[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2019
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
AND RELATED AGENCIES
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama DEREK KILMER, Washington
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama GRACE MENG, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, as chairman of the
full committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
John Martens, Jeff Ashford, Leslie Albright,
Colin Samples, Aschley Schiller, and Taylor Kelly
Subcommittee Staff
__________
PART 5
Page
Department of Commerce....................................... 1
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.............. 103
Oversight of the 2020 Census................................. 153
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
32-413 WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky \1\ NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
KEN CALVERT, California LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TOM GRAVES, Georgia TIM RYAN, Ohio
KEVIN YODER, Kansas C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington DEREK KILMER, Washington
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. VALADAO, California GRACE MENG, New York
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada PETE AGUILAR, California
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
----------
\1\ Chairman Emeritus
Nancy Fox, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2019
----------
Tuesday, March 20, 2018.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
WITNESS
HON. WILBUR ROSS, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
Mr. Culberson. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The
Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee
hearing will come to order.
First, I would like to welcome our witness, Commerce
Secretary Ross, who is here with us this morning to discuss the
Department of Commerce's fiscal year 2019 budget request.
Secretary Ross, we are happy to have you here and we want
to thank you for your service to the country.
This is our first hearing of the year, so I want to remind
our members that we will, as usual, follow the 5-minute rule,
and I will, of course, not cut anybody off mid-sentence. We
will recognize members in the order of seniority in which they
have arrived at the hearing, going back and forth between the
parties. And for latecomers, I will recognize you in the order
in which you have arrived at the hearing.
And while I am sure we will not always agree on the issues
before the subcommittee, all members and witnesses will be
heard and respected. And we always on this committee work
together in a collegial and cordial manner, and always manage
to find a way to get our work done, because this subcommittee
is pure good, all the things that we do are pure good.
And I want to get back to the matter at hand. In the last
year, the Department of Commerce forecasted and responded to
the 2017 Atlantic Hurricane season, which included Hurricane
Harvey in Houston, which is the largest housing disaster in the
history of the country. I have still got tens of thousands of
constituents who are living on the second floor of their homes,
were forced to move. The disaster was just catastrophic. And
the Weather Service, as a part of their forecast fleet,
launched flagship weather satellites, NOAA-20 and GOES-17, as
well as released an updated cost estimate for the census, which
is the first thing I want to visit about this morning, Mr.
Secretary.
We expect this diverse work to continue in 2019 when the
Commerce Department will continue to execute its important
missions, including preparing for the 2020 census; forecasting
the weather; managing our fisheries; exploring the oceans,
which is especially important in this era when the Chinese
control 98 percent of all rare earth elements produced on
earth. We have got the exclusive economic zone of the United
States, which expands the area of the United States by about 50
percent and contains vast amounts of rare earth elements. The
Department also administers our patent and trademark laws.
And, in executing these missions, Mr. Secretary, we hope
you will continue to bring your extraordinary skill set and
innovative cost-saving ideas from the private sector to the
Department. I am especially interested in hearing any
suggestions you have got on how the subcommittee can help you
give you more authority to do what you do best and that is to
achieve efficiency, productivity, and to make not only the
Census Bureau, but the entire Department run more efficiently
and effectively.
The budget recommendation, which was developed by OMB
before there was an agreement on adjusting the budget caps,
proposes reshaping the Department to focus on the highest-
priority missions, while significantly reducing funding for
other activities across the Department. We will carefully
consider the President's budget request to ensure that we are
responsibly funding critical Department of Commerce activities
while protecting our constituents' very precious, very scarce,
and hard-earned tax dollars.
In this hearing and in the coming months, I look forward to
discussing how we can work together to ensure that the 2020
census and weather satellite programs are staying within their
projected costs and achieving their important goals.
Before we proceed, I would like to recognize my colleague
and good friend Mr. Serrano for any remarks that he would like
to make.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to
join you in welcoming the Secretary of Commerce, the Honorable
Wilbur Ross, back to the subcommittee.
The Department of Commerce is vital in promoting job
creation and opportunity for all; understanding our planet;
ensuring fair trade conditions for our businesses and workers;
providing accurate data to our nation's lawmakers and
businesses; and assisting under-served and economically
distressed communities. Unfortunately, the budget request
undermines several of these key missions.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2019 requests $9.8
billion for the Department of Commerce, which is $573 million
or a 6.2 percent increase from the 2017 enacted level. This
level of funding, while an increase from last year's request,
endangers core missions at the Department.
For example, the budget once again, very foolishly,
proposes the elimination of critical agencies and programs such
as the Economic Development Administration and Manufacturing
Extension Partnership or MEP Program. EDA is the only agency
across the Federal Government that focuses exclusively on
economic development and economically distressed areas around
the Nation, while the MEP equips our small and medium-size
manufacturers with the resources needed to grow and to thrive.
It is estimated that for every $1 of Federal investment the
MEP national network generates $17.90 in new sales growth for
manufacturers and $27 in new client investment.
In short, this program enhances the productivity and
competitiveness of small and medium-size manufacturers and
creates well-paying jobs, while reducing our trade deficit with
other countries. It is also an agency with strong bipartisan
support in Congress, which demonstrates how politically tone
deaf this proposal is.
Another agency that is severely cut by more than 70 percent
is the Minority Business Development Agency. This agency
promotes the growth of minority-owned businesses and helps them
compete in the world economy, and it is the only Federal agency
with this focus.
The budget also proposes a $43 million cut to the U.S.
Commercial Service, and calls for the closing of 35 posts
overseas and ten U.S.-based Export Assistance Centers. This
program supports and creates American jobs by helping U.S.
businesses and workers to export more products.
These budget cuts, if enacted, will hurt small businesses
and workers in economically distressed areas.
In a different area, the President's budget severely
undermines NOAA's mission by decreasing its funding by more
than $1 billion, a more than 19-percent decrease. In
particular, the budget proposes to zero out funding in targeted
NOAA grants and programs that support coastal and marine
management research and education benefitting industry, States,
and local stakeholders.
The Regional Coastal Resilience Grants, for instance,
ensure that our states and communities are prepared to face
changing ocean conditions, from acidification to sea level
rise, as well as major catastrophes. We need to make sure that
we are here to help our coastal communities to be more
resilient in the face of climate change and we must allow our
marine research programs to continue as necessary for America's
economic and environmental health.
I am particularly concerned about the status of
preparations for the 2020 census, which is behind in schedule
and has been under funded. There are major issues that are
still unresolved that will impact the rollout and response
process, including a lack of permanent leadership, that the
Bureau fears that we have not sufficiently tested in urban and
minority-language communities, and the need to quickly ramp up
outreach in traditionally under-counted areas.
I am also deeply troubled about a highly political request
that the Department of Justice made to the Department last
December, asking the Bureau to add a question on citizenship
status to the form. This question was not previously considered
or tested by the Bureau, nor was it included in last year's
report to Congress on the topics to be included in the 2020
census.
Including such a question would drive response rates down
in minority and immigrant communities, increasing costs and
harming accuracy. Unfortunately, this request seems purely
partisan, as evidenced by yesterday's email from the Trump
campaign attempting to fund raise off this very issue.
It is also important to note that none of the affected
communities asked for this question to be included in the 2020
census.
Congresswoman Meng and I wrote to you in a letter earlier
this year and made these points to you. I look forward to
hearing more from you on these issues.
There are many, many other issues that we have to discuss,
Secretary Ross, but understand that our desire is to make the
Department respond more efficiently and more properly, it is
never to be adversaries, unless we see real harm being done.
But we are worried, very worried on this side about the census
asking questions that will undermine the count rather than
build the count up to where it should be.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Secretary, we are delighted to have you here with us
this morning and we look forward to hearing your summary of
testimony, and your written testimony will be entered into the
record in its entirety, if there is no objection.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. We look
forward to hearing from you.
Statement of the Secretary of Commerce
Secretary Ross. Thank you, Chairman Culberson, Ranking
Member Serrano, and members of the House Appropriations
subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss
President Trump's fiscal year 2019 budget request for the U.S.
Department of Commerce.
And thank you for enabling the Department to meet its major
strategic objectives of helping the American economy grow and
ensuring our national security. We are accomplishing this by
preparing for a successful 2020 Decennial Census; providing the
observational infrastructure and personnel to develop timely
and accurate weather forecasts; by supporting investment in job
creation, and helping American businesses and industries
compete globally in a fair and secure environment.
To that end, the Department of Commerce's fiscal year 2019
budget request of $9.8 billion in funding is a 6-percent
increase from the fiscal year 2018 continuing resolution. It
does not include the $1 billion that was recently appropriated
to the Department as part of the Supplemental Assistance
Package enacted in the aftermath of the severe storms in Texas,
Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
The fiscal year 2019 budget makes key strategic
investments. A few highlights. The 2020 Decennial Census is the
Department's top priority. A complete and accurate Decennial
Census is critical, as it informs the policymaking process and
apportionment.
To support this critical endeavor, the Department's fiscal
year 2019 budget requests $3.8 billion for the Census Bureau,
$3.1 billion of which will directly support 2020 census
operations. The proposed $2.3 billion increase from the fiscal
year 2018 continuing resolution reflects the Department's
commitment to count everyone.
With its $1.6 billion request for the National
Environmental Satellite and Data Information Service, NOAA will
continue its work to deploy the next generation of weather
satellites and observational infrastructure. These satellites
will provide faster, more accurate, and more detailed data than
legacy satellites to track storm systems, lightning, wildfires,
coastal fog, and other hazards.
When President Trump tapped me to serve as the Commerce
Secretary, I vowed to work hard to reduce the nation's trade
deficit. Increased enforcement of our trade laws has been a
major effort in this regard. We requested $440 million for the
International Trade Administration. ITA will use the requested
funding to hire more subject matter experts and enhance its
trade enforcement and analysis capacity for anti-dumping and
countervailing duty investigations, and in support of Section
232 investigations.
ITA's budget includes more than $90 million, an increase of
$6 million from 2018, for enforcement and compliance programs.
To continue building on these important enforcement and
national security initiatives, $121 million is requested for
the Bureau of Industry and Security, an $8.9 million increase
from the 2018 continuing resolution. BIS has a remarkably broad
impact on our national security and this increased funding will
enable them to hire additional staff to address an increased
workload.
The fiscal year 2019 budget seeks to transform the Minority
Business Development Agency into a policy-focused operation
that can better assist minority business across America.
Consistent with this transformation, the budget proposes to
eliminate funding for MBDA's business centers. Instead, MBDA's
fiscal year 2019 budget will allot its present 50 positions for
this new endeavor no change in number of personnel, which will
ensure minority entrepreneurs have access to the resources they
need to create jobs and help fuel our nation's prosperity.
These are just a few highlights from our fiscal year 2019
budget submission. I look forward to getting into more detail
with you as you ask your questions.
Thank you.
2020 CENSUS FUNDING
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.
As you mentioned, the census is constitutionally required
and the Department is preparing ramp-up activities for the 2020
census. About 70 percent of those costs will be incurred over
the next two fiscal years and the Department now estimates the
total cost will be over $15 billion, an increase of 3 billion
from the previous cost estimate. And I know you are doing
everything within your power to ensure that our constituents'
very precious, hard-earned, and scarce tax dollars are spent
frugally and effectively on the census.
And I would like to ask you, what could this committee do
to help you and empower you to do what you think you need to do
to make the Department, and the census in particular, more
efficient and productive, and what steps are you taking to
contain the costs of the 2020 census, and to make sure that the
IT systems are cost-efficient and secure?
Secretary Ross. Well, thank you. Those are very, very good
questions, Mr. Chairman. I will especially try to address what
are we doing to try to make sure we live up to the budget I
just presented.
As you know, the original budget submitted well before my
time severely underestimated some of the costs that would be
involved and severely overestimated the economic benefits that
would come from changes in technology.
I have been devoting quite a bit of my personal time, as
has Karen Dunn-Kelly and as has the Career Management, who is
now in charge on an acting basis of the census day-to-day.
To give you a little example of the differences between how
things were run before and how they are run now, we have
developed a monthly monitoring system, which is illustrated
here; it shows the actual progress in the workload and actual
monies expended, in both cases relative to our forecast. We
also have routine census-critical path reports with a summary
of the technical integration status, again, actual versus
budget and results versus projected results, and we do that in
every single sub-segment of all of the budget categories.
None of those processes and procedures had been used in the
2010 census and none, frankly, had been used prior to our
administration.
In addition, we have a critical path system that we follow.
The green, which happily dominates this whole diagram, are ones
that are on schedule and on or below budget. The orange colors
are those about which we are somewhat concerned. You will see
they are relatively few and relatively small at this early
stage. There are no red ones, which so far means there are none
that we view as being in very serious danger of big overruns.
The reason we are indulging in such intense measurement is
it is my belief that what you can't measure, you can't manage.
So we are trying in excruciating detail to manage the
intricacies of the costs. This is one of the most complicated
management tasks that will confront any government agency, the
introduction of all these new technologies and the act of
hiring over 500,000 enumerators part-time to do the census in
2020. The hiring was not such a huge task in 2010, because the
country was unfortunately in a recession, so there were plenty
of people available. In 2020, we are liable to have a much more
difficult time hiring people. And so one of the big tasks ahead
of us is how to accomplish finding that many people, getting
them trained with the technology, and getting them out there to
do faithfully the enumeration of every person where that person
resides.
Mr. Culberson. Right. I know that FEMA has had difficulty
hiring inspectors and adjusters to come out and inspect homes
for people affected by the hurricanes----
Secretary Ross. Yes.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. For that very same reason, but
the reforms that you have put in place, commonsense, good
business practices, I know all of us are very grateful for that
and you have seen results. And I am confident you have a lot of
very competent people at the Census Bureau and in the
Department who you probably discovered just hadn't had the
scrutiny or the oversight, or the measurement, as you said
before, of their work, which sounds like you are heading in the
right direction.
So you are encouraged. What are some of the frustrations
you have encountered in your first year at the Department of
Commerce that differ from what you saw in the private sector
and what could this committee do to help give you greater
authority to help manage and encourage productivity at the
Department?
Secretary Ross. Well, I think the main thing the committee
could do would be, we intend to prepare a very detailed
accounting of lessons learned as we complete the 2020 census
and we hope that that will form a basis for continued guidance
by the committee as we move toward the 2030 census, because the
2030 census will be conducted in a somewhat different fashion
even from the 2020 based on what we have learned and based on
the full application of technology and use of administrative
records.
The other thing would be, most importantly, to support our
budget request. We feel that as to all the knowable unknowns,
which may sound oxymoronic, but we have tried to risk-adjust
our budget for the knowable unknowns. Given the complexity and
the scale of this activity, there is a risk of unknowable
unknowns, and that was why we had originally proposed a 10-
percent additional contingency of unallocated funds. That is
not normal practice for an agency, but I wanted to remind
everyone that was part of the request originally, it is not in
the budget. We are going to try our level best to live without
needing any contingency, but if something truly unknowable
comes up, we may, unfortunately, have to come back.
CENSUS AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Secretary, very quickly, the Government
Accountability Office made 33 recommendations to improve the
efficiency of the 2020 census and the Department has yet to
implement those recommendations. Some of them go back to 2007.
I know that is a source of frustration for you, sir. And I know
when you were in the private sector, if your auditor told you
to do something, you wouldn't wait 11 years to do it. When do
you plan to implement them and what, if anything, can this
committee do to help you in that effort?
Secretary Ross. Well, as to the GAO, they made 84 very
detailed and very helpful, and, in my view, very useful
recommendations. Of those, 51 have been closed as we sit here.
Five are not due yet; by their very nature, they have a later
due date than the present. There are 14 that are ongoing, life-
cycle cost estimates, so those cannot be completed until we get
further----
Mr. Culberson. OK.
Secretary Ross [continuing]. Into the process. Of the
remaining 14, we have submitted documentation to GAO and we are
hopeful that perhaps half of them could be resolved within the
next month or so, and that the final seven hopefully could be
resolved within 3 months. So that is where we stand precisely
on the GAO recommendations. They have been very cooperative,
very helpful, and we are very grateful for their support.
CENSUS BUREAU MANAGEMENT
Mr. Culberson. Since this is really extraordinarily
important, I know you have got it at the top of your list, and
when do you expect to have a permanent director in place?
Secretary Ross. Well, first of all, I have total confidence
in the long-term career people who are now the acting number
one and number two in Census. They have combined 52 years of
experience, so they are very, very thoroughly experienced in
Census. And while they are not 100-percent accustomed to this
kind of management process, the work with Karen Dunn-Kelly,
myself, and outside consultants that we have brought in, both
technology consultants and people with prior experience in the
2010 and earlier censuses. So those are on an ongoing basis. We
continually are scrubbing things; we meet quite regularly with
the contractors and the subcontractors.
One of the many complexities here is that they decided to
do a lot of subcontractors. There typically is a relatively
small firm who was awarded the general contracting for a
particular area and then some very large firms as
subcontractors. Initially, that created some obscurity as to
what was actually going on, because there wasn't direct
interaction with the subcontractors. We have changed all that.
We meet with the GC, we meet with the subcontractors on quite a
regular basis, and have some, as the diplomats would say, frank
and open discussions with them.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CENSUS QUESTIONS
Secretary Ross, I know from your testimony that you take
the administration of the census very seriously and part of
that duty is to administer in a nonpolitical, nonpartisan way,
is that correct?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Serrano. Should political parties and campaign politics
ever factor into what is asked of every household in the
country on the census?
Secretary Ross. No political party has asked us to do
anything on the census. We have had a request, as everyone is
aware, from the Department of Justice to add a citizenship
question to the 2020 census.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. The reasons I asked the first
question is because I was very disappointed to see yesterday
that the Republican party campaign to reelect the President put
out an appalling email specifically noting that the President
wants a new citizenship question added to the census and
seeking campaign supporters to weigh in if they are, quote,
``on his side,'' end quote.
Do you disavow this campaign email? Has the President or
anyone else in the White House directed you to add this or a
similar question to the 2020 census?
Secretary Ross. I am not familiar with the email. I am not
part of the Republican campaign committee, so I have not seen
it; I have heard about it this morning. We are responding
solely to the Department of Justice's request, not to any
campaign request, not to any other political party request.
We are listening to stakeholders, many have written to us,
some have come in to talk with me, and we have initiated a cold
series of phone calls to stakeholders on both sides of the
question. We will come to a conclusion prior to March 31st,
which as I understand it is the date by which we must submit
the questions to the Congress. We will comply with that date.
And we are going very, very carefully and very thoroughly,
analyzing all aspects of the request and its implications for
the census were it to be approved and were it not to be
approved.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. I am not a lawyer and certainly not
a constitutional lawyer----
Secretary Ross. Neither am I, sir. I am a civilian.
Mr. Serrano. OK. But the Constitution is pretty clear to
me, even though I am not a lawyer, it says count the people
within the states, not the citizens. And some Federal agencies
bring fear to people that are here as immigrants, who were not
born here, and the purpose of the census should be to increase
the count every 10 years, make it better, and this question
troubles us a lot.
Mr. Secretary, staying on that line. In March 2017, the
Department sent to Congress a list of subjects planned for the
2020 census. Then in December of 2017, the Justice Department
wrote to the Acting Director of the Census Bureau, asking that
the Census Bureau include on the 2020 census questionnaire a
question regarding citizenship. Many advocates and stakeholders
have expressed strong concerns that including such a question
will discourage many communities from participating in the 2020
census.
Question, Mr. Secretary. Since this topic was not included
in the March 2017 report to Congress on the topics to be
covered in the 2020 census, may we assume that the Commerce
Department itself is not supportive of adding this question?
Secondly, would you agree that it would be totally
inappropriate to include any question that has not been
thoroughly tested in the lead-up to the census?
Secretary Ross. We have not yet made a decision on the
Department of Justice request. It is a very big and very
controversial request. We are taking it very seriously, but I
have not yet made a decision.
I would like to address, though, what steps are we doing to
make the 2020 census more accessible to people whose first
language is not English, perhaps don't even have English as a
language, what we are doing to call their attention to the
census, to its importance, and to the privacy of their
responses. So, if I may, I would like to describe a few of the
steps that we are taking.
First of all, we are using many more languages in the
census than was used in 2010. 2010 used as an alternative to
English-Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, and Russian, five
languages. We are including those five plus Arabic, Tagalog,
Polish, French, Haitian-Creole, Portuguese, and Japanese. That
is twelve languages versus five. That new list should cover
95.3 percent of all those who are limited English speaking
households in the country, so it is, for all practical
purposes, everyone. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Clerk's note: The Department of Commerce corrected this
percentage of coverage to 87 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Q&A paper questionnaire and mailing materials, every
one of them will be immediately in both Spanish and in English.
The additional support materials will be in 59 languages,
including the ones that I mentioned before. And the ads and
partnership material also will be quite multi-lingual. We also
will have in the call centers multilingual people able to
converse with folks in their native tongue.
So those are the things we are doing to try to make
language less of a barrier to people's responses.
In terms of media, we are going to have far more, hundreds
of millions of dollars more spending on the communications
program, which is organized by Y&R. It will be multilingual. It
in fact has included among its subcontractors firms who
specialize in media for non-English language citizens and
residents.
Further, we are increasing the number of partnership
specialists. Last time in 2010, there were 700 partnership
specialists hired by the census; we will have 1,000 partnership
specialists. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Clerk's note: The Department of Commerece updated the number of
partnership specialists in 2010 to be approximately 800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The partnership concept is one that embraces local
community organizations, health organizations, local
governments, all sorts of things, and we have already signed up
local governments that constitute well over 90 percent of the
population to cooperate with us.
In addition, for the first time we will be having kiosks in
the U.S. Postal Service branches. I don't know how well you can
see these, but there are big banners, 14-by-70-inches, going
up, promoting the census. There will be an instruction booth
that one can access on a computerized basis. There are table
stands which will hold hand-helds, so that people can fill out
the form.
So we are doing everything to make this census more
accessible to everybody regardless of native tongue or
inclination. We are working very, very hard at it and I think
it will produce good responses.
In addition, for the first time people have online response
capacity; they are not required to respond online, but it is an
additional facility. So now you can respond by Internet, by
telephone, or by the physical, written document.
And if all that fails, even after repeated mailings and
repeated phone calls, we will have door-to-door enumerators
coming multiple times.
So, as a former enumerator myself, I can promise you I
understand the process, I understand its importance, and we
will get it done.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. And I appreciate all that you are
doing to make this census a better census than any other
before.
Let me just close by saying this very briefly. We may have
in this country, in fact we do, an immigration issue to deal
with and it is going to take both parties to come together to
resolve it, fix it, fix what is broken, but I don't think the
census should be used to create more division, more fear, more
hiding from people who should come forward and be counted. So,
when you make your decision--I shouldn't tell you, you are a
tough guy--don't be afraid to tell somebody, ``Have you read
the Constitution?''
Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey,
chairman of the full committee, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
The Chairman. Great. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for
a distinguished career outside the responsibility you have
taken on and I know you are a good spokesman for the present
administration.
So let me direct this to your staff more than to you. I
often say in my opening remarks that the power of the purse
resides in this committee and of course the power of the purse
affects public policy. And you and I have yet to be acquainted.
You have been on the job for over a year. I say to the
Secretary's staff, the power of the purse resides with this
Committee, and I think it is about time that you and I became
acquainted.
I find it odd that we are engaged in a trade war, and you
can tell from the tone of my voice what I think of it, but I
respect the fact that you are extremely knowledgeable, and
there has not been a consultation with the members of the
Appropriations Committee.
I know we have great leadership, Chairman Culberson here,
great leadership on Mr. Serrano's part, but, I worry as a
Member of Congress representing Northern New Jersey where we
have a lot of our major corporations, and as I travel around
the world and see us stepping back from certain
responsibilities militarily or in some cases taking on
responsibilities that perhaps we shouldn't, I worry that now we
are engaged in a trade war, which is further going to alienate
us from our adversaries.
So I just want to say for the record, I look forward to
discussing some of these matters with you and appreciate your
time and effort, but it is this committee that provides the
resources for all of our trade negotiations and it might be
good to recognize through maybe steps to follow after this
hearing that the communications can be improved.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ross. Congressman Frelinghuysen, I will ask my
staff this afternoon to talk with your staff and arrange for us
to get together. I am sorry if we have not taken the initiative
prior to this.
Mr. Culberson. I want to recognize the gentleman from
Washington State, Mr. Kilmer.
TRIBAL CONSULTATION ON HALIBUT QUOTA
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
It has come to my attention that several tribal leaders
from my district have written to you and requested formal
government-to-government consultation before a decision is made
regarding the allocation of halibut quota in Area 2-A where
these tribes hold treaty-reserved fishing rights under the
Point Elliott Treaty of 1855.
We have copies of the letters and, with the permission of
the Chair and the Ranking Member, I would like to submit those
for the record.
Mr. Culberson. Yes, you may.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
The formal consultation process is part of the Federal
Trust responsibility, it is an essential component of meeting
our treaty obligations to Federally-recognized tribes.
So I would like to know how you have responded to these
requests, whether you will commit to engaging in formal
consultation with each of these affected tribes before
finalizing any decision on rulemaking that will affect the
allocation of halibut quota in that area.
Secretary Ross. As you know, the fisheries operation is
part of NOAA and I have requested NOAA to engage with the
tribal leaders.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. And do you know, will that be a
formal consultation?
Secretary Ross. NOAA is going to work that out with the
leaders.
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OPERATIONS
Mr. Kilmer. OK. On another note, the Export-Import Bank
doesn't have a quorum and it is unable to do deals over $10
million and, as a consequence, there is over $35 billion in
pending deals that are stuck in the pipeline without being able
to be approved with a board quorum. Without a quorum, these
deals are in jeopardy, which will result in the loss of
American jobs.
So, two questions. One, do you agree that the Export-Import
Bank needs to be fully operational; and, secondly, when will
the Administration send a new chairman nominee?
Secretary Ross. Well, I am not aware that the
Administration intends to send a new nominee or does not; I
just am not aware where they stand. That is not a decision that
will be made within Commerce, that is a decision that will be
made solely within the White House.
I am on record as suggesting that I do believe we need a
financing mechanism to help us in international trade, if for
no other reason than the extremely sturdy activities of China,
European Union, and other parties.
So in terms of the overall objective, we need to solve the
financing issue, but I am not privy to any decision that the
President has made regarding any other nominees for the Ex-Im
Bank board. I do sit on it as an ex officio member, but that is
the only real relationship that I have at this moment with the
Ex-Im Bank.
Mr. Kilmer. Coming from the most trade-dependent state in
the country, we would sure like to see that to be fully
operational.
Secretary Ross. I understand that, sir.
STEEL AND ALUMINUM TARIFFS
Mr. Kilmer. Finally, Commerce Department decisions on
exclusions from impending steel and aluminum tariffs will be
made on a company-by-company basis rather than by product, and
granting an exclusion from tariffs to one company means that
that company gains a potentially huge economic advantage over
its competitors. Given that, it is important that the process
be impartial and fair.
So how will the Commerce Department make sure that
companies with political and business connections to President
Trump are not favored in that process, and will the process be
open and transparent?
Secretary Ross. Well, the process will be open and
transparent. We have posted a notice in the Federal Register
and on our website earlier this week and accompanied that with
a press release. We have shortened the time period, we are not
requiring big, long, protracted things, because we want to
minimize the amount of inconvenience that any of the affected
parties will suffer as a result of the process.
So we are gearing up to be fast, to be fair, and to be
practical.
Mr. Kilmer. It looks like my time is up.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer.
I am pleased to recognize at this time the former chairman
of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky.
COAL COMMUNITIES
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
recognizing me.
Secretary, welcome. We are glad to have you here again.
As you helped lead the Administration's efforts to boost
the American economy, particularly in trade and particularly in
juxtaposition from China, as you lead those efforts, we cannot
afford to leave behind Americans in certain sections of the
country like mine. So I want to ask you about the Economic
Development Administration, which you have proposed to zero out
for the second straight year. We disregarded your
recommendations last year and I have hopes that we will do the
same for the coming year.
As you explicitly note in your budget proposal, ``The EDA
has led the Federal economic development agenda for over 50
years by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing
American regions for growth and success in the worldwide
economy,'' end of quote. I entirely agree with you.
Further, your own evaluations show EDA programs have
exceeded performance goals in private sector investment in
distressed communities and jobs created as a result of EDA
grants. Yet, for the second year in a row, you propose to
eliminate the agency entirely.
Now, here is a knowable known, a knowable known. My
district is among the poorest, most economically distressed
congressional districts in the country. In more than half of my
30 counties, more than half, at least 30 percent of residents
live below the poverty level. Even the county with the lowest
percentage is still well above the national average. This dire
need is exactly why over the years, these 50 years, this EDA
administration has been so helpful to us in recruiting jobs to
keep our people at home and to prevent starvation.
Mr. Secretary, I am very concerned about this proposal, how
it would affect rural America, and I would like to hear your
answer.
Secretary Ross. Thank you for that question.
The Administration's 2019 budget prioritizes rebuilding the
military and making critical investments in the nation's
security. It also identifies the savings and efficiencies
needed to keep the Nation on a responsible fiscal path. The
Administration has made the necessary tradeoffs and choices,
difficult choices inherent in pursuing these goals. This means
changing the role and size of the Federal Government and
prioritizing the programs that provide a good return for the
taxpayer, as well as those that serve the most critical
functions, while consolidating or eliminating duplicative,
ineffective, or less critical programs.
Many difficult decisions were necessary to reach the
funding level provided in this budget and, unfortunately, the
elimination of EDA is one of those.
Mr. Rogers. Well, within EDA, I am particularly troubled
about the loss of money we have historically directed to assist
coal-mining communities.
Now, I come from the war field, the war on coal. I have
12,000 laid-off coal miners in my district alone, who are able
people, mechanically talented people, who are now trying to
find a job at McDonald's, unsuccessfully, I might add. In the
past, EDA has worked to help these types of communities that
need some assistance from somewhere. The only place to turn to,
frankly, Mr. Secretary, is EDA.
I would hope that you could reconsider your budgetary
recommendation in this regard.
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir. I am sure you are aware,
Congressman, that the President has tried very hard to end the
war on coal, has tried very hard to make a more level playing
field for the coal operators, and has developed a whole
Appalachian strategy, which he is trying to implement.
We also, as part of the negotiations with China, when we
were over there in November, got agreement in principle on a
huge project in the state that we think will answer to some
degree the question of putting people to work. We are not
running away from that objective, it is just this particular
means of trying to achieve it doesn't seem to fit within the
budget. And I am sorry to say that, because I like the EDA.
Mr. Rogers. Well, so do I, as you may have suspected. But,
yes, the war on coal was real, and this President promised to
end that war and I think he has, but in the meantime we have
got a lot of wounded soldiers on the battlefield who are
desperately in need of some help from this President who
promised to help.
So, again, I would hope you would reconsider your decision
to cut this agency, which you personally like, and so do I.
Secretary Ross. Well, thank you, Congressman. We will give
careful thought to that.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. And of course the
budget is simply a recommendation, which we appreciate very
much.
And I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Cartwright.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to follow up on Chairman Rogers' line
of questioning. It seemed to me, and I might be incorrect about
this, but when he asked you about, you know, why are you
cutting EDA, Chairman Rogers was very eloquent in explaining
the importance of EDA to depressed areas, areas that include my
district as well, a former coal-mining region, and it occurred
to me that you were reading the response, Mr. Secretary.
You were talking about, I think you said, unsuccessful and
duplicative programs in the Federal Government. You don't mean
to say EDA was unsuccessful or duplicative, do you?
Secretary Ross. Well, we do have the Small Business
Administration, which helps local companies. We have proposed a
very big infrastructure project or series of projects, a lot of
which hopefully will help those areas that need capital
investment, rural areas that need broadband and infrastructure
needs that will facilitate economic development.
So the Administration is not running away from the idea of
helping. What it is doing is trying to have a reasonable
overall budget, and that means we have to make very difficult
choices, very uncomfortable choices, one of which is the EDA.
Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Secretary, since taking office in 2013,
I have seen firsthand how the EDA has provided opportunities
for communities in my district. Despite this great work in my
district and Chairman Rogers' district and across the country,
what you call your laser focus on investing in our economy,
despite all of that, the Administration, again, for the second
year in a row, proposes to eliminate the EDA.
Now, I am the lead Democrat on a bill that Chairman Rogers
introduced called the RECLAIM Act, and Senator McConnell also
in the Senate introduced that. That would inject $1 billion to
benefit communities that have been significantly impacted by
the declining use of coal. Even without the RECLAIM Act, the
past Appropriations bills have directed $90 million per year
administered by the EDA to help the exact types of communities
this Administration has repeatedly claimed to want to help.
So are you really suggesting that the Small Business
Administration and this infrastructure program where 80 percent
of the money has to come from local and state governments, are
you really suggesting that those will effectively supplant the
great work that EDA does in these depressed areas?
Secretary Ross. Well, the best way to help all communities
is to have a stronger overall economy, that is the number one
priority of the President. I believe he is delivering very,
very well on that promise. There is economic growth in the last
several quarters that economists previously had said were not
achievable.
We are trying very hard to balance the needs of the economy
and, as I mentioned, unfortunately, difficult choices have to
be made and the decision on EDA was one of those difficult
choices. We just cannot afford everything that we would like to
do had we had the money.
Mr. Cartwright. Just I want to make sure I understand you
perfectly clearly, Mr. Secretary. You have used the word
duplicative. Over the past 18 years, the EDA has provided $18.5
million in funding to my area, Northeastern Pennsylvania, with
a 50-percent match by state or local governments. Can you
provide a specific example of private sector resource that
would be available should state and local governments be unable
to cover the loss of Federal support with their own cash-
strapped budgets?
Secretary Ross. All right. Well, as you know, Congressman,
for the first time in many, many years, a new coal mine
actually opened in Pennsylvania and we helped them negotiate
shipping coal overseas. So that has nothing to do with EDA,
that was done elsewhere in the Commerce Department.
EDA is not the only way that we try to help communities. We
have Foreign Commercial Service people in many, many, many
communities around the country trying to help businesses
develop export activity. One of the great tragedies of our
current situation is that fewer than three percent of all
American businesses ever export anything. We are trying very,
very hard to change that.
In addition, we have Select USA, which is the largest
foreign direct investment program that we have. We had 3,000
participants last year here in Washington in the middle of
June. The State of West Virginia and the State of Washington,
if memory serves, were both very well represented with their
economic development people, and I believe that some actual
investments by foreigners in those States came as a result of
it.
So there are many other ways that we are trying to help the
communities and it is unfortunate that we have to cut out this
particular one, but we are in a financially stringent period.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, finally, Mr. Secretary, I represent a
district that has communities that do continue to struggle, but
with the help of EDA's Regional Strategies Program, for
example, Ben Franklin Technology Partners of Pennsylvania will
invest in over 15 startups and manufacturers that will create
200 new jobs with a median salary of $72,000. These startups
and manufacturers often struggle early on.
Now, Secretary Ross, in September of 2017 you stated, ``RIS
projects will enable entrepreneurs in communities across the
U.S. to start new businesses, manufacture innovative products,
and export them throughout the world, increasing America's
global competitiveness,'' unquote. Today, despite this glowing
review showcasing exactly why this program is a wonderful
investment of our taxpayer dollars, you are proposing the
elimination of that program, a part of EDA.
And I just want to end by echoing Chairman Rogers and I am
not sure you answered his question. Will you reconsider
elimination of EDA?
Secretary Ross. Well, we have submitted the budget proposal
that is before you and we will seriously consider everything
that we hear and learn today, but it would be inappropriate for
me to commit to you that there will be any change in our
proposal.
Our proposal is what it is, we feel it is what is
necessary, and I am afraid that is where we are at this point.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Cartwright. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright.
I will recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr.
Jenkins.
COAL EXPORTS
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to associate myself with the comments from the
gentleman from Kentucky. And I think you have heard from a
bipartisan group that we are all supportive of the EDA. I am
from coal country, I am from West Virginia, and I appreciate
you coming to West Virginia recently. So I join with my
colleagues, I am a staunch defender and supporter of the EDA,
and will fight tooth and nail to make sure that that program
gets funded.
Mr. Secretary, you referenced coal exports in your
comments. You have also referenced deals to try to improve coal
exports. What I hear oftentimes is the issue of many States
prohibiting the export of coal out of ports in their States and
trying to drive an ideological, anti-coal agenda.
What can you and your department do to make sure that we
have free-flowing commerce, that we get our incredible natural
resource like coal through our ports to get on this trade
deficit that you are so focused on? We have got to get our
resources moving, we have got to get them through our ports, we
cannot allow local governments to try to drive an ideological
agenda.
Secretary Ross. Well, if you would let me know or let my
staff know which are the ports and which are the States, we
will see what----
Mr. Jenkins. Washington. I could run through the list. I
think we know what they are. I mean, these are all well
recognized and acknowledged local governmental and State-driven
initiatives to put up barriers on the ability to export coal
out of ports in their States. Washington.
Secretary Ross. Right. I don't know that the Commerce
Department has jurisdiction over those actions. As a layperson,
it strikes me that it is more likely that would take some sort
of congressional action to deal with that.
Mr. Jenkins. Well, we would like to work with you to try to
explore options, because I think there are ways that we can,
defining certain things as interstate commerce and all, where
we can prohibit states from taking these types of action.
So I would like to work with you, Mr. Secretary, to try to
make sure any barriers that we do have the ability to break
down that we do so.
Secretary Ross. Well, I am certainly eager to facilitate
exports in general and exports of coal in particular, and I
think we have already proven that with some of the other
actions that we have taken.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you. Secondly and, again, thank you for
the trip to China and referencing West Virginia's
participation. For the Members of the committee, a memorandum
of understanding was signed with China suggesting an investment
of $80 billion in West Virginia's oil and gas industries.
What is your level of confidence, having been there in
person, having been a part of the negotiating team, is this
real? Can we count on it? I have met with our Governor, I have
talked with our Secretary of Commerce in West Virginia.
Tell me your opinion about how realistic and reliable these
announcements are for creating economic activity in our state.
Secretary Ross. Well, I met with your Governor when he was
up here in Washington recently for the Governors Conference and
at that point he indicated it was his understanding that things
were progressing in a reasonably satisfactory fashion. I have
certainly not heard anything from the Chinese side to the
contrary.
So as far as I know, it is early days, this is an enormous
project, enormously complicated, enormously large in scope, and
consequently it is not something that will happen Monday
morning. But as far as I can tell from the inputs we have been
receiving, the early stages look favorable.
Mr. Jenkins. I would like to make sure our congressional
office is working with your office, and I appreciate that you
are getting updates from the Governor on how it is going, we
would like to be supportive of your staff's engagement. There
is obviously a very important role from DOC under your
supervision to be a key player in this very complicated, as you
described, business opportunity.
So I think it is going to take all of us working together.
We want one plus one to equal three. And so I just encourage
the continued engagement. I appreciate your support and let's
all work together, whether it be this project or others. We
have got great economic needs and we have great opportunity to
invest in West Virginia.
Secretary Ross. Well, Mike Platt in our office, the Office
of Legislative Affairs, would be a very good working
relationship with your staff. So I would urge you to have your
staff reach out to Mike and we will do our best to keep them
abreast.
Mr. Jenkins. We look forward to working with you. Thank
you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Ross. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Meng.
CENSUS QUESTIONS
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary for being here today.
What is the purpose of the census as required by the
Constitution?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry.
Ms. Meng. What is the purpose of the census as required by
the Constitution?
Secretary Ross. The Constitution requires us to enumerate
every person at the place of their normal residence.
Ms. Meng. And do non-citizens count as every person?
Secretary Ross. Non-citizens do count as a person.
Ms. Meng. And do you believe non-citizens count equally as
citizens for the purpose of the census?
Secretary Ross. That is a more complicated question
because, as you know, early on in the census certain parties
were counted as a fraction of a person. So we have no intention
in the 2020 census of counting anyone except as a person.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. And will adding the question of
citizenship help improve accuracy for the census?
Secretary Ross. Well, that is one of the questions with
which we are grappling and one of the important issues that
will inform our ultimate decision. We will make a decision by
March 31st, which is the date on which we must inform the
Congress of the final questions for the 2020 census.
Ms. Meng. Well, if it helps, and I am sure you do know
this, that four former directors of the census who have served
in both Republican and Democratic administrations have all
written that they are concerned in asking about citizenship
status, that it would exacerbate privacy concerns and lead to
inaccurate responses, and that the sum effect would be bad
census data.
Secretary Ross. We are very aware of the views of those
four directors and also of the views of other former census
directors.
Ms. Meng. And what are the costs associated with adding a
last-minute question like the citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. Well, the cost question is one of the ones
that we would obviously be grappling with. The actual cost of
the incremental printing and all that is pretty trivial, so
that is not the big issue. The question is response rate and
the follow-up activity that is needed.
Ms. Meng. The in-language testing and marketing and
research that you previously mentioned today, has it been
tested on a question such as the citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. The citizenship question has been used
repeatedly in the American community survey.
Ms. Meng. In the 2020 census operation plan, it states that
if the final English content changes after April 2018, then
there will not be adequate time in the schedule to translate,
design, and produce non-English questionnaires for the 2020
census.
Secretary Ross. Well, that is correct. That is why we will
be certain to make the decision one way or the other by March
31st.
Ms. Meng. And going back to Mr. Serrano's question about
potential politicizing of this question and input on the
census, you mentioned that you had not seen the email that the
Trump campaign sent out, so I just wanted to show you a copy.
And if I could submit it for the record, Mr. Chairman?
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Secretary Ross. My eyesight is not good enough to read it
from over here.
Ms. Meng. Neither is mine, but I have extra copies.
Has the President or anyone in the White House discussed
with you or anyone on your team about adding this citizenship
question?
Secretary Ross. I am not aware of any such.
Ms. Meng. Many advocates have noted that the inclusion of a
question around citizenship will greatly decrease immigrant
community participation in the census, which goes against its
purpose. Have you considered this impact of including the
citizenship question and what is your assessment of the impact
and what will you do to ameliorate this problem?
Secretary Ross. Well response rate is one of the central
issues, especially as it relates to cost and potentially as it
relates to accuracy. So that is one of the very many factors
that we have been considering actively. I mentioned before, I
think perhaps when you were not in the room, some of the other
measures that we're taking to make the census more accessible
to people. So if I may, I'd like to briefly summarize those
steps that we are taking. We're do----
Ms. Meng. If I could, I--actually, Mr. Secretary, I was in
the room, I did hear.
Secretary Ross. Oh, you were.
Ms. Meng. And I do appreciate your efforts. I am just
concerned about how those measures will affect the minute
addition of a question. My time is running out, but I do hope
sincerely, Mr. Secretary, that you will take away what you have
heard from today's meeting. The mission of a census is to
serve, as on your website, states that it is to serve as the
leading source of quality of data. So I implore you in the
interest of the taxpaying American people that you do what you
can and in your power to make this process as less expensive
and as much accurate as possible. Thank you. I yield back.
Secretary Ross. I stand by what we said on the website.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Judge Carter.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Ross,
welcome. We are really honored to have you here today. You have
consistently stated that unfair trade practices put our
businesses at disadvantage in the global markets. The President
has made it clear that free and fair trade is critical to the
economy and the strategic position of the United States. And I
don't need to tell you how important trade is to the great
State of Texas. It is clear that trade enforcement and
compliance are a focus for you in the budget.
What changes are you making within the International Trade
Administration to put the nation on a level playing field? Back
home in Texas we have a large computer technology presence with
many highly skilled computer experts. What steps are you taking
to level the playing field in regards to intellectual property
rights?
Secretary Ross. Well, as I am sure you are aware,
intellectual property rights, Congressman, are the topic of a
section 301 investigation, which should be coming to a
conclusion in the fairly immediate future. And depending on
what the study recommends and depending on what the President
does with it, that will be a direct response to the problem of
intellectual property rights.
Meanwhile, the new Patent Director, Mr. Iancu, is also
taking steps to improve the durability and the quality of
patent protection that we give. And on that score it is
interesting to note an amazing statistic: around about June of
this year, the U.S. Patent Office will issue its ten millionth
patent. That is a pretty extraordinary achievement. And it is
symbolic of how important intellectual property rights are to
our everyday citizen and to every business in this country.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Carter. Our founding fathers clearly recognized that
our ideas had worth. And I think this is very important to the
future of the United States of America. Let me stress, and I
can't stress more that NAFTA is very important to the State of
Texas and to our farmers. Completely withdrawing from NAFTA
could spell disaster for the wheat and corn farmers. In large
part that trade is conducted through NAFTA. NAFTA has been
great for U.S. farmers and for our ranchers helping U.S.
agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico to increase 350
percent since 1993. One out of every seven Texas jobs is
connected to agriculture. However, the NAFTA negotiations
progressing and will this trade budget suffice on those
negotiations? Dairy farmers are important to Texas. Can you
elaborate on what measures you are considering with concern to
Canada in allowing dairy farmers to access Canadian markets?
Secretary Ross. Well, I made no secret that I am very
opposed to the dairy management system that the Canadians use.
I think it is a terrible system. It has been very, very
detrimental to the milk industry and the dairy industry in
general in the United States. It is one of many problems that
we have in terms of the relationship with Canada.
But in terms over the overall question, a withdrawal from
NAFTA, the President has said his first choice is not to
withdraw. His first choice is to get a better deal in
agriculture and in manufactured goods and in services, both
financial services, digital services and other kinds of
services. So it is not anyone's favored alternative. But unless
you are at the end of the day known to be prepared to take an
extreme measure if the deal is lousy you won't win.
So it is very important that people understand that status
quo is not acceptable. That there are problems that have come
in. And I think the good news is that there have now been these
seven sessions done some in Mexico, some in Washington, some in
Canada, and there has been progress made on a lot of what I
would call the easier issues. And those are all going to bring
some sort of benefit to the U.S. The harder issues are the ones
that are being grappled with now. But I don't believe that the
President would have granted a temporary absolution from the
232 tariffs on steel and the 232 tariffs on aluminum if he
didn't think there was a reasonable chance that we could not
only resolve the national security aspects of those, but also
come to fruition in an overall economic sense with Canada and
Mexico. He may be wrong, but it certainly represents a good
faith effort to do it.
Mr. Carter. I agree. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, consistent with your
demands for time, we are hopeful that we can have at least an
abbreviated second round of questions. Is that agreeable with
the Secretary?
Secretary Ross. Yes. I believe it has been scheduled for as
long as 11:30 if need be. I am happy to do a second round.
Mr. Rogers. 11:30?
Secretary Ross. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. All right. We will meet your request.
Secretary Ross. Now, perhaps I shouldn't have volunteered
that time. That may be an unpolitical move on my part.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Rogers. I was thinking just 5 minutes, but I am glad
you are giving us another forty minutes. Mr. Secretary, it has
been mentioned here before about steel. Several steel companies
have had to close their plants and lay off employees at an
alarming rate due to unfair trade practices from their foreign
competitors. Several of these companies joined together and
filed a complaint with the International Trade Administration
and the International Trade Commission accusing China and other
countries of purposefully undervaluing their corrosion
resistant steel imports in order to increase their market share
in the U.S.
However, there is a significant backlog of anti-dumping
cases pending before the International Trade Administration,
which is having a negative impact on the domestic steel
industry. Over the last few years this Committee has steadily
provided funding increases for the International Trade
Administration's enforcement and compliance division. I am
pleased to see that the President's request continues this
trend with some money above the House passed bill in fiscal
2018. How do you plan to use these resources, these increased
fundings to prevent such large case backlogs in the future?
Secretary Ross. Well, the ITA has been--and Commerce in the
aggregate has been much more active than in any prior
administration. We have been running seventy, eighty percent
more cases initiated than had been true in the prior
administration. We have also completed far more cases than any
administration ever has completed. We had over a hundred cases.
In terms of total trade orders outstanding, we have some
424 in existence and in force right now, about half of which
relate to various steel products. We have 87 or thereabouts
pending cases at the moment, of which 38 also relate to steel
and steel products. So I can assure you that is one of the
materials that is very much on our mind.
The problem with a trade case under the World Trade
Organization rules is it gets to be a little bit of a game of
whac-a-mole. What happens is we are required to file in the
case very precise product specifications. Sometimes to the
extent of saying ``two-tenths of a millimeter in depth is the
product.'' And we also have to be very specific as to the
geography. So what that results in is the offending dumper will
then move it to another country and it will suddenly come in as
though it were manufactured in that other country.
We had it recently with oil country tubular goods. A lot
was starting to come in, steel products, that was starting to
come in from a country that doesn't even have an oil and gas
industry at all. So the only reason that they got into the
business was to take dumped hot rolled coil, fabricate it into
oil country tubular goods and then dump it in the U.S. And that
kind of problem of direct transshipment and sometimes
transshipment after additional manufacture is one of the
factors that motivated us to do the 232 proceeding. Because the
232 proceeding, unlike a normal trade case, can cover the
entire world. It doesn't have to be a product. It doesn't have
to be limited to a country. So that was one of the motivations
in order to try to protect the national security interest in
steel and aluminum.
Mr. Rogers. Well, back onto the International Trade
Administration. We have increased funding over the years lately
for the Administration. And yet the caseload at ITA still is
high.
Secretary Ross. Well, it is high, sir, because we are
initiating more actions. It isn't that they are being
negligent. It isn't that they are not pursuing the cases. When
we initiate more actions naturally the caseload will go up.
There is no backlog because there are all sorts of statutory
dates of a case. I am not aware of any significant number of
cases where we have failed to adhere to the statutory deadlines
unless requested to do so by the petitioners. Our general
practice has been if the American petitioner requests more time
to prosecute the case we generally will grant it. If the
adverse party, the foreign dumper or alleged dumper, requests
time we normally do not grant it. But we do grant it if the
American party does not object.
So if there are individual cases that you feel or any of
your constituents feel have not met the statutory deadlines or
have otherwise been unnecessarily delayed, I would be very
eager to hear about them. And I promise you I will deal with
them promptly.
Mr. Rogers. I appreciate that. I will offer one to you. AK
Steel in Ashland, Kentucky----
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Is a part of the group that filed
a complaint with ITA and ITC at Commerce.
Secretary Ross. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. That is one where we have 700 employees laid
off.
Secretary Ross. Yeah, I am familiar with AK Steel. And we
have been in touch quite recently. If I am not mistaken they
participated in the group of CEOs that came to the White House
a few weeks ago. As it happens on the very day that the
President announced what his decision was going to be on the
232s. So we are actively in touch with AK. I am quite familiar
with their problems, both in their Kentucky operation and with
the electrical steel situation elsewhere in their system. And I
think you will find that they are very happy with the 232
measures that we have put in.
Mr. Rogers. They are indeed. What affect on these pending
cases will the President's 232 proposal, if put in place, how
will that affect these pending cases?
Secretary Ross. Oh, they will go forward. The concept of
the 232 is that those tariffs are in addition to any normal
trade case that we bring. Ones before this and ones subsequent
to it. Now, if we have designed the 232s right, there should be
somewhat fewer cases in the future because it covers such a
wide range of products. Between the two cases I think it is
some 700 odd products that are covered. So our hope is that
this kind of omnibus thing will reduce somewhat the flow of
cases. But it is always possible that the serial dumpers will
decide to eat the tariffs and find some other way to get around
them. And therefore we'll be at least as diligent going forward
on dealing with individual infractions as we have been
heretofore.
Mr. Rogers. Well, Mr. Secretary, if this 232 action is
successful I would like to visit with you and we'll sample a
taste of bourbon together. How does that sound?
Secretary Ross. I am sorry, I didn't hear. Someone coughed
and I don't know if that was a nervous reaction to your
comments or what, but it drowned it out so I couldn't hear it.
Mr. Rogers. I said if it is successful we'll toast each
other with a glass of bourbon.
Secretary Ross. All right. The bourbon may be readily
available if the EU falls through.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Lowey.
Ms. Lowey. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Ross. Congresswoman Lowey, good to see you.
Ms. Lowey. Good to see you. We usually see each other in
July.
Secretary Ross. Right.
Ms. Lowey. And I hope to see you same place, same time.
Secretary Ross. Yes.
Ms. Lowey. Nice to see you. And I would love to take you to
my district. The question that I am going to ask relates to the
Lamont-Doherty program, which is superb. It is in Rockland
County.
Secretary Ross. I am sorry, I couldn't hear.
Ms. Lowey. I was just saying that I would like to take you
to the Rockland County part of my district. It used to be all
Westchester. Now I have both. And there is a program called
Lamont-Doherty, which is really an important service to the
community. And I would like to--I will even take you to lunch.
We could have a visit there one of these days. So----
Secretary Ross. Well, given the sensitive attitude about
men and women interacting we have to be very cautious to have
the lunch be well attended.
NOAA SEA GRANT PROGRAM
Ms. Lowey. And I won't offer you bourbon, you could be sure
of that. I would rather have an ice cream soda, but OK. Mr.
Secretary, for the second straight year, the Trump
administration is proposing to eliminate the National Sea Grant
Program. This national network of colleges and universities
conducts vital scientific research in support of the
conservation and practical use of the coasts, Great Lakes, and
other marine areas. In addition, according to information
provided by the Sea Grant network and reported by NOAA, in 2016
alone, the Federal investment in Sea Grant helped produce more
than $600 million in economic benefit, with more than 7,000
jobs created or sustained and 1.4 million acres of habitat
restored or protected, to name just a few of the program's
impacts.
Given these statistics, isn't there a credible and
persuasive case for continuing the federal investment in the
National Sea Grant program? Which refers to my invitation
before.
Secretary Ross. Right.
Ms. Lowey. That this is such a valuable program. And I have
met with those who run the program, I have talked to students
that have produced real economic benefit.
Secretary Ross. The Sea Grant Program is a successful
program, we certainly agree with that. But providing grants to
states is a lower priority than the core NOAA functions. And
therefore things like surveys, charting, weather forecasting
and fisheries management, in our view, unfortunately the monies
needed for those overwhelm the monies that we would have had to
put into the Sea Grant program. In budget stringency periods
you simply have to make difficult choices. And this was one of
the very difficult choices we made.
Ms. Lowey. Well, I do hope if I can encourage you to come
visit the program, that you may understand how important it is
and how essential the benefits are, and maybe we can change
your mind. I think it would be a worthwhile trip. And we will
follow up. You don't have to respond right now, but I hope
you----
Secretary Ross. Thank you for the invitation,
Congresswoman.
Ms. Lowey. OK. The Commerce Department's new strategic plan
makes special mention of the need to reduce extreme weather
impacts. Yet once again the Trump administration is proposing
to eliminate funding for the Regional Coastal Resilience Grant
program, which provides competitively awarded funding to enable
coastal communities to withstand extreme weather and related
hazards. In announcing the most recent grants provided under
this program, Dr. Russell Callender, the Assistant NOAA
Administrator for the National Ocean Service, stated, and I
quote, ``From restoring estuaries that provide natural
shoreline protection to reducing coastal flooding impacts, the
projects supported by these grants assist in ensuring the
safety and vibrancy of our nation's coastal communities and
economies. We are pleased to be partnering with local agencies
and groups on the ground to have the greatest impact.'' Mr.
Secretary, would you agree with Dr. Callender that the funding
provided through the Regional Coastal Resilience Grant program
is of great value?
Secretary Ross. Once again, we are in the unfortunate
position, NOAA needs lots of money and the Department needs
lots of money. But we are in a very budget constrained period.
And consequently we had to make some very, very uncomfortable
decisions, including that one.
Ms. Lowey. Well, frankly we are in the middle of
negotiating the bill, the big omnibus bill, which we hope will
be completed on Thursday, and there is still items outstanding.
And it seems to me that it is more money than we have ever had.
And so it is a matter of choices. And I would hope that we can
continue the conversation so I can encourage you or persuade
you to understand the value of these programs. There are some
that I wouldn't even discuss. But these two programs I think
are essential, and I would appreciate your consideration.
Secretary Ross. Thank you. And I know you have given it
very serious thought.
Ms. Lowey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Culberson. I will recognize the gentlemen from Texas,
Judge Carter.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE ENFORCEMENT CASE BACKLOG
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
concerning your 232 exemptions and your backlog we were just
previously discussing with Chairman Rogers, we will talk about
backlogs in a minute. But 232 exemptions that allow countries
to petition for relief from imposed tariffs, it is been
reported the Department expects 4,500 applications that could
result in 24,000 hours of increased workload to process. Does
this budget proposal take into account that number and that
number of hours? And how do you intend to address the increased
workload?
Secretary Ross. Well, we have provided for more staffing in
the 2019 budget request. And we have gotten more staffing in
earlier periods. We believe that we can handle the influx. The
4500 was our estimate as to the number of exemption requests
that we would receive. We have no way to judge whether that is
correct or incorrect. But as you know we are required to make
an estimate of those factors. And that was the best judgment we
could make at the time.
Mr. Carter. Well, having inherited a bench which had a
2,000 case backlog, the only way you can deal with a backlog is
build a fire under both parties and make them come in for
resolution. And I worked until ten o'clock at night every night
for two years to get it done. Maybe your boys can't do that,
but you can't live with a backlog in a business community, as
you well know, you are a businessman.
Secretary Ross. Oh, no. And that is why we waived a lot of
the normal trade procedures about hearings and response dates
and all that. Also, as I am sure you are well aware, we took
enormous amounts of testimony, oral and written, and had
enormous amounts of meetings with parties prior to issuing the
232. So we don't come to this process with a blank canvas.
Mr. Carter. Well, I know you are famous for being very
efficient. And I know you are well aware that the business
community gets very nervous when they see backlog, potential
backlogs that could keep them from having access.
Secretary Ross. Well----
Mr. Carter. And I encourage you, as you sound like you are
going to do that.
Secretary Ross. Well, that is what we do. That is what we
do, Congressman.
Mr. Carter. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
DISASTER RECOVERY
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Judge Carter. Mr. Secretary, I
would like to ask you about the disaster relief supplemental.
EDA is--you have heard from our other members of the committee,
is an important agency that has a lot of vital and important
functions. One of which is to provide grants where they can do
the most good for people recovering from disasters through the
emergency supplemental bill that the Congress passed. We
provided $600 million for EDA for areas that had multiple major
disaster declarations. And that certainly includes Houston. The
way that was written we want to make sure Houston and Texas are
at the top of the list. And that money can be used for, not
only for economic development, but for mitigation of flood
damage to help repair damage to existing flood structures and
to mitigate or enhance flood control structures to promote
economic growth. That money was specifically appropriated for
that purpose.
And one of the reasons I had to step out for a moment is
Secretary Carson is next-door on my other subcommittee on THUD
and he is a capable good man, as are you. But these agencies
move so slowly. One of our greatest sources of frustration as
members of Congress is when we have an emergency like this when
Puerto Rico got hammered by the hurricane, and we urgently need
this money to reach our constituents to help them recover and
rebuild. HUD has a reputation of moving like frozen molasses.
That is just not acceptable. Judge Carter is right, we are
going to light a fire under whoever we need to light a fire
under to get help to our constituents.
I know, Joe, you have got family, friends in Puerto Rico
that have suffered as a result of that terrible storm. The EDA,
the $600 million that we provided EDA needs to get out the
door, sir. Could you tell us the status, what progress have you
made in getting those EDA grants out the door to where they can
do the most good to help these communities that have suffered
so much from these terrible hurricanes?
Secretary Ross. I think we are acutely aware of the
immediate need for solutions to the distribution of the money.
And we have been working quite actively and aggressively with
state and local authorities to make sure that we go about it in
a proper fashion. We understand that sooner is infinitely
better than later because people are very much in a crisis
condition. So I assure you we are doing our level best not to
be a source of delay in Houston or in Florida or Puerto Rico--
--
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Ross [continuing]. Or Virgin Islands or anywhere
else.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. While ensuring that our money is
spent efficiently, again, we share the same goal.
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. We don't want to just shove the money out
the door. We want to make sure it is spent efficiently and it
is actually reaching the people who are hurt. And in particular
this funding I was heavily involved, of course, in drafting
this part to make sure that it----
Secretary Ross. Oh, I am well aware.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Goes to help repair damaged
flood control infrastructure and to enhance existing flood
control infrastructure where it will have the greatest economic
benefit. And I point out I had in mind as I was drafting West
Houston is to the oil and gas----
Secretary Ross. Right.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Industry what Silicon Valley is
to the computer industry.
Secretary Ross. Sure.
Mr. Culberson. British Petroleum's North American
headquarters were completely flooded out.
Secretary Ross. Right.
Mr. Culberson. And they still are not back in their
offices. We have had major damage to a lot of the oil and gas
service companies, oil and gas exploration and production
companies in West Houston. So the economic impact of flood
mitigation work in West Houston will be profound. And that is
why I wrote that language that way. So thank you for making
sure it goes out the door efficiently. But boy do we need it to
get out in the hands of the Harris County flood control
district, needs that money as quickly as possible.
Secretary Ross. Oh, we know that, Mr. Chairman. We also
though have to be mindful, we don't want to have some of the
problems that have accompanied other disaster relief in other
hurricanes. We are not going to be having trailers sitting idle
and all sorts of programs----
Mr. Culberson. Exactly.
Secretary Ross [continuing]. That occurred elsewhere. So it
is a balancing act to make sure that we do it fast but
correctly.
Mr. Culberson. Efficiently.
Secretary Ross. Fast but correctly is our----
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
Secretary Ross [continuing]. Motto.
Mr. Culberson. That is why I appreciate you focusing on
local government. The Harris County flood control district has
a superb reputation of using scarce and precious tax dollars
wisely and frugally and managing our flood control network very
well. So appreciate that very much.
And I also want to mention that Texas has submitted a
request, Mr. Secretary, to the Department for a fishery
disaster declaration in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. Can you
tell us the status of that request? When can we expect to see
the outcome of that review?
Secretary Ross. Many of the disaster requests already have
been granted. We have a plan to submit the spend plan for the
remaining 200 non-fishery disaster funding around the 26th of
this month. NOAA is developing a spend plan overall for how to
allocate the disaster funds. And we hope to provide it to the
Congress very, very quickly.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. $400 million of
the money in the emergency supplement was also for NOAA that
was broken out help repair and replace damaged assets, debris
removal, mapping, charting, improving weather forecasting and
200 million for fishery disasters----
Secretary Ross. Right.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. In 2017.
Secretary Ross. Now, the weather forecasting I am happy to
say in this past hurricane season, even though the outcome was
horrible, we don't control the weather, we just get to forecast
it. And the statistics show that our forecast were 25 percent
more accurate this time than in the last big hurricane season.
So NOAA is performing pretty good work. And I believe the new
satellite that has been put up just a couple of weeks ago will
help a lot with that, especially in the western part of the
U.S. and out into the eastern part of the pacific. Because
these new sensors will have three times the resolution, four
times the speed and accuracy. They are much, much improved. We
therefore think that there can be further improvement, at least
in giving people earlier and more accurate warnings. Because as
you know that helps a lot to mitigate damage if people get
enough warning in advance and it is accurate.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Let me recognize
my good friend from New York, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. My next question was going to be--so I will
simply say ditto. The question that the Chairman asked about
the monies getting out that were voted on by Congress. And as
you know I was--I have a special interest in Puerto Rico
because I was born there.
Secretary Ross. Right.
Mr. Serrano. And we want to see that--there is still a
large percentage or a significant percentage of people without
lights. There are still roads that need to be cleaned. There
are different things that need to be done. And in fact, right
across the hallway they are having a panel on the fact that
this is six months since Hurricane Maria went through Puerto
Rico.
Secretary Ross. Right.
Mr. Serrano. And the situation is still dire in many
places. So if at the minimum I want to tie my sentiments to the
Chairman in saying that we need to see that money go out. I
understand your desire not to see money wasted and we support
you on that. But Congress saw a need, Congress voted an amount.
And it is not that easy to get money out of Congress for these
kinds of programs, as the Chairman knows. So anything you could
do would be helpful. To all the people, but especially those
folks in Puerto Rico.
Secretary Ross. Yes. We are devoting a huge amount of time
and effort to that very project. It is complicated, as you
know, because there are multiple U.S. Government agencies
involved. And particularly Army Corp of Engineers in terms of
the electricity situation. So we are doing our best. We have
dedicated staff to it and they are reporting to me quite
frequently as to what they are getting done. It is a horrible
situation, we have to get it fixed and we have to get it fixed
quickly. So we are keenly aware of the dire need.
NOAA STAFFING
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much. Appreciate anything you
could do on that. Mr. Secretary, among the President's
administration's many proposed cuts in NOAA, there is a cut of
248 funded positions from field offices of the National Weather
Service as part of a new framework for staffing weather
forecast offices. The budget submission notes that the
implementation of this proposal could present some short term
risks. So my questions, Mr. Secretary, isn't there a real
possibility that these cuts will create the risk of reduced
timelines and accuracy in weather forecasting?
Secretary Ross. We really don't think so because the
satellite activity is becoming more and more important. And we
have had a lot of automation in the offices. The layoffs can
only occur by agreement with the union, unless we get into a
RIF, reduction in force, situation. We are trying to avoid that
by negotiation with the union. But we are not going to layoff
anybody or leave any positions unfilled if we think there is
any material risk of reducing the accuracy and timeliness of
the forecast.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. I hope so because more than ever
now we need the National Weather Service to be able to function
as modern as possible, if there is such a phrase.
Secretary Ross. I am personally aware of it because my
normal residence before coming here was a coastal community in
Florida. So I understand the problem.
TRADE ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Serrano. OK. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, both you and
other officials in the Trump administration have spoken of the
need for strong enforcement of our trade laws. I want to ask
you about the President's meeting last week with the Canadian
Prime Minister, as well as the President's statements following
the meeting. It was reported that in a fund-raising speech last
Wednesday President Trump boasted that he made up information
in his meeting with the Canadian Prime Minster, claiming that
the United States runs a trade deficit with Canada. On Thursday
morning, President Trump posted on Twitter that the United
States is running a trade deficit with Canada. In reality the
U.S. had a trade surplus with Canada of $12.5 billion in 2016.
So, Mr. Secretary, what does this do to the credibility, in
your opinion, of the United States in trade negotiations and in
trade enforcement when the President of our country makes a
public claim about trade that simply has no basis in fact?
Secretary Ross. Well, I was not at the meeting with the
Canadian Prime Minister, so I am not aware of the context. I
only knew of it from the newspapers. But I do know that the
Canadian Government reports to the Canadian public that it has
a trade surplus with the United States. That is in their
published records on their website.
Mr. Serrano. And therefore.
Secretary Ross. There is no therefore. I was not part of
that discussion.
Mr. Serrano. OK.
Secretary Ross. I have met subsequently with the Trade
Minister for Canada and I have not noticed any change in the
relationship that we have with her or with the Government
overall.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I hope we don't because, you know, more
and more we are finding countries throughout the world that
disagree with us. And we have a partner like Canada we should
not get caught up in comments that could hurt that relationship
in any way when they are not necessary. I mean if something is
wrong of course you bring it up. So I would hope that you play
a role behind the scenes there, as I know you are capable of,
of just saying, you know, some things need to be left alone.
Secretary Ross. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank
you for being here today. Over the past decade the worldwide
consumption of fish and seafood has increased 17 percent. This
means more seafood is being imported and exported around the
world from more countries into the U.S. According to the CDC
study report in February of 2017, 97 percent of fish and
shellfish consumed in the United States are imported. Last year
we had a U.S. dollar trade deficit of 4.5 billion from shrimp
alone. And representing the historic seafood capital of the
world, Biloxi, Mississippi, could you tell me what is the
Department doing to help reduce the seafood trade deficit?
Secretary Ross. Well, it is one of my pet peeves. I hate
the idea that with all the water surrounding us and all the
water inland that we have a trade deficit in fish. And I have
been putting a lot of pressure on the fisheries management
group at NOAA to try to deal with the situation. I think there
is some potential that some of the constraints that we have had
on fresh catch here maybe need to be relaxed a little bit. I
think it is easy to be a little bit over zealous and therefore
hold down the production of fish.
Second, I believe there are some inappropriate practices in
some of the foreign countries in their aquaculture. It seems to
me that we should be very careful about importing seafood from
places that do not adhere to the same standards we would have
for aquaculture here in the U.S. So we are mindful of it both
from the point of view of seeing what we can do either with
aquaculture or reevaluation of what are the needs of the fish
stock so that we--my goal is to have maximum sustainable catch
be the target for our domestic fishing industry. And as to the
foreign industries to the degree that they are conducting their
activities inappropriately we are going to try to constrain
them as best we can.
DISASTER RECOVERY
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you. And I appreciate your
agency's work on that subject. Switching gears, being that I
represent a gulf state and we have been hit really hard by
natural and manmade disasters in the recent past, these
disasters have had the negative environmental and economic
impacts, particularly on commercial and recreational fishing
industries, their supply chain and their communities. Could you
tell me, if any, what investment is the Department of Commerce
making to help industry and these communities recover and be
more resilient?
Secretary Ross. Well, we have repeatedly declared a fishery
disaster situation. And I don't remember just all the places
where we have, but it is quite a few. And there are a couple
more applications that are pending. So that is one very
specific step. The best thing we can do though is to try to get
an early warning system so that people can try to get prepared.
Because it is not just the fish themselves, it is also the
vessels that are at issue.
And I don't know if you were in the room when I mentioned,
but in this past hurricane season our forecasts were 25 percent
more accurate and they were more timely than they had been
before. We are trying to increase the advance warning that we
can give to the affected communities so that they can try to
prepare themselves. And also trying to be more accurate in the
location and the severity. So that is one of the major steps
that we are in a position to take. Then when disasters do hit,
as you know, Congress has made appropriation and we will try to
deal with that.
NAFTA NEGOTIATION
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you for your support and
assistance in that regards. Last question. You know, I come
from a very rural state where agriculture is our number one
industry. And as you know overall NAFTA has been good for U.S.
agriculture. Since implementation agricultural exports to
Canada and Mexico have totaled approximately 310 billion and
increased by more than 300 percent from pre-NAFTA levels. The
administration is wrapping up final talks with our trading
partners in Mexico and Canada. And the U.S. farm economy is in
a major downturn right now. And the farmers in my district are
very worried about our Mexican and Canadian markets going to
other countries for their ag products. In fact, Mexico
announced they have already begun discussions with numerous
countries in South America for corn and other grain products.
Could you provide the Committee with the latest update from the
NAFTA negotiations from an agriculture perspective?
Secretary Ross. Surely. We have now had seven rounds of
negotiation. And a lot of issues, mostly not the most
contentious ones, but a lot of issues have been negotiated. A
lot of language has been put to bed. We think there is a
practical time limit, not a contractual one, not a legislated
one, but a practical time limit on the negotiations due to the
political calendar. Mexico, as you know, has a general election
coming up in the beginning of July. Canada has its provincial
elections in June. Our fast track authority, the trade
promotion authority expires on the 8th of July here in the
States. And, of course, we have the midterm congressional
elections in the fall.
Why all that is important is it is my view that if we don't
have a resolution within the next month or so very likely it
will be kicked over for quite a little while because of the
election cycle. Especially in Mexico where, as you know, there
is one candidate who is running on a quite anti-American
platform.
Mr. Palazzo. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo. Mr. Kilmer.
MBDA BUSINESS CENTERS
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman. The budget proposes to
close the business outreach centers for the Minority Business
Development Agency and establish the MBDA as a policy office in
Washington, DC. The City of Tacoma, which I represent, was
fortunate enough to receive a grant to operate an MBDA business
center and I got to visit with the folks who were really
benefitting from the technical expertise and from additional
resources. That is not unique in the western region. MBDA
offices have helped businesses access over $200 million in
loans and equity investments, as well as $800 million in
procurement contracts. So can you explain how a centralized
MBDA will serve the needs of minority business owners located
in communities around the country, many of whom face difficult
barriers as it is, and can you give us the rationale for
closing these business centers?
Secretary Ross. Surely. The general concept, well, first of
all, I have been individually very supportive of the efforts of
the MBDA. As you know I have addressed minority groups all over
the countryside and have tried very hard to foster their
activities. The good news is that minority businesses are
growing very, very rapidly and are constituting an increasing
percentage of the new businesses created in the country. And
they, of course, are very major beneficiaries of the overall
economic strength and growth that has come on with the Trump
administration.
But in terms of MBDA specifically we intend to refocus it
as a policy-based and as a leveraging-based entity, rather than
one making direct grants out in the field. We think that at the
end of the day that may very well better equip the agency to
fulfil its mission. Because it is a limited number of
localities that can get grants in a given year. Whereas, if we
can change overall policies, we can influence the direction of
policy more effectively, that might very well have a broader
impact to the benefit of minority businesses.
MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP
Mr. Kilmer. You know, I can understand the value of policy
development here, that is what we do. But I got to tell you,
you know, seeing the benefits on the ground in communities that
benefit from this really makes a difference. So I would
certainly ask that the Department reconsider that.
I similarly was disappointed to see the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership also under attack for a second year in a
row. The program's stated goal is to help bring manufacturing
back to the United States. And in the State of Washington our
local MEP affiliate, Impact Washington, has done a tremendous
job. Has really made a difference for manufacturers and has had
substantial statewide impact. Can you explain how eliminating
the MEP program that has such local and national impact on job
retention and growth in manufacturing aligns with the
President's focus?
Secretary Ross. Surely. Again, it was a very difficult
decision. But if you go back to the original concept of the MEP
it was really meant to be a bridge to elicit local support as
well. And we have had indications that in many, many localities
because of the success the obligation to continue it in some
form at some level of activity will now be subsumed by the
private sector. And so our hope is that there will be a lot of
the objectives met in that format. But again, it is one of the
difficult decisions that we had to make in a time of extreme
budgetary stringency.
Mr. Kilmer. I would just point out, I think that in both
MBDA and the MEP that decision is sort of divorced from the
reality on the ground. You know, in Tacoma the ability to
receive those resources, that technical expertise to
entrepreneurs is something the MBDA has done very well. And
Impact Washington, which is the MEP program in Washington
State, you know, I look at the rural parts of my district where
you have seen expertise provided on the ground that has led to
job creation. You know, there is not a whole lot of, you know,
private capacity to step into that void if the federal
government backs away. So again, I would just ask that the
Department reconsider that.
Secretary Ross. Thank you very much for your comment.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Cartwright for 5 minutes.
TRADE TARIFFS
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know that
I will take that. But I want to follow up about trade a little
bit, Mr. Secretary. I sent the Department of Commerce multiple
letters supporting using Section 232 of the Trade and Expansion
Act to help the struggling aluminum and steel industries. I
also know you were a strong advocate to the President to take
such action.
I do have deep concerns about the rollout by the
administration of tariffs. There are, as you know, certain bad
actors around the globe who artificially dump and depress steel
and aluminum prices. Those advocating the use of Section 232
made very clear that we wanted you to go after the bad actors
and not our friends and allies. And my concern is the way we
are going about this is we are going to hurt the 6.5 million
Americans who work in industries where steel or aluminum is
used. It could also damage our relationship with close allies,
lead to a trade war that could severely damage our whole
economy and undermine the international trading system. And it
could raise prices for every American for everyday products.
My question is do you believe that a directed application
of Section 232 would have been insufficient for our national
security needs and to protect these industries?
Secretary Ross. Well, as I believe you know, the 232
reports recommended a variety of ways of achieving the same
objective. The President chose one of those alternatives in the
case of steel and a similar one in the case of aluminum. The
reason we are now going through an exclusion process and an
exemption process is to try to make sure that that broad
approach does not do undue harm in either category.
Mr. Cartwright. Are you personally involved in that
exemption process?
Secretary Ross. Oh, extremely. Extremely.
Mr. Cartwright. And will you do your dead level best to
make sure we don't hurt our friends and allies and the people
that are playing by the rules?
Secretary Ross. Right. Well, certainly the people who are
playing by the rules we will try our best not to hurt. A
complication is that not everyone who is a defense ally is
necessarily playing by the fair trade rules.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright. The Chair
recognizes Ms. Meng for 5 minutes.
CENSUS COUNT OF CHILDREN
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I wanted to ask a
question about the traditional census undercount of young
children. Children, particularly those under the age of 5 are
at high risk for an undercount during the 2020 decennial
census. According to data published by the Census Bureau the
undercount for these children in 2010 was a net 4.6 percent.
And this undercount interferes with our ability to accurately
provide needed resources for federal programs, such as TANF,
special education grants, Head Start and the National School
Lunch program.
I represent a district in the bureau of Queens, which was
in the top ten counties in the country for undercount of young
children. And I wanted to know what are some steps the Census
Bureau is taking to address this issue?
Secretary Ross. Well, it relates to the overall issue of
how do we encourage count? And you were here when I described
the additional marketing efforts we are doing, the additional
community outreach with community partnership. Anything you can
do to encourage local organizations within your district to
cooperate with us is probably the best way to do it. Because
the local people have a different relationship to the
population in their immediate neighborhood. And therefore I
would hope that being one of those that apparently had a very
severe undercount that you will try your best to get people to
cooperate at the partnership level and even at the individual
level. We can't require people to cooperate. And it is the--so
the best we can do is to try to encourage them, try to make it
easy for them through the multiple languages, through the
marketing and through voices such as yours that have the
respect of the community.
GATEWAY TUNNEL PROJECT
Ms. Meng. Thank you. And my other question is about the
Gateway Project. Mr. Secretary, as someone who was born and
raised in New Jersey and commuted two hours daily to attend
school in Manhattan, I wonder what your views and thoughts are
on the Gateway Tunnel Project that will connect New Jersey and
New York.
Secretary Ross. Well, as you know, the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey was originally conceived decades ago to
provide linkages between New York and New Jersey. And as far as
I know the original project that it was mandated to do never
occurred. So it is not new, the idea of needing gateway
projects. The infrastructure bill, assuming that the Congress
passes it, will provide funding and the funding has an
allocation formula to it that you are, I think, well aware of.
We hope that legislation will be passed. And we are sure that
Gateway will get due consideration, along with other projects.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. As you know, up to 100,000 people per
day travel between New York and New Jersey. You are right, it
is not a new issue. Tunnels are corroding. There will be a
harsh economic impact to America's economy if these workers
were not able to go to work. This is just one example of how
important the Gateway Tunnel Project is to New Jersey and to
New York, but also to America's broader economy. Respectfully I
encourage you to do everything you can within the
Administration to ensure that this project is treated fairly
and that it remains a top priority of our federal government.
Secretary Ross. Thank you for your comments.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Ms. Meng. Secretary Ross, thank you
for your time today and thank you for your service to our
nation. The Committee on Commerce, Justice and Science stands
adjourned. Thank you.
Secretary Ross. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 11, 2018.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
REAR ADMIRAL TIM GALLAUDET, PH.D., USN RET.
Mr. Aderholt. All right. Good morning. The hearing will
come to order, and I would like to welcome our witness here
today, Admiral Gallaudet, the Assistant Secretary, the acting
Under Secretary of Commerce of Oceans and Atmosphere.
Certainly your past experience makes you uniquely suited
for this job and I appreciate your scientific background and
your leadership experience that you bring to the agency, and we
thank you for your service.
Mr. Gallaudet. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Aderholt. It is good to have you here.
For fiscal year 2019, you are requesting 4.6 billion, which
is a decrease of more than a billion dollars, or 23 percent,
from fiscal year 2018. This budget was formulated before we had
an agreement on adjusting the budget caps and seeks to cut
almost every program that funds research or NOAA partners in
academia and the states. And while I agree that we need to
spend tax payer money wisely, we will carefully review the
budget proposal to ensure that we are adequately funding
mission critical expenses at NOAA in 2019.
So before we proceed with your statement, I would like to
recognize the ranking member, the Honorable Mr. Serrano, for
any remarks that he may have at this time.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to
join you in welcoming our guest this morning, Admiral Tim
Gallaudet, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere, and current acting Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere. I look forward to your testimony before
our subcommittee as we discuss NOAA's fiscal year 2019 budget,
and learn more about the vital work our friends are doing as we
speak.
I believe that NOAA is one of the most underrated agencies
under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. The invaluable
work and research that NOAA quietly conducts each year has a
profound impact on our national economy and way of life, yet so
many Americans do not even realize it.
NOAA's mission is to understand and predict changes to our
climate, weather, oceans, and coasts. The data and information
it collects is used by businesses, other federal government
agencies, and state and local governments to help them make
informed decisions that affect consumers and the public at
large.
NOAA also protects and manages our nation's oceans and
marine resources that make up a large part of the beautiful
American landscape.
For fiscal year 2019, NOAA's requesting just over $4.5
billion, which represents more than $1.3 billion reduction from
the fiscal year 2018 level. Coastal Zone Management Grants,
climate and oceans research, national marine sanctuaries,
environmental literacy programs, fish catch share, and stock
replenishment programs, the National Sea Grant program, and
countless others will see drastic cuts or complete elimination
if this budget request is adopted.
Even the National Weather Service operating budget will see
a cut of nearly 8 percent. It is as though the administration
sees little value in the work conducted by the countless
scientists and researchers at NOAA.
With the damage and devastation to Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and others during
the 2017 hurricane season, now is not the time to cut NOAA's
budget by more than a billion dollars. Even NOAA acknowledged
that the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season was record breaking,
and the devastation it caused was unprecedented.
If that is true, why are we cutting this agency's budget so
drastically? This shortsighted approach to saving money would
only result in potentially catastrophic consequences further
down the road. I do not say this lightly, but in the long term
we will be paying an even higher price for these cuts in terms
of money and lives lost. This makes no sense to me.
Our storms, as you know, are getting stronger. Our oceans
are getting warmer and experiencing more pollution. Our climate
is changing rapidly, and millions of lives hang in the balance.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I know that the phrase climate change
upsets a lot of people. So I have just decided to call it
something is happening.
Mr. Aderholt. Very good. Proceed.
Mr. Serrano. Something is happening. Of course, it is
obvious.
I believe that we should be making stronger investments in
NOAA so we can get a better understanding of these atmospheric
changes and address the growing national security and economic
challenges we face as a result. Therefore, I cannot support
this administration's budget request for NOAA, as it represents
a clear abdication of the agency's core mission.
I am hopeful that my colleagues on this Subcommittee can
come together and spare this agency and its invaluable work
once again. We must look at the larger picture here. If we do
not get serious about the threat of climate change--and work to
mitigate it through research, data collection, and
collaboration, we will be putting nearly half of the American
population, especially those who live along the nation's
coastline at risk.
Thank you for joining us this morning, Admiral. I look
forward to hearing your testimony about the great work that our
scientists and researchers are doing, and know I also look
forward to working with my colleagues on this Subcommittee to
draft a CJS Appropriations Bill that we can all be proud of.
And may I say, Mr. Chairman, very briefly that the first
round of the last bill had problems. The second round was one
that we felt very comfortable about. So hopefully we can move
in that direction as we put together this bill.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. You mentioned climate change, and
I think most of us do know there is climate change out there. I
think we agree to that. So you can say that. It is a----
Mr. Serrano. Wow.
Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. Well, sometimes the cause----
Mr. Serrano. Yeah.
Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. Of it sometimes is the----
Mr. Serrano. I know.
Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. Thing that is debated. But
needless to say, climate change is something, I think, that
most of us can agree on.
But anyway, Admiral Gallaudet, thank you for being here,
again. As I mentioned earlier, without objection, your written
testimony will be entered into the record. At this time, I
would ask you to summarize your statements, and you may
proceed.
Mr. Gallaudet. Chairman Aderholt and Ranking Member
Serrano, thank you very much for your support of NOAA, and for
the entire subcommittee I also thank you for your support in
the recent Omnibus Appropriations Bill and the Hurricane
Supplemental Appropriations. Your support will ensure NOAA will
be able to successfully continue its very diverse and critical
mission.
It has been a true honor to serve the past several months
as the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere and acting NOAA Administrator. I have seen first
hand how the women and men of NOAA benefit public safety,
economic growth, and national security.
I have been fortunate to visit a number of NOAA's
facilities, including sites in seven states, and to meet
hundreds of meteorologists, oceanographers, fisheries managers,
scientists, engineers, lawyers, and devoted professionals that
make up NOAA's diverse and first rate workforce. I have also
had many people in your communities talk to me and tell me of
the great work that NOAA does, and I have been very moved by
their appreciation.
The past year was an extremely successful one for NOAA. I
will share with you three examples of many that are--of our
remarkable achievements.
First, we responded effectively to a record setting
hurricane season, which you mentioned, Congressman Serrano,
where we saw storms that impacted over 25 million people. Our
efforts saved thousands of lives despite Hurricanes Harvey,
Irma, and Maria being three of the five most costly hurricanes
in history. Our track forecast accuracies for the three
Category IV hurricanes that made landfall in the U.S. were 25
percent better than the last five-year average, and we are
continuing to help communities recover today through our
response efforts.
Second, NOAA had perfect launches of our GOES and JPSS
satellites in March and November, respectively. Those platforms
have already proved their worth by supporting emergency
managers responding to wildfires and severe storms.
Third, NOAA installed a system of precision navigation
sensors in the port of Long Beach. That allowed a four-foot
increase in ship draft for the ships entering port there,
resulting in millions of dollars of extra cargo that each ship
can carry every day in just that one port.
NOAA's fiscal year 2019 budget request of just over $4.5
billion is focused on two priority areas. The first one is
reducing the impacts of extreme weather and water events by
implementing the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation
Act. I will refer to this priority as the Weather and Water
Priority.
The second priority is increasing our sustainable economic
contributions of our fisheries and ocean resources. I will
refer to this as our Blue Economy Priority.
Under the Weather and Water Priority, this budget invests
more than $1.1 billion in weather forecasting capabilities,
including an increase to the advanced weather interactive
processing system, or AWIPS, which is the cornerstone of our
field operations at the National Weather Service. This budget
also invests $878 million in our polar orbiting satellites, and
$408 million in our geostationary weather satellites that are
essential for our weather forecasts and warnings.
NOAA's budget increases investment in the Office of Space
Commerce, and the Commercial Remote Sensing, and Regulatory
Affairs Office, both that promote growth in the commercial
space industry.
Under the Blue Economy Priority, NOAA's budget ensures its
oceanographic capability continues by investing $75 million to
recapitalize our fleet of survey ships. Through a $200 million
investment in hydrographic surveys, charting, and mapping,
NOAA's budget promotes the safe and efficient navigation to
maximize maritime commerce.
NOAA's budget continues investment in fisheries management,
and the scientific research that supports it, and this budget
request also supports domestic seafood production through a
$9.3 million investment in marine aquiculture. This will
support job creation and the growth of America's seafood
industry.
Thank you for the opportunity to present NOAA's fiscal year
2019 budget request, and I am happy to take any questions.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Admiral. And it is Chairman
Culberson's policy that we do the five-minute rule, so we will
each take five minutes to go around to ask questions. And I'll
start out.
In the last six months, NOAA has successfully launched two
flagship satellites, which you mentioned, JPSS-1 and GOES-S.
First, I congratulate you and your team for a huge
accomplishment. So we are certainly proud of that, but now that
GOES-S is successfully launched, we have five GOES satellites
on orbit, if I am correct.
My understanding is that the program only requires a total
of three satellites, two operational satellites and one on
orbit spare. Given the current surplus of GOES satellites, why
should we continue building GOES satellites at the current
rate? Is it best to use the taxpayers' dollars to build GOES
satellites faster than we actually need them?
Mr. Gallaudet. Thank you for your question, Chairman, and
you're right. This has been a fantastic program, the--our GOES
and JPSS satellite programs, and I did happen to see the GOES-S
launch firsthand at Cape Kennedy, and it went off perfectly to
the second on the planned launch time.
Now, we have--you are correct that we have three--a
requirement for three satellites, two operational in east/west
positions, and one to spare, on orbit as a--because it is
really a no-fail mission in these weather satellites.
We have two extra surplus satellites currently that are all
beyond their service life, so that we are just--they are just
basically bonus and we are fortunate to have them flying still.
They--we did not--they were not engineered to last this long.
So with that surplus, we are having discussions with the
Department of Defense because they have a gap in the Indian
Ocean region and the Western Pacific, and so we--if we--well,
we continue to operate those extra satellites, we will share
some of that data with--we are having discussions to
potentially use one of them for the Department of Defense
mission.
Mr. Aderholt. So would you be giving it to them, or would
they just have access to that information? How would that be?
Mr. Gallaudet. Well, we are not resourced to operate for
them in that orbit, but we would probably partner in some way,
and we are--those--that has been the focus of our discussions
right now.
Mr. Aderholt. OK. So no decision has been made yet? Are you
all still in discussions on that?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aderholt. OK. The GOES and JPSS and their predecessors
have provided critical weather and earth observation data for
decades and remain a primary input for weather models, but
space is evolving, as we know. Launches are getting cheaper,
and space is no longer just the domain of governments. What is
NOAA doing to take advantage of these changes and lower the
cost of our observing infrastructure?
Mr. Gallaudet. We have several efforts underway, Mr.
Chairman. One is that we are studying the potential of using
commercial satellite data for our weather models, and so we are
in the second year of a pilot project to study that.
We also are conducting a fairly extensive satellite
architecture study, and in that study we are assessing the
potential for future commercial capabilities and integrating
those within our current satellite programs using either
commercial data or even different satellite designs like
NanoSats and CubeSats.
Mr. Aderholt. I understand that the commercial weather data
pilot program has gotten off----
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. To a slower start than was first
expected; is that correct?
Mr. Gallaudet. I don't think we had a--it was--it is a
modest endeavor. We don't have a large amount of funds
dedicated to it, and it was primarily a kind of crawl, walk,
run effort where we envisioned just looking at one type of
data, radio occultation, and then in the future, should we
receive more appropriations funding to conduct studies like
this, we would look at other types of data.
Mr. Aderholt. Oh, and what would be your next steps for the
pilot program?
Mr. Gallaudet. We are--we have done the radio occultation
study. We are going to examine that a little more as new
commercial sources become available. And the idea would be in
the future we would look at other data types. It could be
anything from sea surface temperature to atmospheric
measurements.
Mr. Aderholt. From what you observe from the pilot program,
what are some of the things that stood out as far as things you
have learned from that?
Mr. Gallaudet. Well, one of the things we have learned is
the industry isn't evolving as fast as we thought it would. In
fact, the radio occultation systems that are available
commercially are very few in number. I think there is only one
company currently that has the potential to provide it.
So it is--but then again Secretary Ross, my boss in the
Department of Commerce, he has been involved in a pretty active
campaign to promote the development of commercial space
capabilities, and so we anticipate growth in that area.
Mr. Aderholt. OK. Thanks very much. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, the hurricanes last year caused significant damage
to NOAA facilities and equipment in the south and southeast of
the United States, as well as Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. The recently enacted bill provides funding for repairs
or replacement of those facilities and equipment. Can you give
us an update as to how that is going?
Mr. Gallaudet. Sure, and I want to thank you very much,
Congressman Serrano and this entire subcommittee, for
appropriating that disaster supplemental funding. We will put
that to very good use.
Currently, we have a spend plan for the 200 million
allocated for the weather damage and weather research that we
will use those funds for, and it is currently at the Office of
Management and Budget under review.
We intend of that 200 million that 100 million will be
dedicated to weather research and improved weather forecasting
and warning, and then we will have another about--the other 100
million will be used for a number of different things like
marine debris removal in Puerto Rico and in the southeast
caused by the hurricanes.
And then there is also another 200 million that will be
applied to fisheries disasters along the Gulf Coast, and Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and even some West Coast
fisheries that were disasters--were declared last year.
Mr. Serrano. Now, is that money flowing already or will be
flowing?
Mr. Gallaudet. Not yet. OMB has to approve it, our spend
plan, and as soon as they do, we will start--and we are lining
up, you know, our contracts and all the work to be done so we
can execute it as soon as those funds are available.
Regarding Puerto Rico, we have much underway already in
terms of removing marine debris, performing post-storm
assessments. We worked with the Department of Defense to get a
weather radar to replace the damaged one that we had--we
operated there. And I will tell you personally, I have great
sympathy and appreciation for all the people of Puerto Rico.
During Hurricane Katrina, my house on the Gulf Coast of
Mississippi was entirely washed away in 28 feet of storm surge,
and so I have personal knowledge of what--of the sacrifices and
loss they have experienced. And so you can be assured,
personally I will be providing as much support and personal
involvement I can to ensure we can recover quickly.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. The budget as presented by the
administration cuts 248 funded positions from field offices of
the National Weather Service, and we know how important the
National Weather Service is, especially these days. So Admiral,
won't these further cuts in Weather Service personnel as
proposed by the President create a very real risk of reduced
time lines and accuracy in weather forecasting?
Mr. Gallaudet. Congressman, thank you for your interest in
the Weather Service and support. They are all heroes in my
opinion. I visited a number of the Weather Forecast offices,
and they have made great sacrifices during the storm season. I
have seen in Houston for example, the forecasters were there in
the office five days straight, sleeping in the office,
providing warnings to emergency managers, and then that is just
one of many examples.
To answer your question, we don't believe that that
reduction in the number of positions will introduce significant
risk. In fact, there have been three studies on the work force
at the Weather Service, and all have concluded that the Weather
Service can operate more efficiently. There are just a number
of either operating practices, like reducing the number of
forecasters on watch, or even the hours any given forecast
office operates, as well as using automation and improved
processing technologies like the one I mentioned in my opening
statement, the AWIPS.
So technology and better business practices at the Weather
Service, I think, will allow for us to absorb the reductions in
people in this budget.
Mr. Serrano. Admiral, my last question for this round, the
silliest question you will get all day today, but it is just
something I came up with last night. So whenever I turn on the
TV or the radio, wherever I hear the weather forecast, they get
that from you guys, right? They don't do their own weather
forecasting?
Mr. Gallaudet. Actually, TV meteorologists sometimes do
their--often do their own forecast, but they get the baseline
data and warning information from us, yes, sir.
Mr. Serrano. I was wondering if they pay you for that.
Mr. Gallaudet. Our taxpayer dollars pay for us.
Mr. Serrano. I know.
Mr. Gallaudet. The American taxpayers pay for our service,
sir.
Mr. Serrano. All right. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gallaudet. Thank you.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral
Gallaudet, it is great to see you again. Thank you for being
here today.
During last year's hearing, Secretary Ross made a
commitment to me and to this Subcommittee to work with the Gulf
States to find a solution to better manage our red snapper
fisheries. And Admiral, you and I have spoken about this issue
as well. Fast forward to today, this administration has stood
by these commitments, and I want to first say how much I and my
Gulf colleagues appreciate the willingness of this
administration to work with our states and the recreational
fishing community on ways to improve red snapper manager, and
which, as everyone knows, is by far the most popular and
contentious off-shore fish in the Gulf of Mexico.
I am proud of the work that Mississippi and the other Gulf
states have put into the developing proposals that will allow
each of the States to manage recreational fishermen in both
State and Federal waters over the next two years. Mississippi
is more than capable of managing its fishery in a way that
ensures conservation while maximizing access, and I believe it
should be given the maximum management flexibility possible
under this proposal.
And I know that the question I am about to ask could very
easily be answered any time this week or next week, so without
being a spoiler, Admiral, will you commit NOAA fisheries to
working with Mississippi and the other states to ensure these
proposals are approved and provide whatever assistance is
needed to ensure their success?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, Congressman, we will. And I think the
red snapper story this year is a fantastic one, especially in
light of the last year's season. And so I think we are going to
be very successful, and I will work with Mississippi and all
the Gulf states in managing the--in co-managing the red snapper
fishery.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you for that commitment.
Shifting gears a little bit, as you know from your own
science background as the--and career as oceanographer of the
Navy, maintaining the competitive edge in the maritime
environment is critical for both defense and non-defense. There
is legislation introduced in both the House and Senate for the
purpose of developing a NOAA Navy program for the assessment
and acquisition of unmanned maritime systems to the benefit of
several NOAA offices, including Ocean Exploration and Research.
However, the President's budget has reduced or eliminated
programs that aim to maintain that competitive edge, especially
through competitive programs and cooperative institutes with
university scientists, such as with the University of Southern
Mississippi, my alma mater, and others. What is your strategy
for maintaining the United States competitive advantage in the
area advanced technologies relevant to the NOAA mission,
especially in unmanned maritime systems and ocean exploration
with such dramatic reductions to the budget?
Mr. Gallaudet. So Congressman, I understand and appreciate
your interest and support of our technology development,
certainly with respect to ocean capabilities, as well as the
unmanned systems work we are doing, and we have discussed
together personally.
And so yes, the budget choices, in terms of the unmanned
systems work and our office of Ocean and Atmospheric Research,
as well as many others that are important, we may because this
administration is committed to prioritizing national security
funding. And in it--from my past experience in the Navy, I
support that prioritization.
And so we had to cut--we decided to reduce programs that we
felt were either redundant or had--were primarily supporting
grants to local stakeholders or States, and it was the core
government work that we preserved.
With respect to unmanned systems and ocean exploration, we
didn't zero those out. So even though we removed the unmanned
systems research effort, there is still a vast amount of great
unmanned work going on all across NOAA. Our fisheries, for
example, are doing amazing things serving marine mammals, and
acoustically with unmanned surface vehicles and underwater
vehicles looking at fish and fish stocks that--in ways that are
just much more efficient in cost-savings compared to our
previous efforts.
And so we are flying drones. We are doing underwater and
surface type of activity, and advancing that still in our--in
the current line of funding we have today, but I will look
forward to working with you and the Navy going forward to see
how we can best continue those operations and the research and
development behind it.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Admiral. Thank you for your
service. And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Aderholt. Thanks, Congressman. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Admiral, for being here.
I wanted to ask a question about a project that is near my
district. The National Center for Coastal Ocean Science funds a
critical research project called Mapping the Long Island Sound
Floor. The Long Island sound is vital to the region's economy,
security, and ecology. As you know, the challenge for effective
coastal planning is balancing the demands of proposed
development activities, such as telecommunication and cables,
gas pipelines, and other infrastructure whilst ensuring the
sustainability and health of marine environments there.
Your budget proposes significant cuts to the account that
funds this project, and proposes to eliminate a number of
navigation observations and positioning grant programs under
the National Ocean Service that impact these projects. Please
explain why you think these programs should be eliminated.
Mr. Gallaudet. Sure, Congressman Meng. Thanks for your
question. Thanks for your support of our National Ocean Service
and the offices under it.
The Ocean Service is a particularly high interest item for
me as--with my degrees in oceanography, and the fact that I've
been a coastal state resident in three states for my entire
adult life, and overseas, and so I--and currently live on the
Chesapeake Bay and I very much enjoy and value our coasts and
all the work that the Ocean Service does.
With respect to the project you mentioned, again, our
rationale behind the budget cuts wasn't that we thought these
projects weren't good or valuable. It was just that we had to
apply our cuts somewhere, and so we preserved much good work
that the Ocean Service does in terms of coastal modeling,
navigation, and surveying, but it was the grants that--to
states that we decided to reduce because we just felt the core
government services that we provided had a higher priority, and
it wasn't that the work wasn't important. We just had to apply
the cuts somewhere.
Ms. Meng. Okay. I hope that you will continue to
prioritize. Any way that we can help--I mean, do you believe
that--piggybacking off of Ranking Member Serrano's comment
about climate changing and that something is happening within
our oceans and the climate as a whole?
Mr. Gallaudet. Oh, absolutely. From my background in the
Navy, where I helped establish the Navy's climate change task
force, and my scientific experience and knowledge, I am very
aware of it. In fact, our organization does much great work
still in terms of monitoring climate and climate change and the
studies behind it, including the various aspects of it, whether
it be drought or sea level rise, and we are applying that
information every day in studies and assessments, and work with
local officials to help manage and adapt to those changes.
Ms. Meng. Great. And back to hurricanes a little bit. You
mentioned in your testimony about the accuracy and success of
many of these programs.
NOAA requests a decrease of $4 million in reducing the
overall computational capacity of research and development in
high performance computing system. This decrease will eliminate
one of NOAA's super computing systems jet located in Colorado,
and reduce the super computing use and associated contract
support in West Virginia. Some major transition projects
include hurricane forecast, improvements, next generation
global prediction system, and storm surge modeling that will no
longer have use of the super computing system.
Why actively seek--why are you seeking to reduce our
capability to forecast storms, such as Sandy that devastated
New York City and the tri-state area? Harvey, Irma, Maria are
just some examples that you've mentioned.
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, Congresswoman, and forgive me for
calling you Congressman up front earlier.
We--first off those reductions are--they are not--we are
not zeroing out the programs. We are--we made reductions based
on the fact that we feel the current funding is sufficient, the
funding that we have proposed, still to continue to improve our
work.
For example, we see great opportunity for research super
computing in the cloud, and our--my counterpart, the Assistant
Secretary for--of Commerce for Earth Observations and
Predictions, Dr. Neil Jacobs, comes with great experience in
that area, and he is already working on plans to leverage cloud
computing for research applications.
The other piece about improving our modeling in super high
performance computing to support modeling, we have much
underway that is very good, and in fact, I will thank you for
supporting the Sandy supplemental funding because that has led
to many of the great advances in our weather modeling. We have
an research or experimental model we call the Global Forecast
System Finite Volume Cubed, or GFSFV3, that is in the process
of transitioning to the Weather Service.
This model outperformed the European models for the
hurricane track forecast for the three Category IV hurricanes
that made landfall. So we are--our goal is to regain world
leadership, take number one back for our weather model, and we
are on track to do it. We expect to do that before 2020.
Ms. Meng. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Aderholt. This young lady from Alabama.
Ms. Roby. Well, good morning, sir. Thank you. I know you
can tell that this committee is--has good representation from
the Gulf States. And I want to apologize up front for the
coming and going. I think every single one of us have all of
our subcommittees meeting at the same time right now. So I just
really want to make a quick comment and that is--and if we have
some questions, we will submit for the record, but I just,
alongside my colleague, Mr. Palazzo, I just want to commend you
and the National Marine Fishery Service for your collaboration
and your approval of allowing the State of Alabama, as well,
recreational red snapper season to be set at 47 days in 2018
and next year, as well.
We all believe that cutting out the federal red tape and
getting the local and state leaders involved in decision making
is a true testament to working together. Each state and fishery
are unique in our country and having decisions that are made
jointly is key to finding the appropriate solution. So again,
thank you so much for all you and your partners do in allowing
our fisheries in Alabama, and around the nation, to thrive with
innovative policies and cooperative decision makings. And I
just want to thank you for your service to our great country
and appreciate you being here today very much.
Mr. Gallaudet. Thank you.
Ms. Roby. So thank you.
Mr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Congresswoman. Thank you for your
support. And I will say that the credit goes to Chris Oliver,
the director of our National Marine Fishery Service. He has got
great experience and he is doing the right thing for our
fisheries. And I thought the red snapper management plan is
exactly what it should be.
Ms. Roby. Great. Thanks again on being a role model. I will
yield back.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning,
Admiral. Thank you for joining us and thank you for your many
years of public service.
I want to follow up on Ms. Meng's questioning a little bit
if I can. I think we are on the same page about the importance
of climate change research. And I am going to rip through a
number of quick questions to----
Mr. Gallaudet. Sure. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. Make sure we are on the same
page about this. First, do you agree that the past three years
have been the warmest three years in recorded history?
Mr. Gallaudet. To the best of my knowledge, yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Do you acknowledge that 17 of the 18
warmest years on record have happened since the millennium,
2000?
Mr. Gallaudet. I will acknowledge that we have seen a trend
in warming. I don't know the exact numbers.
Mr. Cartwright. Do you agree--the amount of carbon dioxide
is higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years and
largely due to this carbon dioxide, the IPCC believes that
global temperatures are expected to increase by at least 2.7
degrees Fahrenheit during the 21st century?
Mr. Gallaudet. So I acknowledge that the carbon is at a
record high in terms of the historical record in the atmosphere
and oceans, but the 2.7 degree forecast rise that the IPCC
acknowledges is also a forecast with uncertainty.
Mr. Cartwright. OK. Do you agree that global sea level rise
in the next century will be better measured in feet and not
inches?
Mr. Gallaudet. I acknowledge that the sea level is rising.
And again, forecasting the amount it will rise by the end of
the century is--there is a significant uncertainty in our
ability to do that accurately.
Mr. Cartwright. And finally, you acknowledged that we still
have a lot more to learn about climate change and its dramatic
effects on almost everything we do.
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. So I think you and I both recognize this.
The subtle science on climate change, and we both know it is an
existential threat to everything we know, I think we can agree
we need to improve our understanding of climate change so that
we can adapt and mitigate its effects. Fair statement?
Mr. Gallaudet. I would say that that is--it is important to
continue our NOAA research behind climate change because there
is much we still don't know.
Mr. Cartwright. EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, has
repeatedly stated that carbon dioxide is not a primary
contributor to the warming that we observed. Did you know he
said that?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Last fall, you presented the
administration's three top priorities for NOAA and let me make
sure I have them correct before I dive into it. Number one,
leading the world in weather prediction. Number two, minimizing
the impacts from severe weather. Number three, increasing
sustainable economic contributions from our fisheries and
oceans. Have I got all of that correct?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Cartwright. And I notice that climate change is missing
and for years NOAA has played an essential role in deepening
our understanding of climate change, does that concern you? I
know you have said in the past that, ``The administration will
continue to support NOAA's climate mission.'' Are you concerned
about dropping that off the list?
Mr. Gallaudet. I would say it is imbedded within all three
of those priorities, Congressman. In fact, so when we talk--in
my opening statement, we have combined those first two
priorities to what we call a weather and water priority and
minimizing the impacts of extreme events. And so that involves
events on scales that are in weeks to seasonal and even sub-
seasonal, and climate type of scales.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. I am looking at the numbers in
your budget requests and it seems to me the administration has
proposed to cut NOAA by over a billion dollars. That is about a
20 percent cut. Am I reading that correctly?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. That is troubling. Let's talk about some of
these cuts. Admiral, let's look how they align with the
administration's priorities for NOAA, how they align with our
shared understanding. Budget proposed is stripping $2.4 million
from regional climate centers, which answer millions of
requests from businesses, farmers, and local communities every
year. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. It will eliminate the climate resilience
grants to states. And now the climate resilience grants showed
us that for every one dollar invested in resilience, it results
in $6 in savings from future extreme weather damages. Am I
correct in that?
Mr. Gallaudet. I don't know the exact number, sir, but I
know that there is--the work our climate predictions provides
the country saves money and lives.
Mr. Cartwright. The budget will eliminate the climate
competitive research grants, right?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. It will dismantle, and that is the language
the administration used, the climate program office as it
currently exists, right?
Mr. Gallaudet. I am unaware of that. That office is still
funded in the fiscal year 2019 budget, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. The budget will cut research on ocean
acidification by 23.4 percent. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Even though ocean acidification can
potentially harm and deplete our fishing stocks, right?
Mr. Gallaudet. We are still continuing--even though there
is a reduction in the funding, we still continue to do that
research to support shellfish growers, for example, in the
State of Washington. So yes, there are reductions in the
program, but we are still looking at it, studying it, and
supporting those who are affected by it.
Mr. Cartwright. We will come back to this, but the budget
also proposes decreases to hurricane forecasting research,
doesn't it, even though hurricanes cost our country an eye
popping $306 billion in damages last year, and even though
400,000 American citizens in Puerto Rico are still without
power over seven months after Hurricane Maria, correct?
Mr. Gallaudet. So the rationale, as I mentioned earlier,
Congressman, was not to--we didn't remove all hurricane
research, for example. As I mentioned to Congresswoman Meng, we
have a very solid and robust research program supporting
hurricane forecast research. I went down to our Atlantic
Oceanography and Meteorology Laboratory last week in Miami that
has a hurricane research division. They are, and continue, and
will be doing in this fiscal year 2019 budget terrific work to
improve our hurricane forecasting and the research behind it.
So we haven't zeroed it out. We have just made reductions in
various areas we thought either were redundant or were--we had
sufficient capability.
Mr. Cartwright. I think we will come back to this, but at
this point, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Let me switch gears and talk a
little bit about--we have talked a little bit about hurricanes.
Let me talk a little bit about tornadoes, as we had mentioned
briefly before the hearing started. Of course, tornadoes in the
southeast result in more deaths per capita than any other
region in the United States. Since 2015, we have been funding
the VORTEX-southeast program, SE program, which brings together
meteorologists, researchers, and social scientists to better
understand the storms and conditions that cause tornadoes in
the southeastern part of the United States.
Can you share a little bit about what the program has
accomplished thus far and how it will help protect the folks
that I represent back in Alabama from these deadly tornadoes?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The VORTEX program I
think is a terrific one. Yeah, over the last year I know that
our--it has been managed by our national severe storm lab in
Oklahoma, but they have partners in your state that they have
actively done field research in to study the damage, for
example, at different--where different tornadoes have occurred
in Alabama.
And then with that information, they have been able to
reduce the uncertainty in tornado warnings and predictions and
also better understand the decision/support type of work and
how we provide warnings to emergency managers and the advice
they should give the people because of the different nature of
the storms in that--in, say, your region to those, say, in
Texas. And so there has been great, I think, advances made by
that program.
I note your concern about the fact that the 2019 budget
reduces that funding for the VORTEX program. And again, that
was one where we felt that the national severe storm lab was
still doing, with their baseline funding, had a good tornado
research program, as required by the Weather Act I mentioned in
my opening statement. So we didn't pull back all the research
in terms of tornado warning, but we made a reduction based
again on what we thought was a sufficient level of capability.
Mr. Aderholt. OK. Well, please know that this is certainly
important to us in the southeast and, of course, in Alabama, my
home State.
It is my understanding that half of NOAA's ships are past
their designated service life and are scheduled to retire by
2028, is that correct?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aderholt. In light of that, NOAA has proposed $75
million each year to recapitalize its fleet. Before buying new
ships for NOAA, we want to ensure that NOAA is fully utilizing
commercial and partner assets. How does NOAA determine whether
a mission can be completed by a partner vessel or are there
additional missions that NOAA can use external ships to
complete or reduce pressure on the NOAA fleets?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir. We perform our oceanographic and
hydrographic and fisheries research work with actually a kind
of suite where we have our own vessels, but we also match that
with sometimes contracted vessel support. And we do this in
hydrography all the time. In fact, I would say it is roughly, I
think 43 percent of our hydrographic surveys are contracted.
The reason I think we can't entirely contract and use partner
vessels, even though--because ships are expensive, is the fact
that there are just some capabilities and instances where we
will need a government only solution.
A great example was the hurricane season, sir. NOAA's ship,
Thomas Jefferson, was able to go in to Puerto Rico and all
around the southeast, actually, right after the storms hit and
do critical hydrographic surveys to open ports. Now, that ship
opened up 18 ports in as many days following Hurricane Maria in
the U.S. Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico. And so that was
something we, a surge capability we just couldn't contract out.
Mr. Aderholt. OK. Let me go ahead and Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Maybe this is not a question for you, but for
other people, but I would like to get an answer from as many
people as I can. Right after Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico
and the devastation that we saw, that many people claim is the
worst ever under the American flag, it took such a long time
for things to get going. And some of the excuses they were
giving was that Puerto Rico was an island. And I sarcastically,
or profoundly, said it was easy to invade it in 1898, so it was
probably not difficult to reach it now. What was the problem?
Was it administrative delays? Was it indifference, if you are
free to say that? Is it the fact that it is a territory and
they don't play in the same ballfield as states? I mean,
something went wrong. Here goes that phrase again. Something
went wrong and even people who are keeping quiet about it
because they don't want to attack the administration or the
agencies know that something went wrong.
Mr. Gallaudet. Well, Congressman, again as I mentioned
earlier based on personal experience, the people of Puerto Rico
have my deepest sympathy. In my position at NOAA, I really--it
is not mine to comment on the overall response of first
responders and of FEMA. I met with Brock Long and we have a
great partnership. I think I can tell you that NOAA's response,
as I mentioned with the ship, Thomas Jefferson, and much the
work we are doing now to remove derelict vessels and areas
where hazardous material and oil has been spilled, restored
habitat in many areas that--and thank you again for the
supplemental appropriations, which we will apply. It is a very
good effect in Puerto Rico and other areas that were affected.
So I can tell you that NOAA's response has been terrific
and I am very proud of the people of my organization.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Well, you know, I just wanted to
throw more information into the pot, if you will, because I
have no qualms with NOAA. NOAA and NASA are two of our favorite
agencies here, you know, except you are not sending anybody out
into space anytime soon, right?
Mr. Gallaudet. No, sir. No, and we are not funded to do it
either. But I will tell you that we have----
Mr. Serrano. Some staff members only.
Mr. Gallaudet. The former administrator had some experience
there, you know. But we have a very active ocean exploration
program with our ship, Okeanos Explorer, which is discovering
new things every year: a new species, new phenomena, and I
think it is a program we are really proud of.
Mr. Serrano. That is great. That is great. Among the many
NOAA programs the administration wants to eliminate are the
National Sea Grant Program and the Educational Partnership
Program with Minority Serving Institutions. Among the many
benefits these programs have provided is that they have
encouraged a pipeline of talented young scientists to choose
careers at NOAA. Admiral, won't the elimination of these
programs harm NOAA's ability to maintain a high quality work
force in many critical areas? I mean, you have been getting a
lot of talent from those programs. How difficult is it going to
be now?
Mr. Gallaudet. Well, I will acknowledge and thank you for
your support of both of those programs. And I will say that the
sea grant program is a great one. It is very--we have recruited
out of sea grants and the educational partnership program great
talent. I have met many of our--of scientists in NOAA now who
are veterans of those two programs. And in fact, last month, I
spoke at the educational partnership program event at Howard
University and I was able to see some new, young students who
are all doing great research and partnership with NOAA. NOAA
mentors these students. Our scientists enjoy that. And we gain
because of it.
So I will tell you yes. We have benefitted from and we have
been able to build a more diverse workforce based on those--
support from those two programs. So they are important. I can
only explain to you how previously that we had to make some
tough calls given the cuts we were required to execute. And so
some of the core services, like weather forecasting and the
oceanographic and hydrographic surveys, are what we preserved.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. One last question here, Admiral.
Would you please talk about the backlog of maintenance and
repair needs at weather forecast offices? How bad is the
problem, and to what extent is the backlog further harming the
ability of the National Weather Service to make timely and
accurate weather forecasts?
Mr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Congressman. And again, I really
appreciate your support to the weather service. It is just a
really terrific organization, affecting Americans for the
better every day. Yes, we have identified facilities across all
of the weather service that are in need of repair. And I don't
believe they are posing significant risk to the mission today.
We are still saving lives, protecting property all across the
country. And we proved it during this hurricane season.
But you are correct in acknowledging that I am concerned
about a number of our facilities and that--not only at the
Weather Service, but across all of NOAA. And so we are looking
closely at what we need to recapitalize at fisheries too, and
in other locations to ensure our workforce has the best place
to do the best job.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Just one last comment, a selfish
comment, but important to our districts. Some years ago, you
set up a weather station at a community center populated by a
lot of young people in my community. And in all honesty, you
know, the years go by and I don't know in what condition that
weather station is. If you could just check on it to see if it
is where it should be because at one point, we were having
local cable T.V. channels pick up the weather forecast from the
weather station at the community center, which was really a
great thrill for the kids and a great learning experience. So
if you could just check on that, we would appreciate it.
Mr. Gallaudet. We sure will, Congressman. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, I want to
pick up on--we were talking about some specific cuts and really
these are--the overall budget is something that comes from the
administration and some--many of the folks in your position are
treated as, well, this is something we have to live with that
is coming down from on high. And we have talked about some of
the comments from the administration officials basically
denying climate change. A lot of the cuts seem to align with
those beliefs. I went through a bunch of them with you already.
The one that may be absolutely heartbreaking to you,
Admiral, is the administration has proposed eliminating the
arctic climate research program, hasn't it?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. And I know you spent much of your career
working on arctic research. Are you concerned about the effects
of the elimination of that program on our national security?
Mr. Gallaudet. Congressman, I thank you for your interest
in this important area. I am not concerned because we are
doing--even though that research line has been eliminated, it
doesn't mean we are not doing arctic research. I was just at
the Pacific marine environmental lab in Seattle and they have a
very active program that is continuing various lines of arctic
research, but not in the name of an arctic research program.
For example, we have just contracted with an organization
called Saildrone that operates unmanned surface vehicles. And
we actually executed an arctic survey this year, just near the
Bering Sea. And so we are undertaking a good amount of arctic
research in the ocean and on the ice and we operate the
National Ice Center in Suitland, Maryland, which I encourage
you to visit sometime.
So we do have a fairly--we are still continuing to do
arctic research, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. I want to follow up about talking about
ice. I know NOAA published its 2017 arctic report card last
December. It found that the arctic was warming at a rate that
was unprecedented. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. That is something the world has not seen in
the last 1,500 years, am I correct in that?
Mr. Gallaudet. I don't know the exact number, sir, but it
has been warming, yes.
Mr. Cartwright. And it is warming at twice the rate of the
rest of the globe in the arctic, right?
Mr. Gallaudet. That is correct.
Mr. Cartwright. Last month, arctic sea ice, which we were
just talking about, hit a record low, never before seen in the
satellite era, correct?
Mr. Gallaudet. For the winter, yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. And it was 62,000 square miles smaller than
the previous record set just the previous year, right?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, warmth in the arctic affects the jet
stream, does it not?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir, it does.
Mr. Cartwright. And you said that before. What you said
was, ``Unlike Vegas, what happens in the arctic doesn't stay in
the arctic, it affects the rest of the planet.'' Have I quoted
you correctly?
Mr. Gallaudet. You have done your homework, Congressman.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. Well, Admiral, you were the one
who delivered the 2017 arctic report card to the
administration, right?
Mr. Gallaudet. Correct, yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. And you said, ``The public should have high
confidence in us,'' and that, ``The White House is addressing
the report, acknowledging it, and factoring it into its
agenda.'' Did you say that?
Mr. Gallaudet. That is correct. The Office of Science and
Technology policy under the White House is supporting our
arctic research efforts.
Mr. Cartwright. But with all these cuts to climate
research, does it not seem like the White House is failing to
address it and properly factor it into its agenda?
Mr. Gallaudet. Again, sir, I think that the answer is no.
The Office of Science and Technology policy under the White
House has supported, for example, our arctic research and the--
if not zeroed out our climate work. If you go to drought.gov or
the Climate Prediction Center's website, you will see that we
continue to put out seasonal and long range outlooks that are
benefitting Americans and businesses in terms of drought
temperature.
We continue to look at the arctic and support arctic with
research and forecasting. The Navy recently completed or is
conducting--just conducted its ice exercise, something I
attended two years up in the (indiscernible) where two
submarines were basically doing research and tactical
development. And we provided forecasts for--of the ice and the
weather that supported the safety of those operations.
So I believe that through NOAA, we are continuing to do
very good work. We haven't eliminated our climate work, it has
just been reduced.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, I want to leave you with this. I want
to have confidence in you, Admiral Gallaudet, and I do. You are
clearly a good scientist, an able leader. I would say a good
soldier or in your case sailor----
Mr. Gallaudet. Sailor.
Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. Sticking up for the folks up
top. But looking at this budget, I just don't have confidence
in the administration. I think this budget is going to hurt our
national security. I think it is going to hurt our economy. I
think it is going to hurt our country and the world for
generations to come. And I think this is a budget written by
climate deniers that would derail the great work that has been
going on, largely under your leadership at NOAA. And I hope
this committee can fix the serious problems in this budget
proposal. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Admiral,
for being with us. I have got a few things I was hoping to ask
about. First off, I would like to ask for a status update on
the process of distributing funds to communities impacted by
recent fisheries disasters. As you know, Congress approved $200
million in supplemental funding to support those communities,
but they continue to wait for relief while the agency works to
develop a plan for how to distribute those funds. Can you tell
the committee what the process--you know, when the process will
be completed so that those funds can get out the door? We have
got communities and folks who have been waiting for years.
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, Congressman. Thank you for your support
of NOAA and your interest in this issue of fisheries disasters.
We have developed a spend plan on how to allocate the $200
million of funding, both for the west coast fisheries disasters
that were declared in 2017 and, of course, those that were
declared in the wake of the hurricane season.
And so our spend plan is currently being reviewed at the
department and will go to OMB we hope by the end of the--in the
next two weeks or so. And then when OMB approves that, then we
will be able to share--we will share with the states the
allocations and then we will figure out exactly what those will
fund in concert with your state and others.
Mr. Kilmer. Great. If that is something once it is cooked
by OMB that you can share with us, it would be very helpful.
Mr. Gallaudet. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks. I want to shift gears and thank you for
visiting my state and learn more about the NOAA programs that
are done in partnership with UW and that are pretty central to
the economy in the Pacific northwest. In our neck of the woods,
one of the most important programs is the IOOS program, which
provides some real time data about ocean conditions, that is
used by fishermen, and shellfish growers, and a host of other
industries, and agencies, and stakeholders. Unfortunately, the
fiscal year 2019 budget doesn't reflect the value of this
program. The proposed cut of more than 30 percent would really
cripple that system and jeopardize the livelihoods of folks
that rely on that data, not to mention the impact it would have
on other critical services, like search and rescue, and flood
warnings, and navigation safety that also depend on this data.
Now that you were able to go to Washington State and see
the value and success of that program, I would be interested to
hear whether you believe it is in the Nation's best interest
for NOAA to divest from that critical program.
Mr. Gallaudet. That is a great question, Congressman, and I
have met with all the IOOS regional managers just recently in
Washington, DC and I will say--I will agree it is a very
important and impactful program. Being a career oceanographer,
I get it very well. Again, as I mentioned, I don't think you
were in the room, but we--in coming up with our fiscal year
2019 budget, we had to make some tough calls. And we decided to
prioritize core government services, and so grants and local
related work was what we had--we picked to reduce or in some
cases eliminate, not because we didn't think they were
important or good, it was just that we had to prioritize.
Mr. Kilmer. Finally, let me ask about the role your agency
plays in mitigating coastal hazards. About 40 percent of the
U.S. population lives in coastal areas, so NOAA is very
important in everything from protecting communities from
hurricanes, to tsunamis, to sea level rise. Unfortunately, the
administration hasn't made this a priority. The district I
represent is already experiencing some of the threats of sea
level rise. We also happen to be a tsunami zone. So NOAA is an
incredibly important partner in our region from the national
tsunami hazard mitigation program to regional coastal
resiliency grants.
NOAA provides a lot of funding and expertise that is really
important for communities like Westport, where I was just last
Friday, and Neah Bay, Ocean Shores. I could give you countless
examples from my home state. But the fact is, every single
coastal state, roughly half of all states in the Nation,
benefit from these programs. In my view, we should be doubling
down on them because these are communities that are really at
risk. That is what I am going to advocate as part of this
committee. And I am not going to ask you to defend the proposed
cuts to these programs, but I would like you to tell the
committee how these cuts would affect NOAA's ability to
continue to protect vulnerable coastal communities?
Mr. Gallaudet. Sure, Congressman. And I, again, have deep
appreciation for your interest and support of these--of the
coastal zone management programs and resiliency efforts that we
will leave reduced. Again, we are not eliminating all of our
coastal work and support, if you will. I mentioned this to
Congressman Meng, that I have been a coastal state resident in
three states and several countries, so I--and I live on the
Chesapeake Bay. So I very much appreciate these programs.
And I will tell you, there is good work that will continue.
Habitat restoration, for example, in Louisiana I visited a
restored marsh that had been under water for decades that we
restored and that is--that provided an effective storm surge
barrier during this hurricane season to the residents of that
state.
And in your state, there is great work we are doing too. We
have restored an estuary in your district, I believe, that is
now very active for the salmon hatchery. We will continue good
work and we just had to make reductions.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the time. I
will just say as I yield back, I was in Westport and visited
the Coast Guard station there and was meeting with a group of
Guard members and their families and asked them, ``What is
keeping you up at night?'' And the number of people who have
mentioned the risk of tsunami was really significant.
Mr. Gallaudet. Well, and that is great, sir. I will say,
though, that again we continue to fund our tsunami program in
this budget. It is reduced, but not eliminated. And I think the
men and women that are working at our tsunami warning centers
are experts, doing very good work, and we will--it is important
for us to continue that capability.
Mr. Kilmer. I agree. Thanks. I yield back.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you very much. Welcome, Admiral, it is
an honor to have you here. I am from West Virginia and NOAA has
made a real investment in our State. One of your supercomputers
is in Fairmont, West Virginia, and that has been an important
driver of high tech talent into our state coming out of our
universities and bringing people to West Virginia. Can you give
me any sense of kind of NOAA's view of that positioning in West
Virginia, and the supercomputer, and your investment in our
state, and the future that you see of NOAA in West Virginia,
that facility in Fairmont, in particular?
Mr. Gallaudet. Yes, Congressman. And thank you for your
interest and support, again. And definitely I enjoy your state.
I am going to be visiting it next month for the Eagle Horizon
exercise, that is our backup site, if you will, for when we
have to do continuity of operations. And I look forward to that
time.
And our supercomputing capability there is important to us.
It is foundational for our numerical or high performance
computing numerical weather prediction. And so we will maintain
our presence in your State because that capability is so
important.
Mr. Jenkins. Great. Thank you. There was a proposal for 10
years' worth of contracted work in the $533 million range. I
appreciate your comments about the continued commitment to West
Virginia. On your radar screen, some of this potential
contracted work, half a billion dollars in West Virginia at
this facility, your familiarity, what the game plan is, and
what the outlook is?
Mr. Gallaudet. Sir, I actually can't comment. I am not a--I
will have to take this for the record on what our exact--in the
fiscal year 2019 budget, what our program funds are for and our
plans going forward in the future. I don't recall the numbers
and so I will have to come back to you with that one.
Mr. Jenkins. Right. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Thank you for being here. I understand we have had two rounds
already, so unless there is nothing else, I will move that this
hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 18, 2018.
OVERSIGHT OF THE 2020 CENSUS
WITNESSES
RON S. JARMIN, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
ROBERT GOLDENKOFF, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC ISSUES,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
DAVID POWNER, DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Culberson. The Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation
Subcommittee will come to order. We are here today to receive
testimony from the Census Bureau and the Government
Accountability Office in preparation for the 2020 census, one
of the things that the Constitution requires us to do, we want
to make sure it is done correctly, frugally.
And the Census Bureau today is represented by Ron Jarmin.
We are glad to have you with us. He is the acting director. And
from the Government Accountability Office, we have Robert
Goldenkoff and David Powner. Thank you very much for the work
that you do on behalf of the taxpayers. And we welcome you to
today's hearing and reiterate the importance of the job that
you are doing.
We are having this oversight hearing to ensure that our
constituents' very scarce, precious, and hard earned tax
dollars are wisely spent, that the charge given to us by
Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution is fulfilled, that it
goes off flawlessly, we hope, and accurately. We are required
by the Constitution to conduct an actual enumeration of the
population every 10 years. And ever since Thomas Jefferson ran
the first census, we have met that goal, but we haven't always
been within budget and that is a source of real concern.
Director Jarmin, we are entrusting you with our
constituents' hard earned tax dollars and we are expecting you
to be very frugal and careful in how they are spent. We have a
big job ahead of us. Today I hope you will be able to convince
the committee that the Census Bureau is working diligently to
ensure an accurate enumeration that is on time and within
budget. That is absolutely essential.
We have seen discouraging signs regarding cost, which are
really distressing. Last May, your predecessor came before this
committee to report a $300 million cost overrun. And by
October, this had ballooned into a $3 billion overrun with the
2020 census estimated now to cost 15.6 billion. The overruns
have just got to stop. We just can't function this way. And it
has got to be done correctly.
The Commerce Department then asked the committee for a
bailout and we just simply cannot repeat that episode under
either yours or Secretary Ross' watch. I know that he is
personally overseeing the operation of the census. I know there
are a lot of very capable career people that work under your
direction, but this has just got to be done correctly,
accurately, completely, and frugally, and within budget, and no
more cost overruns.
Aside from cost, another major concern is cyber security.
With all of the sensitive personal data that you have on
Americans, the Census Bureau is a prime target for cyber
criminals and hostile state actors. And like most Texans, I
really treasure our privacy and am very wary of the federal
government's overreach. When Americans give sensitive data to
the federal government, we need to be confident that you can
keep it safe.
It is a really important question. And as David, you and I
visited about earlier, the fact that the IRS had a website
crash yesterday is of real concern. I know that part of your
oversight includes the IRS, so I want to be sure we talk about
that today, about what happened with the IRS, if you--whatever
you can tell us, and then to be absolutely certain that the
census is secure, safe, and we are not looking at any similar
problems.
One of the great things about this Committee on
Appropriations is we all work arm in arm and I have really been
pleased to have as our ranking member this year Joe Serrano of
New York, who we worked together for many, many years as good
friends. And this is the best subcommittee on appropriations.
And delighted to have you back, my friend, to join us and happy
to recognize you for any remarks you would like to make.
Mr. Serrano. My remarks, as you can imagine, will be a
little longer than yours, but I have been doing that since we
began. That is why he did not hear me.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to welcome the
acting director of the Census Bureau, Dr. Ron Jarmin, as well
as Robert Goldenkoff, director of strategic issues, and David
Powner, director of information technology. I apologize if I
have mispronounced your names, but we can get into a
conversation about what I have been called throughout the
years. No one rolls their Rs anymore.
Mr. Culberson. When New Yorkers can mangle language like
Texans. We can really mangle ours.
Mr. Serrano. I started by saying that my statement would be
a little longer than yours, but you understand.
Mr. Culberson. Of course.
Mr. Serrano. The Census Bureau is now at a critical stage
in preparation for the 2020 census. Final testing is underway
in Providence. Staffing requirements are being finalized.
Leases are being decided and rollout plans are happening now.
Unfortunately, significant questions remain about the cost of
the 2020 census and this administration's commitment to
ensuring an accurate count.
Before I go further, I want to thank the Chairman for
working with our side and the Senate to greatly increase Census
Bureau funding in the fiscal year 2018 Appropriations Act. The
$2.8 billion included in that bill will help ensure the Bureau
can ramp up critical preparations to allow the decennial census
to get back on track and to replicate the successful
partnership program of 2010. However, the Bureau's costs will
continue to increase as we get closer to 2020, and I am
interested to hear how you are using the fiscal year 2018 money
and how your 2019 budget requirements are evolving.
However, with this administration, it often seems like we
go one step forward and two steps back. No sooner does this
subcommittee attempt to rectify significant funding problems
and in a bipartisan fashion support the efforts of the Census
Bureau, when we are forced to address another census crisis of
the administration's own making. Of course, I am referring to
the recent addition of a citizenship question to the 2020
census form.
The addition of a citizenship question to the decennial
census without justification or testing is deeply troubling. It
points to the politicization of what should be a non-partisan
effort, a problem underlined by reports that this question was
added over the objections of career officials at the Bureau.
The constitutional requirements to count all persons in our
nation every 10 years allows the census to give us an important
snapshot of how our communities are growing and changing.
Unfortunately, with a citizenship question added to the form,
many individuals will simply refuse to respond.
I represent a large immigrant community in the Bronx that
feels targeted by this administration. This latest action will
undermine efforts to build trust and participation in the
census in my hometown and elsewhere, which in turn will
undermine census accuracy, but also distort the important
functions that we use this information for, like the
distribution of federal formula funds. Ironically, this will
greatly harm not just blue states but so-called red states too
like Texas, Arizona, and Florida. All of those states could
lose congressional seats and electoral votes that they would
otherwise gain in an accurate census.
Aside from these important concerns, there is a significant
literal cost to asking a citizenship question in the 2020
census. We know that Census Bureau experts and the Census
Scientific Advisory Committee anticipated lower initial
response to the 2020 census because of the inclusion of this
question. Additionally, we know that lower response rates
translate into higher costs for in-person follow up visits. Add
to that the lack of testing of this subject matter, and we here
at the Appropriations Committee will be left to foot the bill,
a larger bill than anticipated without a clear understanding of
what that will be.
That is, in part, why I hope to work with the Chairman and
others to prevent these problems from occurring by precluding
the Census Bureau from moving forward with this wrongheaded
proposal. I know we all share the goal of an accurate and cost-
effective decennial census. However, it is troubling that all
this--at this late stage, we still have serious questions about
the administration's commitment to the same. And I am looking
forward to that discussion today.
Before I end, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that at these
committee hearings, we always try to keep the issues on the
issues, if you will, and not get into personal feelings. But I
personally feel offended that part of that citizenship question
asks the following: were you born in the United States? And
then you answer yes or no or you skip it. That is what will
happen with some people.
Then it asks where were you born, and it lists all of the
territories, Puerto Rico, and so on. Now, the census form
doesn't ask were you born in Texas, were you born in
California, were you born in New York, but it does ask were you
born in a territory? If I fill it out correctly and not boycott
that question, I will become part of a group of people that
wrong-minded people, or people who hate, or people who are not
in tune with what should be, will say look, we have 5, 10
million people who were born in a territory, or we have X
amount of people who were not born--they will be seen as not
being born fully Americans, when in fact, I was born an
American citizen in a territory.
Which then begs the question that I have been asking for
years. Why not include the territories in the total count? In
other words, what is the population of the United States? Is it
the 50 states and then the territories, which is what we do
now? No, the full population is everybody who lives under the
American flag. And that should be counted as one number. So you
don't have X amount of Hispanics, you have X amount plus Puerto
Rico, plus the Virgin Islands, plus other places.
And so this question troubles me personally, and it offends
me personally because it sets me apart. I grew up in New York
since the age of 8. I served in the military. I am a Member of
Congress. I have been blessed, and I can't be prouder of being
an American. And to single me out, or to single my community
out by saying were you born in a territory, the question asks
itself. Why are we asking these questions? What is it that we
hope to gain unless we are going to use it for something good?
If you tell me, were you born in a territory, and then you
include it in the total population of the U.S., we can discuss
that. But if you are just going to allow people to single it
out, those--that small percentage of Americans who still can't
get used to the fact that we exist or that Barack Obama was
president, you know who I am talking about, they will get to
use this information in their own way.
So I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that I took extra time, but it
has been a long time since a question or an issue bothered me
personally more than this one. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Serrano, I absolutely understand. No
problem. And we are glad to have you with us today to answer
our questions. And Dr. Jarmin, you are recognized for your
opening statement, which we would encourage you to summarize,
and if there is no objection, we will enter your statement in
its entirety into the record.
And I would ask each one of you to please keep your
statements to five minutes. We will have additional time for
questions. And you are recognized. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jarmin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chairman
Culberson, Ranking Member Serrano, and members of the
subcommittee. Before we begin, I want to express my
appreciation for the appropriations bill passed by Congress
three weeks ago. We are thankful not only for the financial
resources but also for the flexibility that allows us to commit
the resources required for the census when they are needed.
This year's appropriation helps to reduce overall risk to
the 2020 census by enabling us to make critical investments
beginning on October 1st. This appropriation and the way that
it is structured underscores your commitment to the 2020 census
and its success.
Today, we are actively testing systems and operations in
the 2018 end to end test. This is our final major test before
the 2020 census. We are validating the interfaces between 44
critical systems and their integration with 24 major
operations. As we speak today, we are in peak data collection
operations in Providence County, Rhode Island. And just an
aside, we just spoke with a Boy Scout troop from Providence on
the way in the door here this morning. And the Scout leader's
father works as an enumerator, so I thought that was
interesting.
So anyway, Providence is an ideal location choice for this
because it presents many of the different situations and
challenges that we will face across the country in 2020, and
its demographics mirror those of the nation. The self-response
phase of the test began with a series of mailings that were
sent to housing units last month. I monitor self-response
daily, as do many others at the Bureau and the department.
Notably, we were receiving a high number of responses via the
internet and the overall response rate is as anticipated. As of
this morning, we are at 32 and a half percent.
All of the planned innovations for the 2020 census are
coming together in the test. And the lessons learned will
provide a firm foundation for success in 2020. We are looking
closely at the data from the address canvassing operation to
make sure that our blend of in office and in field address
canvassing meets our standards. Our internet and telephone
operations are being thoroughly tested as is our paper data
capture operation. And we are continuing--or confirming our
ability to make it easier for people to respond with a smart
phone or a tablet.
In a few short weeks, our field staff will begin collecting
information with handheld devices and we will leverage
automation to manage their work efficiently. Finally, we will
examine the use of administrative records to inform final
determinations about our ability to improve the efficiency of
the non-response follow up operation with information that
people have already provided to the government.
During and after the tests, we will adjust our systems and
operations based on what we have learned to make sure that both
are ready for the 2020 census. As we enter peak operations for
the test, 40 out of the 44 systems required for the test have
been deployed. No system will be released without completing
the necessary integration testings and security authorizations.
And all 44 are on track to be fully integrated and deployed
when they are needed to support test operations.
The Census Bureau has been working closely with the
Government Accountability Office to ensure that we have
consistent understanding of the status of systems readiness and
we are closely monitoring the final development and testing of
the remaining systems. We are working intently to ensure that
the systems are secure and they are authorized to operate.
The ATO process is critical as it ensures that
cybersecurity standards are addressed and risks are minimized
for all of the systems. GAO is reviewing our progress to ensure
that our processes and procedures are consistent with best
practices, are well understood, and are followed.
We value the independent assessment of GAO and we are
thankful for their continued engagement. We are also engaging
with NIST, the Department of Homeland Security, other federal
agencies, and with the private sector to address and reduce
cybersecurity risk. We are working together to make sure that
participating in the census is safe and secure, and that the
information we collect is protected.
Finally, we have a well-developed process for conducting
the scalability test on our systems during 2018 and we are
eager to meet this critical milestone and fine tune our systems
to scale to predicted loads in 2020. All of our preparations
are aimed at achieving our objective of the complete and
accurate 2020 census. This means that we must also encourage
people to respond.
As in past decennial censuses, we will mount a robust
communication and partnership program to encourage everyone to
respond, including those who are traditionally hard to count.
For 2020, we are compiling research and data that will serve as
the foundation for our communications and partnership program
that was stronger than in 2010. With the support of the recent
appropriation, we are looking at accelerating communications
activities and ramping up our partnership staff earlier than
planned.
Seasoned partnership specialists with many decades of
experience have been working since January 27 to help tribal,
state, and local governments to develop complete count
committees which bring leaders and government officials
together to develop plans to support the 2020 census. As we
ramp up to 1,000 partnership specialists in fiscal year 2019,
our goal is to exceed the 248,000 community partners that we
had in 2010.
Census partners help everyone know that responding to the
census is safe and important. Thank you and I look forward to
your questions.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Director Jarmin. We
look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Goldenkoff. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Thank you. Chairman Culberson, Ranking
Member Serrano, and members of the subcommittee, GAO is pleased
to be here today to discuss the Census Bureau's readiness for
the 2020 head count.
As you know, in recent years, we have identified a number
of operational, IT, and other challenges that raise serious
concerns about the Bureau's ability to conduct a cost effective
enumeration. And in February 2017, we added the 2020 census to
our list of high risk government programs. My remarks today
will focus on two such challenges: implementing design
innovations aimed at controlling costs and developing reliable
cost estimates that better account for risks and inform annual
budget requests.
My colleague, Dave Powner, will then discuss the challenges
the Bureau faces in implementing and securing critical IT
systems. The bottom line is that while the Bureau has made
important progress toward mitigating some of the risks facing
the census, and we are encouraged by the top level oversight
being applied by the Department of Commerce, the census is now
projected to cost $15.6 billion, a $3 billion increase over the
Bureau's original estimate, and what's more, significant
uncertainties lie ahead.
For example, with respect to design innovations, to help
control costs while maintaining accuracy, the Bureau will use
new procedures and technology for 2020 including greater use of
automated data collection methods, administrative records in
place of data collected by enumerators, verifying addresses
using aerial imagery and other in office procedures rather than
by going door to door, and allowing households the option of
responding to the census via the internet.
While all these new methods show promise for controlling
cost, they also introduce new risks in part because they have
not been used to a great extent in prior decennials, if at all.
So to help ensure that key systems and procedures will function
as planned, since 2012 the Bureau has held a series of tests at
various sites across the country. However, citing funding
uncertainties, the Bureau has curtailed recent testing efforts.
As one example, the Bureau is currently conducting, as was
mentioned, the 2018 end to end test. Essentially, it is a dress
rehearsal for the actual enumeration. And the 2018 test is
critical because it is the Bureau's final opportunity to
demonstrate that essential census taking activities will
perform under operational conditions.
While the Bureau originally planned to conduct the 2018
test in three locations, two sites, areas of Washington State
and West Virginia, were eliminated from a full test because of
budgetary concerns. And a complete dress rehearsal will now
only be held in Providence, Rhode Island. Without sufficient
testing across a range of geographic locations, housing types,
and demographic groups, operational problems can go
undiscovered and the opportunity to refine procedures and
systems will be lost.
Another risk factor is the Bureau's 2020 life cycle cost
estimate. We found that the October 2015 version of its
estimate fell short in our four best practices, only partially
meeting the characteristics of comprehensiveness and accuracy,
and minimally meeting characteristics for being well documented
and credible.
In December 2017, the Bureau provided us with the
documentation used to update its cost estimate. And based on
our preliminary analysis, we have found that the Bureau has
improved its cost estimation process in each of those four best
practices.
So in short, while the Bureau and Department of Commerce
have taken important steps to keep preparations for the
decennial on track, a number of challenges and uncertainties
remain. Going forward, continued leadership attention and
congressional oversight will be needed to help ensure key
components and systems are fully tested and will function as
required, preparations stay on schedule, management functions
follow leading practices, and any further cost growth is
capped.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I will now turn it over
to my colleague, Dave Powner.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Powner, you are recognized.
Mr. Powner. Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Serrano, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to
testify on the Bureau's efforts to deliver and secure
technologies for the 2020 census.
Since the last time we appeared before this subcommittee,
the Bureau has announced a $3 billion increase to the overall
cost of the decennial. About half of this increase or 1.5
billion is associated with IT. On a positive note, since
Secretary Ross announced this cost increase, we have seen
strengthened governance at both the Department of Commerce and
at the Bureau. This includes the Bureau meeting monthly with
Secretary Ross and weekly with the undersecretary for economic
affairs.
Although positive, we still see room for improvements to
the executive level reports that go to commerce on systems and
security readiness. Your congressional oversight is essential
to this transparency and I would encourage Congress to request
these status reports to ensure that progress continues and
risks are mitigated.
This morning I will briefly summarize the status of systems
development and testing as well as security readiness. Starting
with systems readiness, the Bureau has made progress having
completely development on 30 of the 44 systems. I would like to
note that that number differs a little bit than what--the 40
that was mentioned by Director Jarmin and perhaps we could talk
about that during the Q and A. Key systems that need to be
completed are the operational control system, the enumeration
application, and the fraud detection system.
Despite delays, the Bureau has plans to have the
operational control system and the enumeration application
fully deployed by July so that it can be included as part of
the end to end test. The fraud detection system has been
delayed eight months. It is not planned to be ready now until
October of this year.
Most of the systems that have been developed still need to
undergo key integration testing to ensure that they interface
or interact appropriately with other systems. My written
statement shows that all but 8 of the 44 systems still need to
undergo some sort of testing. And the 14 systems that must be
delivered require significant testing, meaning that they must
undergo systems as well as integration testing.
Mr. Culberson. Could you say that again please? All but
eight?
Mr. Powner. Yes. All but eight of the systems need--so even
though some systems are developed, there is still key
integration testing that needs to occur. So what you do is you
test them to make sure the system alone works. But the
integration testing to make sure that they interact effectively
is very important. And you want that done before it goes to the
end to end test so that you test as much as this--as they
operate as a unit of systems. OK?
It is important to note that since the--once the end to end
test is completed, there will be additional development and
testing that needs to occur in 2019 to address new
functionality, additional scaling and performance issues, as
well as defects that are found during the end to end test. In
addition to the 44 systems, the Bureau needs to ensure that key
infrastructure is in place and secure. This includes cloud
solutions as well as the network and security operations.
Regarding cybersecurity, the Bureau, like other agencies,
is constantly under attack. Recent incidents involved
unauthorized access, phishing, and malware. The Bureau is
working diligently to assess security controls, fix known
deficiencies, and to have the proper sign off by both the chief
information officer and the head of the decennial office to
ensure that each system is ready for operations. 6 of the 44
systems have this sign off. 32 need to be reassessed given
changes to the systems. And another 6 need to be completed,
including the fraud detection system.
These reviews are important to ensure that cyber risks are
at acceptable levels, especially since 39 of the 44 systems
contain personally identifiable information. We remain
concerned that the late delivery of several systems will not
leave ample time to complete the reviews and approvals.
I would like to conclude with three recommendations
regarding IT for the decennial. Number one, executives at both
the department and Bureau need to stay engaged on the delivery
and status of the systems and closely monitor the key risks.
This includes the timely delivery of software to the technical
integration for the integration testing that we just discussed,
Mr. Chairman.
Second, the Bureau needs to have rigorous oversight of its
contractors both during the end to end test and after as we
lead up to the decennial.
And third, they need to aggressively manage cybersecurity
risks of the systems and the infrastructure given the threats
and vulnerabilities confronting the Bureau. Mr. Chairman, this
concludes my statement.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Powner. I would
like to start out asking you and Mr. Goldenkoff, what could be
done in your opinion to improve accountability at the Census
Bureau?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well, you know, we are GAO. Accountability
is quite literally our middle name.
Mr. Culberson. Right, right.
Mr. Goldenkoff. So anything that can be done to improve
accountability, we are all for it. Are you talking about
individual--accountability of individual employees or more
organizational performance?
Mr. Culberson. Both.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Both? OK.
Mr. Culberson. Both, because if you were in the private
sector, clearly you would be able to reward people for their
good work with a raise or promotion. People that, you know,
have habitual problems, you know, which is one of the great
frustrations I think in the--one of our great frustrations I
think as taxpayers is the inability to fire people----
Mr. Goldenkoff. Sure.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. If they don't do their job. And
why wouldn't we give, for example, the secretary who comes out
of the private sector, a very successful businessman, the
ability to frankly hire and fire people that aren't performing
in the Census Bureau to----
Mr. Goldenkoff. Sure.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Increase accountability.
Because ultimately, that is why the private sector obviously
works so well. People know they are going to be rewarded for
good work and they could be--lose their job if they are not
performing.
And I will tell you, the overruns are just appalling. I
mean, it is just unacceptable these $3 billion and we just
can't have this anymore. And I am looking for some bold ideas.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Sure. First of all, you are absolutely
right. If there is--if there are circumstances where there has
been gross negligence and mismanagement, particularly at the
top levels, we should be able to remove and terminate people
who----
Mr. Culberson. You can't do that.
Mr. Goldenkoff [continuing]. Are not performing well.
Mr. Culberson. That can't be done today, right?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well, and I think this is not an issue with
the Census Bureau. It is a government-wide issue.
Mr. Culberson. It is. This is a great case study.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Exactly, and you know we have looked at
this just from a government-wide perspective--we haven't looked
at it for the Census Bureau, and so everything, it needs to be
dealt with on a facts and circumstances basis. But speaking at
a higher level, there are things that agencies can do and short
of termination to hold top executives accountable.
One is making sure that you have a good performance
management system and it is used, and a lot of agencies don't
have that. What I mean by that is making sure that there is a
line of sight between individual performance and organizational
results. And that starts with your senior leaders. I would take
a look at their performance contracts, their SES contracts, and
see what are they being held accountable for.
Mr. Culberson. And I appreciate that. I know David--Mr.
Powner was talking about a moment ago how important it was. He
recommended that the executives to commerce monitor, there be
good oversight, that you are watching for, you know, cyber
intrusions. I would just like you to think, both of you,
outside the box for a minute. What would you recommend to this
committee if we really wanted to be bold and ensure that the
census does not--there is no more overruns, that things run
efficiently, if we really wanted to make some bold, out of the
box recommendations to the committee about using, again, this
is a great case study--and we know there is a lot of--Mr.
Jarmin, you have got a lot of superb, top notch, professional
people there who are committed to do their job. But this is a
constant source of frustration throughout the entire federal
government.
I would just like you to think outside the box for a
minute, what about creating some system where the secretary
could absolutely decide that somebody needs to be fired in
order to make sure that people are held accountable and we
don't see any cost overruns if this works as it should. People
know there are consequences if they--and rewards if they are
doing a good job.
Mr. Powner. So a couple of things. I mean, that is probably
a longer term solution to get that addressed, right?
Mr. Culberson. It may be sooner than you think.
Mr. Powner. One of the things I will say to the credit of
the Bureau is they moved some individuals in terms of who is in
charge and who is driving the ship because I think we have a $3
billion overrun. You said, well, what is going to change? You
have improved governance from Secretary Ross, but are the same
players still in? There have been changes. So they did move
some of the parts and everything.
I think the thing that would really help that this
committee could really help is there is nothing that drives
performance like having an executive or Congress breathing down
your neck, OK? And that is why I think the undersecretary and
Secretary Ross having governance as well as----
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Mr. Powner [continuing]. Director Jarmin, that drives
performance if there is accurate status reports that go up on
the delivery of systems, security of systems, the operations
performing where it is--say at least quarterly from Congress.
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Mr. Powner. If there was a quarterly status report came
here that you could actually look at the progress that is being
done and whether the progress is according to the plan. So for
instance, you know, like in our report in the appendix, we have
44 systems and we say 19 of them were delayed.
OK. So we get into this back and forth with the Census
Bureau. Well, it is not delayed because they claim that the
operations were pushed back as part of the test. That is
semantics. OK? If it is supposed to be done here and it is not
done here, what are we doing to mitigate risks and ensure that
it is successful. I don't really care what word we use, but we
need to make sure that this gets integrated, tested, and
secured in time.
And I think your oversight, back to my opening paragraph
and my oral statement, I think if you got those status reports
at least on a quarterly basis and dogged the hell out of
progress to ensure that they stay on schedule, that would be
helpful along with what is being done with Director Jarmin and
also at the Department of Congress.
Mr. Culberson. Yes, I like that a lot. Relentlessly bird
dog this. Secretary Ross I know is personally involved. This
subcommittee will be personally involved. I know Mr. Serrano
and I, Ms. Lowey, Chairman Frelinghuysen, we will all be
working together to ensure that--we just can't have anymore of
these $3 billion cost overruns. It is just unacceptable.
And this end to end census test began last month, but
according to GAO's testimony, close to a third of the IT
systems required for the test are still being developed. I
mean, you have known about this test for years and I don't
understand why all the IT systems aren't ready for tests. What
is up with that?
Mr. Jarmin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The systems that Mr.
Powner is referring to are actually being used right now. We
have a phased approach to--there are different product releases
and certain functionalities ready for when it is needed. And
the systems have been reviewed by the director of the decennial
census and the CIO to ensure that all the public facing systems
have an ATO and that they are as secure as possible.
We often have findings and we do work on those to make sure
that we have all of the documentation and that we have checked
all of the boxes on that.
Mr. Culberson. But why, for example, isn't the fraud
detection system ready in time?
Mr. Jarmin. The fraud detection system is actually
something that we planned to use post-data collection and we
didn't need it for while we were in the field for the end to
end test. It is something that we can test later, so that was a
resource issue. We decided to focus resources on the things
that we needed to get up and running for the test.
Mr. Culberson. But one of the ones that you have got to get
done is security system testing. What about the security
testing for the systems?
Mr. Jarmin. That is ongoing all the time, and will remain
ongoing until we are done with the census. We are constantly
working on improving the systems, testing the systems, and
ensuring they are secure. That will be an ongoing effort for--
--
Mr. Culberson. You know, are you, Director Jarmin,
confident we are not going to see anymore increases in the cost
of the census in fiscal year 2018? How confident are you that
we are not going to see any more increases?
Mr. Jarmin. So as Mr. Goldenkoff noted that we worked
closely with the Secretary and his team at the Department of
Commerce last year to do a very deep dive into the 2020 Census,
life cycle cost estimate. We brought in a team of folks that
have been working on cost assessments for satellites at the
Department. We had the best people available to work on that.
We did a very deep dive and a very thorough review of the
program. And I think we are confident that the $15.6 billion
will cover the cost of the census.
Mr. Culberson. So that is it?
Mr. Jarmin. We will be monitoring what happens in the test.
I think there is sufficient contingency in there that even most
kinds of fixes that we anticipate should be covered within the
$15.6 billion. But if there is something that we need to come
talk to you, you will hear from us right away.
Mr. Culberson. And I assure you we will be aggressively and
rigorously conducting oversight of the way that you are
proceedings. And obviously, we want to see people that do a
good job rewarded, but those that are not, I mean, this
subcommittee, we just can't tolerate any more of these cost
overruns.
And there is a whole variety of financial tools available
to us as a subcommittee that I will use, as needed, to ensure
that you stay within those cost boundaries. I will do whatever
I can to help Secretary Ross hold people accountable, reward
those who do a good job, and hold other people accountable.
I am confident that with his background in the private
sector, he could--he would do--if we gave him the tools that he
had in the private sector, I am confident Secretary Ross would
really be able to ride herd on the census and ensure that our
tax dollars are not wasted and that the count would be
accurate, and complete, and timely, and secure.
The private sector just doesn't have any problem with these
things. It is maddening to us as taxpayers to see that the ease
with which you can--whether it be ordering something online,
transferring money in an account you can be in any state, any
country, and move money easily and securely, and to see these
problems with the federal government is just--it is maddening.
And that is why I encourage the Government Accountability
Office to think outside the box. Bring us some bold new
suggestions on what you think we could do to help give
Secretary Ross the tools he needs to really hold people
accountable to encourage that--to make sure that the census is
accurate, complete, timely, secure, and frugal.
Mr. Jarmin. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are striving
to do that and we have made a number of personnel changes over
the last several months that I think are aimed at accomplishing
just that. We have some very good people on the team,
experienced with issues we have had in prior censuses that are
able to aggressively manage the schedule and the cost of the
census.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, because this has to be done
right.
Mr. Jarmin. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. I understand Ms. Lowey
is on a tight schedule. So Mr. Serrano, with your gracious
understanding and agreement, Ms. Lowey, I am pleased to
recognize you because I know your schedule is full today.
Ms. Lowey. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
want to thank my ranking member and friend. I know what a
passionate advocate my friend, Mr. Serrano from New York, has
been for an accurate census count. So thank you for giving me
an opportunity. Unfortunately, there are all kinds of conflicts
going on. So I appreciate it.
I have just a question I would like to ask. I strongly
oppose this administration's decision to include a citizenship
question on the 2020 census. A bipartisan group of six former
directors of the Census Bureau wrote to Secretary Ross in
January, urging him not to include this language. They wrote,
and I quote, ``We strongly believe that adding an untested
question on citizenship status at this late point in the
decennial planning process would put the accuracy of the
enumeration and success of the census in all communities at
grave risk.''
Can you tell me, why does the Trump administration think it
knows better than the bipartisan group of six former census
directors?
Mr. Jarmin. Thanks for that question. As you know, Title 13
of the U.S. Code delegates the responsibility for deciding
which questions are on the census to the Secretary of Commerce.
And when the request from the Department of Justice came in in
December, he directed a three-pronged review: a legal, a
policy, and a technical review.
The Census Bureau was responsible for the technical review.
As part of that review, I think the census folks, as well as
stakeholders outside, like the six former directors, noted that
one of the main concerns that people have with the citizenship
question is that there could be reduced response rates,
especially in certain communities like the Hispanic community
and the immigrant communities.
There is not a lot of direct evidence that that happened.
What can we look at to make that assessment? The citizenship
question has been on the American Community Survey since 2005
and it had been on the long form of the census since 1970. And
so there is some--we could get some circumstantial evidence of
what the differential response rates are, but it is not a large
difference and it is hard to pinpoint it to the citizenship
question.
The Census Bureau provided three options to the Secretary.
One was to do nothing, to continue to provide the citizen
voting age, population data from the American Community Survey
as we have done. One was to put the question on the census. And
the other was to use administrative records, primarily from the
Social Security Administration, but also from CIS and from the
State Department, which is--those are in negotiation.
The Census Bureau, suggested the best approach would be to
use administrative records, but we noted that there were
strengths and weaknesses in terms of providing high quality,
block level, citizen voting age population data to meet the
request that the DOJ had stated in their letter.
The Secretary reviewed that and with all of the other
inputs that he had, including from the six former directors,
opted for a hybrid approach of using--both the administrative
records and the question on the 2020 questionnaire so that is
how the Secretary made that assessment.
Ms. Lowey. I understand that. And I just want to be sure my
facts are the same. In Secretary Ross' March 26th memo, he
points out that prior decennial censuses asked citizenship
questions up until 1950. And Census Bureau surveys of sample
populations continue to ask a citizenship question to this day.
The Secretary also asserted that the citizenship question has
been well-tested.
But we don't really know what Secretary Ross means by this,
and I am highly skeptical that this administration has
thoroughly tested this question to see if it would allow for an
accurate count. So I want to follow up, Dr. Jarmin. Given the
significance of the 2020 census and how important it is that we
count everyone accurately, can you review again for me what
data or information did the census rely on to come up with this
proposal? And given the fact that a citizenship question has
simply not been well-tested or asked widely in nearly 70 years,
it seems to me the Census Bureau must treat this matter very
carefully and should only proceed if there are credible
assurances that it will do no harm.
Can you tell me what assurances can we expect to receive,
if any?
Mr. Jarmin. As you know, we are under litigation on this,
so I can't comment in detail. I can summarize what was already
in the Secretary's decision memo, which I did pretty
thoroughly.
I think the question is being asked today. There are folks
getting the American Community Survey, and that question is on
that form. That question has been answered by the population on
the American Community Survey and prior to that on the long
form of the decennial census in 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. In
2005, is when we moved it to the American Community Survey, so
it is the case that people understand and can answer the
question.
What we don't know, and you are very perceptive, is that in
the 2020 environment where the data will be used for
reapportionment and redistricting and the allocation of federal
funds, we don't necessarily know how people will behave in that
environment. There really is, unfortunately, no way to test
that, outside of doing it in the census. There is no other
situation where the data are going to be used for those
purposes, so we can't say definitively what that would be.
But there is some information that is being put together,
the administrative record for these court cases, and when that
becomes available, that is something that we will share with
the subcommittee and that you will be able to review and
understand the information that the Census Bureau reviewed and
to provide to the Secretary.
Ms. Lowey. Now, what is the time frame?
Mr. Jarmin. I am not a lawyer, so I can't tell you the
answer to that question, sorry. Soon, I hope.
Ms. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Just a comment before I ask my
questions. There are some people who may react to this and
apply pressure on themselves by not answering the question,
and, therefore, there are even some groups who I don't support
asking for a boycott of the census. And what I have told them
is that we have worked today hard, all of us, to get people in
certain communities to fill out the census form for it to now
go back. You know, and this is being transmitted to the world,
so then, you know, I am going to get a lot of comments about,
you know, you should be part of the boycott. Well, I don't
believe in the boycott because we worked too hard to get people
to believe in the census.
On the other hand, if the census brings pressure that this
is going to take another route if this information goes out
there, it begs the question, why would you ask it this time
other than the way you have been asking it on the long form,
which has not caused much problems, if any. So that is--you
know, we keep harping on that, but it has to be.
Director Jarmin, it has been reported that Secretary Ross
made the decision to add a question on citizenship to the 2020
Census over objections from senior career officials at the
Census Bureau. Without putting you on the spot, is this true,
and how heavily involved was the Census Bureau in this
decision-making?
Mr. Jarmin. We were involved in the technical review that
the Secretary had asked for. Again, we made the recommendation
of using administrative records, but we noted, there were some
strengths and weaknesses to that approach. There were some
strengths and weaknesses to putting a question on the
questionnaire and there are some strengths and weaknesses
associated with not doing anything at all.
After that, it was up to the Secretary to use that
information with other information that he gleaned from talking
with legal staff and with talking to, for instance, the six
former directors and a number of other stakeholders from around
the country, on both sides of this question, when he made that
decision. The Census Bureau is an apolitical professional
organization and we will do our best to do a safe and secure
and complete and accurate census that we are directed to do so,
by the Department and by the Congress.
I do want to emphasize, though, that, nothing has changed
in terms of the security and the culture that the Census Bureau
brings to the table in terms of making sure that the data are
kept confidential. The census will remain to be safe and
secure. We will not share statistical information with other
government agencies. This will not go to law enforcement.
We work hard also to make sure that everybody feels like
participating in the census is an important part of their civic
duty and we will continue to do so, whether the question is on
the form or not.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I just want you to remember something,
and I don't expect you to, nor will I ask you to comment on
this, unless you want to, because I don't want to bring you
into waters that you should not be in, but it is clear to
everybody that there is tension in this country between some
minority groups and other people and the Justice Department and
some of their comments and some of their views and how they
handle certain things.
So if you are worried about that, and then you read or you
hear that the Justice Department is asking the Department of
Commerce, i.e., the Census Bureau, to put this question in,
your immediate reaction is, This can't be good. Finding out
whether I am a citizen or not, it is not a problem, but why are
they asking this question?
And the belief on the street, if you will--and we get to
hear the people on the street--is that it is done to keep
people from signing up and not being counted and that helps in
redirecting and so on--who knows? But when fears start to grow,
they are very hard to stop.
Just like I told you before, when you asked me where I was
born and you don't ask Mr. Kilmer--and I am not picking on him,
where he was born--you are actually drawing a line between us.
You are saying that I am a citizen, but different than he,
because I had to put down where I was born and he did not and
that creates all kinds of mind games that we have been dealing
with for a lot of years. We have made a lot of progress in this
country, but we still have a lot of things to do.
Mr. Jarmin, as you know, numerous Members of Congress,
including myself, have expressed serious concerns about the
impact of the citizenship question. Dr. Jarmin, what is the
latest point at which content changes could be made to the 2020
Census questions, without causing disruption to ensure that
printed forms and information technology systems are still
ready in time for Census Day? In other words, if my amendment--
and I will have an amendment--wins, you know, then you guys
will hate me because you will have to change the forms, what is
the time?
Mr. Jarmin. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member. But
let me tell you, we will never hate you, regardless of that. I
used to work with his brother, so----
Mr. Serrano. My brother did 30 years, right, with the
Census Bureau?
Mr. Jarmin. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. And I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, for the
record, and for any reporter in the room, that he got that job
before I came to Congress.
Mr. Jarmin. In our plans, I think we would like to have
everything settled for the questionnaire this fall.
Mr. Serrano. This fall?
Mr. Jarmin. Yes, that is in our plans. That reflects our
inherent conservatism on these matters, so----
Mr. Serrano. You are putting a lot of pressure on the
chairman, you know, to accept my amendment.
Mr. Jarmin. But there is time after that. If it extends
beyond say, next spring or early summer, you are getting into
where changes are going to cost money. So, obviously, the
Census Bureau would like this resolved very quickly.
Mr. Serrano. Can I ask one more and then I will turn it
over?
Mr. Culberson. Of course.
Mr. Serrano. Secretary Ross's memo asserts that, quote,
``No one provided evidence that they are residents who will
respond accurately to the decennial census that did not contain
a citizenship question, but would not respond if it did.''
However, at the very end of the secretary's memo, he announces,
``To minimize any impact on the decennial census response
rates, I am directing the Census Bureau to place the
citizenship question last on the decennial census form.''
Now, since the census suggests the Justice Department knows
there will be a very real and negative impact associated with
adding this question, if so, why isn't the Department testing
the question as part of the 2018 end-to-end test currently
being conducted in Rhode Island?
Mr. Jarmin. Thank you. I think there are two parts to that
question. One was, whether or not there was--about the response
rate. I think both the Census Bureau and other external folks
highlighted that that was a concern to the Secretary. I think
he recognizes that concern. There was not a lot of direct
evidence to say that it would be, X percent of an increase in
non-response, so he made a cost-benefit decision, using several
criteria. I think that is how he came to that conclusion.
In terms of putting the question last, I think that is a
mitigation thing, to make sure that if someone is going through
the questionnaire and if they are put off by that question,
that they complete as much of the questionnaire before that, as
possible. We are also doing other things to mitigate possible
negative impacts to the question.
We have right now a survey out in the field called the
Census Barriers, Attitudes, and Motivators Survey. That is a
survey to 50,000 people to ask their likelihood to participate
in the census and what makes them more likely to participate or
not to participate. Associated with that, we have focus groups
from around the country. Enrique Llamas is heading to Puerto
Rico this afternoon to participate in some of those.
Mr. Serrano. There is a game tonight, you know, between the
Indians and the Twins.
Mr. Jarmin. If we see him on Twitter or something that
will--but--so we have instructed the folks that are sort of
moderating those focus groups to add an inquiry about people's
attitudes about the citizenship question. We will use this data
to work with our advertising and our partnership specialists to
try to come up with strategies to do, just like you said, to
make people understand that participating in the census is
important, that it is safe and secure, and that we need
everybody to participate.
Mr. Serrano. One closing comment. On my comment about, you
know, the territories being counted differently--and, again,
for any reporter listening to me, this is not a statement
against non-citizens--but here is the truth. If you are living
in New York and you are here legally, you will be counted in
the census as part of the population of the United States. If
you are living in Puerto Rico, and you are therefore for a
citizen, you won't be counted in the population of the United
States. Something is wrong with that picture, and I don't think
when they wrote the Constitution, they necessarily closed the
door on what interpretations we can give it.
I know they don't like me to say it is a moving document or
evolving document, but it has been, and I would hope that the
census continues to study the issue of, can you or will you
include the territories in the total population of the United
States, because we are cheating ourselves as a country. We
actually have more people than we claim we have.
Mr. Jarmin. I am sure there is a lawyer who has an opinion
on that, but we will definitely take that back and have some
conversations.
Mr. Serrano. I have an opinion on that.
Mr. Jarmin. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. We need to remember those people are a part
of the United States and also the extra--the territorial--I
mean, the exclusive economic zone of the United States is
about--land-wise, 50 percent larger than we realize because of
the territories and all the underwater exclusive economic zone
that we have as a result.
Mr. Kilmer, I want to thank you for your patience. I think
it is important to let everybody have a chance to ask
questions, so I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from
Washington state, Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks for being with
us.
I want to echo the concerns of the ranking member. You
know, I think there are real concerns that the inclusion of
this citizenship question can add uncertainty and risk and
cost. You know, folks in my region know all too well the
history of politicizing the census. It is--history in World War
II, as a tool to discriminate against and intimidate Japanese-
Americans.
I have heard from--we just did a round of town hall
meetings in my district and we heard from constituents who
still remember that very well and I am worried that the
citizenship questions hearkens back to that, not to mention the
risk just from a science standpoint, the data needs to be
accurate so that Congress can make informed decisions about
where money goes.
So I guess I am--I would like to ask you, we have heard
multiple experts who have suggested that this could impact
response rates and the accuracy of the data. So has there been
an estimate of what the non-response rate might be with and
without the citizenship question and what the range of
potential increases in non-response might be, due to the
inclusion of that question?
Mr. Jarmin. Thanks for the question, Representative Kilmer,
and good to see someone from my home state of Washington here.
I think, again, this is where the litigation probably
limits what we can say right now. I think some of the numbers
you have asked for are in some documents that were provided to
the Secretary. If they become part of the administrative record
and are made public, we will be glad to get those to you and
then to have any conversations you might want to have to follow
up from that.
Again, I can say that, from me being an economist and,
running regressions and trying to understand causal impacts of
things, there is not a clean analysis that we can do to really
determine if differential response rates were due to the
citizenship question or due to some other factors.
Mr. Kilmer. You haven't seen that evidence in previous
censuses?
Mr. Jarmin. Well, in the previous censuses, it was only
long form, so that is one of the reasons why it is hard to tell
what it would look like in this environment. I think we had
some staff who made a good effort at this, but it is
imperfect--it is not going to be a definitive answer.
Mr. Kilmer. So a range was provided to the secretary that
suggested some impact on response rates?
Mr. Jarmin. Yes. Not a large impact, but some impact.
Mr. Kilmer. So what is the increase in costs for every
increase in percent non-response?
Mr. Jarmin. If I recall, the last estimates we saw were in
the fifty-million-dollar range for percent non-response, but
what we are talking here, because this would impact a
relatively small part of the population it would be felt among
subgroups, and so for the overall cost, it would not be
particularly large.
Mr. Kilmer. Can you say a little bit more what you mean by
that when you say that the--so I understand that there would be
a differentiated non-response based on certain population,
but----
Mr. Jarmin. Right. For many people, we don't expect that
this would impact their response patterns, at all, citizens,
largely, and that's the majority of the population, so it just
wouldn't have a big impact on the overall response rate. It
would be the response rates of subgroups that would matter.
Mr. Kilmer. So there was a range that was provided to the
secretary that suggests some percentage reduction and it is
about $50 million per 1 percent?
Mr. Jarmin. Yes, but we don't expect a one-percent
reduction in response----
Mr. Kilmer. In the aggregate?
Mr. Jarmin. Right. Yes.
Mr. Kilmer. OK. What are the risk mitigation steps that are
being taken, just in case there is an increase in non-response?
Mr. Jarmin. That was some of the information that I
provided to the ranking member. I think the current research
that we are doing to have a more explicit focus on the
citizenship question, that will be used with Y & R, our
advertising partner, to come up with strategies to message to
the communities that we think might be impacted by that.
Mr. Kilmer. I see the red light of doom, so I will hold my
other questions for--if we are holding another round, I am
happy to stick around and ask them.
Mr. Culberson. To make sure I understood you to say you do
not expect a one-percent decline in participation?
Mr. Jarmin. Total, no.
Mr. Culberson. Some significantly smaller amount may be
minimal?
Mr. Jarmin. I think, let's wait until we can provide the
information in a more robust way when the administration record
comes out and then we would be really happy to come back and
have a conversation with you about what we think the impacts
would be. I think that is probably the best way to----
Mr. Culberson. Is it fair to say the impact would be
minimal?
Mr. Jarmin. I think, you know, let's wait until we can
provide the information in a more robust way when the
administrative record comes out and then we would be really
happy to come back and have a conversation with you about what
we think the impacts would be. I think that is probably the
best way to----
Mr. Culberson. Is it fair to say the impact would be
minimal?
Mr. Jarmin. I wouldn't say minimal. I would say it could
be--in some communities, it might be important, but it is not--
--
Mr. Culberson. It is not going to reach 1 percent?
Mr. Jarmin. No.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. We are ready now for the
gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. It's good to be here. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to follow up. You, in one of your first
comments that you made and in your written statement, you talk
about in the midst of the 2018 end to end census test, and I
will admit I have not spent a lot of time on researching how,
you know, you developed this over time and get ready for the
census, but from a thirty-thousand-foot level, if you are going
into a Rotary Club and speaking and you are asked about this
2018 end to end census, just make a little summary and explain
it from a thirty-thousand-foot level, exactly what this does.
Mr. Jarmin. The 2018 end to end test is primarily meant to
make sure that all of our systems and processes are ready for
2020. So, it is roughly a dress rehearsal. We are not testing
everything. There is a bunch of post-data collection activities
that we are not testing during the 2018 test, but it included
an address-canvassing portion--that was last fall--that was
done in West Virginia, Washington state, and in Providence.
Mr. Aderholt. The three areas that you mentioned?
Mr. Jarmin. Yes. And then we did peak operations in just
Providence County, Rhode Island, that includes providing people
the opportunity to respond on the internet, and that is what
has been going on lately. You could respond via the telephone,
which we have also been getting a good number of phone calls,
and via paper.
And then in May, for the folks who haven't responded, just
like we would in the actual census, we will be sending
enumerators out with smartphones to collect the data from those
who haven't been counted yet.
I was in Providence last week talking to a group there and
sort of polled the folks to see if they had been filling out
their 2018 census tests, and several of them actually had, so
that was--a bit. So we have got about 31 and a half--32 and a
half percent response rate right now.
Mr. Aderholt. So you will have folks on the ground with
smartphones----
Mr. Jarmin. Yes.
Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. Who will be taking a lot of this
information. Will this be the first census taken with
smartphones that have been on the grounds or was that----
Mr. Jarmin. Yes. Yes. Yes.
And that is one of the key innovations, not just that they
are using a smartphone, but that we are assigning their work
electronically, remotely. In prior censuses, it was a paper-
based operation, and people would meet their crew leader in the
morning, physically meet them and get their work assignments
and go out and enumerate households and then have to process
that paper back. This is a much more efficient way.
Like my colleagues, there is the added risk, we haven't
done that before, so we are watching this, really carefully. I
think we are in good shape so far. We will see what happens in
May.
Mr. Aderholt. Can you explain to me a little bit about how
you work with states and do you have--is there a Federal Census
Bureau assigned to each particular state to make sure that
particular state is ready to go or how--explain to me how it
works.
Mr. Jarmin. Our outreach in partnership activities include
what we call complete-count committees. Many of those are done
at the level of the governor, but they can be at any level. We
have robust partnership programs working with all levels of
state and local government around the country, tribal
governments, as well. I think we have a very robust and diverse
program of reaching out to all different parts of the community
around the country to make sure that people can know that the
census is safe and secure.
Mr. Aderholt. Do you have one particular person that is
over each state?
Mr. Jarmin. I don't think we necessarily have one person
over each state. We have multiple people in each state
attacking different levels of the problem.
Mr. Aderholt. So what I was wondering is if, you know, if
you have--because, obviously, you hit on a little bit earlier,
it depends on a lot about how much federal help and, you know,
it's significant. And just to make sure that someone is looking
after that particular state; whereas, one state may be--and,
you know, I am just throwing this out--Alabama might be very
focused on it, whereas Georgia may, you know, say, This is
important, but they are just not making it a focus. I just want
to know if there is somebody there who is saying, you know, I
am watching this state.
Mr. Jarmin. We have contacts with all of the governors'
offices in all 50 states and in the territories, as well. We
have a very robust, outreach.
Mr. Aderholt. But do you have one particular person,
federal person, that's assigned to that?
Mr. Jarmin. We have headquarters people who are in charge
of the overall partnership program----
Mr. Aderholt. In other words, if I wanted to ask about how
Alabama is doing on there, is there a person that it will be
the go-to person that can say, I am in charge of Alabama?
Mr. Jarmin. I can definitely get you someone who will get
you the someone. I don't think we have someone who is in charge
of Alabama, but we have people who are in charge of----
Mr. Aderholt. Regions?
Mr. Jarmin. Yes. We have, both at headquarters and in the
regional offices, people that are working with different levels
of state and local government and with private sector
organizations and companies and churches and what have you. In
2010, we had 248,000 different partners. We expect to have
close to 300,000 this time and all of the major governmental
organizations below the federal government will be represented
in that.
Mr. Aderholt. OK. I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Jarmin, do you believe that immigrant populations are
harder to count?
Mr. Jarmin. We have many groups that are in hard-to-count
populations and immigrants are one of those subgroups, yes.
Ms. Meng. Do you believe that adding a last-minute question
like the citizenship question will have a bigger impact on
higher immigrant populations?
Mr. Jarmin. So this, hearkens back to some of the
conversations that we had before. We do expect if there is a
negative impact, it would be largely felt in various subgroups
and immigrant populations, Hispanic populations would be where
we would expect to find that if we did find it.
Ms. Meng. If you could clarify something you mentioned
before about how this question will not affect most people,
mainly, citizens.
Mr. Jarmin. The citizens won't have the same negative
reaction to the question that we might expect non-citizens to
have, but, again, there is not a lot of evidence in what we do
in the American Community Survey that says that that impact is
very large.
Ms. Meng. But you are acknowledging some sort of potential
impact on response rates from people who might not be citizens
or larger immigrant communities?
Mr. Jarmin. There could be some, yes.
Ms. Meng. I think that is reason enough to fear an
inaccurate count, which is the main and sole purpose of the
census, as required by the Constitution.
If you could also clarify something else that you said in
your answer before about if someone wasn't comfortable filling
out that citizenship question specifically on a census, that
they would be able to not answer it.
Mr. Jarmin. So on all surveys, including the census, there
is often items of non-response. And we process many surveys
with incomplete responses. The census is certainly one of those
in the past; it will be in the future.
If you don't fill out--you know, we encourage people to
fill out the questionnaire completely and fully. If you don't,
there is some probability that we may need to follow up with
you at a later date, either on the phone or in person. So,
obviously, we want people to fill out the survey as completely
as possible.
But, it is the case, just generically, that in the survey
world, some people don't fill out whichever questionnaire they
are being provided; whether it is a business survey, a
household survey, there are often many questions that are left
blank.
Ms. Meng. So if someone were to fill out the survey almost
completely, but not fill out the citizenship question, would
their survey still be counted?
Mr. Jarmin. Yes.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
Mr. Jarmin. We would definitely encourage people to fill it
out as completely as possible.
Ms. Meng. A couple other communities like immigrant,
diverse immigrant population, who we fear will be undercounted
are rural Americans and children, particularly under the age of
5. Rural Americans are at a high-risk for an undercount, as you
know; often, homes are spread far apart, hidden from the main
road, may not have city-style addresses.
For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau has chosen to focus
its efforts on electronic responses which can also present
challenges for rural communities where access to reliable
internet is already an issue. What steps are you taking to
ensure that these communities are properly counted?
Mr. Jarmin. That is an excellent question. In the 2018 end
to end test in the address-canvassing portion, we were in
Beckley, West Virginia, which is a very limited internet access
area testing our systems and our equipment and our processes in
that type of environment. We need to count everybody,
regardless of where they are.
I think that folks that are in a limited--we know from the
American Community Survey which areas have limited internet
access. We will be sending those folks paper forms on the first
mailing. Obviously, our goal is to hire our enumerators from
local areas who know the area, know the people. So we will use
many of the same methods that we used before to reach folks in
rural areas. But again, partnership and outreach activities are
critical here. But we will be using a range of response
options. Areas with limited internet access should have plenty
of opportunity to respond by phone or through paper.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. The gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Jarmin, with
respect to the census, in a September 2017 memo census staff
noted unprecedented fears about confidentiality from
respondents. Both respondents and field representatives
expressed concerns at the very highest rates ever seen before
during a pretesting project. And you are familiar with that.
Obviously these concerns have strong implications for the
accuracy of our census. And the question is how concerned are
you about that, about the fears about confidentiality and what
are you doing about it?
Mr. Jarmin. Thanks for that question. I think there is a
general unease in the public about how their data are used,
both by the government and by private organizations. The Census
Bureau, the data that we collect from American households and
businesses is covered by Title 13 of the U.S. Code, that means
it has to be kept confidential, is used for statistical
purposes only. So, we will be using our communications and
outreach program to try to communicate to the public that
participating in the census is safe and secure and that their
data will be used only for the purposes for which it was
stated.
I think that trying to combat this problem is bigger than
just the census. I think we are constantly--we know that when
there is a data breach at a company that people have issues
sometimes responding to some of our surveys because it is fresh
in their mind. And so, it will be important for us to get out
and to really drive home the point that the census is safe and
secure and that regardless of what is happening in the
community at the time, if there is a data breach, at another
company or what have you that they know that participating in
the census is something that is important and is safe.
Mr. Cartwright. Can you reassure me that this is a very
high priority for you and it is not just, oh, we are going to
throw that in the outreach information?
Mr. Jarmin. Oh, no, absolutely. So, we work with our
colleagues from GAO and from other government agencies to make
sure that the systems that we process, collect and process the
data on are secure, that the data are secure when they are
moving and when they are at rest. The protection of the data
and the confidentiality of the responses are part of the Census
Bureau culture. It is something we take very seriously that we
know that we are not going to get the willing participation of
American households and businesses for the surveys that we
conduct if they know that the data are not safe. And so this is
something that we take as one of the highest priorities of the
agency.
Mr. Cartwright. And of course one of the biggest fears you
are going to be facing is that the information will be
transferred to another government agency, and specifically ICE,
for example. Are you envisioning specific reassurances that you
are going to give the respondents about not sharing their data
with other government agencies?
Mr. Jarmin. Yes. We give those reassurances now and will
continue to do so.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. Also, the 2020 census is going
to implement a number of innovations aimed at increasing
efficiency and decreasing costs. And one of them is using
internet responses. I know Chairman Culberson touched on this,
but I want to follow up. An October 2017 GAO report titled
``2020 Census: Continued Management Attention Needed to Oversee
Innovations, Develop and Secure IT Systems and Improve Cost
Estimation'' found that the Census Bureau has not yet addressed
several security risks and challenges to secure its systems and
data, including making certain that security assessments are
completed in a timely manner and that risks are at an
acceptable level. According to the most recent GAO report as of
this month only eight out of forty-four IT systems have
completed all testing for the 2018 end to end test. When will
the remaining thirty-six IT systems be developed and tested for
the 2018 end to end test and why is this process taking so
long?
Mr. Jarmin. Many of those systems are currently in use
right now. They have authority to operate. There is still some
additional functionality that we plan to add to some of them
that will require additional testing and security assessments.
And that is something that we will be doing until we go live
with the census. We will be constantly testing and improving
and improving the security of our systems until the census. And
that includes robust work with other government agencies and
private sector organizations to be continually load testing,
scalability testing and security testing these systems.
Mr. Cartwright. Is that a no problem answer?
Mr. Jarmin. No, it is not a no problem. It is a we are on
this all the time answer.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, the most recent GAO report found
``The Bureau plans to rely heavily on both new and legacy IT
systems and infrastructure.'' Considering 85 percent of these
IT systems are going to be dealing with sensitive information
from respondents, are you going to be able to test all the IT
systems?
Mr. Jarmin. Yes. In the schedule I think we are on track
for completing all of that work. Again, this is something that
we take very seriously. The security of these systems is
tantamount and we will be on top of this all the way.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, I thank you, Dr. Jarmin, and good
luck to you.
Mr. Jarmin. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Yield back.
Mr. Culberson. I am just double checking with the staff
here, Mr. Cartwright. If the law as a result of the concerns
with the Japanese Americans of World War II prohibits the
Census Bureau from sharing individual data about individual
Americans answering the survey with any other governmental
entity, my staff tells me a felony.
Mr. Jarmin. Absolutely. It is five years in prison and
$250,000 fine. And that law was passed in 1954 partly as a
result of that regrettable incident in World War II.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. One of our most sacred obligations is to
ensure that every American, all of us, every person is
treated----
Mr. Jarmin. Right.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Has equal protection and due
process under the law no matter who you are.
Mr. Jarmin. And that, I will just say that this extends,
you know, we use a lot of administrative data from other
government agencies, from the IRS and Social Security
Administration. The same protections are provided to all
individually identifiable or company identifiable data that we
get from--this is a part of how the Census Bureau operates. And
so the culture of confidentiality is extremely strong at the
Census Bureau.
Mr. Culberson. It is a good thing.
Mr. Serrano. Can I?
Mr. Culberson. Yes, certainly.
Mr. Serrano. This is something that is trouble----
Mr. Culberson. You are not on. Try it again. You good? OK,
go.
Mr. Serrano. This is something that has troubled elected
officials for a while. So when I go to a church, as I have been
doing a couple--for a few years now and saying please sign the
form, fill it out, no information, nobody is going to pass this
onto anyone else, I was telling them the truth?
Mr. Jarmin. Absolutely.
Mr. Serrano. All right, thank you.
Mr. Culberson. It is important for people to know that. I
am confident the census form probably says that too. So when
you are filling it out it says----
Mr. Jarmin. It does say that.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Your information is private, it
is not going to be shared.
Mr. Jarmin. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. No worries.
Mr. Jarmin. It also says your response is required by law.
Mr. Culberson. Yes. I want to be sure because when we get
to full committee that we all understanding that the testimony
you have had here today is that you don't expect the--that the
presence of this question is going to have a less than one
percent impact and probably far less than that.
Mr. Jarmin. I think it is hard to predict what that would
be. I am not in the business of----
Mr. Culberson. Plus it is confidential anyway.
Mr. Jarmin [continuing]. Predicting the future, but it is
confidential. And I think this is something that we need to,
part of the way how we react and, people will follow what their
leaders do. And I think this is something where if we assure
people regardless of what questions are on the form that
participating in the census is absolutely an essential thing to
do----
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
Mr. Jarmin [continuing]. Then we will be in good shape.
Mr. Culberson. And it is confidential. Texans like that.
Mr. Jarmin. It is confidential.
Mr. Culberson. We all like that as Americans. We like the
government out of our lives, out of our business, it is a good
thing. I would like to ask the GAO, if I could, to talk to us a
little bit about the--how accurate is the cost estimate that
the--revised cost estimate that the Census has given us, how
reliable and accurate is that?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Sure. Thank you for that question. We have
not looked at the actual number. What we have looked at was the
process that the Census Bureau used to develop the cost
estimate. And as you know when we were here we have testified
on this before and we have reported on it in the past, is that
the Census Bureau did not follow our four best practices for a
quality cost estimate. Those four best practices are it needs
to be comprehensive, it needs to be well documented, it needs
to be accurate, and it needs to be credible.
What we found when we looked at the 2015 cost estimate is
it fell short in each of those categories. It minimally met the
categories of well documented and credible and only partially
met the categories of accurate and comprehensive. So for
example, some of the things that we were looking for and
weren't there, not all costs were accounted for, not all risks
were accounted for, we couldn't independently verify the
calculations. And it was discouraging because we first brought
issues with the Census Bureau's cost estimates to the Bureau's
attention back in 2008. So this has been a longstanding
problem.
Mr. Culberson. Ten years ago.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Yes. So and the Census Bureau did make some
changes. One of our recommendations was to bring in more
experts on cost estimation. The Census Bureau did that. It was
still an issue with the 2015 estimate in terms of the quality
of it. But then the Census Bureau updated its cost estimate. We
reviewed the documentation for that beginning in December 2017.
It is still a work in progress. Our review is still a work in
progress. The good news is that the quality is much improved.
So at least preliminarily the Census Bureau now has
substantially met the categories of accurate and credible and
fully met the categories of being comprehensive. Where the
Census Bureau still fell short is in the area of being well
documented.
Mr. Culberson. And independently verifiable.
Mr. Goldenkoff. So there have been improvements. And so to
the Census Bureau's credit and the Department of Commerce's
credit we know that, from the Secretary of Commerce all the way
on down the Census Bureau has really been focusing on this. And
so now what we will be looking for is additional documentation.
Our report should be out in late spring, early summer. And what
we will be looking for going forward is the extent to which the
Census Bureau manages off the cost estimate, that this is not
just a one time thing, you shouldn't be doing it just because
GAO wants it, but it is something that you manage as conditions
change, environmental conditions in the field. The
circumstances, operational conditions are going to evolve over
time and that is going to affect costs.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Powner.
Mr. Powner. Yes, I would like to reiterate a point too that
Director Jarmin made. Your question earlier about whether the
15.6 is enough. There is a contingency in there and hopefully
it is enough and the contingency covers it.
Mr. Culberson. Fifty million.
Mr. Powner. 15.6 billion.
Mr. Culberson. Right. But I mean I think we----
Mr. Powner. 15.6 billion, Yes.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Have got a contingency of--you
have asked for in the 2018 bill a fund contingency of $50
million.
Mr. Powner. 50 million. But that 15.6 has a larger
contingency.
Mr. Jarmin. A much larger contingency in fiscal year 2019
and fiscal year 2020.
Mr. Powner. And so that is the question. And we should know
a lot more, to reiterate what Dr.--Director Jarmin mentioned,
at the end of the--near the end of the end to end test how well
the systems are performing, how well the security is, how well
the operations are performing. We should have a pretty good
indication by the end--this fall for instance, whether there is
going to be additional work and whether that contingency will
cover the additional work that will remain.
Mr. Jarmin. Right. We also will know a lot of parameters
that are in the life cycle cost estimate. We will be able to
get a more precise estimate of those, sort of buy down some
risk there. We should know quite a bit more after the end of
the test.
Mr. Culberson. I hope you will include in your report
what--I mean why, if you were told about these problems back in
2008, this hasn't been addressed. I would really be interested
in why this has been such a persistent problem in your opinion
and what creative solutions you would recommend to the Congress
to give the Secretary the authority that the Secretary needs to
help resolve the problem.
And in the area of cyber, you know, the Census Bureau is
going to be a prime target for cyber attacks. And could it--I
see here that in 2016 the Australian census crashed when people
tried to fill out their form. And Australia has five fewer
million people than Texas. And we just saw what happened with
the IRS yesterday. Mr. Powner, you alluded to this a little bit
earlier. And I know part of your responsibilities include
monitoring the IRS. What can you tell us about what happened
with the IRS website yesterday and what steps are being taken
to ensure that we don't have a crash like this from happening
with the Census website.
Mr. Powner. Yes. So regarding the IRS there is still some
unknowns there. It appears that what happened with the IRS was
the front end system, the modernized e-file system, not the
backend system, which everyone looks at the individual master
file, that's the 50-year-old system where our tax returns are
processed, there are unknown questions there about what really
happened. They reported it was a hardware issue. Obviously
there is heavy traffic at this point in time, right, near tax
day. IRS historically has done a really good job with
performance and stress testing. So there is a question about
was it a performance issue, was it a cyber incident, was it
just a failure of the systems. And those are the questions that
need to be asked. And we are going to sit down with their chief
information officer real soon to find out exactly what happened
and we will report back to you.
I think the important thing here is as it pertains to the
census and what happened with the Australian census, that was a
denial-of-service attack. When you have a denial-of-service
attack, I mean, clearly all these security issues that we are
dealing with, the authority to operate that Director Jarmin
mentioned, it is very important that we have diligence in
ensuring that the vulnerabilities are cleaned up and we have
less holes in our systems. We are always somewhat vulnerable.
The other thing that is really important here is the
performance testing that needs to occur. You want to stress
test the heck out of these things because if everyone ends up
hitting the internet response on certain dates or a certain
timeframe that triggers that, and that could very well happen
with advertising and the like, you want to make sure that the
system can handle that irregardless of a denial of service. But
what denial of service really does, what happened in Australia,
is they planted, you know, certain malware and it populated
itself throughout a network and it overloaded the system and
then you couldn't access it for two days. So again, we have got
security and performance testing that is really important. And
they are working on it hard and they take this very serious.
Mr. Culberson. So you are satisfied with the level of
testing that is being done?
Mr. Powner. Well, their approach is rigorous and it follows
best practice. I think what happens is there is a lot of work
that still remains for additional testing. The changes to the
systems that remain and the reassessing from a security point
of view, that is what is important. They have already--many of
these have already been assessed once. But what you don't want
is you don't want to change to a system that creates a
vulnerability. And you are only as good as your weakest link.
So those reassessments are very important. And again, I think
the Bureau takes this very serious.
It is also important to look at what they are going to do
from a penetration testing point of view. We know that they
have penetration tested the system. We have some outstanding
questions about what the results of the penetration tests are
and what is planned in the future. Because what you want to do,
just when you think you are secure you have got to try to
penetrate it as much as you can to make sure we are secure as
possible. And again, they are working on that.
Mr. Culberson. Will the census be using any sort of an app
for people to be able to log on and fill out the forms more
quickly and easily?
Mr. Jarmin. It will basically just be an internet browser
type. The internet response is just a website that they can go
to.
Mr. Culberson. A website.
Mr. Jarmin. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. Because I know NASA and some other apps that
have had problems with cyber security. When they send apps out
there and they wound up getting hacked.
Mr. Jarmin. We will be monitoring this. Part of what we are
doing that Mr. Powner referred, so we are doing penetration
testing. We have put out bug bounties where we have invited
people to come in and beat up the systems. We are also looking
to use what is called red teams, which is basically a much
slower longer term approach to try to find vulnerabilities in
the systems. We are going to leave no stone unturned in trying
to make sure that the systems are secure as possible because we
do expect to be a big target in 2020 and we need to be able to
do that.
An additional mitigation thing that we are using sort of
vis-a-vis the lessons learned from the Australian experience,
is that we will use a mailing strategy. People will get a
postcard or a letter in the mail that says please go on the
website and fill out your census. Here is your housing unit ID.
We will sort of spread that out over a period of time so that
people aren't getting those mailings all on the same day and
then everybody is excited to go out and fill out the census
hitting the site all at once. So there are some things that we
are trying to do to take some lessons from our Australian
counterparts.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to
apologize for all the questions we asked on one subject, but I
think you came ready to answer those questions because you
suspected that would be a question. Let me show you something.
I told you before that I was personally upset, right. But some
other people may be upset. This is the way it will appear. And
I will share it with my colleagues. It says ``Is this person a
citizen of the United States?'' And the first option is, ``Yes,
born in the United States.''
That should be the end of it. Then it says the second
option, ``Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin
Islands or Northern Marianas.'' That makes it look to anyone
like being born in one of these places makes you a citizen
different than being born in the United States. That might have
been true when you had territories that were not states yet and
they were not incorporated and that whole issue, but the world
has changed.
I mean, when we have a war, we send people from those
territories, and they can't refuse to go, you know, and that is
the line I always use, because that is a sign of who they are.
This is really--opens the door for people to just say they are
not like us, they are different. In fact, I wouldn't be
surprised if I get an email after this, saying, so how did you
get to be a member of Congress? Do you qualify? I say I may not
qualify, but I certainly qualify citizenshipwise. So pin this
up somewhere and look at it and see if you get the same
feelings I get.
The Census Bureau's National Advisory Committee on Racial
Ethnic and other Populations, which among other things advises
the Census Bureau on issues affecting immigrant populations,
did not request the addition of a question on citizenship; is
that correct? And doesn't that also undermine the case for
including the question?
Mr. Jarmin. So you are saying that they did not request the
question?
Mr. Serrano. Right.
Mr. Jarmin. The request came from the Department of
Justice.
Mr. Serrano. And did they comment on it, do you know, or
the Committee on Racial and Ethnic and Other Populations?
Mr. Jarmin. We have not had a meeting of that group since
the Secretary's decision.
Mr. Serrano. I see. This is the scary part, you know, that
I told you about before, the fact that it came from the Justice
Department. And one has to wonder why would the Justice
Department want to know that. That's the climate we are living
in, you know.
Mr. Jarmin. Their letter stated that it was for enforcement
of the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. Serrano. Well, you enforce the Voting Rights Act by
making sure that sheriffs don't stop people on their way to
vote like they did in Florida when President Obama was running
for office. You do other things. I can give you a list of
things you do. You don't stop people from voting on that day.
You make it easy for them to vote.
How finding out if a person is a citizen is going to
protect the Voting Rights Act is beyond me, because, you know,
let me tell you something I know about the undocumented. They
are terrified of the way they live. They are not in your face
telling you ``I am here and I am undocumented.'' The last thing
on their mind is to go register to vote and commit such a
crime. That is the last thing on their mind. Would they like to
vote? Yes. They are coming into a whole new place where there
is democracy and freedoms for everyone. But trust me, this is
not about the Voting Rights Act. And my problem is that I am
embarrassed to say I haven't figured out what it is about.
Next question. Did anyone at the Census Bureau or the
Commerce Department meet with officials from the Department of
Justice or any outside group regarding the original request to
add the citizenship question? Did anyone from the White House
contact the Census Bureau or Commerce Department about this
request? If so, will you please provide the names of those
individuals and groups that met with Commerce Department
officials?
Mr. Jarmin. I can't speak for Commerce Department
officials. I can say for the Census Bureau that I do not
believe we met with anyone from DoJ or the White House about
this question.
Mr. Serrano. Well, if you didn't meet--you say you don't
believe, so could there be someone else that met from the
Department?
Mr. Jarmin. No. I don't, no, I don't think so.
Mr. Serrano. But you are pretty sure that no one met. The
final 2018 Omnibus Appropriations Agreement directed the Census
Bureau to ensure that its fiscal year 2018 partnership and
communications activities in support of the census, the 2020
census, are conducted at a level of effort and staffing no less
than that conducted during fiscal year 2008 in preparation for
the 2010 census. Please explain for us the ways in which the
Census Bureau is working to abide by this directive of the
Committee and ensure that the partnership and communications
efforts are at least as strong this year as they were at this
same point ten years ago.
Mr. Jarmin. Thank you, Ranking Member. I think first of all
we started the partnership program earlier this time. We have
40 partnership specialists, seasoned specialists, in the field
right now. We have had them since the beginning of 2017. We
have a team at Census that is looking into both on the
communication and the partnership program using those
appropriations to accelerate both our planning for the
communications campaign, hopefully so that we can get some ad
buys done earlier and save some money, but also to start
ramping up the partnership program this year.
In addition, the other main thing that we are looking at is
also accelerating our scalability testing of our system so that
we can get out ahead of that a little bit and sort of buy down
some risk. But again, we have a team working on that right now.
We are in conversations with both the Department and the OMB
about how we plan to do that. Once we have those conversations
we will be glad to come back and talk to you about what exactly
we are going to do.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks Chairman. I hate to come back to this,
but I heard you say in response to the Chairman's question that
you couldn't confirm that the impact on response rate would be
less than one percent. But I kind of want to double click on
this because I think it is important to acknowledge that even
fractions of percent matter when it comes to the census. So I
was messing around on your census website. Do you know what
percentage of the U.S. population is the state of Vermont?
Mr. Jarmin. The State of Vermont.
Mr. Kilmer. Yes.
Mr. Jarmin. Less than a percent.
Mr. Kilmer. It is 0.2 percent. How about the state of North
Dakota?
Mr. Jarmin. Even less than that.
Mr. Kilmer. Yes.
Mr. Jarmin. Yes.
Mr. Kilmer. You know, as far as I could tell there is well
over a dozen states that are less than a percent of the U.S.
population. So if there was a question under consideration that
would risk counting--not counting the people of Vermont or the
people in North Dakota, would the U.S. Census consider having
that in the list of questions on the census?
Mr. Jarmin. So again, we want every resident in the country
to fill out the census regardless of what questions are on the
form. And that is what we are going to strive our best to do.
We know that from past experience that we will fall short of
that, and we will have lots of people out knocking on doors to
do it the more expensive way. But, that is the goal of the
Census Bureau, to get a complete and accurate count.
Mr. Kilmer. Along those lines. So the district I represent
is largely rural. We have a big city, Tacoma. We have got a,
you know, Navy community Bremerton. We have got, you know, but
we have got a large sort of geographic swath that is rural. We
have 11 federally recognized tribes. And as you know, and I
think part of the reason we are having this broader
conversation around response rate is that a lot of federal
funding is distributed for things like schools and hospitals
and roads and public works and other vital programs. It is also
used for things like the new market tax credit and the
opportunity zone program, which is part of the tax bill. So I
am hoping you can tell me how you plan to ensure that rural and
tribal communities are accurately counted in the 2020 census.
Mr. Jarmin. Thanks for that question. There is a couple
ways. First of all we make sure that they have all the
opportunities to respond to the census. It is not just the
internet. Folks who have limited internet connectivity will
have the opportunity to respond by phone or by paper. In many
of those communities where we know that internet connectivity
is low, we are going to send out paper forms earlier than we do
in other areas.
In very rural communities, we will use other operations,
like update leave or update enumerate, although I don't think
we do that in Washington State. Obviously, we work with tribal
leaders, partnership activities with local folks in both big
cities and small towns and in rural areas. So we will use a
very tried and true method that we have used in the past to get
to rural communities. And that is, just boots on the ground if
needed, but also providing people with multiple modes to self-
respond to the census.
Mr. Kilmer. Now, kind of along those lines there is--and
you mentioned you were from Washington State, so Seattle is
cooking economically--there are parts of the district I
represent that are certainly feeling left behind by that
growth. And you are seeing just dramatic change in the nature
of our economy and the impacts to the workforce. Two questions
in that regard. One, what efforts are the Census Bureau
undertaking to measure adoption and impacts of technologies,
whether it be AI or robotics and other things, and the
potential geographic disparity and the cost and benefits of
that?
And then secondly to that end, in the late '80s and early
'90s the Census had a standalone survey called the Survey of
Manufacturing Technology. And I notice that you no longer run
that survey. Is that something the Census Bureau would consider
taking up again just to look at some of these differentiated
impacts of economic change?
Mr. Jarmin. Thanks for asking about something on the
economic side of the census, which is where I came from.
Mr. Kilmer. I saw your Ph.D.
Mr. Jarmin. I actually have a little bit to do with some of
this. This summer we will be fielding the first ever American
Business Survey, which is an attempt to collapse several other
surveys. And there is going to be a question on there about the
use of some of these nascent technologies, machine learning,
robotics and stuff like that. That will be asked of 850,000
firms around the country in multiple industries. So obviously
we are concerned not just about manufacturing, but retail and
warehousing and what have you. That is going out this summer.
There will be a similar question added to the Annual Survey
of Manufacturers next year. And we would be happy to come down
and discuss whether something like the Survey of Manufacturing
Technology--I would urge that we would think more broadly that
manufacturing is probably a good place to the see impact of
these technologies, but it is not the only place we should be
looking.
Finally I think, we had the opportunity last January to
meet with the American Economic Association's statistics
committee during a lunch at the annual meetings and discussed
some of these things. And I think one thing that we have got is
some of those folks will be coming in and assisting us as, sort
of special sworn employees, and using these new survey items to
link to some of the other data that we have and try to get, to
look at the impacts of these technologies on the workforce, on
productivity growth, things that are critical to know how these
technologies are impacting the economy.
Mr. Kilmer. Cool. Thank you. I really appreciate it. And I
yield back. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. One of the reasons I enjoy this subcommittee
so much and we all work together so well is we have superb
members who add great clarity to the subjects we are working
on. And I really appreciate your questions. Because none of us
would want the State of Vermont to disappear, you know.
Mr. Jarmin.----
Mr. Culberson. Correct. None of us. And the reason I think
we wanted to mention the one percent is I heard you say that
you expected if there is any impact at all it is going to be
far less than one percent is where that came from. None of us
want to see any diminishment at all of participation in the
census or anybody to be undercounted. We all want to make sure
it is accurate. I think I understood the testimony you gave us
is that you don't know of any--you haven't seen any direct
evidence--you haven't seen the evidence that inclusion of this
question in censuses in the past caused any reduction in
participation.
Mr. Jarmin. This is a difficult thing to measure with the
data that we have at hand. And so I think that is why I sort of
hedge on my answer of, predicting the future is because we----
Mr. Culberson. Correct. But you haven't seen--you have seen
no evidence of it in the past.
Mr. Jarmin. Not large direct evidence, no.
Mr. Culberson. That was the concern. And Ms. Meng is next.
And then Mr. Cartwright who is--Mr. Cartwright is a superb
attorney and he is good at these things too, as is Ms. Meng. So
Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just
curious. I know we talked about the prohibition of sharing of
individual information. To my knowledge during the Japanese
interment situation in our country I believe that information
was shared with block level data?
Mr. Jarmin. I think that is correct, yes.
Ms. Meng. And not individuals.
Mr. Jarmin. There was also I think some limited sharing of
some data that was individual level, but most of it was just
data that was shared with the Army I believe was at the block
level.
Mr. Culberson. That is how the government found some of
these folks and went out and rounded them up was through the
census data?
Ms. Meng. From what I have read they shared block level
data, not individual data, as you mentioned was prohibited.
Mr. Jarmin. Yes.
Ms. Meng. Since then, and just to acknowledge that there is
a concern that something similar could happen again that would
further lead to fear and reason for people to be afraid of
filling out that question or the form in general.
Mr. Jarmin. We do rigorous disclosure avoidance procedures
on all the data that we release. And we do release, block group
level data right now from the American Community Survey, which
is pretty low level geography. This is a constant tension
between data users who want more accurate data at a more
granular level and trying to protect the confidentiality of
individual households. And so, this is--I think this is a more
general conversation. Not just about the citizenship question,
but a general conversation about what is the optimal amount of
detail that would be released in statistical publications
versus sort of the utility of that data.
Ms. Meng. Yes. I mean I just think that many communities,
not just immigrants, but many communities want assurances and
deserve assurances that something like that which happened to
American citizens would not ever happen again. So thank you for
that.
My other question, I wanted to--to ensure that the Census
Bureau has a smooth transition between fiscal 2018 and 2019,
the fiscal year 2018 omnibus provided half the funding that the
Bureau needs in 2019 for the decennial census, as you know. And
I wanted to get an idea of how the Bureau is planning to use
these funds, what issues will the bill prioritize, and also the
plan for communications, advertisements and working with local
partnership groups?
Mr. Jarmin. One of the concerns that we have been
expressing all along is the threat of a continuing resolution
at the beginning of fiscal 2019 that would have slowed down our
efforts on getting the communications program underway. And so
a couple of things that we are prioritizing this year with the
omnibus appropriation is to start the planning earlier for some
of those communications activities so that when October 1st
comes around that we are hitting the ground running. We are
also ramping up, accelerating the hiring of some of our
partnership specialists so that we can get partnership
activities underway around the country. And then we are also
accelerating some of the scalability testing.
So all of these things are things that we would have been
doing anyway. But we want to move some of that into fiscal year
2018 so that we can buy down some risk and get things started
sooner so that we can hopefully save some money on the
advertising budget and those sorts of things. This is really
important, and we appreciate what the subcommittee and Congress
more generally have done for us with this appropriation. I
think that it is going to yield a lot of great benefits for us.
Ms. Meng. And we will have commitment from the Bureau that
we will work with appropriate communications specialists,
experts, and local partnership groups that will be most
effective in reaching out to a lot of these communities that
are hardest to reach?
Mr. Jarmin. Absolutely, that is the plan.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Ms. Meng. And I want to reiterate
as the Census Bureau has testified earlier, the form itself
when people fill it out will say your data cannot and will not
be shared with any other governmental entity. It is a felony
for us to share your private information with anyone else, just
to reassure people that they can answer the questions with
confidence that their privacy will be protected and they are
not going to be handed over to ICE or anybody else. Mr.
Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So obviously and
most of the questions you got here today, Dr. Jarmin, reflect
our concerns that we don't waste our money, we don't waste
American taxpayer money on an inaccurate census. And are people
going to be undercounted because they are afraid to answer the
questions? Are people going to be undercounted because they are
hard to get to? Things like that. And I wanted to touch on
that. Individuals living in rural areas are harder to get to,
right?
Originally the Bureau planned to conduct end to end testing
in tribal, rural, suburban, and urban areas and collect
information from 700,000 homes. But due to under funding of
this dress rehearsal end to end testing is only happening in
Providence, Rhode Island. Am I correct in that?
[The information follows:]
To clarify, uncertainty about the timing and levels of
final FY 2017 appropriations required the Census Bureau to
reduce the number of sites for the End-to-End Census Test from
three to one. This allowed the Census Bureau to stay on the
critical path for conducting the ``peak'' operations of the
test.
Mr. Jarmin. That is correct.
Mr. Cartwright. And that is for about 200,000 homes instead
of 700,000, right?
Mr. Jarmin. That is correct. But we did conduct address
canvassing operations in all those areas, including remote
rural areas in West Virginia and some in Washington State.
Mr. Cartwright. But not the end to end dress rehearsal
test.
Mr. Jarmin. Right.
Mr. Cartwright. OK. So what are the significant differences
between suburban and urban Providence and the many rural and
remote areas in the United States? What gaps in understanding
of participation rates do you anticipate because you only
tested in Providence?
Mr. Jarmin. I don't think we anticipate a lot of the
methods that we will be using in rural areas are the same
methods that we have used before. There will be multiple
opportunities for people to self respond. If they can't use the
internet they could use the telephone or the paper form, which
is the same as they used before. We will have robust
partnership and outreach activities in all those communities,
especially in tribal areas. I am, fairly confident that we will
be able to address those areas the same as we have in the past.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, I get it that, you know, we did it
this way before. But we want to get better at this as time goes
on. In the last census, in the 2010 census, nearly a million
children under the age of five in rural areas did not show up
in the census. Unlike other age groups the count of young
children appears to be increasingly less accurate. You are the
expert at this, Doctor. What are the factors that make young
children harder to count and what are the implications of under
counting them?
Mr. Jarmin. This is a focus area for us in this census. For
The Undersecretary, Acting Deputy Secretary, this is her
personal issue. I was at an event in Providence last week that
focused on the undercount of young children and African
American, young African American men. I think there are a host
of issues. I am actually not an expert on the undercount of
young children, but I do follow the debate. There are a number
of issues. I think often young children are in what are already
hard to count households. So they are often in a situation
where there is a single parent. They may be living in a complex
living situation.
We will be working closely with our advertising folks and
with local partnership and community organizations to try to
make sure that we are reaching out to these folks where they
are and sort of ensuring that they know that participating in
the census is important not only for the adults in the
household, but for the children in the household.
Mr. Cartwright. We on this subcommittee are also very
interested in making sure we have accurate cost estimates for
the census because it is so important to get an accurate census
for allocating important government resources, like Medicaid,
Social Security, housing grants, things like that. You
understand. I know the end to end test is underway in
Providence right now. What information have you garnered from
the ongoing test that may call into question the cost estimate
from 2017? Is there going to be time to update the budget for
the census after that Providence end to end test and before the
2020 census is already underway?
Mr. Jarmin. Right. We haven't reviewed all the data yet
from the Providence test. I can say I don't think there have
been any showstoppers that have us, sort of scratching our
heads thinking that things aren't working the way we expected
them to. So that is a good thing. But, we haven't completed the
test yet and we haven't reviewed all of the data. We will be
updating the life cycle cost estimate with the 2020 budget
submission, and we will be using the information from the test
to inform that update of the life cycle cost estimate.
Mr. Cartwright. Are you going to be able to have enough
time to make those assessments before 2020?
Mr. Jarmin. I believe so. That is, yes, that is the plan.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Serrano, any
further questions? We will submit those for the record. We will
submit any further questions we have for the record. I want to
thank each and every one of you for your service to the
country, your time and testimony here today. Yes, sir.
Mr. Serrano. Unanimous consent to----
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. Yes. Without objection we are happy to
submit those. Once again, thank you very much for joining us
today.
Mr. Jarmin. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. And we look forward to working with you in
the months and years ahead. The hearing is adjourned. Thank
you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]