U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–706 PDF 2006

MITIGATING THE IMPACT OF HIGH GAS PRICES

ON THE AMERICAN WORKFORCE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE

AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 16, 2005

Serial No. 109–116

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

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

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION

JON C. PORTER, Nevada, Chairman

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

EX OFFICIO

HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA

RON MARTINSON, Staff Director

CHRIS BARKLEY, Professional Staff Member

CHAD CHRISTOFFERSON, Clerk

TANIA SHAND, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on November 16, 2005 ...................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Calcagni, Thomas F., managing director for public relations, American

Automobile Association; William Mularie, chief executive officer,

Telework Consortium; Steve O’Keeffe, executive director, Telework Exchange; and Steven D. Hill, president, Silver State Materials ................. 57

Calcagni, Thomas F. ................................................................................. 57

Hill, Steven D. ........................................................................................... 73

Mularie, William ....................................................................................... 63

O’Keeffe, Steve ........................................................................................... 64

Green, Daniel A., Deputy Associate Director, Center for Employee and

Family Support Policy, Office of Personnel Management; and Daniel

P. Matthews, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation .............................................................................................................. 39

Green, Daniel A. ........................................................................................ 39

Matthews, Daniel P. .................................................................................. 44

Wolf, Hon. Frank R., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia; and Hon. James P. Moran, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Virginia ............................................................................ 18

Moran, Hon. James P. ............................................................................... 24

Wolf, Hon. Frank R. .................................................................................. 18

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

Calcagni, Thomas F., managing director for public relations, American

Automobile Association, prepared statement of ......................................... 59

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 85

Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 8

Green, Daniel A., Deputy Associate Director, Center for Employee and

Family Support Policy, Office of Personnel Management, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 41

Hill, Steven D., president, Silver State Materials, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 76

Matthews, Daniel P., Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of

Transportation, prepared statement of ....................................................... 46

Moran, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Virginia, prepared statement of .............................................................. 27

O’Keeffe, Steve, executive director, Telework Exchange, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 68

Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Nevada, prepared statement of .................................................................... 4

Wolf, Hon. Frank R., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 21

(1)

MITIGATING THE IMPACT OF HIGH GAS

PRICES ON THE AMERICAN WORKFORCE

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND AGENCY

ORGANIZATION, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jon C. Porter (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Porter, Mica, Davis of Virginia,

Schmidt, Davis of Illinois, Norton, Cummings, and Van Hollen.

Staff present: Ronald Martinson, staff director; Chad Bungard,

deputy staff director/chief counsel; Christopher Barkley and Shannon Meade, professional staff members; Patrick Jennings, OPM

detailee/senior counsel; Chad Christofferson, legislative assistant/

clerk; Tania Shand, minority professional staff member; and Teresa

Coufal, minority assistant clerk.

Mr. PORTER. I would like to bring the meeting to order. Welcome.

Appreciate everyone being here this afternoon for the Subcommittee of the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization’s hearing on

mitigating the impact of high gas prices on the American work

force. I appreciate your all being here today.

I note that there is a quorum present and we are now formally

in order.

It is not very often in a country as large as ours that the damage

from one natural disaster hits home quite as much as what has

happened to us in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Living in Las

Vegas, we don’t have a lot of hurricanes. But we are impacted in

Las Vegas, as is the rest of the country, when part of our country

is so greatly impacted.

Southern Nevada, much like the rest of the country, has experienced some impacts specifically to our gas prices, with soaring gas

prices in recent months. Fortunately, we are seeing some adjustments in recent days and possibly weeks, but it is very difficult for

us as a community in Nevada, and especially southern Nevada,

with a product that is so volatile, especially with our impact on our

country and our community with our dependence on foreign oil.

When our country-wide resources are impacted, it impacts every

American.

If the price of butter goes up, we can buy margarine. If the price

of green beans goes up, we can buy peas. But when the price of gas

goes up, we seem to have little choice but to pay the price at the

2

pump—maybe drive around a little bit and find one a little bit less,

but we have to squeeze our budgets someplace to take care of the

cost.

In a State like Nevada, where the cost of living has increased

substantially in recent years, I am deeply concerned about what

the price of gasoline and natural gas will do to our State’s workers

and businesses. In Las Vegas, a gallon of gas averages $2.41,

meaning that even small or economy-car owners can now spend almost $30 to fill up their vehicle.

Nevada is by no means alone in this issue. Although gas prices

have now fallen to pre-Hurricane Katrina levels, according to the

Energy Information Administration, a gallon of gasoline now averages around $2.37 a gallon nationwide, an increase of 38 cents a

gallon from a year ago. That increase has caused people to reevaluate their finances and commuting habits, since it is no longer economically feasible for many American families to fill up their vehicles every week.

In recent years, Congress has stepped up its efforts in a number

of areas to try to assist government employees in transportation

costs as they have continued to climb, all of which are of course

now as relevant as they have ever been. Those efforts have included promoting telecommuting, mass transit, and flexible scheduling so employees can work on alternative schedules. It is my intention today to discuss some of those efforts and see if we are

doing all that we can to make sure that the programs are being implemented fully during this time of hardship for many people.

One of the areas that have received attention recently has been

the Federal Government’s effort to encourage telecommuting, or

telework. As most people know, this generally means working from

home or at an offsite location close to their home. Besides its other

advantages, those that take advantage of telework achieve real savings on the cost of gas. Unfortunately, neither agencies nor employees have taken advantage of the program to the degree that Congress would like. We are fortunate to have with us today Congressman Frank Wolf, who represents tens of thousands of Federal employees and has really been a leader on the issue of telework. Congressman Wolf has, along with Chairman Tom Davis, spearheaded

an effort to require that agencies comply with congressionally mandated requirements to provide telework opportunities to their employees.

Another area of interest to the subcommittee is the benefit provided to employees who take advantage of mass transit in their

area. Earlier this year, this subcommittee passed H.R. 1283, a bill

introduced by Congressman Jim Moran to encourage use of mass

transit in the National Capital Region. Congressman Moran has

also been a leader on the issues affecting Federal employees, and

we look forward to hearing from him today.

For my part, I am announcing today my intentions of working on

another bill—it is called the Gas Tax Accountability Act. The purpose of this bill will be to make consumers aware of how much they

are paying in taxes for every gallon of gas that they may purchase.

This bill would provide that labels be posted on gas station pumps

showing an amount of local, State, and Federal taxes a consumer

pays per gallon of gasoline. By having this information displayed,

3

it is my hope that citizens will be able to keep their government

accountable for how taxes affect the high price of gas at the pump.

In the end, the price of gas is something that we in Congress

can’t specifically control, nor should we, but is something that all

Americans will have to deal with in the weeks and months ahead.

As that happens, it is my hope that, in hearings such as this and

by legislation that is being considered, that we can find creative solutions to ease this burden on the American work force.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter follows:]

4

5

6

Mr. PORTER. I certainly look forward to testimony today from all

of our witnesses. I would like to recognize now the rest of my team

that is here today, the ranking minority member, Mr. Danny

Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Gasoline prices should be a function of supply and demand. As

the demand for petroleum products has risen in the United States

and worldwide in recent years, so have gasoline prices in the

United States. They have been trending upwards since early 2002.

Oil company profits also have risen dramatically during this period. This year, the six biggest oil companies are on track to triple

their profits from 2002 for an expected total approaching $100 billion in profits.

Multiple factors affect gasoline prices. Rising demand for all petroleum products, including gasoline, is a key factor. Crude oil

prices, which are linked to the worldwide demand for petroleum

products are another factor. The war and continued violence in

Iraq has added uncertainty and a threat of supply disruption that

has added pressure particularly to the crude oil commodity futures

markets. Skyrocketing oil industry profits have led many to question whether market manipulation or simple price gauging has also

driven up price increases to the industry’s benefit.

Most recently Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, doing tremendous damage to homes, businesses, and physical infrastructure, including roads, electricity transmission lines, and oil-producing, refining, and pipeline facilities. Retail gasoline prices increased

45 cents per gallon between August 29th and September 5th. The

average price for a gallon of regular gasoline on September 5th was

$3.07, the highest nominal price ever. Since then, prices have moderated some.

Members of Congress from the Washington metropolitan area,

especially hearing witnesses, Representative Frank Wolf and Jim

Moran, have been encouraging Federal agencies to implement telecommuting policies to help address traffic congestion and pollution

in the Washington area. Telecommuting also would help alleviate

the cost of high gas prices for commuters.

Historically, the primary benefits of telecommuting were reduced

traffic congestion and pollution, improved recruitment and retention of employees, reduced need for office space, increased productivity, and improved quality of life and morale for Federal employees. These continue to be compelling and valid reasons for implementing agency-wide telework programs. Representative Frank

Wolf is to be commended for moving legislation that pushes agencies to increase the number of Federal employees who telecommute.

However, with the Oklahoma City bombings and September

11th, we have realized another very compelling reason to push Federal agencies and ourselves to develop and to implement the infrastructure and work processes necessary to support telecommuting.

It is emergency preparedness and the continued threat of terrorism. The question we must ask ourselves is this: In the event of

an emergency, are we—this committee, our staffs, and all the Federal agencies—prepared to serve the American people if our primary place of work is no longer available to us?

7

Continuity of Operations Planning [COOP] is not the subject of

today’s hearing. However, I invite my colleagues and those of you

who support telecommuting and Continuity of Operations Planning

to support a revised version of H.R. 4747, which I introduced during the last Congress. This bill would require the chief Human

Capital Office of Counsel to conduct and evaluate a 10-day demonstration that broadly uses employees’ contributions to an agency’s operations from alternate work locations, including home.

The outcome of the demonstration project would provide agencies

and Congress with approaches for gaining flexibility and identifying work processes that should be implemented during an extended

emergency. The number and types of potential emergency interruptions are unknown, and we must be prepared in advance of an incident, with the work processes and infrastructure needed to reestablish agency operations. Representatives Waxman, Porter,

Cummings, and Norton, among others, have already agreed to cosponsor the bill, and I thank them for their support.

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and,

again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this session.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Out of courtesy to our visiting members, I would like to wait a

moment before we finish our opening statements and allow our

visitors to give their statements—with the concurrence of the—is

that OK? Thank you.

I would like to move on to the first panel, again, out of courtesy.

We appreciate you both being here—Representatives Frank Wolf

and Jim Moran, both representing constituents from Virginia.

These Members of Congress have played an active role in bringing

attention to the issue of alternative work programs and transportation benefits to help workers manage rising fuel costs.

First, Mr. Wolf. We appreciate your statement today. Thank you

for being here.

STATEMENTS OF HON. FRANK R. WOLF, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA; AND HON.

JAMES P. MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Chairman Porter. It is good to be here

with you. I am glad to be here with my good friend Jim Moran.

To put it simply, and I think you all know, listening to your

opening statements, they were very strong on much of what I may

very well say. There is nothing magic about strapping ourselves

into a metal box every day only to drive to an office where we sit

behind a desk with a working computer. Telecommuting is a traffic

issue in this region, in Chicago and in L.A. and in almost every

part of the country. It is an air-quality issue, an environmental

issue, a continuity of operations issue; it is an energy-saving issue,

it is a quality-of-life issue, giving people more time to spend with

their families.

As the Nation’s largest employer, the Federal Government

should be a model for telework. And I had put a provision in, with

the support of Mr. Davis and Mr. Moran, in the 2001 transportation appropriations bill saying all Federal agencies must allow

every eligible employee who wants to telework and whose job lends

itself to telework.

I have been disappointed, and my full statement covers it a little

bit more, that the government has not moved as aggressively as it

could have. Just this past week, I was contacted by several constituents with the Bureau of Prisons and the Farm Service Agency

who were being denied their right to telework. That is taking place

in a lot of different agencies.

Telework is a win-win for the Federal Government. It increases

worker productivity, improves morale, gives employees the chance

to spend time with their families or simply use their free time as

they see fit. It improves our air quality, can save the Federal Government money by helping to reduce taxpayer real estate costs, increase worker retention, and many that Mr. Davis said.

In this year’s appropriations bill, we have a provision in whereby

the State, Commerce, and Justice Departments will lose $5 million

if they do not move ahead with regard to telework. The bill also

requires—but it only covers, Mr. Chairman, the agencies under the

19

subcommittee that I am the chairman of; it does not cover governmentwide—the bill also requires the departments and agencies to

designate a telework coordinator to oversee the implementation

and operation of telecommuting programs within each department.

The departments and agencies also will be required to provide

quarterly reports on the number of employees that are teleworking,

so they can actually show improvement.

Following Hurricane Katrina, I sent a letter to President Bush

asking him to make telework a priority for his administration. In

the letter I pointed out that many of the Nation’s leading security

experts are pointing to telecommuting as a key to ensuring that the

government continues to operate during and after a catastrophic

event. I appreciate the efforts of the General Services Administration to pay the cost of telework centers for Federal employees who

wish to telework as a result of Hurricane Katrina and the recent

spike in fuel costs.

I was contacted—and this is where I think this committee could

really make a big difference—I was contacted by Federal contractors that conduct business in the region impacted by Hurricane

Katrina and learned that many of these private-sector businesses

are utilizing telework in order to continue operations. But unfortunately, they are having a difficult time working with their Federal

Government counterparts who are not being allowed to participate

in telework.

And also, some of the contractors tell us that, as they get bids

for doing work for the Federal Government, they cannot count their

hours in telework. So they may be working with an agency that is

telework, but as they put together their proposal, their hours are

not necessarily counting as they are teleworking. For you to be able

to deal with that issue would make a tremendous difference.

September 11th, the anthrax scare, now Hurricane Katrina have

exposed vulnerabilities in our Nation which can disrupt government, as Mr. Davis said, and business operations. In the wake of

these events, a governmentwide telework program should be the

cornerstone of the Federal workplace to ensure that necessary

telework habits are in place in the event of a similar disaster in

the future. With a Federal telework model, the private sector could

also expand its telework options.

Imagine if we got a pandemic. Avian flu. I mean, if you get it

in a key office in the Federal Government and let’s say someone

in that office comes down with avian flu or something like that, do

you want to tell everyone else to continue to come in? I mean, their

roles are very important, that they have to continue to operate.

Finally, rising gas prices are having a major impact on our Nation’s commuters, who must travel dozens of miles each day to

work, including Federal employees. My congressional district includes the Shenandoah Valley. Early in the morning, when I am

heading to meetings or events in the area, I see a steady stream

of cars coming from places like Winchester and Front Royal toward

Washington to Federal workplaces. These commutes can take 2 or

more hours each way.

In short, telecommuting works. I urge the committee to do everything. And I appreciate your having the hearing. By having the

hearing, you just send a message to the Cabinet secretaries, the

20

mid-level managers; this is really important and really a priority

to Congress.

Thank you very much, and thank you and the members of the

committee.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Frank R. Wolf follows:]

21

22

23

24

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Congressman. Appreciate your being

here.

Mr. Moran, welcome.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Davis and Ms.

Norton.

Is this on? No, it is not.

Mr. PORTER. OK. Is there something I should do to put it on?

Mr. MORAN. This is on. Fine.

The Federal employees, like their private-sector counterparts,

have weathered the steady climb in gasoline prices that spiked

dangerously upward following the disruption to oil production and

refining facilities by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And while we

appear to be on the downward slope of the spike in the gasoline

prices, we should take no comfort that the days of $3 price per gallon of gasoline are behind us.

They are not. Long-term forecasts by the Department of Energy

and by the private-sector industry analysts both suggest that prices

will continue to be volatile and demand will keep prices at or above

current levels. That means a higher portion of employee income is

and will continue to be going toward keeping gas tanks filled,

homes heated, and food on the table.

As we have learned, there is little the Federal Government can

do over the short term to offset high energy prices. But my colleague Frank Wolf, with strong support from Chairman Davis of

this committee, on both sides of the committee and this particular

subcommittee, have been advocates of telecommuting and telework.

And we appreciate that. As Frank suggested, the entire regional

delegation believe in this as a very important part of the solution

to this problem and it also has a positive impact on helping to offset the high price of gasoline, as Mr. Wolf has said.

These policies can also be adopted in the private sector, and it

is important that we encourage that. Frank has articulated the

merits of Federal teleworking and telecommuting, and obviously I

support that in every way I can.

There is another benefit, though, that should be expanded, and

that is Federal transit benefits. Federal workers in this region are

fortunate to have a network of public and private transit services,

van and carpooling options that enable them to leave their vehicles

at home. There has been a substantial Federal, State, and local investment in the construction of Metrorail and Metrobus. Both Virginia and Maryland have invested heavily in establishing commuter rail services, and local governments and private entrepreneurs have set up a multitude of park and ride facilities and

bus and vanpool services.

Through the Council of Government’s Commuter Connections

program, the Washington, DC region even offers peace of mind to

transit users and carpoolers through its Guaranteed Ride Home,

that gives commuters who need to get home in an emergency and

don’t have their—they didn’t drive to work, they can have a free

taxi ride up to four times a year.

I recognize that transit is not possible for everyone, but where

it can work it should be supported. And when it does work, its benVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:54 Mar 20, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\25706.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
25

efits extend to everyone. More transit riders and fewer cars on the

road not only means less roadway congestion, but also less gas consumption, lower demand, thus lower prices at the pump. Where transit exists, the $105 per month tax-free transit benefit

can help provide the difference needed to get a critical mass of commuters out of their cars and into transit. These benefits complement other smart policies, like the current preference to locate

Federal facilities within walking distance of Metrorail stations,

that make transit an ideal solution to rising energy prices. The

Federal transit benefit owes its origins to the Comprehensive National Policy Act of 1992. This law enabled employers, government

and nongovernment alike, to provide their employees a tax-free

cash benefit to cover the cost of commuting by transit or vanpool.

For the Federal Government, however, the benefit was voluntary

and very few agencies provided it. It wasn’t until October 2000 that

all executive branch agencies were directed by an Executive order

to provide their employees in the National Capitol Region with the

full tax-free transit benefit. The Metropolitan Washington COG estimates that this benefit boosted daily Federal employee transit

benefit participation by more than 100,000 and reduced vehicle

miles traveled between 40 and 54 million annually.

I am indebted to the work of this committee in advancing legislation I introduced earlier this year to expand this requirement to

cover all Federal employees in the National Capital Region, including those who work in the legislative and judicial branches and the

independent Federal agencies, as you mentioned, Chairman Porter.

Through the efforts of the Government Reform Committee, this

proposal was added to the transportation authorization and became

law this past August.

While it is not a complete picture, the transit benefit appears to

be working. For this month of November, Metro’s Metrocheck

issued monthly transit benefits to approximately 155,000 Federal

workers and 79,000 private-sector employees in the National Capital Region. The Metrocheck program helps administer the transit

benefit for Metro, local commuter rail, and for the other local transit services.

That is an impressive participation rate, but it certainly is not

the end to what we can do to encourage transit use. First, parity

has to be established between the value of the tax-free parking

benefit and the transit benefit. According to the IRS, the monthly

tax-free limit for transit and vanpools in 2006 will remain at $105

per month. Free parking, however, is valued at over $200 per

month.

Congress should consider raising the monthly transit benefit

level. The Senate transportation authorization would have raised

the nationwide transit benefit to $200 a month, equal to the parking benefit. The provision, however, was dropped in conference.

Second, the benefit should not be limited to those Federal employees fortunate to live in the National Capital Region. It should

be expanded to cover all Federal employees everywhere where transit and vanpools are available.

Third, we need to find more ways to encourage higher privatesector participation. I have here the Metropolitan Washington

Council of Governments’ 2004 State of the Commute Survey ReVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:54 Mar 20, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\25706.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
26

sults. According to the survey, only 34 percent, 1 out of 3, of this

region’s nonprofits and 18 percent of the private sector offer their

employees a transit benefit. If these results reflect a broader national pattern, the Congress might want to test the feasibility of

additional programs and incentives that would encourage greater

private-sector participation. It may be as simple as getting the

word out to more companies and employees. When employees learn

about the program, their employers often follow suit and offer the

benefit.

So in conclusion, transit benefits are an important public policy

tool to promote healthier lifestyles, reduces traffic congestion and

air pollution, and lower gasoline consumption. Its widespread use

and therefore, its effectiveness, is dependent on a combination of

factors that can help conserve fuel and, in doing so, can help employees offset the higher price of gasoline, which was the subject

of this hearing.

We thank you for having the hearing, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, and look forward to working with you.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. James P. Moran follows:]

27

28

29

30

31

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, both of you, very much for your testimony.

Question: I know you have been working at this for a long time

and trying to encourage the Federal agencies. What do you think

we can do next to make sure that they take advantage of some of

the tools that we are providing—through the authorizing process,

or what do you think we need to do?

Mr. WOLF. Well, I think passing a law mandating it. Roughly 60

percent of the jobs in this region are jobs whereby people can

telework. Second, convincing the administration to speak out boldly

and not reluctantly. If the President made this a priority, if the

President spoke about this in his State of the Union message to

talk about as we get control of our energy costs and do these

things. But I think at the top we all are responsible for our offices

and the tone that we send, but I think if the White House were

to embrace this thing, then I think the Cabinet secretaries and the

mid-level managers would join in.

Chairman Porter, there are no downsides to it, absolutely, positively, categorically none; from productivity to savings for the taxpayer. One of the greatest problems in the country is the breakdown of the American family. This is good for the family. Spend

more time, husbands and wives, with kids, coaching little league,

singing in the choirs. The energy issue is a big issue. This is good

for energy.

Environmental is a good issue. It is good for the environment.

There are no downsides. And God forbid, we all know what took

place on Katrina, but a national emergency—on the day of September 11th, I know, individuals here—hard to get out, you couldn’t

get out. In order to get to Virginia, I had to go through Maryland.

Continuity of government.

So I think if the President and the White House were to embrace

this thing from all of those issues, that would send an amazing

message. And this committee can really, I think, make the difference.

Mr. PORTER. Congressman Moran, anything you would suggest?

Mr. MORAN. Well, certainly I agree with Frank in terms of support for telecommuting and telework. And I do think that this transit benefit has been shown to be an effective incentive, although it

needs to be on parity with the value of free parking that we offer.

So if you had a transit benefit, as the Senate suggested, that was

comparable, then I think that would even further enhance the incentive and change people’s commuting patterns.

Mr. PORTER. How about the private sector? What do you think

we can do to have more of the private sector involved in telework?

Mr. WOLF. Well, a lot of the private sector—AT&T, Siemens are

really doing a good job. You are going to have a couple of members

of the panel, I believe, who will tell you that technology that is now

out—the technology is out there. If you flip your laptop up, I flip

mine up, we can talk to one another, visually see each other. And

I think the private sector is probably doing a better job than actually government.

Now, as the price of gasoline goes up, I mean, in the old days,

the AT&T telephone and Star would get in his or her car, drive to

the place, pick up the truck, go out, fix the phones, come back, drop

32

the truck off and go. Now they just come in once a week to get the

equipment. I think business really kind of gets it a little bit more

than the government.

I don’t really think you need tax breaks, because if you care

about productivity and cost and morale and retention, telecommuting has all that with it. So I think a lot of businesses, AT&T and

Siemens and all, and many others, are really doing a pretty good

job.

Mr. MORAN. Chairman Porter, I don’t know whether they do this

in Las Vegas—I suspect they do—but in terms of zoning at the

local level, the height, I know, is granted in suburban areas as well

as in D.C. to a greater degree if the developer will reduce the number of parking spaces and thus increase the reliance upon transit

or van- or carpooling. And that is something that has worked effectively. Obviously, it is easier if employees are located near some

type of public transit. But reducing the number of parking spaces

in buildings so that car and van pools can use those parking spaces

is one way to do it.

I think part of the problem is not with the large employers as

much as with the smaller employers. And with that, we could show

them how they can computerize the things like transit benefits in

the Washington area. In fact, the Council of Governments can show

them that. You simply put it into the compensation system on a

computer. I don’t think they know how to do that right now, but

it is easy to instruct them. And I think if they realize how simple

it is administratively, they might be more inclined to do it. But a

lot of it does depend upon local government decisionmaking.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And gentlemen, let me thank you for your testimony.

You know, we have explored barriers to implementation, and I

certainly would concur and agree with all of those. But I was

thinking that, in addition to the fact that change is slow, threatening, more covert than overt, oftentimes is subtle, what other reasons can you see for what appears to be a tremendous amount of

reluctance on the part of our management personnel to embrace

and help push or make use of this concept? And there seems to be

a tremendous amount of reluctance to do that.

Mr. WOLF. Well, I think there is a general feeling that if you cannot see your employee——

Mr. PORTER. Congressman, I don’t think your mic is on.

Mr. WOLF. I think there is a general feeling that if you cannot

see your employee, maybe they are not working. And I think probably, that is such a barrier, whereas just the opposite is true. I

mean—but I think the fact that you can’t see somebody, and we are

all taught as young people to go out, we get up, we get ready, we

get dressed and we go to work. And somehow that, I think, is probably the biggest hurdle.

Mr. MORAN. That is probably a lot of it. So it is a matter of management understanding that people can be just as effective sitting

in their pajamas in front of their computer at home. Now, not all

jobs lend themselves to that, but those that do, there should be

that kind of managerial flexibility. A lot of it is simply people are

33

hide-bound to tradition, but others don’t realize how convenient it

can be. And it is going to take time, but I think a certain amount

of leadership from the Congress encouraging it is necessary to

speed the process.

Mr. WOLF. And I agree with Jim, also it is good if you have

somebody who is handicapped. The ability to be working from home

to make that person more productive. It is just so—it makes so

much sense. And maybe the job is that you telework 3 days a week

and come in 2 days a week. Maybe you telework the first week of

the month because that is when you are putting together the reports and you want that private time and you are in every—so

there are so many variations. But I think what Jim said is accurate.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, let me just thank both of you because I certainly agree. As we were having this discussion, I was

thinking of a person who works in my office who is going out on

maternity leave and on childcare leave. But I am totally certain

that she can do a tremendous job without being in the office, that

the work that she does, her work ethic, the amount of energy that

she displays, the seriousness with which she takes her work. I

mean, of course, I was amazed the other day when her baby was

born at 4 a.m., and she called me at 8 a.m. to say that she wasn’t

going to be coming in. And I said, well, I guess not. [Laughter.]

But I think that there are indeed just many instances. Of course

it won’t work for everybody, but there are just many, many instances where individuals would do an exceptional job. And so I

thank you both for coming and for sharing with us and being a

part of this hearing.

And I don’t have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PORTER. It was nice of you to give her the day off.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Yes. I think 1 day.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you for your questions.

Congresswoman, do you have questions?

Ms. NORTON. No.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Wolf—first of all, I want to thank both of you. This just

makes a lot of sense. And I guess as I get older and sitting around

here, I just get a little cynical, sadly. And an idea that is just absolutely—you know, there are some ideas, I remember when I was

in the Maryland Legislature we had the seat belt bill for many,

many years. And we kept putting it in, kept putting it in, and finally all the stars came together to make it possible to pass and

it just flew through.

It seems to me, based upon your testimony, that it sounds like

we have reached what should be the coming together of the stars.

So Mr. Wolf—and I believe deep in my heart that if the administration wanted this bill to go through, it would happen. Would you

agree? I mean, we got OPM, we got folks who—and it makes sense.

And I am just wondering what the President said. I’m not—I am

just curious. I mean, did you get a response? Because I think there

are a lot of things that we push hard, and I think you probably on

this side of the aisle—I can’t speak for us—you probably get every

Member voting for it, or most of us. And I am just wondering, you

34

know, what has been—I mean, did you get a response? You said

you wrote the President, and I’m wondering if he responded.

Mr. WOLF. Not yet.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, see, I am asking that because he doesn’t

return my calls. [Laughter.]

I thought maybe you got a response since you——

Mr. WOLF. No, I have not. But I will share it with the committee

when we get it.

Mr. CUMMINGS. OK. All right. Thank you.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join with

my colleagues in thanking Congressman Wolf and Congressman

Moran for their leadership on these issues that are important to

our Metro region and important to the Federal Government in

terms of making sure that we get the Federal employees to be able

to work productively, both in terms of the telecommuting and the

transit options.

On the telecommuting issue, I can tell you I, like you, visit many

of the Federal agencies that are in my congressional district and

I hear from employees about this issue frequently. And what I am

surprised about is the unevenness of it in terms of the implementation. There are some agencies where people say the supervisors understand the program, they understand the benefits of the program, and they are very happy with it. In other places, the employees will say, gee, you know, my supervisor just doesn’t seem to get

it and is not responsive and isn’t willing to work it out.

And so the challenge for us is obviously to make sure every supervisor in the Federal Government understands the options and

in fact the intent of the Congress here. And I think that what you

have done with withholding in the Appropriations Committee

should have an effect. I mean, if there is one way to get people’s

attention around this town, it seems to be to hit them in the pocketbook. And I wondered, I know you had a similar provision last

year, at least in the House version. I don’t know if it was in the

final version. What has been the impact of that?

Mr. WOLF. The impact was it was hard to really judge whether

or not the figures were accurate. So we have done it again this year

and have GAO setting the standards. So we now know what is the

case this year and we will be able to see the improvement or lack

of improvement monitored by GAO. And I think that was the failure. We did not have a monitoring device, we just had a—and I am

not suggesting the agencies were not telling the truth, but whatever they said we just had to take.

The SEC is doing an incredible job. The FCC does a great job.

Some do very, very well. But we will know better this year because

GAO will monitor and we know what the base, what the floor is.

So we will be able to better tell you this time next year.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Right. Now, as I understand, the way you have

it the withholding is limited to the agencies within the jurisdiction

of—subcommittee. Is that right?

Mr. WOLF. Correct. Yes. We didn’t have any authority.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Is there any way to expand it more broadly

throughout the—I mean, with the appropriations—similar language in, you know, all the Federal agencies through the approVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:54 Mar 20, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\25706.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
35

priations process? Because frankly, one of the agencies I visited recently is not on this list, and it is one where employees were frustrated about the lack of——

Mr. WOLF. Well, you could. I guess the chairman, you could have

a general telework authorization bill covering governmentwide, or

we could do it in an appropriation in full committee sometime.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Right. No, I know we could do an authorization. I just wondered, in the appropriations, if you did it across

every Federal agency, it would get the attention not just of the four

in the subcommittee, but more broadly. Because I think that is the

most efficient and quickest way around here of getting people’s attention.

So I don’t know, maybe in conference there would be a way even

to expand it more broadly to all Federal agencies.

But I want to thank both of you for your leadership on this issue.

It is an important issue and, as you say, you can just rattle down

the list of all the categories this is a win in—environment, transportation, productivity, and the like. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MORAN. You are right, Mr. Van Hollen, with regard to appropriations committees. We had a problem with regard to the transit

benefit and the Department of Labor; the Secretary of Labor determined that only employees who were not members of the Federal

Employees Union were eligible to receive the transit benefit. Her

reasoning was that it should be part of a collective bargaining

agreement if they were going to get the benefit as a member of the

union. So we took care of that in the appropriations bill. You can

find reference to telecommuting pretty consistently, I think,

throughout the transportation appropriations bills and will continue to do that.

But this committee’s work is necessary to give it the authorizing

foundation, and that is why it is so important to have this kind of

hearing today.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you very much. We appreciate you being

with us today, Congressman Wolf and Congressman Moran.

Oh, I think we have Chairman Davis. Something you would like

to add before we let the witnesses leave?

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Well, let me just—thank you, Mr. Porter

for holding the hearing, and let me thank my colleagues. They have

been out front on this whole idea of telecommuting. But with gas

prices up where they are at this point, it just makes more sense

than ever to offer the incentives and disincentives for Federal agencies to take advantage of this.

You know, the private sector has been using telecommuting like

crazy. You go out to some of these buildings in northern Virginia,

people that are in cubicles and they are not there. They are at

home with their laptops, they are out on the road. They can have

a lot of utility. They don’t have to be there. But the Federal Government’s management style is if they don’t see you, they don’t

think you are working.

And we are losing a lot of productivity, we are losing people because of this. It is jamming the roads. It is so 20th century as the

world moves onward. And this is an opportunity for us, I think, to

step up to the plate. And the two gentlemen in front of us have

36

really taken leads in this, and I just appreciate your being here

today.

Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to note

for the record, and this is not to, you know—everything that we

have done in Virginia, the three of us—Mr. Davis, Mr. Moran, and

myself have done together from the very, very beginning. And we

are on different committees. So I want to, you know, pay tribute

to Mr. Davis. There is nothing that we have done, my office or their

office, where all three have not been connected. And I think the

fact that the three of us for the northern Virginia region are working—and we also are working, the whole delegation, with the District and in Maryland—gives us the opportunity of working together. But Mr. Davis, and the fact that he is chairman of this full

committee, has helped us, because when he holds a hearing, you

can see things improving even in the agencies that come before appropriations.

So I just want the record to show that Mr. Davis and Mr. Moran

have been involved.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Although I think the record should show,

and Jim would agree with me, that Frank was talking about teleworking before the laptop. I mean, even before he was redistricted

out to further the balance of the State.

Just one other thing. Thank you, Chairman Davis, and I couldn’t

agree more with what you and Frank have said and I appreciate

the recognition that it has been a collegial effort on the part of the

entire Washington area delegation.

But Mr. Davis mentioned one thing about an employee and he

mentioned it kind of off-handedly. But with regard to the legislative branch, we are a target, a terrorist target, and it is relevant

to the business of telecommuting and teleworking. To the extent

that we have the ability for our employees to set up computers, to

have BlackBerry communication and so on in the event of a terrorist attack so that we can continue to function, that we have some

redundant capability, that could prove to be very important. And

so is a relevant consideration to this committee and to this legislative effort—I know it kind of falls under homeland security, but

there is a real tie-in as to how we can continue to do the public’s

work if in fact the worst imaginable were to occur and we were attacked here and were not able to occupy our offices.

So, thank you.

Mr. PORTER. Congresswoman Holmes Norton, you had a comment?

Ms. NORTON. If I could say before these Members leave, I waived

my opening statement because I thought they were going to make

statements and leave. As a result of this colloquy, some of what I

was going to raise I think—they told me something I did not know,

and I would simply like to raise these matters before they leave.

It is certainly the case that, particularly Mr. Wolf, but every Member of this delegation—Mr. Moran, the chairman, Mr. Davis—have

been at the forefront nationally on telecommuting and have done

the Nation a real service.

I may say, I only learned, Frank, as a result of this colloquy here

with Members that only four agencies were included, and that is

because of your leadership in your committee. I was going to raise

37

a question as to why OPM wasn’t here. Now I know why. And I

am amazed that we have been talking about telecommuting for almost two decades now and we have been talking about four agencies? I didn’t even know that.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I do think that we need an authorization bill for the entire government. And now that I am

learning the reason is because an appropriator took the leadership,

I can say already this hearing has advanced us. Now I know why.

I was going to criticize us for not having OPM here and—Transportation here. As a result of the questions asked by my colleagues,

I understand why.

The chairman in holding this hearing is engaging in a very important act of public responsibility, because this is the biggest work

force in the country, by far. And I agree with Mr. Wolf. You see

progressive companies using telecommuting. They figured out how

it enhances the bottom line and efficiency at the same time. And

now I understand at least one reason why the Federal Government

hasn’t been as much on the case as Mr. Wolf and others have. And

so my question was, you know, what is the reluctance here?

I do think we need more information since, yes, there has been

some indication that there is some reluctance among those who

could use it to use it. I don’t know if that means we need to do

some kind of survey or GAO report. But if there is reluctance, I

would like not to assume the reason. I would like to know more

about the reason. I would like to know if employees, for example,

understand the advantages, have had the idea marketed sufficiently to them.

And yes, I must say I agree with Mr. Wolf. I am sure we have

some old-fashioned supervisors and managers who think that if you

don’t see them, they are not working. I can’t agree with you more.

You can tell the output and the increases in output from the data

that is already available from the private sector.

We have 200,000 Federal employees come to this city alone. And

again, with the leadership of this delegation, there are transit benefits that have, I would say, eased this problem, except that Metro

has become so popular that the problem of the roads now is also

a problem of Metro.

There is pending a bill that the chairman has introduced that is

absolutely critical to having a comprehensive approach to this. And

this bill, a bill in which all of us are cosponsors, would keep us

from having a broken-down system that cannot carry these employees back and forth. And the reason this bill has been introduced

in the House, in the Congress, is because Metro in this region is

chiefly for the benefit of Federal employees.

Now, this requires local jurisdictions to meet the terms that the

chairman has set because he knows we have no chance of getting

the funds to fix Metro if we do not. When I say ‘‘fix Metro,’’ I don’t

mean fixing all the broken-down cars, I mean people can’t get onto

Metro. I mean there are people who cannot, perhaps, telecommute

or who will travel in any case, who simply can’t get on it or find

it so crowded that they go back to their cars.

So I just want to say while my regional members are here that

the District will be coming forward, the Mayor will be announcing

that we are ready to put a bill before the Council that would in fact

38

initiate the beginning of a regional set-aside so that Metro, the only

system that does not have a dedicated funding source, would have

one. If we don’t, then what the chairman has done and all of us,

of course, on this bill will be a waste. It is going to be hard enough

to get it through. I think we can get it through if the region steps

up and does what it is supposed to do.

Finally, let me say we have to get to what Frank is talking

about, because telecommuting is something we could do now and

we spread this throughout the government, it will be taken up all

over the government just like this. How much, we don’t know, but

we know it will vastly improve by simply making it governmentwide.

But if I may say so, Mr. Chairman, you know, the notion of the

need for alternatives that are within our technological reach has

now come home to roost. Whatever we do with telecommuting,

there is no way to get beyond the fact that the most advanced nation technologically and scientifically has paid almost no attention

to alternatives to the present system of traveling on the roads or,

for that matter, by mass transit.

If I may say so as well, some of what we ought to be doing in

Federal buildings on conservation, on cutting down consumption,

we are not doing. And unless we do them, do all of these things—

the telecommuting, that is a straight-out savings on consumption.

Cutting down consumption in Federal buildings, doing conservation

so that we really mean it, unless we put all of that together, working on this piecemeal is not going to do what we are capable of

doing. And one way not to work on this issue of telecommuting

piecemeal is to make sure it is available governmentwide to every

Federal agency.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you very much.

We have votes in approximately—actually started, so we have

about 9 minutes. We want to say thank you very much to the

Members for being here. We appreciate your testimony.

What I would like to do is do a quick introduction of the newest

member of our committee, Jean Schmidt. I believe she was here a

moment ago—and left. So we will come back in approximately 30

minutes. So we are in recess. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. PORTER. I would like to bring the meeting back to order. If

you haven’t looked outside, it is raining really hard. It is absolutely

pouring. I hope you brought your boat with you today.

I want to thank you for your patience. Again, I appreciate you

all being here today. We, of course, were called for votes on the

floor and may be called again, but hopefully it won’t be within the

next hour.

So I would like to begin, as we traditionally do, is to administer

the oath of office to all the witnesses. So if you would all please

stand, both panels two and three.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. PORTER. Thank you very much. Let the record reflect that

witnesses have answered in the affirmative.

Now I would like to begin with our second panel of witnesses.

Thank you for coming forward. The panel will now be recognized

39

for opening statements. We would ask you to summarize your

statement in approximately 5 minutes. Any fuller statement you

may wish to make will be included in the record.

First we will hear from Mr. Daniel Green, Deputy Associate Director for the Employee and Family Support Policy at OPM.

Thank you. Appreciate you being here, Mr. Green.

STATEMENTS OF DANIEL A. GREEN, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR EMPLOYEE AND FAMILY SUPPORT

POLICY, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; AND DANIEL P. MATTHEWS, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

STATEMENT OF DANIEL A. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I

am pleased to be here today on behalf of the Office of Personnel

Management to talk about the issue of mitigating the impact of

high gas prices on Federal employees. President Bush demonstrated his commitment to fuel conservation by directing Federal

agencies to conserve natural gas, electricity, gasoline, and diesel

fuel to the maximum extent consistent with the effective discharge

of public responsibilities. I will focus on the work that OPM has accomplished in helping Federal agencies understand and implement

the human capital flexibilities available to them to comply with the

President’s directive.

On September 2, 2005, in the wake of the destruction caused by

Hurricane Katrina and the soaring fuel prices that followed, Director Springer issued a memorandum to heads of executive departments and agencies highlighting these human capital flexibilities.

This memo focused primarily on telework for its potential to reduce

the need for employees to commute. It urged agencies to continue

to increase the use of telework, carpooling, and public transportation by employees and provided further information about

telework resources and support, including an announcement that

GSA-sponsored telework centers would be free to new Federal

users through the end of the year.

In addition, the memo mentioned other options such as vanpooling, shuttle services, public transportation, and transit subsidy programs, as well as using technical solutions such as conference calls,

video conferencing, and e-mail exchanges.

Taken together, these measures applied by agencies according to

their own missions and work forces could substantially reduce the

impact of the fuel costs on employees and reduce overall fuel consumption.

On September 21, 2005, a governmentwide agency telework coordinator meeting focused on telework as a human capital flexibility

in broader emergency response situations. A panel comprising representatives of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the

General Services Administration, OPM, and the GSA-sponsored

telework centers discussed telecommuting in the context of Continuity of Operations Planning with an audience of over 60 Federal

agency telework coordinators.

These activities specifically addressing the high gas prices rest

on a foundation of intensive work on the part of OPM to support

40

the telework program governmentwide. The September 21 event

was part of a regular quarterly series of meetings cosponsored by

OPM and GSA. These meetings bring agency telework coordinators

together to work collaboratively with OPM and GSA to network

and share program ideas and concerns, raise unique agency issues,

and give OPM and GSA the opportunity to educate agency representatives on new initiatives.

Staff from OPM also provide agencies with individualized guidance and technical support through onsite visits. Through these

visits to agencies, OPM consults with them to enhance and further

develop their telework program by identifying problem areas, addressing concerns and challenges unique to them, providing policy

guidance, and exploring specific and tailored solutions to the agency’s issues. It is at these face-to-face encounters with agency representatives that OPM provides individualized technical support,

including encouraging the use of telework as a tool to meet agency

human capital goals. In 2005 alone, OPM has conducted onsite visits with 13 agencies.

As befits a program that promotes remote work, OPM has a variety of electronic approaches to promoting and supporting telework.

These include a Web site, e-learning modules, a listserv used to

communicate information, guidance, news, and events regarding

telework to subscribers throughout the Federal Government.

Finally, another workplace flexibility, alternative work schedule

programs such as flexible work schedules and compressed work

schedules, has the potential to assist employees in reducing fuel

consumption because employees are able to fulfill their bi-weekly

work requirements in fewer than 10 days, which results in fewer

days employees must commute to and from work. OPM provides

AWS guidance to agencies through our Web site and direct consultation.

That concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to respond to any

questions the subcommittee may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]

41

42

43

44

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Green. We appreciate that.

Mr. Matthews.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. MATTHEWS

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Davis, and members of the

subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the Department of Transportation to discuss the issue of mitigating the

impact of high gas prices on Federal employees. My emphasis will

be on the long term and our longstanding practice of avoiding excessive fuel consumption among our employees.

One way we encourage this is by offering all Federal employees

a mass transit fringe benefit program where the employee can receive up to $105 a month for taking mass transportation to and

from work. This benefit can be used for the Metro, for buses, and

vanpools.

My specific focus today is another way in which DOT discourages

gasoline use: the practice of telecommuting by our employees. According to government data, some 44 million people go to work by

turning on their computers or by picking up their phone.

The need to encourage telecommuting has never been greater.

Supplies of gasoline are projected to be tight for some time, hurricanes Katrina and Rita sent the price of gasoline, already high, to

well over $3 in many of our communities.

Mitigating the impact of disaster is another reason for telecommuting. When disaster strikes, there is less chance of vital government services being disrupted if the employees are geographically dispersed. Telecommuting can thus help maintain continuity

of operations for critical governmental functions.

The 2001 DOT Appropriations Act requires its agencies to establish policies by which employees can telecommute. In establishing

the DOT telecommuting policy, Secretary Mineta noted that telecommuting offers a work flexibility and management tool that can

assist all of us in better managing our work, personal, and community lives. The goal is to reap the benefits of telecommuting without

diminishing workplace efficiency or the work ethic of our employees.

In 2004, the Office of Personnel Management conducted a

telework survey of the DOT agencies. The survey tallied the number of personnel in each agency who are eligible to telecommute,

and how many actually do telecommute. Of the Department’s

57,000 employees, 46 percent are eligible for telecommuting. The

agencies with the highest rates of participation are the Federal

Transit Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration.

Fully 59 percent of the Transit employees are eligible, and of these

55 percent do participate. Federal Railroad employees are eligible

to the tune of 57 percent, and they telecommute at 54 percent of

that total.

Given its high participation rates, let me expand on the Federal

Railroad Administration program. The FRA field force of over 500

employees, geographically located in eight regions, oversees the

safety of a huge U.S. network of railroad lines. The nature of railroad safety inspector work demands spending little time in a traditional office setting. This made it logical to generate savings

45

through the telecommuting effort by closing field offices and reducing space in existing facilities.

FRA’s telecommuting policy covers all FRA employees. Participation is based on job content rather than job title, and each office

developed its own implementation plan.

Telecommuting has also been used in DOT by employees with

medical problems, for review of legal documents, for accounting

functions, amongst others.

Various DOT agencies provide users with the necessary equipment. Federal Motor Carriers supplies 802.11 wireless networking

for its border control offices. The Office of the CIO offers PC cards

for Internet connectivity. NHTSA, FAA, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and Railroads all supply

wireless cards on laptops for connecting to the Internet.

But much more work needs to be done to encourage telecommuting. Two particular barriers that have hindered its greater use are

expanding the technology base and management adoption of the

idea.

Regarding the technology base, we need to address the ability of

residential network services to provide sufficiently robust

connectivity for home-based teleworkers. While 67 percent of urban

and suburban residents have Internet access, much of that is dialup, which is quite slow for business purposes. Broadband access is

a necessary component to expand telework.

Security is another issue. Any telecommuting program must have

stringent requirements to protect government assets as networks

are opened up to accommodate the home-based workplace.

As for management adoption of telecommuting, we need to demonstrate not only that productivity does not suffer when employees

work from home, but that work efficiency and employee morale

benefit from such a transformation.

In summary, DOT has an effective telecommuting program in

place. It has increased the adoption of telecommuting while enabling eligible employees to perform their work effectively. Moreover, we expect adoption of telecommuting by employees and managers to grow further as broadband capabilities are extended. With

this additional connectivity, more employees will spend what used

to be their drive time as telework time.

This concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to respond to any

questions the subcommittee may have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matthews follows:]

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Matthews. We appreciate you being

here.

My first question, Mr. Matthews, is actually for you. We had testimony earlier regarding the transit—make sure I get the right

term—but the $105 amount for commuting costs. Is that an adequate amount? Should we be doing something else to help with

that?

Mr. MATTHEWS. The $105 transit benefit that is given to employees, or made available to employees, is a significant amount of

money for the transportation. A thought that occurs to me is that

providing high-speed connectivity to people for telecommuting may

be something that the committee would want to consider, and either amending the amount or including a provision that would

allow expenditure of those moneys to provide connectivity to

homes.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Moran had talked earlier about a fee—I am not

sure if this was the one he was referring to. Were you here earlier

for his testimony?

Mr. MATTHEWS. Yes, sir, I was.

Mr. PORTER. And he had suggested that we look at—I can’t remember the term. As far as the free parking as compared to telecommuting and telework? Can you tell me a little bit about that,

in your perspective?

Mr. MATTHEWS. As I recall, Mr. Moran mentioned the—allowing employees free parking somewhere with a $200 a month value, as

opposed to only providing $105 in transit benefit——

Mr. PORTER. If I may interrupt you, was he suggesting that is

almost encouraging more automobile travel? Or not?

Mr. MATTHEWS. Well, I think that is certainly a thought that is

behind his comment. I also inferred from that he may be alluding

to the fact that why would we not have transit benefit equal to the

free parking.

Mr. PORTER. And your feelings about that?

Mr. MATTHEWS. I do believe that additional moneys made available for telecommuting, whether it is through the Federal transit

benefit program or some other method, would be useful in helping

people connect their home at a high-speed level. Today’s computers

using heavy graphics at the presentation layer in essence require

high-speed connectivity. Usually that cost, at around $40 to $50 a

month, depending on the provider, is sometimes seen as prohibitive

when people can have dial-up for the regular connection fee to their

telephone.

Mr. PORTER. This is really a question for both of you gentlemen.

That has to do with, you know, the availability of the equipment

infrastructure for their home. Is there anything available now to

help—I know it was touched upon, but anything to help ensure offsite telework centers are available via their home? Is there something else—some things that we can be doing with their own facilities?

Mr. MATTHEWS. At the Department of Transportation the last

several years, we have been refreshing technology and moving

away from desk-side computers to laptops. That will allow employees to disconnect the device and to take it home so that they can

perform their functions from home using laptop. Not just from

54

home, I might add, but from anywhere where they can get

connectivity.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Green.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. OPM, both as an individual agency and as a promoter of telework throughout the government, does encourage and counsels agencies and employees to

make use of all available resources. I know one of the things that

we use at OPM is to use computers, as they turn over and a new

computer is bought, onto a disk to have that backup computer,

which is usually just as good as the replacement computer. We provide that to an employee to take home and fit it with the correct

software and the security software that is important to protect data

from corruption or from bugs and viruses.

Mr. PORTER. You know, I think I still have a 286 at home.

Mr. GREEN. I do, in the basement.

Mr. PORTER. Dial-up doesn’t make a whole lot of difference with

the equipment.

Are there any privacy challenges or—I guess, two questions. The

privacy question regarding the hard drives and what is in the

equipment in one, and if there are concerns with that. But No. 2,

is it easy for an employee to be able to get ahold of one of the older

computers if they so choose?

Mr. GREEN. Of course that depends upon the agency’s situation.

An overhauled computer is always available when an agency is

going through a cycle of updating their equipment, and then you

do have quite a few of those. Sometimes not so much. But computers last a long time. They really do. And employees and agencies

can use quite a bit of initiative to make telework work when they

are encouraged and want to do so.

Mr. PORTER. I am going to take this a step further. It really isn’t

related to telework. But there must be thousands of these computers around that have been replaced. Do we have a system, to your

knowledge, either one of you gentlemen, in the Federal Government to maybe provide some of these computers to schools and to

younger folks also that maybe would not normally have access to

computers? Is there something in place with the Federal Government?

Mr. MATTHEWS. The disposition of used or outdated equipment

does allow the Federal agency to donate them to schools. The Department of Transportation has for several years been involved in

supplying them to schools that have a need for outfitting of computer gear. Indeed, I think tomorrow I have another meeting for

that specific subject for a school, I believe in Pennsylvania.

Mr. PORTER. And again, this is off the subject, but on the issue

of technology, do you actually have a system in place that provides

for this or is it just whenever there’s enough computers around you

find a school that would like to use them? Or do you actually have

a system?

Mr. MATTHEWS. There is a process inside the Department. Needs

are identified and then we do what we can to accommodate them

based on the amount of inventory for surplus computers that is

available. You do have to go through the process. Again, there is

privacy, so you have to wipe disks clean, you have to make sure

55

the memory is clean, and then provide them outside the government.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Green.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that GSA has

a surplus property program for donating computers to schools and

similar organizations. But I defer to them on the specifics of that

program.

Mr. PORTER. That is OK. I just thought maybe off the top of your

head. I appreciate that.

Mr. Davis, any questions?

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Green, we have had witnesses testify that the Federal Government seemed to be lagging behind the private sector in the D.C.

area. As a matter of fact, there are some figures that suggest that

15 percent of the private-sector employees telecommute and 12 percent Federal Government. Would you say that the Federal Government has a functioning telecommuting program in place?

Mr. GREEN. Congressman, yes, I believe so. We collect statistics

each year on telework usage and availability in Federal agencies,

and every year the numbers are going up. Are they where they optimally could be? No. But they are going in the right direction, and

OPM has many programs. We are working very hard to assist Federal agencies to raise their telework numbers to the optimum advantage of both the agency and the employee.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So you are saying that OPM does play

a role in promoting the concept with other agencies?

Mr. GREEN. A very significant role, with our partners, GSA. Yes,

sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Would that be training, workshops, or

management or——

Mr. GREEN. All of those things. Yes, sir, we provide a training,

Web site-based training, we have a staff that goes and visits with

each agency—we visited 15 agencies in the past year—and discussed their specific needs and requirements, and work with them

to find solutions to those needs. We have training for managers as

well as for employees. We have ‘‘webinars.’’ We have a complete

Web site that has links to all sorts of information on telework, and

we collect statistics, an annual report on telework usage by agencies. And one final thing, by law there is required to be a telework

coordinator at each agency, and we meet with those telework coordinators four times a year. The last one, as I mentioned, was on

continuity of operations, and we had—I can’t remember exactly the

number, but about 80 or so agencies represented there.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Do we have data on the percentage of

Federal personnel that is eligible to be engaged in——

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir, we have numbers of eligible employees that

are eligible for telework as set by agency rules, and we collect information on the number of eligibles that do telework, yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Could you tell me what those show?

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir, I have that. But if I may, I would like to

be able to provide you a complete set of information for the record.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. OK. We would appreciate that.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you.

56

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Matthews, could I ask, the mass

transit benefit program, is this considered the same way any other

fringe benefit would be considered for an employee? That is, if your

salary is $37,000 and you get $105 for the mass transit benefit,

would that mean that your salary is—or your compensation is actually $38,000? Is that the way it works?

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Davis, I will get you the definitive answer.

I believe it is not included in your salary calculations for the tax

purposes. But I will get you the definitive answer. I don’t think

somebody considers it part of their salary when they get it, when

they apply for it and receive it.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And the purpose, really, is not to promote

telecommuting, I wouldn’t imagine, but to reduce congestion, to do

something else—I am saying to get some of the automobiles off the

highways, to get rid of some of the pollution.

Mr. MATTHEWS. I agree with you, sir. It is intended to alleviate

congestion, also get pollutants down. That is what its original intention was. Telecommuting, however, helps those that have to

come in to the office. Here on the Hill, you can’t miss a session,

you can’t telecommute to the session, certainly. And it would probably be nice if some of the rest of us stayed home and worked so

that it would be a faster trip in to the Capitol, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Probably they would prefer Members of

Congress stayed home permanently. [Laughter.]

Especially during the holiday season.

Do we have data—I mean, does everybody use this? How many

people are actually using it? Are there some people saying, well,

you know, I don’t want to ride the train, I will just continue to use

my traditional method of getting to and from work?

Mr. MATTHEWS. I can get you the numbers how many employees

of the Department of Transportation use the Federal transit benefit. It is a sizable percent of the population. After having arrived

downtown to work, I get off to get one of the SmartCards on the

Metro and rarely do I take my car out of the garage anymore. I

do use the card. I have never applied for transit benefit. I pay for

the trips myself. But a lot of employees do use it, and its intention

is to get cars off of the road, sir. And I will get you the information

for the record.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a great approach. As a matter of fact, I use the

train sometimes just to come in and back and forth to the airport.

I mean, especially during rush hours, I find that I can get from the

airport to my office faster using the Metro than I can taking a taxi

or waiting for somebody to pick me up. I think it makes an awful

lot of sense, and I would just like to know how many people actually are using it because I would like to encourage more to do so.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Davis. And thank you, gentlemen,

for being here today. Appreciate your testimony. And for all of

those witnesses, please note that your full statements will be entered into the record, with no objection.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you.

57

Mr. PORTER. Thank you.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Thank you.

Mr. PORTER. Now I invite up the third panel. Please note that

you will all be recognized for 5 minutes, and any fuller statements

you may wish will be entered into the record.

First, we will be hearing from Tom Calcagni, the managing director for public relations of the American Automobile Association

[AAA]. After Mr. Calcagni, we will hear from Mr. William Mularie,

chief executive officer of the Telework Consortium. Then we will be

pleased to hear from Mr. Steve O’Keeffe, executive director of the

Telework Exchange. Last but definitely not least, a good friend

mine from Las Vegas, Mr. Steve Hill, president/owner of Silver

State Materials.

So we will begin with Mr. Calcagni. Welcome. We appreciate you

being here today. You have approximately 5 minutes.

STATEMENTS OF THOMAS F. CALCAGNI, MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS, AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION; WILLIAM MULARIE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

TELEWORK CONSORTIUM; STEVE O’KEEFFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TELEWORK EXCHANGE; AND STEVEN D. HILL,

PRESIDENT, SILVER STATE MATERIALS

STATEMENT OF THOMAS CALCAGNI

Mr. CALCAGNI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. AAA appreciates your

invitation to appear today before this subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, the rapid rise in gasoline prices this year, as

noted by members of this subcommittee, has had an impact on all

of us, from those commuting to work to families planning vacations, from businesses dependent upon vehicle fleets to truckers

moving goods across our Nation. Part of the focus of today’s hearing is to understand whether the Federal Government is doing

enough to promote programs to encourage employees to use alternative methods of working or getting to work, such as public transit and telecommuting. AAA commends the subcommittee for exploring this important issue.

AAA strongly supports the use of public transportation. Many of

our AAA clubs throughout the country encourage members to use

public transit as a way to conserve fuel and to save money. In

AAA’s Washington, DC office, for example, almost half of our employees use public transportation to get to and from work. But the

fact remains that most people continue to commute to work using

a personal vehicle. According to the Daily Travel Quick Facts from

the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 9 out of 10 of us use a personal vehicle to get to and from work. And yet, despite this reliance

on personal vehicles for transportation to our jobs, only 15 percent

of the total daily driving trips in the United States involve commuting to work.

There is growing evidence that Americans are beginning to realize they can exercise greater control over the impact high gas

prices are having on their lives. A recent survey conducted by AAA

of northern California examined drivers’ attitudes about reliance

on gasoline and explored possible solutions. What the survey found

was quite revealing. While 8 out of 10 respondents believed the oil

58

companies, auto manufacturers and the Federal Government have

not done enough to help consumers reduce their reliance on gasoline, respondents also agree they personally could do more to reduce the amount of gasoline they use. Not surprisingly, however,

commuters say they feel most constrained when it comes to changing the amount they drive, while those using a vehicle for personal

or family reasons say they have more flexibility in reducing their

daily driving trips.

As a result of these findings, AAA of northern California recently

launched what it calls a Green Light Initiative intended to help

motorists make sense of all the new options available in alternative

fuels and in vehicles and to encourage the development of wise

transportation choices.

Other AAA clubs across the Nation also are taking steps to work

on this situation. For example, AAA southern New England is represented on the Rhode Island Transportation Advisory Council and

has long supported efforts to promote mass transit in that State.

And AAA Mid-Atlantic operates and sponsors two commuting-employee vanpools in conjunction with the Transportation Management Association of Delaware.

More broadly, AAA clubs across the country make available to

members and the public the AAA Gas Watchers Guide, which I understand you may have a copy of. Now, this encourages people to

reduce gasoline consumption by using public transportation when

feasible, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, maintaining their vehicles, and changing their driving behaviors.

Besides the information contained in the Gas Watchers Guide,

AAA also maintains three Web sites devoted to fuel information,

and many AAA clubs link to these sites from aaa.com. And I believe there is more information on these sites in my written testimony.

Mr. Chairman, AAA believes that while more flexible options for

commuting are desirable, the choices we all make about how we

drive and what we drive, how we maintain our vehicles, how we

plan our driving chores—every trip, every time—ultimately will

have the most impact on reducing gasoline consumption.

Moreover, as AAA has stated previously in testimony to Congress, this Nation needs a thoughtful energy policy that not only

addresses supply issues, but also encourages actions and policies

that help to encourage conservation. We need to explore impediments to gasoline supplies, such as reducing the number of socalled boutique fuel blends, but we need to do so without compromising our clean-air goals. And we need to support the development and use of more fuel-efficient vehicles and alternative fuels

to help ensure future supplies of energy for the health, safety, and

prosperity of the American people.

Again, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Davis, AAA appreciates this opportunity to share our views on this important issue with the subcommittee, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calcagni follows:]

59

60

61

62

63

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Calcagni. We appreciate your testimony.

Also, for those that are here for the first time, please note that

Members will be coming and going and many have other meetings.

But all of your statements will be included in the record for our future deliberations.

Again, thank you very much.

Mr. Mularie, welcome.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MULARIE

Mr. MULARIE. I also thank you, Chairman Porter and members

of the subcommittee, for this opportunity to testify on this very important issue.

I represent the Telework Consortium. We are a nonprofit Virginia corporation, government-funded through a grant from the Department of Commerce. Our grant is to promote the practice of

telework, principally through pilot demonstrations using advance

telecommunications technology.

Now, some of the observations I will give to you up front. I think

we all agree that the costs associated with commuting by car for

Federal and other workers, in this area in particular, are at very

critical levels. What we are talking, really, about are families in

crises. But I suggest that the high fuel cost is one of the many cost

factors that should cause us to question the relevance of the commuter model—as Congressman Wolf said, leaving home in the

morning, strapping yourself in a metal box, and going to a place,

and then repeating that at night.

What we in the Telework Consortium believe is this fundamental

commuter model has to change and change in the direction of a distributed entity, whether it be a government agency or corporations.

The model that we are currently following, the commuter model, is

really rooted in the industrial age and is increasingly costly—as

this committee has brought out, not only in dollars but also, as

Congressman Wolf said, in terms of family structure and increasing

our vulnerability with respect to continuity of operations.

As an old physicist, I like to do sort of calculations to see what

we are doing in terms of cost and the affordability of what we are

talking about here. So if you will bear with me, I just want to run

briefly through some costs.

A commuter who drives a mid-size car and commutes, let’s say,

20 miles each way a day, assuming a 20-mile-per-gallon average in

this automobile, and let’s assume that he or she drives 75,000

miles over 5 years, using the AAA numbers, actually, for depreciation, insurance, and such, with gas at $1.25 a gallon, this commuter pays about $6,400 a year to commute for the purpose of

going to and from work. With gas at $3 a gallon, it is about $7,300

a year. And with free gas, if you gave them free gas, it would be

about $5,500 a year.

The conclusions are the relative fixed costs of depreciation, insurance, license, maintenance, as well as gasoline, are really hurting

us greatly. But gasoline happens to be the one that is most visible.

That display on the gas pump, we can’t really get away from that

and it really demands immediate satisfaction. And if one could

imagine a total cost pump, where when we fill up with gas we

64

would also collect the amortized cost of the other cost components,

then your mid-week fill-up would be probably like $180 a fill-up.

But what I want to do in terms of a simple calculation is look

at the affordability of this commuting action. If you have a GS–12

in government who makes about $65,000 a year, 23 percent Federal tax rate, 9 percent State, takes home about $750 to $800 a

week, at $1.25 a gallon, this Federal worker takes over 2 months

of his net pay to pay for the commuting, just the action of commuting—2 months pay to go to and from work. And at $3 a gallon, it

takes about 21⁄2 months.

So our conclusion, anyway, is the crux of the problem is that

commuting by car to and from a workplace is the problem, that

there is nothing one can do to mediate that. So obviously the

Telework Consortium is focused on telework as a solution set for

this.

Now, there was some discussion in terms of what is happening

in the commercial market versus the government. What we have

done in the Telework Consortium in our funding of several pilots

is work both with government—local government, Federal Government—and small companies in a different vision of the workplace

in that the work is done by people in different physical locations

using PC-based multimedia software connected over the public

Internet.

And I just want to show you one work product. This magazine

was made by a publisher in Loudoun County, where their people

did not see each other. This was done completely over the Internet

with multimedia software in terms of the creation, editing, and

publishing.

So this is serious stuff. This means that you can in fact run a

company without commuting to a place. And we are working very

closely with our Loudoun County government. Their Budget Department, for example, they have people spread over 100 miles and

they are using these multimedia telecommunications assets to do

work differently.

So those are my comments. I would be happy to answer any

questions. Thank you.

Mr. MICA [presiding]. Thank you. And I a guess we will defer till

we have heard from all the panelists.

The next panelist is Steve O’Keeffe. And Mr. Steve O’Keeffe is

executive director of Telework Exchange. Welcome, sir, and you are

recognized.

STATEMENT OF STEVE O’KEEFFE

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking

Member, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Steve O’Keeffe and I am the

executive director of the Telework Exchange.

The Telework Exchange is a public-private partnership focused

on increasing awareness and adoption of telework in the Federal

Government. The organization concentrates on demonstrating the

tangible value of Federal telework initiatives, serving the emerging

education and communications requirements of the Federal community, as well as measuring Federal agencies’ progress against

telework requirements.

65

Federal employees that register on the Telework Exchange Web

site are provided a series of free services, including the ability to

calculate their personal commuting costs and telework savings.

Today the Telework Exchange has more than 3,500 Federal employee members. We utilize the non-personal registration information from the Telework Exchange members to construct our data

models. Federal commuting costs and telework benefit calculators

appear on our Web page at www.teleworkexchange.com, and we

poll our members as a sample for our studies. In addition, the

Telework Exchange publishes a monthly magazine, the Teleworker,

which focuses on the issues of Federal telework.

We are here today to demonstrate the effect of high gas prices

on the Federal work force. The gasoline price hikes of September

2005 drove a real income salary reduction of $526.25 for the average Federal employee. The increases drove a 42.6 percent increase

in America’s commuting costs. Importantly, we are here to underscore the fact that agencies need to accelerate their initiatives to

build out robust telework programs to reduce the unnecessary commuting cost burden on Federal employees. Progress in this area

has been too slow. Progress in this area will return significant dividends to the Federal Government as it struggles with recruiting

and retention challenges.

As Representative Davis noted in his opening remarks, the government faces issues on two fronts: retaining experienced knowledge workers and recruiting generation Y professionals to replace

retiring personnel. These challenges are compounded by the complex logistics driven by the DOD transformation as manifest in the

Base Realignment and Closure [BRAC] roadmap. Looking specifically at the Washington, DC area, BRAC promises to heap new

misery on the Nation’s Capitol area’s already congested roadways.

While I am here today to speak specifically about the impact of

increasing gasoline prices on Federal employees, I would like to

point to other profound benefits of telework for the Federal Government. Telework has critical implications for the Federal Government’s continuity of operations preparedness. Recent natural catastrophes and pressing concerns about man-made and pandemic

threats mean that mainstream America is now very focused on understanding how our government is prepared to address disaster

situations. As referenced in the April 28th Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives oversight hearing, ‘‘Who’s

Watching the COOP,’’ telework is a central plank in agencies’ Continuity of Operations Planning.

As noted earlier, we are here today to discuss the implications

of telework for the average Federal employee who routinely travels

the 63 miles round trip to and from work each and every day.

Telework presents employees with a convenient, productive alternative to commuting.

Based on the Department of Energy statistics, East Coast gasoline prices surged from $2.14 per gallon in April to $3.05 in September. The increased urgency to reduce the burden of high gasoline prices on the work force has pushed telework to the forefront

as an imperative operating model for the Federal Government as

well as the American labor force at large. These realities drove the

Telework Exchange to generate a recent study entitled, ‘‘Fuel

66

Smart Economy: It’s No Gas.’’ The study is based on responses

from Telework Exchange Federal employee members who travel

the average 63 miles a day to and from work and drive vehicles

that consume approximately 1 gallon of gasoline per 271⁄2 miles

traveled.

Based on the study results, the total Federal Government work force spent $13.3 million on gasoline to commute each day in April.

Driven by increased gas prices, this daily total surged to $19 million in September. This represents an increase of $526.25 in gasoline costs per annum for the average Federal employee commuting

on the roadways. Please keep in mind, this is a representation of

gasoline costs alone. This does not factor wear and tear on car, tolls

and parking, maintenance, insurance, or any factors that are built

into the Telework Exchange calculators as they contribute to total

cost of commuting.

To illustrate the impact of rising gasoline prices on Federal employee income, let me give you an example. A Federal employee at

Grade 8, Step 4 pay level makes $37,263 per annum. In April 2005,

that employee traveled the average 63-mile round trip, bought gasoline at $2.14 a gallon, and spent $1,235 per annum on gasoline

alone, representing 4.73 percent of the Federal employee’s after-tax

income. Based on gasoline price increases in September, with an

identical commute that same Grade 8, Step 4 Federal employee

spent $1,761.25 per annum on gasoline alone.

Telework offers myriad opportunities for Federal employees, the

government, as well as the U.S. work force. Based on numbers

from the Telework Exchange, Federal employees commute an average of 63 miles a day to and from work and spend $526.25 more

due to the increase in gasoline prices that took effect in September.

The Telework Exchange today released a new study, ‘‘No Free

Ride,’’ focused on telework awareness and total commuting financial as well as opportunity costs in the Federal Government. By

teleworking 3 days a week, the average Federal employee would

get an average of $6,348 annually back in his or her wallet. Please

note, this factor figures the total cost of commuting, not merely

gasoline prices. The study reveals that Americans spend more time

a year in commuting than on vacation. With average savings of an

hour per day, full-time teleworkers can earn an MBA 35 percent

faster, read 25 books a year, clean out 83 closets, or train for a

marathon with the time saved by not commuting.

I would close by underlining the Federal Government must embrace the benefits of telework and focus efforts on removing an unnecessary financial burden on employees if it is to achieve success

in recruiting and retaining the best and brightest, conserving energy and gasoline, as well as realizing robust business continuity

preparedness.

I would like to recognize and applaud the General Services Administration for its leadership and initiative in the telework arena.

Specifically I would like to recognize Mr. Wendell Joice, Stan

Kaczmarczyk, Billy Michael, and the Office of Governmentwide Policy for its proactivity and pragmatism in this area.

While the cost of our government’s failure to act is significant to

the Federal work force, the broader costs associated with insufficient Continuity of Operations Planning are more profound. The

67

time is now to make telework a mainstream operating practice for

the Federal Government.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy

to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Keeffe follows:]

68

69

70

71

72

73

Mr. MICA. I want to thank you for your testimony.

We will hear from our last witness, Mr. Steve Hill, and he is

president of Silver State Materials. Welcome. You are recognized

for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN D. HILL

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

It is an honor to be here today.

Chairman Porter asked me to come and speak today and provide

some link to this conversation to the private sector, so my comments are in a completely different vein than most of the people

who have spoken here today. They are also somewhat different in

that I come from the construction industry, and most construction

industry jobs do not lend themselves well to teleworking. Some do,

and I think some strides have been made in those areas.

I am the chairman of government affairs for the Associated

Builders and Contractors and the Associated General Contractors,

and also the incoming chairman of government affairs for the Las

Vegas Chamber of Commerce. So I have some standing to speak for

the general business community.

In my written testimony I have outlined some information about

the effects on my company. We are in the concrete and sand and

gravel business. We run about 110 large trucks, several dozen

smaller vehicles, some heavy equipment. We buy approximately

140,000 gallons of fuel a month. Our suppliers, in order to get the

materials that we use in concrete to us, use a very similar amount

of fuel for that transportation.

So the ultimate fuel price impact on our company is basically

doubled. We would have that opportunity to pass that on to our

customers, but in reality they can’t really pass that on to their customers downstream, so we have chosen not to do that this year.

The effect on our company, the difference between the actual fuel

price that we will pay and the budgeted fuel price that we went

into the year at will be about $2.2 million, or about $11,000 per

employee that we have. Which is a pretty significant number.

Also, I would like to point out that our ability to budget fuel costs

is abysmal. And I think most businesses have that problem. So my

first recommendation would be if there is information that can

come from the Federal Government—I realize fuel costs are very

difficult to budget, but I am sure the Federal Government does—

it may have the ability to help business plan ahead. Certainly one

of our biggest problems with fuel costs from a business standpoint

is not being able to anticipate what may happen in the future.

Now, obviously, when you have natural disasters, that is not a predictable event. But help in thinking about where fuel costs are

headed would be helpful.

I certainly will not read the testimony on how this affects our

company. The summary, I think, will do. But obviously, we are a

very fuel-dependent industry. That will affect different businesses

differently. But it certainly has had a big impact on businesses and

is a hardship.

For our employees’ standpoint, they are in a tough situation. It

does hit them hard. It is not an easy industry to telecommute. It

is not even an easy industry in order to ride mass transit, because

74

the construction industry works at various sites. Typically, those

sites are not well-served by mass transit. So our employees have

a difficult time adapting when these situations arise.

We operate out of seven locations in southern Nevada and we

have recently provided our employees an opportunity to move,

transfer to different locations in order to be closer to their home.

We have also tried to encourage ride-sharing, when that is possible.

Our original transportation commission in Clark County has a program that they call Club Ride, that combines several of these functions. And many organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce, are promoting and advertising and providing information on

many of the topics that have been spoken about earlier here today.

I believe most of the business community would ask that Congress show restraint in trying to have a direct impact on the cost

of fuel. On the other hand, I think—and we have talked about alternatives here today. Making those alternatives available is important and people need those types of alternatives. We have

talked about several today. I have some others that I would like

to use the rest of my time just to bring onto the record.

Rail capacity in the Southwest, and maybe across the country, is

basically used. Our industry trucks substantial amounts of materials across State lines, long distances that are appropriate for rail

use, but there is no rail capacity left. Anything that could be done

to increase rail capacity would help the highway situation immensely, would really lower the usage of fuel.

Alternative fuels have been mentioned. And obviously, we have

made strides. We need to make further strides, especially in infrastructure.

On the heavy equipment side of things, because the effects on engines are not well-known, if we use alternative fuels in our engines

we lose the warranty on those engines. So any help that Congress

could give in working with those heavy engine equipment manufacturers would certainly speed the process of fuel conversion in heavy

equipment.

Workforce housing is an issue in most communities. It has certainly been an issue in our community of Las Vegas. And it is exacerbated in Las Vegas because the Federal Government owns virtually all the land outside of our valley. Bedroom communities are

springing up in the nearest possible locations, but they are 50 and

60 miles away. In fact, I saw this morning that PBS is running a

special about one of those communities just this evening. That community is 60 miles north of the nearest job. And having communities that only provide a place for people to have an affordable

house but don’t afford the jobs that go along with that certainly is

a problem.

Our community has embraced mixed use and transit-oriented development, but the West has typically been built to the scale of the

automobile. It is an evolutionary process. It is a difficult process in

those types of communities, and it will be difficult for Las Vegas

to go through that. Mixed use ordinances, though, Congressman

Moran asked earlier if Las Vegas basically had a predilection for

density. It has actually been the opposite in the West. And that is

slowly shifting, but that shift needs to be embraced.

75

Weight restrictions on vehicles may be something that could be

looked at. Some increase in the maximum width of vehicles would

increase productivity. The heavy equipment certainly is a major

contributor to highway use. I don’t know what the math is on that.

But it may make sense as an alternative to allow heavy trucking

companies to haul higher weights and pay for that. It provides

more productivity for those organizations as well as better fuel utilization, and it does cut down on congestion.

With that, I will conclude my remarks and be happy to answer

any questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Hill. I appreciate your being here,

coming a long way from the dry desert to the heavy rains we are

having. You probably brought it with you, right?

Mr. HILL. No, but it is a nice change. Thank you.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you.

I am going to pick on you for a moment, Steve. Again, appreciate

your being here. You are active in the community and, as you mentioned, from the builders organizations to the Chamber of Commerce. And as we look at—the Federal Government—impacts on

the cost of fuel to the expense not only for the individual that is

employed by the Federal Government but also the government as

a whole, when we look at individual economies that are impacted,

not only the Federal Government, economies like Nevada, are dependent upon the automobile. What do you see happening from our

tourism base in Nevada in that close to half if not more travel to

Nevada via automobile? Has there been a change in the amount of

visitors? What is the Chamber seeing in the impact on tourism in

Nevada?

Mr. HILL. Well, there have been different projections of what will

happen with the price of fuel going up. There was an article in the

Las Vegas paper just yesterday—I think it was yesterday—talking

about the reluctance of people from California to come to Nevada

because of the cost of fuel. That is starting to show up. There have

been some reports and projections that tourism from California

may drop as much as, I believe, 45 percent, which the gaming industry disputes.

So I am sure it will have an impact. But the cost of fuel, obviously, over the last 6 weeks has also gone down, and that will certainly help.

Mr. PORTER. Understanding that your professional background is

in the construction industry but also as an entrepreneur, what

would you suggest that Congress do to help additional encouragement for the private sector to possibly doing more telework? And

I know not specific to your industry but to business as a whole. Are

there some things you would suggest that we look at to expand this

more so in the private sector?

Mr. HILL. Well, I think that education is important to start with.

I think there are businesses out there that really haven’t considered the topic and how to make that work. Someone earlier talked

about capacity in order to do that. In many cases, people at home

didn’t have the capacity to telework until the last 2 or 3 years. The

broadband capability just wasn’t there. We have talked about the

last mile for several years, and until recently that last mile has not

been all that fast. If you can work in a confined environment at

home, that is great. But if you need the capacity to tap in to a network, any help along those lines, I think, would be great.

And off the top of my head, those are the two things.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, your testimony is quite sobering. As a matter of fact,

it is frightening to some degree. I mean, to think, Mr. Mularie, I

mean, to think a person who actually may earn $65,000 a year

could be paying or spending 2 months of their take-home pay just

83

to get to and from work. And then I guess, when you add all of the

taxes in that one has to pay to participate, you know, as a citizen,

it does become frightening, in a sense.

And so this business of finding a solution to the transportation

cost, especially where it is driven by the price of gasoline, what do

each one of you, any one of you, think that we really need to do?

I mean, telecommuting obviously is one approach. I mean, that is

one thing, to the extent that we can really get that off the ground

and find the numbers of employees who can actually make use of

it. But then, obviously, as in your industry, a majority of the people

who work in that industry obviously will not be able to do it.

So what do you suggest that we really do?

Mr. MULARIE. If I could answer first, Congressman Davis. You

heard two of our speakers, Mr. Matthews and Mr. Hill, mention

broadband, access to broadband. The world is not going to change

for us in terms of our current conundrum on commuting until we

have access to broadband ubiquitously in this country. That is No.

1.

And I was sort of smiling at Congressman Wolf’s answer when

you asked the very same question in terms of some of the barriers.

And some of the barriers are people my age, sir, in that I remember my father getting up at 4:30 every morning with a lunch pail

and a coffee and going to a place was how you worked. And my

people in the Telework Consortium have said, Bill, it is OK if we

have this meeting when you are at the coffee shop and get on the

WiFi and we would have our meetings. So there is a real change

in culture in the definition of work.

Mr. CALCAGNI. If I may suggest sort of the opposite side of the

high-tech solution. There are things, very simple things, that we

can do in this country to reduce our reliance on gasoline. And they

are as simple as convincing people to think a little bit about the

type of vehicle that they are buying, making sure that their vehicle

is operating properly, because a properly tuned vehicle will run

much, much more efficiently, and suggest that people give a little

bit more thought to their actual driving behaviors, not just—you

know, and I suspect we have all been guilty at one time or another

of running to the store and thinking, gee, I really should have gone

to the drugstore while I was out getting that loaf of bread and then

we will run back out. If we think in terms of that behavior and also

if we simply obey speed limits and we simply avoid jackrabbit stops

and starts and those types of things, these very low-tech solutions

can have a very, very large impact on the amount of gasoline we

use.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. You have hit upon a subject that I think

needs a great deal of additional exploration. Perhaps not only

should there be some more hearings, but maybe we are going to

have to have some conferences and different approaches and different things to really help the American public understand how

much of an issue this really is.

So again, I thank all of our witnesses for coming, and I certainly

want to commend and thank you for calling this hearing.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Appreciate that. And if there

is—Mr. O’Keeffe, were you going to say something on the last, or

Mr. Hill? Any comments?

84

Thank you very much. It is frightening, and I appreciate your

comments, Mr. Davis. I think that we have become very spoiled

and we take a lot of things for granted. And I think that the recent

challenges that we have had from Katrina and other natural disasters, the war on terrorism, the impact of having the bulk of our exploration—which I believe is a different definition than my friend

and colleague is talking about—from oil, and being dependent upon

foreign oil, all these things tie into an economy and a country that

we have taken a lot of things for granted. And I speak as a Member of Congress from the Western United States. Mr. Hill alluded

to it, that we certainly are spoiled in the West, because we actually

judge distance not by miles but by time. When you can drive, you

know, 500 miles up the State of Nevada from southern Nevada to

northern Nevada, or from California to Las Vegas, or from Las

Vegas to Phoenix, we like to be able to drive our vehicle. And we

are not accustomed to even some of the challenges that we have

here in the East as far as getting around and, actually, from parking. We have free parking in Nevada, and we pride ourselves on

that. And we don’t have to pay in advance for parking in Nevada

because we encourage visitors.

But it is going to take a whole mindset. We in the West have not

embraced the degree of public transit as we do here in the East because we have always had lots of space, lots of land. So it is a cultural change.

I look forward to additional meetings, Mr. Davis, and thank you

for being a part of this, and the rest of the committee.

I would like to note that Members have an additional 5 days to

provide information without objection, to provide any additional

questions. And you may expect to have some followup from other

Members that aren’t here today.

Again, we thank you all for being here, and I would like to adjourn the meeting.

[Whereupon, at 4:53 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

85

86

87

88

Æ