide to go forward with the process

that is beyond the very specified level of $10 million for fingerprint

101

is we will have to take out of that contingency. That contingency,

however, is a large one, $200 million, and it is one that we think

is sufficient to address the issues that are likely to confront us.

Mrs. MALONEY. Given the state of the census and planning, do

you think that request is enough funds to fix what is wrong with

the census and to ensure the accurate 2010 census is at least as

accurate as 2000?

Mr. MURDOCK. We believe it is. There is the uncertainty, which

I specified before, of what we will end up with in terms of the final

contract price. If it goes in the direction that it might go, I think

that will make it easier for us. But certainly that is a major uncertainty that we will only know as we get through the contract negotiation process.

Mrs. MALONEY. My time is expired, and I join my colleagues in

thanking all the panelists for this really very important job that

you are undertaking and for your testimony today. Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.

Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

Finally, we want to see this the most accurate and complete census as we go into a new decade. Is there any reason why you cannot tell us at this moment the amount of money that was appropriated to you? Because as my colleague just mentioned, we would

like to be as helpful as possible. That is why we are having this

hearing, and that is why all the panelists are here. We want to be

sure that the new technology that we have invested in actually

gives us the most positive, complete and accurate results possible.

Is there any reason why you can’t round off a figure that you

know has been appropriated?

Mr. MURDOCK. As I said, I don’t have the figure right in front

of me. We will give you all appropriate information that——

Ms. WATSON. Wait a minute. You are the director, Dr. Murdock.

Mr. MURDOCK. Yes.

Ms. WATSON. And we have been asking questions about timetables and are you ready and so on. We are just here to be helpful

to you. Give me a round figure.

Mrs. MALONEY. Will the gentlelady yield?

Ms. WATSON. I would yield.

Mrs. MALONEY. I believe, my dear colleague, that the budget director is sitting behind him. Maybe he has the number. Would it

be appropriate for him to answer? I yield back the time to my colleague.

Ms. WATSON. You know, I can’t understand the mystery with all

this unless Commerce said, don’t answer them. So would you like

to, budget director, would you like to comment?

Mr. TYLER. There were internal discussions within the

administration——

Ms. WATSON. Beg pardon?

Mrs. MALONEY. Could you come to a mic? We can’t hear you.

Mr. TYLER. My name is Jay Tyler. I am the Budget Director.

There were internal deliberations within the administration. The

number that we received, the increase in terms of the amendment

for 2009 was $546 million.

Ms. WATSON. Mic, please.

102

Mr. TYLER. The number that has been requested in the amendment is $546 million. I think really what is in question right now

is the final number, once we go through contract negotiations with

Harris. I believe that the Census Bureau is comfortable with that

$546 million.

Ms. WATSON. Are you comfortable with it, Mr. Murdock? Can you

get everything done in time?

Mrs. MALONEY. Excuse me, will the gentlelady yield?

Ms. WATSON. Yes, I will yield.

Mrs. MALONEY. How much did you request? How much did you

ask for? We know the budget amendment was $546 million. But

how much did you ask for? That is the question we are asking.

Mr. TYLER. The Census Bureau asked for $738 million.

Ms. WATSON. Oh, OK.

Mrs. MALONEY. Seven hundred thirty-eight million. OK. Thank

you. I yield back to my colleague.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much. I think that sheds some light.

You are shorted $200 million, plus or minus. Can you get everything done?

Now, I know this is internal politics over there in the Department of Commerce. But come on, all of you were sworn in. Let us

know. Can you, with the amount, $546 million, really do the job?

Mr. MURDOCK. I believe the answer is yes, given the ongoing contract negotiations that we have going with Harris. This is the figure that we settled on with OMB. And we think we can do it for

this amount of dollars.

Mrs. MALONEY. Will the gentlelady yield?

Ms. WATSON. I would be happy to yield.

Mrs. MALONEY. I believe what my esteemed colleague is trying

to get at, and what we are trying to understand is, we want to help

you do a good job. So we want to know specifically, what did you

ask for in this $700 million request, and what the difference is. Did

you have a program that you wanted to implement that they did

not fund? Maybe the budget director can answer, and I yield back

to my esteemed colleague. Specifics.

Mr. MURDOCK. The majority of it, the vast majority of it, was a

reduction in the amount that had been initially budgeted for the

Harris contract. The vast majority of it. I would have to look to see

exactly, but it is nearly all of it.

Ms. WATSON. Reclaiming my time. I ask this often of people who

work in various agencies. If you could get what you really needed,

blue sky it, don’t worry about our budgeting, what would you really

need? And I don’t think—I think you are underselling what you

really need. If you asked for over $700 million and you only got a

little over $500 million, then there is a gap. So can you respond?

Mr. MURDOCK. I would agree in normal circumstances that would

be the case. In this case, where we are today, is with a situation

where we have a large difference between an independent Government cost estimate and a ROM from the contractor. These are

large differences, as everyone has pointed out. Where we end up in

that contract makes a great deal of difference on whether or not

the funds that we have are adequate. We have had to do this budgeting process with these uncertainties.

103

Now, do we wish we did not have these uncertainties? Yes, we

do.

Ms. WATSON. OK. I just wanted to know if you were, Dr.

Murdock, pushing for the maximum amount that you think you are

going to need, negotiating with contractors——

Mr. MURDOCK. Let me tell you that——

Ms. WATSON. Let me just finish, because I want to put it out

there—to do the job. I am concerned in my own State of 38 million

people, growing by 2,000 every day, that we have the best count

that we can ever have taken this new decade. And I say, just blue

sky it. I know all of the problems with the budget, and I know

probably what your directions were, don’t tell them a thing.

But what would you like to see?

Mr. MURDOCK. Let me make two points clear.

Ms. WATSON. Please.

Mr. MURDOCK. One is that I am pushing for every single thing,

because I want us to have a successful census.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

Mr. MURDOCK. Second, if we find ourselves needing assistance,

if we find ourselves needing additional money, we will be pushing

that process as well.

Mrs. MALONEY. Will the gentlelady yield?

Ms. WATSON. I would be pleased to yield.

Mrs. MALONEY. Possibly it would help the committee members

and the chairman in our oversight responsibilities if we could request the document, the original request that was sent in, the $700

million. I know you don’t have it with you today, but could we have

that as part of the committee record? I yield back to my esteemed

colleague from the great State of California.

Mr. CLAY. All time has expired. There are two key dates that

this committee looks forward to with growing anticipation, July

17th and August 15th.

Let me thank the entire panel for their testimony today. We will

await further action.

This hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ