<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:86064.wais]
ENSURING COORDINATION, REDUCING REDUNDANCY: A REVIEW OF OMB'S FREEZE ON
IT SPENDING AT HOMELAND SECURITY AGENCIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND PROCUREMENT POLICY
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 1, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-186
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
86-064 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
STEPHEN HORN, California CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JIM TURNER, Texas
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DAVE WELDON, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho ------ ------
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma (Independent)
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
DOUG OSE, California ------ ------
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
Victoria Proctor, Professional Staff Member
Mark Stephenson, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 1, 2002.................................. 1
Statement of:
Willemssen, Joel, Managing Director, Information Technology
Issues, GAO; Mark Forman, E-Government and Information
Technology Administrator, OMB; Patrick R. Schambach, Chief
Information Officer, Transportation Security
Administration, U.S. DOT; S.W. ``Woody'' Hall, Jr., Chief
Information Officer, U.S. Customs Service; Sandra Bates,
Commissioner, Federal Technology Service, GSA; and Enny
DiPentima, president, SRA Consulting and Systems
Integration, Information Technology Association of America. 7
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bates, Sandra, Commissioner, Federal Technology Service, GSA,
prepared statement of...................................... 46
Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Virginia:
Briefing memo............................................ 64
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
DiPentima, Enny, president, SRA Consulting and Systems
Integration, Information Technology Association of America,
prepared statement of...................................... 52
Forman, Mark, E-Government and Information Technology
Administrator, OMB, prepared statement of.................. 26
Hall, S.W. ``Woody'', Jr., Chief Information Officer, U.S.
Customs Service, prepared statement of..................... 40
Schambach, Patrick R., Chief Information Officer,
Transportation Security Administration, U.S. DOT, prepared
statement of............................................... 35
Willemssen, Joel, Managing Director, Information Technology
Issues, GAO, prepared statement of......................... 9
ENSURING COORDINATION, REDUCING REDUNDANCY: A REVIEW OF OMB'S FREEZE ON
IT SPENDING AT HOMELAND SECURITY AGENCIES
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2002
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis of
Virginia (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia and Turner.
Staff present: Melissa Wojciak, staff director; Victoria
Proctor and Teddy Kidd, professional staff members; George
Rogers and John Brosnan, counsels; Mark Stephenson, minority
professional staff member; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant
clerk.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Good morning.
Before we begin today's hearing, I want to take just a
moment to remember our dear friend and colleague,
Representative Patsy Mink, who passed away this weekend.
Representative Mink faithfully served the 2nd District of
Hawaii in the House of Representatives for 26 years, from 1964
to 1976, and from 1990 to 2002. She was an unquestioned leader
on women's issues. Congresswoman Mink played a pivotal role in
authorizing Title IX, the Federal Education Act of 1972. She
wasn't afraid of breaking down barriers and pursuing new career
challenges. As the Washington Post noted, ``She was known for
her achievement of firsts.''
She had been a loyal member of the Committee on Government
Reform since 1990. Representative Mink was a valued member of
the subcommittee and she demonstrated great leadership in the
complex issues of Federal sourcing policy and intellectual
property. She was a tireless advocate for Federal employees and
for ensuring the transparency and accountability of the Federal
Government. Her presence in the subcommittee will be missed.
At this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers go out to
her family and friends, along with her constituents in the 2nd
District.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. It is indeed with sadness that we convene this
meeting of our subcommittee of which Patsy Mink was a member.
Clearly she was a very well respected Member of this House. As
the chairman stated, she was a strong advocate for her causes
on behalf of women, on behalf of education, on behalf of those
who were in need of many of the services Government provides.
Patsy Mink was a Member of this House for 12 terms. She
died at the age of 74. We all will miss her. There was none
more active on behalf of the causes she believed in than Patsy
Mink. It is indeed with sadness that we begin today in memory
of our colleague, Patsy Mink.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. We would like to welcome
everyone to today's oversight hearing on the Office of
Management and Budget's freeze on information technology
spending for the seven agencies going into the new Department
of Homeland Security. This freeze is commendable. When it comes
to protecting homeland security, we need to make sure we are
not simply sending money out the door and spending more money,
we need to spend money on what works. Making the new department
work will require a careful examination of IT redundancies and
system consolidation at individual agencies that are going to
be merged into the Department of Homeland Security.
In the past, the subcommittee has been concerned that there
has been tremendous push for additional IT spending in homeland
security agencies without assuring appropriate management or
accountability for these projects. This temporary freeze should
allow the Federal Government to ensure spending will yield the
necessary return on investment for the taxpayers who are paying
the bills.
Systems integration and consolidation among the agencies
moving into the newly established Department of Homeland
Security is a critical lynchpin for the overall success of the
agency. Overcoming cultural and technological barriers to
facilitate timely information sharing will help our Nation
avoid future terrorist attacks.
While there has been frustration that many of these
projects have not gotten underway in a more timely manner
immediately following the events of September 11, 2001, it is
essential that additional IT spending include sound business
planning to ensure effective deployment of homeland security
solutions. OMB has taken the first step to ensure that is the
case. The subcommittee would like to understand whether this
type of review process will continue within the new Department
of Homeland Security.
As you know, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5005,
legislation that would establish a new Department of Homeland
Security, in July and the Senate is currently considering a
similar legislative proposal. In response to the anticipated
completion of congressional action to establish a new
department, OMB directed applicable Federal agencies to
temporarily cease planned information technology
infrastructure, financial management, procurement and human
services projects over $500,000, pending a review by an
investment review group led by OMB and the Office of Homeland
Security. To assist this review groups, affected agencies are
to submit to OMB information on their planned investments in
these areas this month.
Currently, seven agencies are affected by this freeze. They
are the Coast Guard, FEMA, the U.S. Customs Service, the
Transportation Security Administration, INS, the Secret
Service, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services.
OMB has stated that it is reviewing nearly $1.4 billion in
proposed spending for those agencies to determine which
projects should be halted and which will be allowed to go
forward.
Moreover, OMB has suggested that project consolidation has
the potential to save the Federal taxpayers a minimum of $100
to $200 million. OMB has established an investment review group
that is evaluating spending by impacted agencies and
determining when planned investments should go forward. The
subcommittee would like to gain a better understanding of how
the investment review group is making determinations on
proposed IT projects.
I look forward to hearing testimony today from our
Government witnesses on the overall impact of the freeze to
date and the long-term impact of the freeze, particularly on
meeting congressionally mandated deadlines for certain IT
project improvements. For instance, the INS Entry/Exit Visa
Program is one of the solicitations that is impacted by the
freeze. What impact will this delay have on meeting
congressional deadlines?
Additionally, TSA is here with us today to share how and
why their IT infrastructure project is going forward while they
are also planning to be transferred to the new Department.
I am hopeful we will gain a better understanding of the
operation of the investment review group and the role of OMB in
the Office of Homeland Security. Additionally, I am eager to
hear comments from OMB and the agencies on the quality of the
business planning documents they are submitting for review.
I am hopeful that the agencies are mindful of moving
forward on IT modernizations with the goal of better
integration of programs to ensure that we will be successful in
winning the war against terrorism.
The subcommittee will hear testimony from Joel Willemssen
of GAO; Mark Forman from the Office of Management and Budget;
Pat Shambach from the Transportation Security Administration;
Sandra Bates from the Federal Technology Service of the GSA;
Woody Hall from the Customs Service; and Mr. Renny DiPentima,
President of SRA Consulting and Systems Integration Service,
testifying on behalf of the Information and Technology
Association of America.
I will now yield to Representative Turner for an opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.003
Mr. Turner. I look forward to hearing from all our
witnesses. On its face a freeze of this nature would seem to be
appropriate in light of the creation of the new Department of
Homeland Security but, on the other hand, oftentimes actions
like this can result in unnecessary delays. Clearly, it is
critical to the new Department of Homeland Security to ensure
that all of its IT infrastructure is properly planned and
coordinated. I would assume that is the major objective in mind
with this freeze.
We look forward to hearing from the GAO who has looked at
this proposal, as well as from each of our witnesses who will
be involved in trying to assure the IT infrastructure is fully
molded together in our new Department of Homeland Security.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. We will call our panel of
witnesses to testify, Mr. Willemssen, Mr. Forman, Mr.
Schambach, Ms. Bates, Mr. Hall, and Mr. DiPentima. As you know,
it is the policy of this committee that all witnesses be sworn
before they testify. If you could stand and raise your right
hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. To ensure sufficient time for
questioning, try to limit yourselves to no more than 5 minutes.
Your total statements will be made a part of the record.
Mr. Willemssen, thank you for being with us this morning.
STATEMENTS OF JOEL WILLEMSSEN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ISSUES, GAO; MARK FORMAN, E-GOVERNMENT AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATOR, OMB; PATRICK R.
SCHAMBACH, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, USDOT; S.W. ``WOODY'' HALL, JR., CHIEF
INFORMATION OFFICER, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE; SANDRA BATES,
COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICE, GSA; RENNY DIPENTIMA,
PRESIDENT, SRA CONSULTING AND SYSTEMS INTEGRATION, INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Mr. Willemssen. Thank you for inviting GAO to testify
today. As requested, I will briefly summarize our statement.
Overall, integrating the diverse information systems of the
many organizations expected to be a part of the proposed
Department of Homeland Security would be an enormous
undertaking. The information technology challenges would
include establishing an effective IT management organization,
implementing appropriate security controls, instituting mature
systems acquisition development and operational practices, and
addressing human capital issues.
Among the near term challenges is developing an enterprise
architecture. Managed properly, enterprise architectures can
clarify and help optimize the interdependencies and
interrelationships among operations and the underlying IT
infrastructure and applications. Work we published earlier this
year showed that agencies' use of enterprise architectures was
a work in progress with much left to be accomplished. OMB has
recognized the importance of architectures and has reported it
is in the process of defining such a framework for creating a
national enterprise architecture for homeland security.
Another near term challenge is establishing and enforcing a
disciplined IT investment management process for the proposed
new department. OMB has also reported that it is working on
this particular issue.
As part of tackling the IT challenges facing the proposed
department, in July OMB issued the two memos that you mentioned
earlier to affected agencies telling them to cease temporarily
new IT infrastructure and business system investments above
$500,000 pending a review of investment plans and to identify
and submit information to OMB on any current or planned
spending on these types of initiative. This information is
expected to assist in the administration's transition planning
for the proposed department.
OMB's memos do not mean that the work is to be stopped on
all IT infrastructure and business system projects at affected
agencies. First, the memos only pertain to funding for new
development and modernization efforts and not to existing
systems using operations and maintenance funding. Second, the
cessation does not apply to funds pertaining to a development
or acquisition contract that have already been obligated.
Third, agencies can request an expedited review and approval to
proceed if they have an emergency or critical need. As of last
week, we are aware of three such emergency requests that have
all been approved.
However, at this time, it is not possible to assess the
full effect of the memos on selected agencies. OMB officials
told us that except for those three emergency requests, the
investment groups reviewing agency submissions have not yet
taken action on them because neither they nor OMB have
completed review of the documents.
In addition, OMB officials told us that OMB is not tracking
whether or to what extent agencies have halted spending or
altered system plans as a result of the July memos, although
they stated that savings from actions would be tracked in the
future.
In reviewing the submissions to OMB, we did identify one
agency, FEMA, that reported it plans to put on hold all
initiatives related to two of its major projects.
In summary, OMB is acting to deal with some of the major IT
challenges to be faced in transitioning to the proposed
department. We look forward to seeing the results of these
actions.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes summary of my statement and I
would be pleased to address any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Willemssen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.018
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much.
Mr. Forman.
Mr. Forman. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss
homeland security IT investments. My remarks will focus on
recent administration steps taken to ensure that IT investments
support the homeland security mission and are appropriately
integrated in order to leverage technology for mission
effectiveness while preventing redundant investments and wasted
resources.
The national strategy for homeland security emphasizes that
effective use of IT must accelerate response time but time to
detect and respond to potential threats and second, improve
decisionmaking, making the right decisions at the right time. A
modern IT infrastructure is vital to ensuring we successfully
meet these and other homeland security goals.
The key principles for unifying an IT infrastructure
include the use of effective IT investment management
techniques to accelerate deployment, reduce risk and achieve
mission goals; reduce redundant and siloed IT investments; and
take maximum advantage of economies of scale.
Business as usual will not enable us to meet our homeland
security goals. As GAO has noted, we need a comprehensive
review of IT investment which is being conducted as described
in my written statement. In July OMB issued two memoranda as a
first step toward better integration of IT infrastructure by
using available funds to deploy the highest quality
technologies while providing an opportunity to save taxpayers
millions.
The scope of the memoranda include IT infrastructure and
business management systems such as financial management, HR
and procurement systems. The memoranda do not affect steady
State spending needed to maintain operations, nor do they
affect mission IT investments such as the entry/exit project
you mentioned in your opening statement.
The intent of the memoranda is to ensure that modern
investments are successful and prevent redundant investments
and wasteful spending. The memoranda identify homeland security
IT investment review entities and processes.
First, in response to an emergency request from an agency
in accordance with the guidance in the memoranda, OMB and the
IT Investment Review Group provide a quick response to the
requesting agency after conducting rapid review.
A second type of review focuses on larger IT investment
issues. It is this type of review that we expect the group to
provide most of the recommendations regarding consultation,
integration and elimination of siloed or redundant IT
investments.
For example, the Transportation Security Administration to
meet its mission has a business need for network infrastructure
at airports. However, INS, Customs, FAA and other agencies have
already built and deployed telecommunications networks that
would likely be redundant with the newly created TSA network.
An initial assessment found that existing homeland security
component agencies plan to spend $257 million in fiscal year
2003 on IT infrastructure that will support networks at
airports. Clearly there are multiple opportunities for homeland
security-related agencies to better leverage IT investments so
that TSA will not have to build its own telecommunications
network and homeland security workers can easily communicate
with each other traditional organizational boundaries.
In taking this action, OMB is fulfilling its
responsibilities under Section 5113 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of
1996 to issue clear and concise direction to agencies for
ensuring efficient and effective capital planning for IT
investments which is to include guidance for undertaking
efficiently and effectively interagency and governmentwide
investments in IT to improve the accomplishment of missions
that are common to the Executive agencies.
Consolidating and integrating the planned $900 million IT
investments presents significant opportunities for savings,
while better leveraging IT investments for our homeland
security. This approach is key to ensuring that IT investments
accelerate response time and improve decisionmaking. Clearly
this approach is neither new nor surprising, simply good
management.
To achieve our goals, we must all work to effectievly
leverage IT for homeland security. It requires the use of
modern management practices and a level of teamwork not always
seen. It will also require and is already benefiting from a
tremendous amount of leadership among the executive branch, the
Congress and the IT industry. Collaborative leadership and
support is vital to our performance. I would also like to
commend the review groups for the initial progress. I am
particularly impressed by the level of team work and
cooperation in the groups.
Thank you for your continued leadership, Mr. Chairman, in
working toward effective and efficient IT management of the
Federal Government's IT resources.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Forman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.025
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much.
Mr. Schambach, thanks for being with us.
Mr. Schambach. Thank you.
Before I begin my statement today, I would like to take
just a moment to convey to the subcommittee Secretary Mineta's
profound sorrow at the passing of his former colleague and dear
friend, Congresswoman Mink. The two had built a close
friendship during the years they shared together in the House.
Congresswoman Mink was a strong advocate for woman and a highly
respected member of the Asian-American community. She will be
sorely missed by her family and friends across the country, by
you, her subcommittee colleagues, by her constituents in
Hawaii's 2nd District and by the Secretary of Transportation.
This is my second time testifying before your subcommittee
in the short 8 months since I have been the CIO of TSA. We are
building a world class agency from scratch, assuming new
Federal functions and completing milestones under stringent
deadlines and under the glare of the public spotlight. Our
mission is to protect the Nation's transportation systems to
ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. Our stated
vision is to accomplish this through our people, our processes
and technologies. I am proud that technology is appropriately a
part of that vision.
One of our greatest challenges is creating an
organizational culture of information sharing. We have a
wonderful chance to get it right with a blank sheet of paper in
front of us and whether Congress ultimately approves the
President's proposal for a Department of Homeland Security, we
recognize that we must engage with our agency partners in a way
that agencies have not always undertaken. My staff has been
working long and hard to craft a secure information technology-
enabled organization that has access to information at the
right time and the right place.
Undoubtedly you have heard or read about TSA's new
information technology managed services approach to providing
our basic technology needs. We call it ITMS. We took a bold
approach by describing our basic needs in a statement of
objectives, the first step in a performance-based contracting
effort.
We described our basic needs in terms of employee and
organizational capabilities like the ability to schedule a
large number of screener employees at an airport and asked our
offerors to propose not only the technical solutions but also
how to tie their deployment success to the success of the
mission and goals of TSA.
The winning offeror, Unisys Corp., proposed that they
receive both incentives and penalties based on whether TSA
achieves or does not achieve our agency goals. When you take
into account that we have such basic needs like access to
computers, telephones and radios that connect us to the broader
organization, you can readily recognize that success has a very
basic definition at this stage in our history.
Our contract contains two initial work orders. The first
provides for basic infrastructure and the second provides for
deployment of computer and communications capabilities to our
estimated 800 TSA locations with a target of December 31, 2002.
About the time of contract award, which occurred in an
amazing 3\1/2\ months from requirements to award, OMB created
the Homeland Security Investment Review Group. This temporarily
suspended the TSA IT Provisioning Initiative until the business
case was made and reviewed by the Investment Review Group.
In view of the President's proposal to create a Department
of Homeland Security that will include TSA as an important
element, I agree that a reasoned approach to IT provisioning
should help avoid costly duplication of products and services
and allows TSA to leverage our significant buying power even
further in a combined view.
TSA quickly arrived at an approach allowing us to move
forward with our basic needs. We identified an investment
evaluation model and developed factors on which our basic
deployment needs would be decided. This was successful and
within a short time, the Investment Review Group approved our
basic strategy for deployment. We now have a very basic
decision model that is being used to determine sharing
opportunities where we have common presence with both the U.S.
Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Many have asked if the TSA managed services approach is the
model for future government IT needs of this type. I can only
say that given our unique circumstances, I see this as the only
way to get our agency established in the timeframe that we have
to operate. At the same time, the IT community seems to
appreciate our flexible approach. We told them what we needed
to accomplish but did not insist on a specific technical
approach to carry out our goals.
Our approach also complies with the President's management
agenda. We believe we are prudently using the public's money;
we are relying on strategic outsourcing and are making reasoned
investments in our IT future.
That concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schambach follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.028
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hall. Thanks for being with us.
Mr. Hall. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today.
Since September 11th, the highest priority at the U.S.
Customs Service has been to keep terrorists and terrorist
weapons from entering the United States and to protect and
secure our country's land borders, seaports and airports.
Customs has an operational presence at every port where
people and goods enter the United States. Therefore, we are
well positioned to continue providing leadership and border
security. Customs works in partnership with many Federal
agencies, including those potentially impacted by a new
Department of Homeland Security to manage and control the
tremendous volume of goods and people entering and exiting the
United States.
In addition, Customs currently develops and shares
enforcement-related intelligence with more than 25 Federal and
State law enforcement agencies. This shared intelligence
includes data on nearly 98 percent of all imported cargo and
nearly 100 percent of international air passenger arrivals.
License plate numbers of vehicles entering the United States
are also queried against Federal, State and local indices.
As you are aware, a principal mission of the
administration's Homeland Security Initiative is to coordinate
border security activities among multiple Federal agencies.
This coordination will require improved collaboration in
examining cargo conveyances and passengers and in sharing
critical data. The Federal Government will need to tear down
unwarranted information stovepipes and build a central
information sharing clearinghouse and compatible data bases.
Toward this end, Customs co-chairs the Border Security
Interagency Working Group with the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and we are working with the Office of
Homeland Security and OMB and other agencies on the development
of an enterprise architecture for the homeland security.
I also personally meet with the CIOs from a number of
Federal agencies including the U.S. Coast Guard, INS,
Transportation Security Agency, Department of State, FEMA,
Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Homeland
Security. These meetings are intended to foster dialog on how
best to leverage current technologies with a focus on improving
information flow between the agencies and to streamline
information technology costs and services.
Customs is also working with the Department of
Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, Health and Human
Services and INS to incorporate their requirements into the
automated commercial environment via shared interface with the
trade known as the International Trade Data System.
The Customs modernization program through ACE has already
begun to develop a single interoperable information technology
platform that can be used to strengthen our Nation's borders.
ACE, among other things, is designed to enhance and integrate
analytical tools, to provide better targeting and analysis of
entry and passenger data, improve advanced information systems
to provide a more proactive approach to detect and interdict
terrorists and other illegal activities. Examples are the
Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, CTPAT, and the
Container Security Initiative.
Under the leadership of the Office of Homeland Security and
OMB, options to better address border security challenges are
being reviewed. The flexible information technology platform of
the Customs modernization program which reflects the
partnership of trade and border agencies provides the best
opportunity to accelerate deployment of an integrated border
security solution in support of the critical homeland security
mission.
Customs understands the rationale behind the OMB directive
and supports the efforts of the Homeland Security IT Investment
Review Group of which I am a member. We see this initiative as
critically important and a necessary first step to ensure
effective information sharing, careful analysis of current
systems and eventual integration of systems for agencies moving
under the proposed Department of Homeland Security.
Based on guidance Customs has received from the Department
of Treasury and OMB, this directive does not affect Customs'
initial modernization project, ACE. ACE is primarily a mission
critical Customs system to enable the processing of imports and
exports to ensure safe and efficient trade. Consequently, work
on ACE has not stopped or even slowed. In fact, the first
fielding of ACE capabilities is fast approaching. Over the next
5 months we will introduce an Internet-based common user
interface to selected Customs users, certify the infrastructure
to ensure that ACE meets its functional security and
performance requirements and in February, we will roll out
ACE's first capabilities to the trade community.
Although ACE is not affected by the OMB memoranda at this
time, Customs in keeping with the intent of the OMB directive
to eliminated duplication and ensure effective integration of
agency systems will submit our current ACE expenditure plan to
the Homeland Security IT Investment Review Group for formal
approval before proceeding with the design and build phase of
the second major block of work on ACE.
Rather than an impediment, Customs believes the recent OMB
directive will help ensure that ACE is a truly coordinated
effort of all border security agencies. ACE could help
accomplish the objectives of the Homeland Security IT
Investment Review Group by potentially serving as an
information technology platform for border security that could
be leveraged by other agencies in the border enforcement arena.
I firmly believe the Customs Service has the expertise, the
experience, the tools and the personnel necessary to protect
the borders of our country and to serve as a critical deterrent
to terrorists who target America.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.032
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much.
Ms. Bates.
Ms. Bates. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before
you this morning. Let me extend my compliments to you, members
of the subcommittee and your staff on your efforts to assure a
managed approach to the information technology and
telecommunications investments of the proposed Department of
Homeland Security.
In my statement before the subcommittee, I will discuss two
main topics. First, I will address the impact of the July 19
OMB memoranda regarding system development and modernization
for the homeland security components on FTS business. Second, I
will review the capabilities of GSA's Federal Technology
Service to support this new mission of securing the American
homeland.
The Federal Technology Service is a channel to the market
connecting government with private sector IT and
telecommunications providers. FTS works with Federal agencies,
our customers to help them choose the best solution, acquire
it, implement it and manage the financing for it. We have
fulfilled this role for many years and have developed important
business relationships with nearly all Federal agencies.
The agencies and departments currently designated for the
new homeland security organization are no exception. Of the 22
organizations designated for the new department, FTS currently
provides services and support to at least 20 of them. In fiscal
year 2001, we provided more than $150 million in technology
services in support directly to homeland security components
and we expect to exceed that amount in fiscal year 2002.
The range of FTS support is broad and varied. For example,
domestic homeland security locations that receive
telecommunications services through the FTS 2001 contracts
touch every State across the country. GSA is also involved in
an extensive project with the newly formed Transportation
Security Administration to meet space, furniture, supplies as
well technology needs at 422 airports, 150 Federal security
director offices and 21 air marshall offices by November 19.
Mr. Chairman, in preparation for this hearing, we have
evaluated the FTS business impact of OMB's memo. What we found
is that much of the business we do with Federal agencies falls
outside the parameters of OMB's direction to the designated
homeland security agencies. One reason for this is that the
largest segment of our customer base, particularly in the area
of complex, national systems integration projects over $500,000
is done with the Department of Defense.
Another factor affecting the impact of OMB's memo on FTS
business is that two-thirds of our IT solutions business is
done through our regional IT solutions organizations. The
average dollar amount of a task order in our regions is under
$500,000 and the work is generally performed at the regional
field office level.
FTS offers a wide array of technical and acquisition
expertise and access to contract vehicles that are designed to
support any Federal agency. I can report that we have initiated
contacts with the Office of Homeland Security to open general
discussions about FTS' capabilities to support the technology
infrastructure needs for the new department. Last month, I met
with Mr. Steven Cooper, Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Information Integration for the Office of Homeland
Security. We reviewed overall support FTS is currently
providing to homeland security components. In addition, we
discussed some of the challenges they will face in combining
and consolidating the operations, infrastructures and missions
of 22 separate components under the proposed department.
I believe very strongly that FTS can apply its expertise
effectively to help them as they move forward to architect
their future. I also believe that the excellent pricing
available through our contracts can contribute to the savings
goals that OMB has identified.
One area of particular significance to the homeland
security organization will be security. FTS is a recognized
leader in this area. From our Smartcard Program to our digital
signature initiatives to our current role leading the e-
authentication initiative for OMB, FTS continues to seek and
make available the best enabling technologies and services for
e-government. I am proud to say that the collective expertise
and capabilities of the Federal Technology Service and our many
business partners stands ready to support the critical mission
of homeland security.
I look forward to building on our already existing trusted
intergovernmental relationships to help homeland security
acquire and deploy the 21st Century technology infrastructure
they need to meet the challenges of their very serious but
essential mission.
Thank you again for inviting me to this hearing. I will be
pleased to respond to any questions you or the committee
members may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bates follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.037
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you.
Mr. DiPentima, thanks for being with us.
Mr. DiPentima. I am speaking today on behalf of the
Information Technology Association of America.
Let me say right from the start that ITAA, its member
companies and I personally voice support for OMB's effort to
coordinate IT spending for the new Department of Homeland
Security. We think it is a prudent step to ensure wise IT
investment decisions and I think it is consistent with the
goals and tenets of Clinger-Cohen.
Having said that, I would also like to offer some remarks
and some cautions both from an industry perspective, from
myself and my colleagues, as well as personally from the many
years I spent as the Deputy Commissioner of Social Security and
the CIO of Social Security, having witnessed some of these
investment coordination activities in the past.
First of all, I think there must be an overall enterprise
architecture for the new department and for the agencies below
that department. From an industry perspective, this is very
similar to acquiring somewhere between 7 and 22 different
companies and trying to merge them into a single company. We
have a lot of experience with that and know what works and what
doesn't.
I think the administration is off to a good start, OMB and
the people working in homeland security, in laying out
enterprise architectures and for both the department as well as
the agencies below them.
I think there needs to be some triaging of these projects--
not all of these projects are of equal importance. Some are
mission critical and must be addressed quickly and with some
sense of urgency. Some, in my opinion, make just good common
sense. For example, I would think the new department would want
to consider a common e-mail system rather than having homeland
security communicate to any large extent over the Internet.
Third, the task itself is daunting when some situations,
investments particularly in mission critical systems, might
have to continue even if they are not precisely in coordination
with other activities. They shouldn't be redundant, as Mr.
Forman points out, and they shouldn't move in a direction
contrary to the architecture but they might have to, for
mission critical purposes, be allowed to continue for a period.
I also believe that most of the coordination for this new
committee, most of these investments, will wrap around the
ability to share data. After all, the department is being
brought together mainly for the purpose of having like
organizations communicate. A great deal of attention will have
to be given and I believe it is to how to share this data among
the many systems. Many of these agencies, if not all of them,
are not integrated within these agencies today, let alone
having to integrate them across the new Homeland Security
Department.
With that, I will conclude my remarks and be happy to
address nay questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DiPentima follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.041
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much and thank
all of you.
Let me start the questions. Mr. Forman, let me start with
you.
OMB has said it is developing a homeland security national
enterprise architecture. What is the estimated completion date
of this architecture, how is it going to relate to the Federal
Government enterprise architecture and what risks are we
running making investment decisions for the Department of
Homeland Security in the absence of an enterprise architecture?
Mr. Forman. As you noted, the Federal Government is working
on a Federal enterprise architecture. It is a component-based
architecture and works through several layers, starting with
the business layer. It is actually the Office of Homeland
Security that is leading development with OMB and affected
agencies of the homeland security national enterprise
architecture which will fit within and define those appropriate
components of the Federal architecture, the inventory if you
will, of what is already out there. There are opportunity
assessments and GAFF analyses that have to occur and decisions
priorities set to define the vision of the architecture and
logical physical elements that need to be deployed.
In answer to your second question, the architecture will be
a national homeland security enterprise architecture so we also
are working with State and local organizations to ensure their
input. Given that it is component-based, business-driven, as
recommended by GAO, with the rapid rate of technologies many of
which are relevant to the homeland security mission, this has
to be an iterative approach.
So we anticipate going through different levels of business
architecture, the data and information architectures and the
applications architecture, leveraging components in and out and
they are defined.
The final variable is the funding approval. We had
requested some money in a supplemental that was not approved
for some of this work and given current funding and depending
on fluctuation on that, we expect the first iteration by late
spring or next summer.
The last element of your question, how does it relate to
the Federal enterprise architecture and the issue of risk, I
think I have addressed the relationship. These are essentially
the homeland security elements, things like disaster management
and response, the entry/exit, etc.
Not all Federal agencies currently have an enterprise
architecture as GAO has made clear. Generally, the best
practices research in GAO's reports show that the risks are
that we make overinvestment and redundant buys,
interoperability problems as a result of lack of agreement on
standards, lack of business process improvements so we buy
technology but we don't really achieve the performance gains
and that there are additional systems integration costs
associated with the lack of standards. Those are all the risks
and hence we move forward on the other part of the puzzle to
make this work, the IT Investment Review Group, having a
capital planning process which I am very comfortable we have
made good progress on leveraging that architectural work that
Steve Cooper, the Office of Homeland Security and us have been
working on.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thus far, OMB's freeze policy
only applies to infrastructure items and business systems. Are
you considering a similar policy for the affected agencies'
mission systems?
Mr. Forman. The approach we have taken on the mission side
is much more varied. There are a number of joint initiatives
going back to the e-government strategy and the President's
budget decision. For example, as I mentioned in the hearing a
couple of weeks ago, geospatial one stop, disaster management,
e-government initiative and Project SAFECOM are three mission
related e-government and homeland security initiatives that we
are proceeding with joint IT investments via the budget process
and existing capital planning process. We expect to add several
others this year in the capital planning process.
We are applying the tenets of the Clinger-Cohen Act,
although that doesn't necessarily mean we issue a Clinger-Cohen
letter. We do it within the normal budget processes.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Other than the programs we
already know are on this list, are there any mission-critical
homeland security initiatives that have been delayed by this or
any similar review? Specifically, the Enhanced Border Security
and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 requires the administration
to put in place a fully integrated entry/exit system by October
26, 2003. Do you know the status of that and do you expect the
administration to release an RFP, which agency or department
will be responsible for the program and as far as you know, as
you look at this, how does that October 26, 2003 date look?
Mr. Forman. The first part of your question, the memoranda
did not affect mission-related IT investments, so no mission-
related programs were affected.
The entry/exit system is a joint initiative and we have
asked the agencies to come together and submit a joint 300
which has been done, a joint business case. So we recently
received that and we are reviewing the joint business case.
It is an integrated project team lead by INS and consists
of members from Departments of Transportation, State and
Treasury. We are not aware of any issues that would prevent the
INS and the Integrated Project Team from meeting the statutory
deadline.
One point of departure, our data indicate that the actual
mandated point is December 2003 for the entry/exit system to be
in place at air and sea ports and the 50 top land ports by
December 2004. So the team is working to meet those deadlines.
We don't have a timeframe when the RFP will actually be
released but it is our understanding that everything is on
schedule for meeting those deadlines.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Willemssen, I was looking at your report
and in conclusion, you say, ``The impact of OMB's action is to
early to assess.'' You noted several things that this OMB
memorandum does not stop, several investments in information
technology.
When you listed those, I guess what I was wondering is
whether you are suggesting that the freeze was not broad
enough, perhaps it wasn't dealing with the full range of IT
infrastructure issues or whether those were just exceptions you
deemed to be appropriate from the freeze?
Mr. Willemssen. The primary purpose of listing those was to
clarify exactly what the so-called freeze entailed. I think
when many heard that OMB was putting a freeze on IT spending at
affected agencies, many observers hearing that said, oh, a
freeze, everything is going to be on hold. Well, that is not
what it is. There are a number of exceptions.
We think OMB's initial approach of focusing on
infrastructure and business systems is an appropriate one. We
think the mission side will also have to be assessed but I
think picking infrastructure and business systems first is an
appropriate choice.
The apparent redundancies that may be there will be easier
to identify than it would be in the mission case. So I think
the overall approach is sound.
We look forward to further results on implementation and
how this is actually carried out. So we are generally in
agreement conceptually with the plan but we are anxious to see
the implementation and what actually occurs on these
infrastructure and business system projects.
Mr. Turner. In the area of the exceptions, the mission side
and these other things you mentioned, are there areas there
that need to be looked at and it just so happened they were a
bit more difficult to deal with or there are other impediments,
contracts already in place and those kinds of things?
Mr. Willemssen. What we would like to see is OMB and the
entities involved in looking at the variety of systems is to
continue to aggressively pursue the development of the
enterprise architecture. As Mr. Forman mentioned, not only what
is currently out there with the plethora of systems at many
different agencies but in what direction do they want to go,
where do they want to eventually be and to get from that as is
to B point, they will need to put together a transition
strategy. Then you will map that transition strategy against
proposed investments and in many cases, I think you are going
to see things drop out also in the mission area.
Ideally and conceptually, you would like to have those
architectural documents in hand so you know what to map to.
Otherwise it is very difficult to know where you are going and
what the end game is.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Forman, what would you estimate the
percentage of IT spending the freeze affects as opposed to the
total range of things that Mr. Willemssen is referring to?
Mr. Forman. The total range, of course we don't have the
full data on the mission side but on the infrastructure and
business systems side, it is somewhere in the $1.5 to $2
billion. What it affects obviously relates to what is already
in the procurement cycle versus what is underway, operations
and maintenance and simple modifications.
The approach here is not to consider this because of the
way we do IT in general in industry and in government as kind
of light switch on, light switch off, that most of the
infrastructure investments, even today, are incremental except
for the TSA issue which is pretty much from the bottom up. I
think that is essentially the approach we have adopted there
and is where we are going to see the greatest payoff, looking
at what is already deployed, what they can leverage, and rather
than putting in a new separate infrastructure that ultimately
people won't be able to communicate across but building onto
the existing infrastructure, in TSA's case is probably where we
will see the greatest payoff. There is a percentage of the
total budget and I would be totally guessing there.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Schambach, when we look at your agency
being created from ground up, now contemplating being a part of
this larger Homeland Security Agency, how does that impact the
work you have been involved in and how difficult is it and does
it set you back in accomplishing what you understand to be your
mission to be going through this process of having been
authorized and then moved into this larger agency? I would like
a little perspective on that from you?
Mr. Schambach. Certainly standing up TSA when we were just
looking at our own organization was a daunting enough
challenge; bringing the whole homeland security picture into
place makes it a lot more complex as you mentioned.
Selfishly I would say that had we been able to move ahead
independently, we would be a bit further along than we are
today. On the other hand, looking at it from a more global
government perspective, I see the need, as I said in my
testimony, of going through the process that OMB has
stipulated, trying to bring together investments where that is
possible.
I have had to insist on very quick decisionmaking in the
Investment Review Group because we have such a schedule that we
have to stick to and thankfully the decisions have been quick.
I hope it stays that way as we go forward.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Mr. Schambach, in your view,
what do you believe allowed the contract award to move ahead
for the ITSM contract at TSA and what steps are you taking to
ensure that this major infrastructure project can be integrated
into the overall IT architecture at the new Department?
Mr. Schambach. I think two things allowed us to move
forward quickly. One is a recognition on the part of the
Investment Review Group of just what we were facing in standing
up TSA's as an organization without any infrastructure on the
ground whatsoever. With 31,000-plus employees on board right
now, they are literally using payphones in the airports to
communicate. That is the difficulty we are having.
The second issue was we did arrive at a set of factors of
how investment decisions would be made in the case of TSA,
focusing primarily on where we have a common presence with
Customs and INS. That alternative analysis is being evaluated
right now and those decisions on the top 100 airports where we
share presence, those are the issues where decisions will be
made in the coming I hope week.
Mr. Forman. If I may, I would like to applaud the efforts
by Pat and his team. This is groundbreaking work for the
Federal Government to have a scenario where one bureau
essentially can work together with two other bureaus is cutting
across the hierarchy instead of up and down the hierarchy and
literally make a cost benefit assessment as a partnership I
don't believe has ever been done before.
This model, this cost benefit assessment tool, was put
together basically by some people working long and hard over a
weekend. So it did work fast but it is extraordinary work for
the Federal Government.
Mr. Schambach. In answer to the second half of your
question, on how do we ensure integration, we are very active
members with the enterprise architecture team at homeland
security with the common directory for e-mail with the Security
Infrastructure Group, so I think we are laying plans that
ensure we integrate with the rest of homeland security.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Mr. Hall, let me ask you, has
the Customs Service altered any of its systems plans as a
result of the new Department?
Mr. Hall. The short answer is no with the exception of our
e-mail system. We were in the midst of rolling out a new e-mail
system for U.S. Customs. Because of an inventory that was done
with the other potential components of the new department, we
learned that we were odd man out and the other departments were
using one product and we were using a different one, and we are
in the process of replanning that effort. Rather than go
forward with our system, we are going to align with the rest of
the department.
There has been no real delay or effect on our mission
critical systems or our ongoing projects.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Is the Customs Service a member
of the Investment Review Group established at OMB?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. What degree of input do you have
into the projects of other agencies that will be in the new
Department going forward?
Mr. Hall. Actually there is very active discussion that
comes on the projects that come before this board for review. I
think the principal benefits of the process we have put in
place is, at least in my career, it has been extraordinary
visibility over what other bureaus are doing, other agencies
are doing and also an opportunity to make sure our projects are
aligned as we go forward and that we avoid any unnecessary
incompatibilities that might be built into the initial plans.
So the benefit to date has been one of coordination and being
able to share across some of these projects.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Ms. Bates, presumably the
components of the proposed Department use FTS or FSS contracts
for some of their IT needs. To what extent does OMB's freeze
policy jeopardize these existing contracts? I take it not much
from your comments.
Ms. Bates. There is no jeopardy to the contracts. As you
know, the contracts are non-mandatory and they are also open to
all of the government, so there is no jeopardy there.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Did their policy contradict any
of the clauses in the contracts?
Ms. Bates. No, not at all.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. You mentioned GSA's involvement
with TSA to meet space, furniture, supplies and technology
needs at airports, security director offices, and air marshall
offices. How is FTS involved in this project and how does the
OMB freeze affect this, the ability to equip offices?
Ms. Bates. The FTS piece of that very important project is
providing the local telecommunications services at all of those
locations as well as some direct broadcast satellite services
for news and the like. The project has been in total
coordination with Mr. Schambach's office and it is understood
that this could be viewed as interim with a deadline of
November 19 to be later replaced as the overall architecture is
developed.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Mr. DiPentima, thanks for
mentioning that the OMB freeze has complicated companies'
efforts to develop plans concerning their allocation of
resources. In my district, we have a number of companies that,
in some cases, have had to let people go because they thought
they had won something and all of a sudden it is pulled back.
They had hired people in anticipation of moving ahead and now
they are not sure when they will get the word or if the
contract is even going to continue. That is a concern. I think
it is outweighed by the overall Government concern that this
money be spent right and be well coordinated but it is a
concern and that is why we are trying to push and find out what
the dates are from Mr. Forman and others that everything will
start moving again.
Given the examples of this from companies, have there been
other effects on the private sector as a result of the freeze
policy and if you don't have any right at your fingertips, we
would be happy to keep open the record and you could document
them; but we would like to have them in the record.
Mr. DiPentima. So far, I think the way OMB is approaching
this is the right way. We did have concern on the TSA contract
because that is a very important area. I mentioned before
mission critical. There is a very delicate and not clear line
between infrastructure and mission critical systems. Certainly
all the things that Pat Schambach has to do to get his new
agency in place infrastructurewise, his entire mission depends
upon him getting that in place.
I don't have any clear examples to share with you here
today but I certainly would like to keep the record open and
allow ITAA to come back and respond to you in writing on that,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you.
Assuming that a Department of Homeland Security is enacted
and the Senate can finish their act and we can get together
with them and get this enacted in short order, what do you
think are the most immediate systems issues that the Department
should tackle?
Mr. DiPentima. I think it is probably, as I mentioned in my
comments, not unlike what would happen if we were to acquire a
dozen new companies at once. You would have to go after the
infrastructure the way OMB is doing. In our case, we would move
quickly to common e-mail systems, common recordkeeping, time
and attendance, common telephone and other communications
systems because you are not going to carry out your mission if
you do not have the proper infrastructure in place to do that.
I think the way OMB is coming at this is the right way, not
unlike we would do it if we were bringing together acquired
companies. I hate to think that we would try to bring together
this many acquired companies at once. So the challenge is, as I
said before, daunting but we would do very much what OMB is
doing.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much.
Mr. Willemssen, in your testimony you note that OMB is
using Section 8(b) of the OMB Circular A130 to determine what
IT projects should go forward at the homeland security
agencies. What is your view of this criteria? Are these the
appropriate planning questions to ask as OMB reviews spending
decisions by agencies?
Mr. Willemssen. Those criteria would be consistent with our
views. In fact, we assisted in commenting on A130 when the last
version was put together. It appropriately focuses on an IT
capital planning process, enterprise architecture, having
needed security controls in place and focusing on process
redesign before going out with major acquisitions.
For particular investments, it has that focus on select
control and evaluates those investments from the standpoint of
cost benefit, risk and schedule. That is consistent with the
guidance and methodologies we have previously published. So we
would be supportive of that.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. In your testimony, you note that
you have not had an opportunity to assess the impact on
agencies. At this time, can you comment on the impact this
freeze has on facilitating timely information sharing among the
agencies? You note that a data base project was approved in a
timely manner for the Secret Service. Do you think OMB is
handling the expedited review process appropriately?
Mr. Willemssen. The three projects we are aware of that
went through the emergency request process, we didn't see any
delays there that had any adverse impact on the affected
agencies, so I think that has worked fairly well to OMB and the
agencies credit.
In addition, in terms of your question on facilitating
timely information sharing among agencies, I think eventually
that will be an outcome of this process. Again, consistent with
my testimony, it has been too early to tell because we haven't
seen the actual decisions from the groups formed to look at
infrastructure and business systems, so I think that is a very
likely outcome if the implementation activities are consistent
with the broad framework that OMB has set out.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. What is unique at the Customs
Service that it is already at Stage 5 of the GAO's enterprise
architecture while other agencies are lagging behind? What can
other agencies learn from this?
Mr. Willemssen. Mr. Hall may want to add to this but I
think we have been working with Customs for quite some time on
their enterprise architecture and as part of our mandated
reviews of their A system, so I think a large part of the
credit goes to Mr. Hall and his leadership and dedication to
making the enterprise architecture a reality. I think executive
leadership really is a key factor.
In line with that, a recognition of the importance of
architectures and what I have heard from the witnesses today I
think it has been fairly consistent that there is a recognition
of the importance of that, especially with the proposed
Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Hall. I think there are two major things that have
allowed us to succeed with our enterprise architecture effort.
One is you basically have to understand what it is and how you
build one and I think of it as an engineering discipline, and I
believe we have that at the U.S. Customs Service.
Perhaps the most important is management support at the
very top. I think what makes it work at Customs is that the
senior leadership supports the process, allows us to require
projects to comply with and that it is an integral part of how
we decide what gets funded and what doesn't.
When you have that environment, it makes it fairly
straightforward to implement an enterprise approach.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you.
I am going to take a moment to thank everyone for attending
this hearing. I want to thank the witnesses, I want to thank
Congressman Turner, as always, for participating and thank the
staff for organizing it. I think it has been very productive.
We are going to enter into the record the briefing memo
distributed to subcommittee members and we will hold open the
record for 2 weeks from this date for those who may want to
forward submissions for possible inclusion. Mr. DiPentima, in
particular, if you have any specifics to add from your
organization's perspective, it is important to understand what
the effect is on companies out there, their hiring practices
and the employees.
Mr. DiPentima. We will, Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6064.044
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. There being nothing else, these
proceedings are closed. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]