    [Senate Hearing 115-605]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-605

         NOMINATIONS OF HON. STEVEN DILLINGHAM AND MICHAEL M. KUBAYANDA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

           NOMINATIONS OF HONORABLE STEVEN DILLINGHAM, NOMINEE TO BE
            DIRECTOR OF THE CENSUS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
     MICHAEL M. KUBAYANDA, NOMINEE TO BE A COMMISSIONER, POSTAL REGULATORY
                                   COMMISSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 3, 2018

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

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

                    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      U.S.GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    32-492 PDF              WASHINGTON : 2019

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                        RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
    MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
    JON KYL, Arizona                     DOUG JONES, Alabama

                      Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
                    Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
             Catherine A. Bailey, Director of Governmental Affairs
                  Jennifer L. Selde, Professional Staff Member
                   Margaret E. Daum, Minority Staff Director
                      Michael J. Broome, Minority Counsel
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                         Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Johnson..............................................     1
        Senator McCaskill............................................     3
        Senator Lankford.............................................    10
        Senator Carper...............................................    13
        Senator Hassan...............................................    16
        Senator Harris...............................................    19
        Senator Hoeven...............................................    21
        Senator Jones................................................    23
        Senator Daines...............................................    29
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Johnson..............................................    33
        Senator McCaskill............................................    34

                                   WITNESSES
                           Wednesday, October 3, 2018

    Hon. Steven Dillingham, Nominee to be Director of the Census,
      U.S. Department of Commerce
        Testimony....................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    38
        Biographical and financial information.......................    40
        Letter from the Office of Government Ethics..................    65
        Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................    68
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   102
    Michael M. Kubayanda, Nominee to be a Commissioner, Postal
      Regulatory Commission
        Testimony....................................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................   118
        Biographical and financial information.......................   121
        Letter from the Office of Government Ethics..................   142
        Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................   146
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   180

                                    APPENDIX

    Income statement charts submitted by Senator Johnson.............   189
    Census inflation-adjusted chart submitted by Senator Johnson.....   190
    Census cost per household chart submitted by Senator Johnson.....   191
    Letter to POTUS submitted by Senator Johnson.....................   192
    Harris Letter and Response submitted by Senator Johnson..........   194
    Postal Rate Increase Data Chart submitted by Senator Johnson.....   199
    Postal Data Chart submitted by Senator McCaskill.................   201
    Letter from Electronic Privacy Information Center................   203
    Letter from the Census Project...................................   207

                               NOMINATIONS OF THE
            HONORABLE STEVEN D. DILLINGHAM AND MICHAEL M. KUBAYANDA

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2018

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Johnson, Lankford, Hoeven, Daines,
    McCaskill, Carper, Peters, Hassan, Harris, and Jones.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON

        Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to
    order.
        Today we are considering the nominee to be the Director for
    the U.S. Census Bureau and a nominee to be the Commissioner for
    the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC).
        First of all, I want to thank the nominees for your
    testimony for taking the time here today to testify. I also
    want to thank you for spending some time in my office. I
    enjoyed our conversations, and I think what I certainly
    determined from that is we have two nominees here that are,
    first, very knowledgeable and I think very well qualified for
    these positions. So I appreciate the President has picked I
    think two exceptional candidates for these two very important
    positions.
        I would ask that my written opening statement be entered
    into the record.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
    Appendix on page 33.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A hearing would not be a hearing under my chairmanship
    without a couple of charts. So I want to just quick start out
    with one on the U.S. Postal Service (USPS).\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
    on page 189.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This is just a one-page income statement that I have
    developed over a number of years, trying to figure out exactly
    what is the financial condition of the U.S. Postal Service, and
    it is just three simple columns that gives you the income
    statement for 2007, and then 10 years later, 2017, and then
    gives you a total, 10-year.
        What I find interesting about it is I think this really
    does lay out what the issue is. In 2007, the Postal System had
    a $3 billion operating income, $4.7 billion in 2017, but for
    the full 10 years lost about $1.4 billion on an operating
    basis.
        The big problem is the pension plan, and with the 2006
    Postal Reform that required prefunding, that was a total of
    $62.6 billion, which is why you show a $63.9 billion, 10-year
    complete loss.
        Now, you also had appreciation. That adds some cash back,
    and of course, the Postal System is defaulting on that
    prefunding. So, in the end, it looks like the Postal System has
    generated $8.5 billion over 10 years, but again, this is
    because we have not addressed the problem, which is the
    unfunded liability in the retiree health benefits as well as
    their pension.
        So it is actually pretty simple to take a look at. I am not
    saying the solution is very simple, but again, I have a copy of
    this at the dais for all of our Senators.
        The next chart really speaks to the issues of the Census
    Department,\1\ and from my standpoint, I think this is the
    problem right here.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
    on page 190.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        And I am going to focus really on 1990 Census because by
    1990, most of the transfer programs were in place. Most of what
    government was doing that requires information, the kind of
    data that Census collects, were in place. So these are
    inflation-adjusted dollars.
        In 1990, we spent a little under $5 billion taking the
    Census. That is the Census cost. Best-case scenario right now,
    using 2020 methods, the technology, we are estimating it is
    going to be three times that total cost, $15.6 billion.
        Again, we have seen the Internet. We have seen information
    technology (IT). That cost, if anything, should be reduced, and
    of course, we have had population growth as well.
        The next chart\2\ I think shows that that is not the
    problem. In 1990, the cost per household was $45. 1970 was only
    $17. But, again, I am moving forward to 1990 when all these
    programs were in place. Best-case scenario is looking like it
    would be $107, more than double, on a per-household basis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
    on page 191.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        So, to me, that is the primary problem with the Census, and
    that is the question I am asking. Why? Why is the total dollar
    cost three times? Why is the per-household cost double what it
    was in 1990? What has changed so significantly that is driving
    that really ridiculous cost figure when in fact with all the
    advances of information technology, certainly the cost per
    household I think should have declined? We have gotten more
    productive in just about every area of our economy. I do not
    understand this in the Census.
        The other thing, I do want to cover something up front. I
    am sure this will come up during the hearing, and it is the
    whole issue of the citizenship question.
        I want to read something into the record here. On April 10,
    2018, this Committee held a roundtable for Committee Members
    with representatives of both Department of Commerce and the
    Census Bureau reading the 2020 Census content, including the
    addition of a citizenship question in the 2020 questionnaire.
    At the Roundtable, Acting Census Director Ron Jarmin told the
    Committee that there was no definitive evidence that the
    addition of a citizen question would significantly reduce
    response rates and that other questions such as household
    impact had proven to have a greater impact on response rates
    for the American Community Survey (ACS).
        Now, I understand the citizenship question is a
    controversial issue, and reasonable people can come to
    different conclusions, but I would like to emphasize for the
    purposes of this hearing that Dr. Dillingham was not at the
    Census Bureau when this decision was made. Even if confirmed,
    Dr. Dillingham will not have the ability to change this
    decision because Congress charges Secretary of Commerce with
    the authority to determine the Census content. This is, again,
    one of those powers that Congress has delegated to the
    Administration. This is well within the Secretary of Commerce's
    jurisdiction to create the question and determine what it is.
        Now, currently, there is an ongoing court case to determine
    is Secretary Wilbur Ross acted within his authority to add the
    citizenship question. So rather than argue about an issue that
    will be fully litigated in the courts, it is my sincere hope
    that this hearing will focus on whether or not Dr. Dillingham
    is qualified to lead the Census Bureau.
        We are less than 18 months out from the Census Day, and my
    colleagues and I, including the Ranking Member, have been
    asking for the President to nominate a qualified individual to
    serve as a Census Bureau Director since the position was
    vacated last June, considering the nomination of the Census
    Bureau Director is presently the most important step this
    Committee can take to put the 2020 Census on the path for
    success.
        In addition to that, on September 20, I received a letter
    from Senator Harris, Senator Carper, Senator Hassan, and
    Senator Peters asking for more oversight hearings. I would like
    to enter that letter into the record\1\ as well as my response
    the following day on September 31.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The letter referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the
    Appendix on page 194
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        And so with that, I will turn it over to Senator McCaskill.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL\2\

        Senator McCaskill. Yes. Let me start out with the Postal
    Service chart.\3\ It would be really helpful if we could huddle
    before chart time.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the
    Appendix on page 34.
        \3\ The chart referenced by Senator McCaskill appears in the
    Appendix on page 189.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My staff does not believe that this is accurate, and we
    have a difficult time finding, tracing back the numbers that
    are on it.
        So I would offer into the record\4\ something that is much
    more complicated but gives sources for the numbers, and I think
    the important thing to realize is last year, the Postal Service
    was profitable, had it not been for prefunding issues.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ The information referenced by Senator McCaskill appears in the
    Appendix on page 201.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        So I am anxious for us to fix postal, and that is the most
    important thing we should be doing right now and with
    comprehensive postal legislation.
        The House has gotten further with their work than we have,
    and maybe we can get together, our staffs, after the hearing,
    and we can come up with a chart that we can go into the----
        Chairman Johnson. Sure.
        Senator McCaskill. I am sure we can find agreement because
    we usually do when we sit down together. Let us see if we
    cannot get together and see if we cannot come up with a Profit
    and Loss (P&L) one that we can agree on.
        Chairman Johnson. Sure.
        Just real quick, this was all sourced by the United States
    Postal Service annual 10-Ks, and we have been working with a
    number of offices, just trying to hone this so it is correct. I
    want to make sure it is completely correct information.
        Senator McCaskill. Yes. Well, we can probably get that
    figured out.
        Chairman Johnson. OK.
        Senator McCaskill. In the meantime, I would like to put
    this much more complex document into the record.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The document referenced by Senator McCaskill appears in the
    Appendix on page 202.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Johnson. Without objection.
        Senator McCaskill. Thank you so much.
        And I agree with you on the Census. IT acquisition is the
    black hole of government spending, no matter where it is, and I
    have spent a lot of time on this at the Pentagon. That would
    drive the Chairman crazy if he began trying to do all of his
    charts and his financials over at the Pentagon.
        IT acquisition has been a huge problem in government,
    typically because we cannot compete for the same talent. There
    has been such a demand for talent in the IT sector that
    government does not pay what the private sector does. So, as a
    result, we farm it all out, and if you do not know enough to
    know what you are buying, you defer to the people you are
    buying it from. And guess what the people you are buying it
    from want to make it? Really profitable for them and very
    expensive, and they want to capture agencies with a build-from-
    scratch system that they are then wedded to forever as opposed
    to ever turning to off-the-shelf software that would be
    available.
        I do not know because I have not taken a deep dive into
    those numbers, but I have a feeling that is probably where our
    cost increases have come from is wasting money over efforts to
    acquire a specialized built-from-scratch IT system that turned
    out not to be efficient and/or effective.
        I do think both of these nominations are very important. I
    agree that the decision today on Mr. Dillingham is on his
    qualifications and not what has occurred over the last year.
        I do think it is very important that we get to the bottom
    of whether or not this Committee was misled by Secretary Ross.
    We were clearly told that the reason the question was included
    was because the Justice Department asked for it. Facts are now
    coming to light that would indicate that that perhaps was not
    entirely truthful.
        And I think if we have a moment that is as important as
    that moment is in terms of oversight, if we are not getting the
    full truth on questions that are pretty important, I think that
    is something this Committee needs to take a closer look at, and
    I am not advocating we interfere in the litigation. But it was
    made very clear to this Committee, that the reason the question
    was included was it was requested by Justice. Well, now it is
    not so clear. It appears to me that a political decision was
    made to include the question, and then they sought justice to
    ask for it so they could hang their hat on that peg. That is
    not being honest with us or the American people, and it
    certainly demands oversight.
        And so we can let the lawsuit continue, but that is why we
    are in this mess is because I believe that we were not given
    all the facts at the point in time that we asked for them. And
    I do not put that on the roundtable participants. I put that
    squarely with Secretary Ross.
        I know the Census Bureau is approaching the most critical
    period of a 10-year Census cycle. I frankly have a great deal
    of sympathy for someone who is being asked to pick up the reins
    at this point because I think we have a significant problem. I
    think we need to reassure the American people that their
    information is protected and private, especially in this era of
    privacy concerns.
        I would certainly comment to you, Mr. Dillingham, if you
    are confirmed, that that be one of the things that you focus
    on, not just the Public Service Announcements (PSAs) asking
    people to participate, but stressing the privacy of their
    information because I understand why telling people how much
    money you make is a scary thing for people to do in a Census,
    giving the government that number, although I think they give
    it to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). But the question is,
    Are the two numbers the same? And that is probably why they are
    reluctant. But I think that reassurance that the information is
    private under law, that it is a criminal offense for their
    information to be shared, I think is very important.
        I am anxious to hear your plans for outreach in terms of
    counting difficult populations to count.
        Mr. Kubayanda, it is good to see you also. I feel very
    strongly that the Postal Regulatory Commission has an important
    role in our Postal Service. You come with a long record of
    public service, particularly impressive expertise in the postal
    issues.
        I know you left the Inspectors General (IGs) office 3 years
    ago, and I am pleased that you are willing to return to public
    service. It is a little bit like fingernails on a blackboard
    sometimes when I look at someone like you that people like you
    are considered the swamp. You have labored hard and honorably
    in the public sector. You left the public sector, and now you
    are willing to come back and provide an important public
    service. And I think that should be admired, not denigrated,
    and so thank you for that.
        I am really worried about the quality of rural mail
    service. I hear from people all the time in Missouri about the
    increasing service delays, and the key to rural Missouri in
    terms of them keeping people in their communities, keeping the
    next generation in their communities, is in fact reliable mail
    service because many of them are starting small businesses. The
    one-two partnership that is essential for rural Missouri is
    high-speed broadband combined with reliable mail service. That
    is where you can start businesses and allow businesses to
    thrive, no matter where you live, if you have those two
    ingredients.
        The universal service obligation (USO) is one of the most
    important duties of the Postal Service. I would like to hear
    from you about what you think should be done to safeguard and
    improve the quality of mail service in rural America.
        Obviously, the financial condition of the Postal Service is
    a problem. The accumulated losses are a problem, and this
    deficit is a threat to the future of the Postal Service.
        I know this. That if we were to make the mistake of trying
    to privatize Postal Service, then who would end up with the
    most expensive service, the least reliable service, and the
    most sporadic service would in fact be that last mile. We have
    seen it time and time again. The private business model will
    not want to lose money on that one farmhouse down a mile and a
    half off the blacktop road. They will not want to lose that
    money, and so we would be stepping in, anyway, in order to
    provide universal service.
        Do we want to give up the profitable part of our
    architecture when we are still going to have to own the non-
    profitable part of our architecture? And that does not make
    sense to me. It seems to me we should give the Postal Service
    the tools it needs to thrive and succeed for many years to come
    while still respecting the universal postal delivery obligation
    that is set forth in the law.
        Thank you both for being here today, and I look forward to
    your testimony.
        Chairman Johnson. Thanks, Senator McCaskill.
        My final comment to Mr. Dillingham is if confirmed--and we
    are going to do everything we can to speed this process up--you
    need to concentrate on getting the Census completed accurately
    and with as high a response rate as possible. The whole cost
    issue, that is kind of for after the Census because we start
    gearing up for 2030 and addressing that.
        Again, the questionnaire itself, that is being handled by
    others. You have a big job ahead of you, and again, our job is
    to get you on that job as quickly as possible.
        It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in
    witnesses, so if you will both stand and raise your right hand.
    Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Committee
    will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
    so help you, God?
        Mr. Dillingham. I do.
        Mr. Kubayanda. I do.
        Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
        Our first nominee is the Honorable Steven Dillingham. Mr.
    Dillingham is currently serving as the Director for the Office
    of Strategic Information, Research, and Planning at the Peace
    Corps. He has an over 40-year career in Federal Government and
    policy research, including serving as the Director of two
    Federal statistical agencies--the Bureau of Transportation
    Statistics and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). And I
    hope I do not say that too often. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Dillingham.

    TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE STEVEN DILLINGHAM,\1\ NOMINEE TO BE
          DIRECTOR OF THE CENSUS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

        Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Dillingham appears in the
    Appendix on page 38.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Before I begin, I would like to introduce my wife,
    Kimberly; my daughter Abigail; my youngest uncle and aunt, John
    and Debbie Dillingham and very much appreciate them being here
    today.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Committee Members, I
    would like to share with you an experience some years ago, when
    my wife Kimberly and daughter Abigail joined me at my
    confirmation hearing to be the Director of the Bureau of
    Justice Statistics.
        That hearing was before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
    chaired by the Honorable Joe Biden. As he lifted his gavel to
    close the hearing, my infant daughter began to cry. Senator
    Biden smiled and remarked, ``Let the record show that Abigail
    has the last word.'' While quite memorable, she is an adult
    now, and I am not expecting her to repeat that performance.
    [Laughter.]
        Let me begin by acknowledging the importance of public
    service to my family and me. My wife and her mother were public
    school teachers. My daughter also is a public school teacher.
    She saves her money for summer travel as a volunteer teacher in
    villages of developing countries.
        My father entered military service at age 17 during World
    War II and retired from the enlisted ranks after two more
    decades of service. He named his three sons for military
    leaders.
        My father-in-law retired as a Lieutenant General following
    his career as a defense strategist and analyst. The Air Force
    annually bestows a leadership award in his honor. In our
    household, public service is a noble family tradition.
        It is an honor to appear before you today and to be
    considered for this position of important public trust. I am
    grateful to President Trump, Secretary Ross, and Under
    Secretary Karen Dunn Kelley, and all who support my nomination
    and who have assisted me.
        I thank Members of this Committee for your consideration.
        If confirmed, I pledge to serve with the professionalism
    and the integrity that you expect and the Nation deserves.
        My public service includes directing two Federal
    statistical agencies and several research offices. I also have
    been manager for large and small businesses, non-profits, and
    universities. My work has ranged from enforcing whistleblower
    protections to analyzing program results. Historically, the
    talents of Bureau Directors have served them well. If
    confirmed, mine should also.
        Challenges facing the Bureau are numerous. The Decennial
    Census presents an immediate need. If confirmed, I will be
    dedicated to ensuring that the workforce is ready, willing, and
    able to accomplish the Bureau's mission as the leading provider
    of quality information on the Nation's people and economy.
        I am mindful for the need to work with this Committee, the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Office of Inspector
    General (OIG), and others. I will support a workforce committed
    to mission, principles, and accountability.
        If confirmed, my focus areas will include, one, achieving
    results. I am committed to providing leadership in fulfilling
    the Bureau's mission and performing its constitutional and
    statutory responsibilities while mitigating risks.
        Two, maintaining organizational and professional integrity.
    I pledge to support a Federal statistical agency culture of
    principles and practices grounded in relevance to policy
    issues, credibility among data users, trust among data
    providers, and independence from improper influences.
        Three, fostering workforce excellence. I will lead efforts
    to support an engaged and diverse workforce that provides
    quality products and services, bolsters employee morale, and is
    recognized for performance.
        Let me provide a personal perspective on data collection. A
    decade ago, I volunteered for civilian service in Iraq to help
    restore peace, rebuild the Nation's government and economy, and
    establish rule of law. My duties included strategic planning
    and establishing a system of data collection for its justice
    system under challenging and unsafe conditions.
        The work involved Iraqis compiling provincial data and
    delivering it to the Justice Ministry in Baghdad, which was a
    target of bombings and attacks. Iraqi officials risked life and
    limb traveling in unsafe and hazardous conditions across
    deserts stretching hundreds of miles to deliver the data. At
    the Justice Ministry, an office staffed with dedicated Iraqi
    women professionally compiled the data. On my final visit to
    that office, the Iraqi female officials proudly presented their
    miraculously published and quite professional statistical
    results.
        Then, in contravention of their custom, they all shook our
    hands.
        Accurate data is an essential underpinning for
    representative and responsive government, as well as a thriving
    economy. While the Census Bureau faces challenges, I know that
    it has the talent and commitment for meeting them.
        I hope that you find me worthy to contribute. I look
    forward to your questions.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Dillingham, and I do want
    to welcome your family and not only thank you for your service
    but thank you for theirs as well. You will probably see your
    loved one a little bit less if he gets confirmed for this
    position.
        Our next nominee is Michael Kubayanda. Mr. Kubayanda is
    currently serving as a privacy officer and board member for
    access mobile International, an electronic health services
    technology startup, serving communities in the United States
    and Africa. He previously worked for the United States Postal
    Service Office of the Inspector General, House Committee on
    Oversight and Government Reform, and the United States Postal
    Service.
        Mr. Kubayanda, I would also encourage you to introduce your
    family. I want to thank them for their attendance and their
    willingness to kind of sacrifice time with you in your
    important position.

          TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL M. KUBAYANDA,\1\ NOMINEE TO BE
               COMMISSIONER, POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

        Mr. Kubayanda. Good morning Chairman Johnson, Ranking
    Member McCaskill, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for
    inviting me to testify regarding my nomination to the Postal
    Regulatory Commission.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Kubayanda appears in the Appendix
    on page 118.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Unfortunately, my family was unable to be here. My spouse
    is attending to important prior commitments overseas, and my
    mother was unable to travel at this time. But they are very
    excited about my nomination as well.
        I have been fortunate to work with this Committee in
    earlier positions I have held and I am honored by the
    opportunity to do so again. I have built solid relationships
    with members of your staff over the years. I have been
    impressed by their dedication and knowledge, and I understand
    the importance of providing accurate and timely information to
    Congress. I believe this ensures better oversight and better
    public policy. If confirmed, this will be a high priority for
    me.
        I have several years of experience working on postal reform
    and oversight, most recently at the U.S. Postal Service, Office
    of Inspector General. I am familiar with many of the key issues
    and organizations in the field. I believe my understanding of
    adjacent and complementary issues, such as technology, can also
    be helpful.
        We appear to be close to an inflection point on postal
    issues. On one hand, declining mail volume and legal mandates
    contribute to ongoing financial losses. On the other hand, e-
    commerce and new consumer technologies are transforming
    delivery services and providing options to improve customer
    service. It is vital that we in the postal community understand
    these changes and how they impact the Postal Service.
        We should also try to understand how consumer expectations
    are changing in this era and ensure that services and
    regulations are responsive to these expectations. I have looked
    at these issues from many perspectives, especially at the OIG.
    I believe that this background has prepared me well to address
    the issues facing the postal sector now and in the future.
        I view a Commissioner's role as similar to that of a State
    utility regulator. The Commission must bring to bear the
    necessary analytical skills to scrutinize the operations and
    finances of the Postal Service and ensure compliance with the
    law and public policy, as established by Congress.
        In addition, the Commission should support transparency by
    making sure that its findings are readily accessible to
    stakeholders and the public at large.
        Key technical matters facing the Commission include
    negotiated service agreements, Post Office appeals, and complex
    issues of economic regulation.
        The Commission will issue a final order on the 10-year
    review of the system for regulating market dominant products
    under the PAEA. It is also looking at the proper contribution
    of competitive products, such as e-commerce packages, to the
    institutional costs of the Postal Service. With this sizable
    and important workload, the Commission should continue to
    emphasize efficiency and responsiveness to stakeholders.
        I believe the Commission's emphasis on strategic planning
    will help it prioritize and execute against this agenda. If
    confirmed, I look forward to working with Chairman Robert Taub
    and Commissioners Nanci Langley, Tony Hammond, and Mark Acton
    to do so.
        Thank you for considering my nomination, and I look forward
    to answering your questions.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Kubayanda.
        There are three questions the Committee asks of every
    nominee for the record, and so I will ask the question. Then I
    will just go to both of you for your answer.
        First, is there anything you are aware of in your
    background that might present a conflict of interest with the
    duties of the office to which you have been nominated? Mr.
    Dillingham.
        Mr. Dillingham. No, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Johnson. Mr. Kubayanda.
        Mr. Kubayanda. No, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Do you know if anything personal or
    otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and
    honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
    which you have been nominated? Mr. Dillingham.
        Mr. Dillingham. No, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Mr. Kubayanda.
        Mr. Kubayanda. No, I do not.
        Chairman Johnson. Do you agree without reservation to
    comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before
    any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are
    confirmed? Mr. Dillingham.
        Mr. Dillingham. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Mr. Kubayanda.
        Mr. Kubayanda. Yes, I do.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you.
        I will reserve my questioning until the end out of respect
    for my colleagues' time. Senator McCaskill.
        Senator McCaskill. I will defer also.
        Chairman Johnson. Then Senator Lankford.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

        Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member, for that.
        Mr. Kubayanda, let me ask you a little bit about the Postal
    Regulatory Commission and the hard issues that you are facing
    at this point and the very difficult decisions. What ideas do
    you bring to bear on reforms of the system that will help with
    pricing efficiency? If I talk to anyone in my State about
    postal, if they work in the postal office, it is about its
    ability to be able to be sustained and the prefunding for
    health. If I talk to anyone else, it is the price of the stamp.
        So let me ask you the question about pricing because this
    will be a big issue for you. Do you have ideas that you are
    walking into with efficiency to help offset pricing issues?
        Mr. Kubayanda. The Commission addressed this issue with a
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking late last year, and I am aware of
    their work on this. I applaud the Commission for taking on this
    really difficult issue. It is essential to the financial health
    of the Postal Service.
        I think it is important that I come in with an open mind in
    reviewing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission is
    currently reviewing comments from stakeholders on this issue
    before issuing a final rule.
        So, if confirmed, that will be at the top of my priority
    list to assist the Commission in getting out that final rule.
        I have worked on this issue extensively in the past. So it
    is something that I bring some knowledge to, and I do think it
    is important. Under Title 39, there are objectives and factors
    that are required to be considered in the establishment of a
    rate-making system. There are just some common sense issues
    that I think we need to look at that a lot of people have
    identified.
        Senator Lankford. OK. Well, stay on the common sense side
    of that as well.
        One of the big issues facing the entire country is the
    amount of fentanyl coming through the mail at this point. There
    has been a lot of emphasis on trying to detect that. Help me
    understand your perspective on what can be done and should be
    done trying to pick up illicit fentanyl coming through the
    mail.
        Mr. Kubayanda. I understand that there has been some recent
    legislation on this issue sponsored by Senator Portman from my
    home State of Ohio. I have not worked on that issue in great
    detail, but I know my former colleagues at the OIG have been
    very involved with that and with the new Governor. David
    Williams, former U.S. Postal Service Inspector General and
    current member of the Postal Board of Governors, has also been
    personally involved in that issue.
        I know the Postal Service, the Inspection Service and the
    Office of Inspector General all coordinate with the Department
    of Homeland Security (DHS) and with other Federal law
    enforcement agencies on this issue. If confirmed, it is
    something that I realize is a great priority, and I hope to
    work with your office on making sure that we interdict
    fentanyl.
        Senator Lankford. Yes. We look forward to that. We have
    added additional funding through the Financial Services and
    General Government (FSGG) appropriations for this year toward
    the Inspector General's office to be able to deal with this and
    the ongoing investigations on every layer, but this is not just
    a machine to be able to detect it coming in. It is a much
    broader issue, and we look forward to getting a chance to be
    able to work through this process and whatever we can do to be
    able to help and whatever resources you need or backup that you
    will need to be able to deal with this because it is an
    entirely different issue when drugs are coming through the
    mail, especially as deadly as fentanyl and the proliferation of
    those.
        Mr. Dillingham, thank you for the visit that we have had
    before. I promised you when we visited that every time you see
    me, I will ask you a question about the Census Bureau and the
    IRS partnering together every 10 years.
        April 1, we do a Census every 10 years, but every single
    year, most of the American public interacts with their
    government through a different document on April 15th of that
    year.
        The cost of the Census collection has continued to go up
    and up and up, and as we look for areas of efficiency, it only
    seems to make sense to try to partner, every 10 years, IRS form
    filling with also Census form filling and to see if we cannot
    partner those two together.
        You cannot promise me this is going to happen in 2030.
    Certainly, I would not ask that of 2020, but is that something
    that you will look at to be able to examine is that possible to
    save significant dollars to see if we can partner together in
    2030?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator Lankford, I appreciate the
    question, and I appreciate your interest. And I think it is
    very important that we consider new approaches and innovative
    ways to constrain costs and to save money.
        And maybe some hypotheticals when I discussed this with
    you, but there may be some new ways of looking at particularly
    your proposal and what might be fashioned as a potential
    solution to an issue of efficiency in Federal Government with
    two agencies with two separate missions.
        Senator Lankford. Sure.
        Mr. Dillingham. One is an enforcement mission, and the
    other is gathering statistics.
        So I understand that people would see and maybe be
    concerned about a conflict there, but there could still be
    perhaps an efficiency in an approach such as you recommend.
        So I would pledge to you that we would look at that. We
    would look at all sorts of options, and from day one, if I am
    confirmed, we will look at cost constraints and novel ways of
    looking at that.
        Senator Lankford. Again, those of us that have the
    privilege of working here in Washington, DC., understand the
    two agencies and the two functions. If I am at home, I get one
    form, and then 2 weeks later, I am filling out a different
    form. And much of that information is the same, and I am trying
    to figure out why I am filling this out twice and mailing
    something to Washington, DC., or emailing it in or going on a
    website and filling this out.
        So to the American citizen, they are going to see this as
    duplication coming up in 2 years because they are doing
    basically the same thing.
        So if there are ways to be able to cooperate together on
    that, whether legislative barriers to that or whatever may be,
    we just need to be able to correct it.
        The American Community Survey, you and I have had some
    conversation on as well. There are a lot of issues. The cost of
    the American Community Survey has continued to skyrocket as
    well. That information is exceptionally valuable to a lot of
    companies and to a lot of agencies to be able to get that
    information, but a lot of it is also commercially available.
        What I would like to do is to be able to encourage you and
    to be able to follow up in the days ahead, if you are willing
    to be able to do this, to be able to look at other places that
    some of that information for the American Community Survey can
    be received privately. That we can buy that data, basically,
    and know that it is reliable and not have to go gather it and
    redo this.
        This is the same issue we are facing with even commercial
    satellites. If you go back to 15 years ago, if there was a
    satellite image, it was U.S. Government-produced. Now private
    companies will give you an image of every square inch of the
    earth every single day because you can buy that data,
    commercially available. So the U.S. Government is now
    partnering with private entities for some satellite images we
    want to get and some others we have to be able to do.
        I am asking just a simple question on the American
    Community Survey, where it exists and we can buy it privately
    and can get that cheaper and not have to have such a long
    American Community Survey that seems rather invasive at times,
    like how many toilets do you have and what time do you leave
    for work. Are there ways to be able to do this so we can
    produce some of it and then buy some of it?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, it is certainly my intention, if
    confirmed, to look at that and the potential cost savings with
    the American Community Survey.
        It always involves a balancing of burden versus benefit,
    and as you point out, we have new technologies. We have new
    ways of doing business. We have new information needs.
        So I do think you will find a very receptive response at
    the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau is continuously looking at
    cost savings with the American Community Survey, and rightfully
    so. And I do think that we will work with you and this
    Committee and others in Congress, and we probably would benefit
    from some external views on this. So we would solicit
    information, ideas, and potential innovations from all corners,
    Senator.
        Senator Lankford. Gentlemen, thank you both. Thank you to
    both of your families for stepping up into this role as well.
    It is a big deal.
        I happen to have a daughter whose middle name is Abigail as
    well, and she is watching her dad in public service, and I hope
    she takes on that role as well. So thank you for doing this.
        Mr. Dillingham. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Carper.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

        Senator Carper. I am going to follow up on the families
    theme for just a moment.
        Michael, you mentioned that your wife is overseas at this
    time. How long have you all been married?
        Mr. Kubayanda. Four years.
        Senator Carper. Four years, OK.
        And, Mr. Dillingham, I see your wife is here sitting next
    to--is it Abigail?
        Mr. Dillingham. My wife, Kimberly, and daughter Abigail.
        Senator Carper. How long have you all been married?
        Mr. Dillingham. Approximately about 30----
        Senator Carper. I am sorry to put you on the record.
        Mr. Dillingham. Yes. [Laughter.]
        Senator McCaskill. I sense real trouble.
        Senator Carper. Wait.
        Senator McCaskill. There are some flowers in your future,
    Kimberly.
        Mr. Dillingham. My analytical mind sometimes has----
        Senator Carper. Best answer I have ever heard on this. You
    can stop right now.
        Mr. Dillingham. Approximately 30 years.
        Senator Carper. Not long enough. How is that?
        Mr. Dillingham. Approximately 30. That is exactly right.
        Senator Carper. Let me hear you say that for the record.
    Not long----
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, not long enough.
        Senator Carper. Thank you so much. That was very good.
        I want to thank seriously Michael. Tell your mom, wherever
    she is, thanks for raising you and imparting the values in you
    for service to our country, and thanks very much to your wife
    for her willingness to share you.
        Mrs. Dillingham, I would say the same thing to you.
        I want to just start off, if I could, on the Postal Service
    for a little bit. Some of us have worked on this for quite a
    while. The man who sat here in this seat, Senator Lankford and
    I, Tom Coburn and I worked on this issue for years. He is over
    in Oklahoma now, but I know he follows these issues. And I
    certainly do with great interest.
        When I was in the Navy during the Vietnam War, we could not
    wait for the mail to come every day. Best part of the day, best
    part of the week was mail call, and we still get mail. Our
    troops still get mail overseas, but it is not the big deal that
    it used to be for all of us. What the Internet taketh away with
    respect to First-Class Mail volumes, the Internet giveth
    something in return. As you know, it is packages and parcels,
    and we have seen double-digit growth in that business for some
    time.
        We have half the number of mail processing centers in this
    country we had 10 years ago. We have roughly half the full-time
    employees we had 10 years ago. We have about a third less post
    offices, full-time post offices than we did 10 years ago. The
    Postal Service has dramatically downsized itself I think to
    right-size the organization.
        The question for some of us is, The products that are being
    handled by the Postal Service, are they actually paying their
    way? The President has raised some concerns about packages and
    parcels, especially with a focus on Amazon that they are not
    paying their way.
        I am told by the Postal Service that they made 6- or $7
    billion last year on the packages and parcels business, which
    would suggest that is not a bad piece of business, and how do
    we continue to grow that?
        I want to just note for year, we have been coming back to a
    major problem for the Postal Service is how do they pay for,
    offset the costs, health care costs for their retirees. And
    that has been an issue faced by States. We faced it when I was
    Governor. It is faced by States and local governments today. It
    is faced by businesses as well.
        Most State and local governments put almost nothing aside
    in order to meet the obligation of health care for their
    retirees. Most Fortune 100 companies do not either. Fortune 500
    companies, they do not set much money aside, if any. Same thing
    with Fortune 1000 companies.
        Having said that, this is an issue that needs to be
    addressed, and I think there is a fiscally responsible way to
    do that, and we will be looking to you and your colleagues for
    some guidance, should you be confirmed. I hope that you will.
        One of our colleagues--I think it was Senator Lankford--
    mentioned that consumers are concerned about the price of
    stamps, and they are. The last time I checked stamps in this
    country, we were just a little under 50 cents. It actually
    dropped a penny or so last year.
        Postal stamps in France, 88 cents; Australia, a $1.00;
    Canada, a $1.00. So I still think 48 or 49 cents is not a bad
    deal for the service that we get.
        Let me ask a couple of questions, if I could, for Dr.
    Dillingham.
        If confirmed, you will face almost immediate management
    challenges at the Census Bureau ranging from IT acquisition to
    the need to hire enough enumerators to conduct the 2020 test.
    As it turns out, the Secretary of Commerce used to be an
    enumerator, as you probably know. He is paid better now than
    what he is does, what he is worth, but you never know when
    those enumerators are going to go.
        But what do you believe are the most pressing challenges
    that we face at the Census Bureau? How would you prioritize
    that? What are the most pressing challenges? How would you
    prioritize them?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, I appreciate the question. I think
    you really nailed a couple of the priorities and the needs and
    some of the risks at the Census Bureau.
        The IT acquisition, as the Ranking Member pointed out, is a
    major factor for cost escalations, and we want to make sure it
    is done right.
        We understand and look back at prior Decennial Censuses and
    understand that there were in the past some technological and
    IT acquisition challenges, and hopefully, the Census Bureau has
    learned from those.
        You also point out the hiring, and that is going to be of
    great interest. The Census Bureau, if I am confirmed, would
    apply a lot of effort to determining how best to identify that
    workforce and getting them on board. It is a complicated
    business. There is background investigations and other things
    that have to be part of that process.
        But I probably am looking at the challenges facing the
    Census Bureau. I would probably look at certainly the GAO
    reports as well as the OIG reports.
        I think, in a way, we are sort of blessed. Agencies do not
    like to have all their challenges necessarily identified and
    publicized at times, but it is a great service. It really
    relieves the agency of the introspection for doing that.
        In considering the Decennial Census as a high risk in which
    the GAO has done, it has identified several important areas. It
    was mentioned by the Ranking Member, the security of the IT
    system. Certainly, that is foremost in everyone's thinking.
        There is also the public perception, and I know that with
    disagreement on one of the questions, we were interested to see
    how that might impact public perception. What we need to do,
    with whatever the final questions are in the Decennial Census,
    we need to ensure that the media campaign, the communication
    strategy are on track to address those.
        Senator Carper. Hold it right there. My time is about to
    expire.
        Mr. Dillingham. OK.
        Senator Carper. Thank you for those responses.
        Mr. Dillingham. Yes.
        Senator Carper. I am going to also ask you for the record,
    if I do not have a chance to do it here in person. I am going
    to ask you just to identify for us some of the milestones that
    we in Congress ought to be looking at as we approach the 2020
    Census to figure out whether we are on track or not. Do not
    hesitate to come to us early. Do not come to us late. If you
    have a problem, there is something we need to be doing to be of
    assistance.
        Senator Harris has joined us. She and I have been very
    active in writing to Census Bureau acting directors, active in
    writing to the Administration about issues involving questions
    about political interference, some questions on citizenship in
    the 2020 Decennial. We are asking some questions in that regard
    on the record. My guess is she may ask those on the record.
        All right. My thanks to both of you.
        Mr. Dillingham. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. I hope to be around for a second round of
    questions. Thanks.
        Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Hassan.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN

        Senator Hassan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member McCaskill.
        Good morning and congratulations to both our nominees, and
    thank you to our families. I will just add my thanks. It is a
    family affair doing public service, and we are very grateful.
        Mr. Kubayanda, I wanted to start with a question for you
    that is a stakeholder one from my State of New Hampshire, and I
    was very pleased to hear you say just now how important it is
    to collaborate and work with stakeholders.
        I recently heard from the mayor of Portsmouth, New
    Hampshire, about plans to close a downtown post office. The
    city has been working in good faith with the General Services
    Administration (GSA) to acquire the Federal parcel in which the
    post office currently resides, and they have been collaborating
    too on plans for how to remodel the site.
        At a recent city meeting in which residents and business
    owners stress the importance of a downtown post office, the
    Postal Service said that it does not plan to return to the site
    once redevelopment is complete, which would leave this vibrant
    section of the city without a post office. All this, despite
    the fact that the city is willing and eager to work with the
    post office to find an interim site during construction of the
    current parcel and structure terms that will enable the post
    office to remain at the site post-construction.
        Post offices have a long history of serving as community
    hubs and as facilitators of local business, and I have concerns
    about the United States Postal Service bowing out of
    communities that are more than willing to work with them.
        Should you be confirmed, will you look at this issue in
    Portsmouth, and will you work to ensure that the Postal Service
    is doing everything in its power to work with community
    stakeholders to keep post offices in central locations whenever
    possible?
        Mr. Kubayanda. Yes, Senator. I am familiar with that issue,
    not in this particular example, but the Commission has a number
    of vehicles for considering appeals of specific post office
    closings. And that is one vehicle, but then we also have
    vehicles for looking at the issue more broadly.
        So, if confirmed, that will certainly be a high priority of
    mine, and I do think there are things the Postal Service can do
    that may actually make their lives easier in the long run, as
    well as serve their stakeholders better.
        Senator Hassan. Well, that would be terrific. Thank you.
        The other thing I will just mention is there was a very
    good discussion just now with Senator Lankford about the
    Synthetics Trafficking and Overdose Prevention (STOP) Act, and
    I would also ask you, if you are confirmed to--I am a cosponsor
    of that Act. Fentanyl coming into our country is a huge
    problem, and it is killing way too many people, including in my
    State.
        Having said that, there are going to be costs that the post
    office is going to have to expend in order to make this STOP
    Act work, and so I just would ask for your commitment to look
    at the issue of whether the post office will need additional
    funding or help in order to fully enact the STOP Act. Will you
    commit to that?
        Mr. Kubayanda. Yes. If confirmed, I will definitely look at
    that issue and work with your office on it.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you very much.
        Greetings, Dr. Dillingham. It is nice to see you again. I
    enjoyed very much our meeting in my office, and I would like to
    follow up on the discussion we had.
        I appreciated hearing your perspective on how you will help
    the Census Bureau reach its goals if you are confirmed. One
    area we discussed was the possible inclusion of questions
    around citizenship, such as those the Trump Administration has
    suggested and appears to be implementing.
        I worry that the inclusion of these types of questions will
    create a chilling effect on the results and could deter people
    from participating.
        As you know, getting a full and accurate count is part of
    our constitutional obligation and duty, and it is critical that
    when it comes to appropriations, to grant funding in other
    areas of Federal investment, that we actually have accurate
    numbers.
        Do you agree that, if included, this citizenship question
    could hurt participation rates?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, thank you for that question, and
    that is a question foremost in many people's minds.
        The Census Bureau has had its best and brightest look at
    this, and they have identified the possibility that there could
    be changes in the responses. And if there are those changes and
    we do not get the immediate responses that we would like and
    anticipate, there are other follow up activities to collect
    that information.
        The most efficient and certainly the cost savings way is
    for the respondent to immediately reply, and actually, if they
    do it electronically, you can also save a lot of money. I know
    that is a challenge in your State.
        Senator Hassan. Right.
        Mr. Dillingham. I can assure you that the Census Bureau
    will apply all of its talents and all of its energies to
    getting a complete count, and they have plans for investing
    more monies in those efforts, including the outreach activities
    you referenced.
        Senator Hassan. Well, I appreciate the outreach activities.
    I am concerned, though, that the way the Administration went
    about this, without coming to Congress, and having us work
    through this issue of whether the question would be a chilling
    question or how best to get at the information we are trying to
    get at, that we have really created a potential question with a
    real chilling effect.
        So, if confirmed, will you commit to working with Congress
    on new questions surrounding citizenship or any other related
    topics?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, certainly, we will gain from this
    experience a knowledge. If in fact the question stays in and we
    administer the Decennial Census, there will be a learning
    curve.
        There also has been a learning curve with the American
    Community Survey. That question is in the American Community
    Survey. So we want to make sure that there is a synergy and a
    thorough analysis of how the two fit together. Again, this is
    under the assumption that the question remains in there after
    decision by the courts.
        Senator Hassan. Well, I appreciate that. A number of us
    think that we could have avoided a learning curve by actually
    working on it, the Executive Branch, the Congressional, and the
    Legislative Branch, together, so that we would not be wondering
    whether it is going to have a chilling effect and whether we
    are going to have an inaccurate count as a reason or as a
    result.
        I have one other question, and I only have about 30 seconds
    left. You talked a little bit about some of your priorities,
    Dr. Dillingham, if you are confirmed. Can you just tell me--I
    understand that some of the issues that the Bureau is
    confronting is a lack of planning and a lack of hiring the
    hundreds of thousands of temporary employees who will be needed
    to get this count.
        Do you have plans, strategies about getting enough
    employees to get the count done?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, that is a very good question. The
    Census Bureau is looking at that and has contingency plans and
    in fact has been hiring, for example, in the outreach area at a
    record speed as compared to the past Decennial Census. We will
    continue to work and to apprise this body and this Committee of
    the progress in these areas.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Harris.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS

        Senator Harris. I am glad the Members of this Committee
    have an opportunity today to consider a nominee to serve as
    Census Bureau Director. It is a role that has temporarily been
    filled since June 2017.
        Since I joined the Senate, many of us, we have been
    concerned about the 2020 Census and the Census Bureau's lack of
    permanent leader.
        A couple of weeks ago, I think there has been mention that
    my colleagues and I--Senators Carper, Hassan, and Peters--
    requested for the second time this year that this Committee
    convene a general oversight hearing focused on the 2020 Census.
        This past March, Commerce Department officials intervened
    to add an untested question to the 2020 Census asking about
    citizenship status, despite warnings, that this question could
    compromise survey accuracy and cost effectiveness.
        Ongoing litigation has since revealed evidence of political
    influence, including White House influence, behind the addition
    of this question.
        There is a pressing need for Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross
    and the Census Bureau officials to provide sworn testimony to
    this Committee to explain the addition of this controversial
    question and address other 2020 Census concerns.
        And a roundtable briefing is not the same as an oversight
    hearing. Sworn testimony is very different than a casual
    conversation in the area that right now the audience is seated.
        Should you be confirmed, Mr. Dillingham, I hope that this
    Committee will have you back here shortly for an oversight
    hearing to discuss the wide range of 2020 Census concerns in
    much greater depth to ensure that we have an accurate and
    successful count.
        And so, specifically, sir, I have a few questions. As a
    general matter, if a political appointee at the Commerce
    Department or the White House asked you to take an action to
    redesign a Census questionnaire in a way that expert Census
    Bureau staff informed you would make the Census less accurate
    and more expensive for American taxpayers, how would you deal
    with that?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, if I understand your question
    correctly, a theoretical question that if I am confirmed and in
    the position at the Census Bureau, that we seek and consider
    all sorts of recommendations, but the way you have presented
    it, as I interpret it, it sounded as though you are talking
    about political interference coming from another level that
    would perhaps improperly affect the process, the scientific
    process of designing questions.
        So while I can assure you that wherever the information,
    ideas, and thoughts might come from, they will probably get
    some consideration at the Census Bureau. But the circumstances
    you describe do not sound to me as though it would be the
    appropriate circumstance, and it would be something that I
    think as Director of the Census Bureau that I would have to
    carefully consider who is asking the questions or making the
    request and for what purpose and to push back if I think it was
    improper influence.
        Senator Harris. And as a general matter, do you believe
    that when a new or modified question is added to the Census
    questionnaire that there should be a contemporaneous, robust
    process to evaluate research and test that question?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, I do think that it is very
    important in designing a survey that you bring together the
    experience and information for the right people to make sure
    you are doing the best that you can.
        I am not speaking theoretically to--in some instances,
    there is a history, and the survey questions may be tested in
    other environments. All those things need to be considered in
    the analysis done.
        Senator Harris. But what I am asking you is what do you
    believe is a process that has integrity when you are talking
    about adding a new question. I am concerned and would like to
    know where you stand on the need when there is a new question
    being proposed for the Census, where you stand on the need and
    the importance of testing, researching that question, and the
    potential impact of that question on the result, which is
    hopefully that we have a Census that truly reflects who we are
    as a Nation.
        Mr. Dillingham. I appreciate that, Senator, and I do think,
    as a general proposition, that if confirmed as the Director of
    the Census Bureau that we would bring the best and brightest
    and the most thorough analysis possible to bear on the
    consideration of a new question.
        Senator Harris. Are you aware that numerous experts,
    including Census Bureau Chief Scientist John Abowd and six
    former Census Bureau Directors from both political parties
    believe that the question on the citizenship issue will deter
    voluntary public participation in the 2020 Census? Are you
    aware that that is their position?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, I have only access to public
    information, but I have seen the public analysis and the
    presentation of options that were part of the decisionmaking. I
    am aware that there is a number of views with regard to the
    possible impacts, as well as to whether or not----
        Senator Harris. Sir, I am sorry. I only have a minute and a
    half left.
        Mr. Dillingham. Yes. I am aware.
        Senator Harris. So the point here is that there are a
    number of views, perhaps, but the views of the Census Bureau
    Chief Scientist and six former Census Bureau Directors,
    bipartisan group, both political parties, have serious concerns
    about this question?
        So knowing that, are you also aware that the Census Bureau
    has failed to conduct a contemporaneous, targeted research and
    testing on the effect of this question?
        What I am just trying to really understand is, What is your
    perspective on that? Are you concerned at all about that?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, I am concerned with all questions
    and particularly in the Decennial Census and the need to get
    the complete and accurate information and will continue to look
    at potential impacts and do the analysis to see if there is
    unexpected impacts or detrimental impacts to a complete and
    accurate Census, that we address those in other ways.
        Senator Harris. Do you believe that that question in
    particular should be tested before it is included in a Census
    that will leave us with information that we will rely on for
    the next 10 years, and so the accuracy of that information
    obviously will have an impact for the next decade in our
    country? Do you believe it should be tested before we do that?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, if confirmed, I would certainly
    confer with the experts at the Census Bureau and talk to the
    analysts that you mentioned as well as others in determining
    their best views on that topic.
        Senator Harris. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Hoeven.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOEVEN

        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Dillingham, I chair the Indian Affairs Committee, and
    earlier, we held a hearing on the 2020 Census. Obviously, there
    are challenges with getting the accurate count everywhere but
    certainly on the reservation. So how do you intend to get the
    most accurate count? What steps are you going to take in regard
    to Indian Country?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, I appreciate that question. It is
    a very good question, and it is a question that has a great
    deal of interest within the Census Bureau and one for which
    there has been considerable planning.
        In your State, I understand there are certain outreach
    activities that might be required that may not in many other
    States, particularly with Native Americans and other groups
    that are hard to reach.
        There has been a comprehensive partnership plan. This
    morning, I was reading over the statement by the Secretary to
    Latino groups in which he addressed many of these issues,
    pointing out that there has been record speed in the hiring for
    the partnership specialists who work with those groups and
    sometimes are members of those groups who help encourage the
    best way to get those groups to complete their Census.
        But there is a number of other technologies that might come
    into play. I understand that some of these outreach activities
    may occur in an environment in which Internet access is limited
    and that sort of thing.
        So I pledge to be briefed on it and see what activities and
    what thinking and what plans are in place and to keep this
    Committee apprised and updated.
        Senator Hoeven. Well, you kind of went to my next question.
    Of course, that is use of Internet.
        People do not realize the incredible diversity when we talk
    about Indian Country. You have some very urban tribes; for
    example, Agua Caliente in California, in the Palm Springs area,
    very urban. But then in States like mine and others, you have
    some very rural areas. So you are going to have to address
    both.
        You talked about the Internet. Great point. There are
    places, of course, again, in rural America where that is going
    to be challenging, and I know you want to use the Internet more
    as part of your Census efforts.
        So I think you are going to have to have clear strategies
    to address the diversity of areas that you are going to be
    dealing with, and I hope you are looking at it in that context.
        Mr. Dillingham. Certainly, Senator, and if confirmed, I
    will look even much further at it.
        Senator Hoeven. All right. Mr. Kubayanda, talk about your
    view of the Postal Service's universal service obligation. This
    goes to the same question I was just asking Dr. Dillingham.
        Universal service. We need to cover everybody, right? Let
    us talk about that for a minute.
        Mr. Kubayanda. Yes, Senator. The universal service
    obligation is the cornerstone of postal policy. I think it is
    basically the reason that we have a public sector postal
    provider, and it goes back to the reason that the Postal
    Service was recognized in the Constitution in the first place.
        So I think further defining universal service and working
    with the Commissioners and working with Congress to fine-tune
    the definition of universal service in the modern era will be
    among my highest priorities if confirmed.
        Senator Hoeven. How do you evaluate keeping rural post
    offices and processing facilities open relative to your cost
    challenges?
        Mr. Kubayanda. One of the issues that the Commission
    considers in a number of different formats, as I mentioned,
    specific post office closings can be appealed to the
    Commission.
        Regarding the processing network, changes that affect
    service on a nationwide basis are issues that the Commission
    weighs in on in advisory opinion reports to the Postal Service,
    and the Commission has made some recommendations to Congress
    about requiring the Postal Service to respond to those advisory
    reports. And I think that is something worthy of consideration.
        I think that, as I mentioned, universal service is the
    cornerstone of public policy, and the reason that we have a
    universal service obligation is to make sure communities that
    otherwise would not be served purely on a commercial basis get
    that service.
        The importance of rural communities cannot be overstated
    with relevance to the universal service obligation.
        Senator Hoeven. Before you get into making decisions about
    closing or moving post offices or closing or moving processing
    centers, are you willing to come out and visit rural areas like
    areas in my State to get a firsthand knowledge of what the
    situation is there and listen to the people?
        Mr. Kubayanda. Yes. If confirmed, I would love to do that.
        Senator Hoeven. All right. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Before we move on to Senator Jones,
    Senator Carper would like to acknowledge a couple of people
    from the audience.
        Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
        We have people come and go that service the Census and PRC.
    We also have folks who come and go and serve on our committees
    and subcommittees.
        I think maybe the most enduring Subcommittee in the Senate
    is the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and there are
    two folks who have come to us as details and now return to work
    in the Postal IG's office. One of them is Felicia Hawkins. I am
    going to ask her just to stand up briefly and remain standing.
    She is sitting next to Alex Fisk. Alex has returned to OIG, I
    think, at Postal Service a couple years ago, and I just want to
    say thank you very much for your continued service to our
    country. We are going to miss you guys. Thanks so much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you for your service. Senator
    Jones.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JONES

        Senator Jones. Does that 30 seconds go against me?
        Chairman Johnson. You got the full 7 minutes. [Laughter.]
        Senator Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    both nominees for your willingness to be here and for your
    service. I really appreciate it.
        Dr. Dillingham, I want to ask a couple questions about the
    Census. You answered Senator Hoeven's questions. I had very
    similar questions about rural America because 55 out of my 67
    counties are rural. So I would appreciate being updated and
    continuing to be updated on how we are going to reach them
    because there are so many that are also not served by the
    Internet, and it is going to be a real problem.
        The other area that--statistics I have seen show that
    coverage of adults by the Census has improved a good bit since
    1980, but there is still a net undercount of young children.
    And that has been increasing. According to the Census Bureau's
    own data, the 2010 Census missed a million children under the
    age of 5. Because there is so much that depends on the Census
    count, whether it is for congressional seats or for Federal
    funds such as Head Start, Medicare, school lunch programs and
    all.
        Have you looked at or thought about how we can work to make
    sure that the undercounting of children starts going down and
    we can get an accurate count of all the children in America,
    not just the adults?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, thank you so much, particularly
    on, first of all, your outreach question. I understand the
    geography of your State is quite diverse, and you have both the
    urban and the rural areas, and probably on football day, you
    have shifts in populations.
        Senator Jones. Yes. They are concentrated in Alabama and
    Auburn, on those days. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, but on the undercount of the
    youth, it is my understanding from the publicly available
    information that the Census Bureau has studied this to date at
    great length, probably more studies to be done, and in fact,
    some of the questions have been revised over time. Particularly
    I think with the grandchildren question, there was some
    revision and improvement.
        So there is training of the people assisting with the
    Decennial Census, and certainly, some people that use the
    telephone option, etc., there is extensive trainings where they
    can probe and help to complete the Census and prevent that
    undercount. But I know it has been targeted as an issue that
    needs to be addressed. If confirmed, I will certainly be
    briefed on it and report back to this Committee our progress.
        Senator Jones. Great. Well, thank you very much for that.
        Also, a report from the GAO in 2017 placed the 2020 Census
    on its high-risk list, and I think you have already mentioned
    the systems, the IT systems, and the cybersecurity readiness.
        Are you convinced--we are now less than 2 years away from
    the 2020 Census--that the Bureau has addressed those GAO
    concerns and their reservations and is ready to start executing
    the Internet-based 2020 Census with--I will not say glitch-
    free, but with minor glitches?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, that is another excellent
    question.
        From public information and from observing the briefings
    that were public briefings recently as well as public
    materials, significant process has been made.
        The end-to-end test in Rhode Island, for example, there was
    significant process. I think Secretary of Commerce mentioned
    that yesterday to one of the national groups that he was
    addressing.
        The integration of the information technology systems are
    very important, and in that particular test, there was a
    general agreement that the 44 systems that were sort of being
    tested as part of the end-to-end test in Rhode Island performed
    very well.
        But I share with you the concern to make sure that it
    continues to perform well and that we are well prepared in 2020
    for the national application of the various systems within the
    Census Bureau.
        Senator Jones. Great. Well, thank you very much.
        Mr. Kubayanda, I have been somewhat vocal about opposition
    to privatizing the Postal Service. I know it has been a hot
    topic for a long time, and this Administration has raised it
    once again.
        I would like to get your thoughts, just general thoughts as
    you sit here as a nominee, on privatizing the United States
    Postal Service.
        Mr. Kubayanda. The Administration has not put out a
    detailed proposal yet, as you know.
        I think it is important that if I am confirmed I keep an
    open mind on potential solutions to the Postal Service's
    problems.
        I would in general have some concerns about privatization.
    I think there is a very difficult balance in preserving
    universal service to all American communities while making the
    investment opportunity attractive enough for investors. It is a
    hard thing to do, I think, in the American context because of
    the size of our country and the vastness of it.
        So I would have some concerns about how to achieve that
    balance and whether that is possible. So far, I have not seen
    anything that details exactly how to achieve that balance.
        Senator Jones. All right. You really struck the right chord
    that I was hoping. Achieving that balance is going to be I
    think the real key, if it is even possible to do that.
        So, with that, I did not even need that extra 30 seconds,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you very much to both of you. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. You used the time well. Senator
    McCaskill.
        Senator McCaskill. Dr. Dillingham, I am really concerned
    about cybersecurity.
        Mr. Dillingham. Yes.
        Senator McCaskill. If we had a breach of Census data, it
    would permanently affect the capability of this country to
    gather essential data in the future, and I think many Americans
    do not realize how important that data is in terms of many
    decisions that directly impact their lives.
        The Chairman and I have been part of briefings on what our
    government is doing, both through DHS and the Department of
    Defense (DOD) and other agencies, but primarily those two in
    terms of our cybersecurity mission in this country for both
    economic security as it relates to national security and also
    things like election security and just combating the cyber wars
    that have been committed against us.
        I would ask you as to what you think you need to do
    immediately since GAO has identified high-risk issues at
    Census.
        We are told by the staff that it is going to begin this
    coming spring. I am trying to figure out why we are waiting
    until next spring. We have the capability within DHS and DOD
    right now, if they are assigned the mission by this
    Administration, to do all-hands-on immediately to make sure
    that the steps have been taken to make the system secure.
        Mr. Dillingham. Ranking Member, that is an excellent
    question. It is one I think is foremost on probably all the
    members' minds as well as others throughout the government and
    the American public, and that is how well can we protect the
    privacy of individuals, the confidentiality of information, and
    to prevent some of the cybersecurity risk that you identified.
        I only have access to the public information and have not
    received some of the briefings that I am sure this Committee
    has, but as you pointed out, the Census Bureau welcomes the
    involvement and the relationships and collaboration with the
    other agencies you mentioned and the intelligence agencies and
    those with expertise in this area.
        I am informed generally from publicly available information
    that significant process is under way. That also some of the
    best talents even from the private sector is being brought to
    bear on this issue.
        But it is an issue we have to remain vigilant about, and I
    think in government and the private sector, with all these
    important datasets, the security is foremost in everyone's
    mind.
        What I would do, Senator, is to probably be read into some
    of the specifics that you mentioned and would like to be
    briefed on this.
        Generally, I will say that from the management reviews that
    have been conducted, the Census Bureau is reporting their
    progress and their confidence in many of the security
    protections being put into place--the encryption, putting the
    data immediately behind the wall in the vault. All these
    things, I think contribute to the safety of the data, yet we
    still need to make sure that we have the plans in place as well
    as the resources to accomplish that mission.
        Senator McCaskill. Well, I would think one of your first
    tasks would be to sit down with Cyber Command at DOD and with
    the appropriate personnel at DHS and ask them how best to move
    forward, for them to come in and do their own independent
    analysis of the safety. So that if there are problems, we do
    not have to wait until midyear next year to get them solved,
    and I will look forward to hearing back from you on that.
        Mr. Kubayanda, do you support cuts to USPS mail delivery
    service or the number of delivery days?
        Mr. Kubayanda. Those are issues primarily for the Postal
    Service Board of Governors. However, to the extent that they
    impact service, that is something that we need to oversee and
    weigh with an open mind.
        Senator McCaskill. So, in other words, you do not know?
        Mr. Kubayanda. Yes. Until I am presented with a specific
    issue, if confirmed, it is hard to weigh in on the specifics.
        Senator McCaskill. Well, I got to tell you, I respectfully
    disagree. I think you have to come to this job deciding whether
    or not you think the number of delivery days, it can be cut
    back, whether the universal service obligation means the same
    service for someone in a rural community as it does for someone
    who lives in an urban area or if somehow universal has two
    different definitions.
        I do not see how a service obligation that is universal has
    one standard for people who live in the city and another
    standard for people who live in the country. So I would ask you
    to reconsider your uncertainty in that area and determine what
    is the definition of a universal service obligation. Is it
    different, depending on where you live?
        I think that is, frankly, hard to reconcile, and I am
    disappointed that at this point are not willing to express that
    clearly.
        Mr. Kubayanda. I do think rural and urban communities need
    to receive the same level of service. I think that is clearly
    an element of universal service. What exactly that service
    looks like is something that, if confirmed, I would work with
    you and with my fellow commissioners to look at very closely. I
    think we need to further define universal service going
    forward.
        Senator McCaskill. One of my constant harangues with the
    Postal Service is the co-op petition arrangements with its
    direct competitors. I have said over and over again that it is
    a weird business model where you give a good deal to your
    competitors for the most expensive part of your operation.
        I know the pressure on volume. It is concerning to me that
    the Postal Service is charging--whether they are charging
    United Parcel Service (UPS) and Federal Express (FedEx) as much
    as it could.
        The Postal Service has refused to comply with my request
    for copies of the contracts. ``Trust us'' is what they have
    told us.
        I understand the Postal Regulatory Commission has confirmed
    that most of the time, these agreements at least cover costs,
    but that is not really the issue. Whether or not they cover
    costs should not be the measure. It is whether or not they are
    in the best interest financially of the Postal Service.
        I have had one of the companies actually tell me outside of
    this hearing room that the Postal Service has no idea whether
    or not they are maximizing profits off these agreements, and
    this is coming from the one that is getting the good end of the
    deal.
        So you share my concern that the Postal Service may not be
    getting the best deal available in their rush toward their
    concern on volume and not toward profitability?
        Mr. Kubayanda. That is a very important concern, and it is
    something that, if confirmed, I would want to take a look at.
        I am one of the many people who have not seen those
    contracts myself, and so it is hard for me to state what
    exactly could be in them. But, if confirmed, that will be a top
    priority.
        Senator McCaskill. Will they let you look at them once you
    are confirmed?
        Mr. Kubayanda. I believe so.
        Senator McCaskill. Well, that would be good.
        Mr. Kubayanda. Yes.
        Senator McCaskill. They sure will not let anybody else see
    them, which is weird to me. It would be one thing if they could
    say, ``Well, we are making money on it, and we do not want to
    show you because we do not want to expose to one competitor the
    money we are making off the other one.'' But they will not make
    representations if they are making money off of it. So what we
    are doing is we are upping the profitability of our competitor.
    It is just bizarre. Only in government does this happen.
        So I would look forward to you getting back to me on that,
    and that is all of my questions.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
        By the way, I will reinforce the point you just made that
    it has been very difficult to get information out of the Postal
    Service, and if you are going to solve this problem, you need
    accurate information. That is why it took me quite a few years
    just to put together a relatively simplified income statement
    to kind of get a grasp on what is pulling off here.
        When it comes to urban rural, again, a piece of information
    that I would hope the task force develops, just so we know, to
    what extent are urban customers subsidizing the service within
    rural? Not saying that they should, not saying that it should
    not be completely identical service. A piece of information we
    ought to have is to what extent does that cost the Postal
    Service money. Again, just basic information to be able to take
    a look and solve a problem.
        Other information I want to talk about, other than ask you
    to work with us, if confirmed to the Postal Regulatory
    Commission, to get this information, but one of the things I
    have been looking at, when you look at the profitability, to
    what extent has the Postal Service increased its prices
    relative to competition?
        The information we have gleaned, not from the post office,
    but from the PRC, is on parcel. This is both ground and air.
    Both UPS and FedEx have increased prices since 2007, a pretty
    narrow band. Some are between 76 and 89 percent. On parcel for
    the Postal Service, they have increased prices somewhere
    between 50 and 88 percent. So, on the top band, they are
    relatively competitive, but on the lower band, about 50
    percent.
        What is actually pretty remarkable is on first class, where
    they have a monopoly market--let us face it, monopolies have
    the ability to raise prices regardless--only increased prices
    about 16 to 17 percent since 2008. Do you want to just make
    that commitment to help to work with us to get this
    information? Do you have any comments on that? I know we spoke
    about this in my office a couple of days ago.
        Mr. Kubayanda. I think that obviously many areas of pricing
    are within the purview of the Commission in an oversight role,
    and that is something I want to take a look at closely.
        We have some vehicles. The Commission does have some
    vehicles to make recommendations to Congress as well, if any
    legislative changes are merited, and so that is something I
    will work with you to take a look at.
        Chairman Johnson. Do you think looking within the private
    sector, where there is competitive situations, is that a
    relevant comparison?
        Mr. Kubayanda. Absolutely. I think it is a very relevant
    comparison.
        Chairman Johnson. Mr. Dillingham, when we talked--again, I
    think you have seen the GAO reports, correct?
        Mr. Dillingham. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Johnson. There are many issues facing this Census.
    They are held over from many years ago that you are going to
    have to be dealing with.
        The good news is some progress has been made, but there is
    still a lot of outstanding issues. When we spoke, one of my
    biggest concerns, having traveled around Wisconsin for the last
    7.5 years, not one manufacturing plant, cannot hire enough
    people. I would say there is not one main street in Wisconsin
    that you can go down where there are not Help Wanted signs in
    just about every business front window.
        We are at 3.9 percent unemployment nationally. Wisconsin is
    less than 3 percent. I think hiring the people you are going to
    need, the enumerators, is going to be real challenging.
        By the way, maybe one of the incentives, you can talk about
    how being enumerated can lead to being Commerce Secretary. That
    is kind of an interesting comment.
        But can you just speak to really the challenge of hiring
    the workforce you are going to need to be able to take the
    Census?
        Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, thank you for asking that
    question. It is again foremost on many minds.
        It certainly will be. The hiring of the enumerators during
    the Decennial Census and to conducting it has been described as
    the largest employment program since World War II, and when you
    are hiring, even on a temporary basis, hundreds of thousands of
    excavation, it is a mammoth responsibility.
        I am informed from public information that the plans are
    there. Progress is being made, and it appears to be at this
    time on schedule.
        However, as you point out, we are in a different economy
    these days, and it could be that some of the planning may need
    revision as we learn more, and there may be a need for sort of
    innovative thinking.
        Some of the things you pointed out--and I have sitting here
    next to me someone from the Postal Service--what is the
    potential role of the Postal Service? I know that has been
    discussed and studied many times, but there are other groups
    that may be available.
        I have here today the Director of the Peace Corps, and they
    have return Peace Corps volunteers that may be looking for
    employment. And they may well be positioned.
        And I just point to those by way of example, but I do think
    it would be very important to identify groups that may be
    ready, willing, and able to assist with enumeration and then
    figure out how quickly they can be brought on board.
        Chairman Johnson. You are going to have to pull out all the
    stops and use your imagination. I think that is a good idea.
        Listen, there have been a number of issues raised. I want
    to associate myself with Senator Lankford looking at the use of
    the IRS, and that could be through electronic filing, making
    sure the forms are identical, and then it could be just a
    voluntary system. So there are many things you can do.
        Certainly, I have raised the issue of the overall cost,
    cost per household. We have raised the citizenship questions,
    as I knew we would.
        If confirmed, let me repeat what I said in the opening,
    though. Eighteen months before this begins, there are so many
    challenges you need to overcome. We just talked about the
    hiring. I really do want you to focus on that issue. How do we
    take the Census? How do we get the highest response rate? How
    do we get the greatest deal of accuracy?
        And then following the Census, then really start turning
    your attention to these other issues, but we have to do it
    right away. We do not want to wait, again, 2 or 3 years before
    this and then it is too late, and we have all these problems. I
    really hope you organize your managerial emphasis, your
    priorities. Let us get the Census taken, but as soon as that is
    done, we start moving into making the 2030 Census far more
    efficient, utilizing all the opportunities we have, whether it
    is the IRS, where there is greater technology, start bringing
    down these costs. This really ridiculous.
        Again, thank you for your willingness to serve.
        Senator Daines, you have some questions.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It has been discussed a lot today about citizenship in the
    2020 Census. Before we get into my questions, I want to thank
    both of the nominees for coming here today and for your
    willingness to serve our Country in these very important
    capacities.
        Dr. Dillingham, as you know, the Census data is critical.
    It is a valuable tool utilized by all levels of government, by
    academia, as well as the private sector. I believe your
    firsthand experience and background in all these areas would
    serve you well in leading the Census Bureau.
        You mentioned the importance of public service to your
    family and to yourself. Your wife and mother-in-law were public
    school teachers. Your daughter is currently teaching.
        I can tell you my wife, Cindy, has a degree in elementary
    education. She has taught. My daughter graduated with a degree
    in elementary education. So I appreciate how important our
    teachers are. I live it every day to the next generation, as do
    you.
        I want to talk about, though, this issue of citizenship in
    the 2020 Census. This data is so important, as we have worked
    to develop policies for our Country, having an understanding of
    something as fundamental as how many citizens and noncitizens
    are in the Country. I think that is essential.
        In fact, it was Thomas Jefferson, the first Director of the
    Census, back in 1790. He suggested keeping track of citizenship
    status because it enables a more detailed view of the makeup of
    our Country, and I agree with that. I do not think that is an
    unreasonable position to take.
        We must make sure the taxpayer dollars are distributed
    fairly and that U.S. citizens are properly represented in
    Congress. Of course, while the Census counts each resident of
    the Country, my job is to represent the citizens of Montana and
    to ensure the citizens-of-Montana's voice is heard here in
    Washington, DC. I believe citizens in Montana should have more
    of a say in Washington, DC., than illegal immigrants harboring
    in sanctuary cities across the country. And having a breakdown
    of citizens and noncitizens in our Country is common sense,
    especially given the millions of illegal immigrants who are in
    our Country today.
        Dr. Dillingham, do we know how many citizens we currently
    have in the United States?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, that is an excellent question. It
    is one that many people are interested in.
        We do collect, currently, information on citizenship
    through the American Community Survey. It was inserted again,
    at least that is the plan, for the Decennial Census as well.
        Senator Daines. So are these surveys as accurate as the
    Census?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, I think that they are very
    accurate surveys depending on their methodology, and I do think
    that is a consideration beyond the decision to add it to the
    Decennial Census is to get one more measure. And then, of
    course, the experts in the Census Bureau can look at it and try
    to determine if this results in a more accurate measurement.
        Senator Daines. Would not the best data come from the
    Census if we were able to determine citizens and noncitizens
    through the Census?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, it certainly would provide another
    measure of citizenship.
        Senator Daines. Do you support including a citizenship
    question in the Census, and if so, what benefits might come of
    it?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, I have no plans to voice an
    opinion on that question. I think it would not be advisable in
    my position, if I am confirmed to be the Director of the Census
    Bureau.
        The decision, as I understand, it will be determined by the
    courts, and it would be my responsibility, if confirmed, to
    administer the Decennial Census in accordance and consistent
    with that judicial decision. So it would be problematic, I
    think, to take a public position on that question.
        Senator Daines. Like the Chairman of this Committee, I
    spent my career in the private sector before coming to Capitol
    Hill. I have an engineering background, taught to solve
    problems, look at numbers, view the world through a
    quantitative lens when possible, and I do believe having
    additional data on something as fundamental as citizenship
    could help Congress better understand the makeup of our States
    and assist us in making better policies.
        Dr. Dillingham, Montana is home to 12 federally recognized
    tribes, and the State recognized Little Shell Tribe, each which
    are a fundamental part of our State and our Nation's history.
    Historically, Native Americans have been undercounted in the
    Census.
        Under your leadership, how will the Census Bureau engage
    with Indian tribes such as those in Montana to ensure an
    accurate population count and proper representation?
        Mr. Dillingham. Senator, I understand, particularly with
    the geography of Montana and the dozen tribes that you said are
    within that State, that it is quite a challenge that needs to
    be met.
        So the outreach activities alluded to earlier in this
    hearing and the partnership activities are very much a part of
    that equation.
        In some instances, that we actually hire partnership
    specialists sometimes from the tribal communities to
    participate and assist in the outreach to those communities.
        At the same time, we just deploy all of our technologies in
    terms of mapping, etc., to assist in this process. There are
    communication strategies, but some of those communication
    strategies--for example, the media campaigns and stuff may not
    reach adequately some of the populations that you are concerned
    with.
        So what I can assure you is that this is being examined.
    This is being looked at. We hope that by achieving efficiencies
    in one area, for example, the electronic responses, that maybe
    some of those resources can be deployed to the hard-to-reach
    populations and the hard-to-count populations. We would be glad
    to work with you and other Members of this Committee because
    there are many States that to differing degrees that have that
    challenge.
        Senator Daines. Dr. Dillingham, you brought up the remote
    nature of parts of Montana and Indian Country and just the
    rural culture that we have.
        I want to switch gears before I run out of time here and
    ask a question of Mr. Kubayanda. The Postal Service is critical
    to rural communities in Montana. When you think about the
    Postal Service, when you live a long ways away from town, you
    do not go into town to get your prescription medications. The
    Postal Service comes to you to deliver that, and oftentimes,
    weather challenges and so forth, the rural postal delivery is
    critically important.
        I am concerned the challenges that the organization
    continues to face that will lead to USPS failing to meet its
    commitment to Montanans particularly in our rural areas.
        As you know, the Board of Governors for the Postal Service
    still has an inadequate number of members. In November of last
    year, I joined in a letter to the Administration urging them to
    move quickly in nominating qualified members.
        My question is, Could you discuss the difficulties you
    foresee in working with a board of Governors that remains
    significantly understaffed?
        Mr. Kubayanda. If confirmed, I look forward to sitting down
    with the two new Governors who have been confirmed, but I think
    it is important that the board is filled for a number of
    reasons. It is really difficult for the Postal Service to
    engage in sort of the long-term planning that a lot of us have
    called for in the postal community without knowing what the new
    potential Governors, what direction they might go in, and I
    think there are certain responsibilities that the board
    dwindled and lost their quorum, they enacted some procedures so
    they could function sort of in a skeletal way. But I think
    having a fully functional board that is fully staffed will be
    absolutely critical going forward as we lay all these important
    issues on the table for the Postal Service.
        Senator Daines. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        Again, I want to thank the nominees and your families for
    your willingness to serve. These are important positions, and
    we certainly want to move these nominations through the process
    as quickly as possible.
        The nominees have made financial disclosures and provided
    responses to biographical and prehearing questions submitted by
    the Committee. Without objection, this information will be made
    part of the hearing record,\1\ with the exception of the
    financial data, which are on file and available for public
    inspection in the Committee's offices.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The information submitted by Mr. Dillingham appears in the
    Appendix on page 40.
        \2\ The information submitted by Mr. Kubayanda appears in the
    Appendix on page 121.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow,
    October 4, with the submission of statements and questions for
    the record.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]