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

86–064 PDF 2003

ENSURING COORDINATION, REDUCING REDUNDANCY: A REVIEW OF OMB’S FREEZE ON IT

SPENDING AT HOMELAND SECURITY AGENCIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND

PROCUREMENT POLICY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

OCTOBER 1, 2002

Serial No. 107–186

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

DAVE WELDON, Florida

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

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

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

——— ———

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES C. WILSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND PROCUREMENT POLICY

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

STEPHEN HORN, California

DOUG OSE, California

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JIM TURNER, Texas

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

——— ———

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

VICTORIA PROCTOR, Professional Staff Member

MARK STEPHENSON, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on October 1, 2002 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Willemssen, Joel, Managing Director, Information Technology Issues,

GAO; Mark Forman, E-Government and Information Technology Administrator, OMB; Patrick R. Schambach, Chief Information Officer,

Transportation Security Administration, U.S. DOT; S.W. ‘‘Woody’’ Hall,

Jr., Chief Information Officer, U.S. Customs Service; Sandra Bates,

Commissioner, Federal Technology Service, GSA; and Enny DiPentima,

president, SRA Consulting and Systems Integration, Information Technology Association of America ..................................................................... 7

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

Bates, Sandra, Commissioner, Federal Technology Service, GSA, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 46

Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia:

Briefing memo ........................................................................................... 64

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

DiPentima, Enny, president, SRA Consulting and Systems Integration,

Information Technology Association of America, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 52

Forman, Mark, E-Government and Information Technology Administrator, OMB, prepared statement of ............................................................ 26

Hall, S.W. ‘‘Woody’’, Jr., Chief Information Officer, U.S. Customs Service,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 40

Schambach, Patrick R., Chief Information Officer, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. DOT, prepared statement of ............................. 35

Willemssen, Joel, Managing Director, Information Technology Issues,

GAO, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 9

(1)

ENSURING COORDINATION, REDUCING REDUNDANCY: A REVIEW OF OMB’S FREEZE

ON IT SPENDING AT HOMELAND SECURITY

AGENCIES

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND PROCUREMENT

POLICY,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

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

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis of Virginia

(chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia and Turner.

Staff present: Melissa Wojciak, staff director; Victoria Proctor

and Teddy Kidd, professional staff members; George Rogers and

John Brosnan, counsels; Mark Stephenson, minority professional

staff member; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Good morning.

Before we begin today’s hearing, I want to take just a moment

to remember our dear friend and colleague, Representative Patsy

Mink, who passed away this weekend. Representative Mink faithfully served the 2nd District of Hawaii in the House of Representatives for 26 years, from 1964 to 1976, and from 1990 to 2002. She

was an unquestioned leader on women’s issues. Congresswoman

Mink played a pivotal role in authorizing Title IX, the Federal

Education Act of 1972. She wasn’t afraid of breaking down barriers

and pursuing new career challenges. As the Washington Post

noted, ‘‘She was known for her achievement of firsts.’’

She had been a loyal member of the Committee on Government

Reform since 1990. Representative Mink was a valued member of

the subcommittee and she demonstrated great leadership in the

complex issues of Federal sourcing policy and intellectual property.

She was a tireless advocate for Federal employees and for ensuring

the transparency and accountability of the Federal Government.

Her presence in the subcommittee will be missed.

At this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers go out to her

family and friends, along with her constituents in the 2nd District.

Mr. Turner.

Mr. TURNER. It is indeed with sadness that we convene this

meeting of our subcommittee of which Patsy Mink was a member.

Clearly she was a very well respected Member of this House. As

the chairman stated, she was a strong advocate for her causes on

2

behalf of women, on behalf of education, on behalf of those who

were in need of many of the services Government provides.

Patsy Mink was a Member of this House for 12 terms. She died

at the age of 74. We all will miss her. There was none more active

on behalf of the causes she believed in than Patsy Mink. It is indeed with sadness that we begin today in memory of our colleague,

Patsy Mink.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. We would like to welcome everyone

to today’s oversight hearing on the Office of Management and

Budget’s freeze on information technology spending for the seven

agencies going into the new Department of Homeland Security.

This freeze is commendable. When it comes to protecting homeland

security, we need to make sure we are not simply sending money

out the door and spending more money, we need to spend money

on what works. Making the new department work will require a

careful examination of IT redundancies and system consolidation at

individual agencies that are going to be merged into the Department of Homeland Security.

In the past, the subcommittee has been concerned that there has

been tremendous push for additional IT spending in homeland security agencies without assuring appropriate management or accountability for these projects. This temporary freeze should allow

the Federal Government to ensure spending will yield the necessary return on investment for the taxpayers who are paying the

bills.

Systems integration and consolidation among the agencies moving into the newly established Department of Homeland Security

is a critical lynchpin for the overall success of the agency. Overcoming cultural and technological barriers to facilitate timely information sharing will help our Nation avoid future terrorist attacks.

While there has been frustration that many of these projects

have not gotten underway in a more timely manner immediately

following the events of September 11, 2001, it is essential that additional IT spending include sound business planning to ensure effective deployment of homeland security solutions. OMB has taken

the first step to ensure that is the case. The subcommittee would

like to understand whether this type of review process will continue within the new Department of Homeland Security.

As you know, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5005,

legislation that would establish a new Department of Homeland

Security, in July and the Senate is currently considering a similar

legislative proposal. In response to the anticipated completion of

congressional action to establish a new department, OMB directed

applicable Federal agencies to temporarily cease planned information technology infrastructure, financial management, procurement

and human services projects over $500,000, pending a review by an

investment review group led by OMB and the Office of Homeland

Security. To assist this review groups, affected agencies are to submit to OMB information on their planned investments in these

areas this month.

Currently, seven agencies are affected by this freeze. They are

the Coast Guard, FEMA, the U.S. Customs Service, the Transportation Security Administration, INS, the Secret Service, and the

3

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. OMB has stated that

it is reviewing nearly $1.4 billion in proposed spending for those

agencies to determine which projects should be halted and which

will be allowed to go forward.

Moreover, OMB has suggested that project consolidation has the potential to save the Federal taxpayers a minimum of $100 to $200

million. OMB has established an investment review group that is

evaluating spending by impacted agencies and determining when

planned investments should go forward. The subcommittee would

like to gain a better understanding of how the investment review

group is making determinations on proposed IT projects.

I look forward to hearing testimony today from our Government

witnesses on the overall impact of the freeze to date and the longterm impact of the freeze, particularly on meeting congressionally

mandated deadlines for certain IT project improvements. For instance, the INS Entry/Exit Visa Program is one of the solicitations

that is impacted by the freeze. What impact will this delay have

on meeting congressional deadlines?

Additionally, TSA is here with us today to share how and why

their IT infrastructure project is going forward while they are also

planning to be transferred to the new Department.

I am hopeful we will gain a better understanding of the operation

of the investment review group and the role of OMB in the Office

of Homeland Security. Additionally, I am eager to hear comments

from OMB and the agencies on the quality of the business planning

documents they are submitting for review.

I am hopeful that the agencies are mindful of moving forward on

IT modernizations with the goal of better integration of programs

to ensure that we will be successful in winning the war against terrorism.

The subcommittee will hear testimony from Joel Willemssen of

GAO; Mark Forman from the Office of Management and Budget;

Pat Shambach from the Transportation Security Administration;

Sandra Bates from the Federal Technology Service of the GSA;

Woody Hall from the Customs Service; and Mr. Renny DiPentima,

President of SRA Consulting and Systems Integration Service, testifying on behalf of the Information and Technology Association of

America.

I will now yield to Representative Turner for an opening statement.

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

4

5

6

7

Mr. TURNER. I look forward to hearing from all our witnesses. On

its face a freeze of this nature would seem to be appropriate in

light of the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security

but, on the other hand, oftentimes actions like this can result in

unnecessary delays. Clearly, it is critical to the new Department of

Homeland Security to ensure that all of its IT infrastructure is

properly planned and coordinated. I would assume that is the

major objective in mind with this freeze.

We look forward to hearing from the GAO who has looked at this

proposal, as well as from each of our witnesses who will be involved in trying to assure the IT infrastructure is fully molded together in our new Department of Homeland Security.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. We will call our panel of witnesses

to testify, Mr. Willemssen, Mr. Forman, Mr. Schambach, Ms. Bates,

Mr. Hall, and Mr. DiPentima. As you know, it is the policy of this

committee that all witnesses be sworn before they testify. If you

could stand and raise your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. To ensure sufficient time for questioning, try to limit yourselves to no more than 5 minutes. Your

total statements will be made a part of the record.

Mr. Willemssen, thank you for being with us this morning.

STATEMENTS OF JOEL WILLEMSSEN, MANAGING DIRECTOR,

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ISSUES, GAO; MARK FORMAN,

E-GOVERNMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATOR, OMB; PATRICK R. SCHAMBACH, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, USDOT; S.W. ‘‘WOODY’’ HALL, JR., CHIEF INFORMATION

OFFICER, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE; SANDRA BATES, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICE, GSA; RENNY

DIPENTIMA, PRESIDENT, SRA CONSULTING AND SYSTEMS

INTEGRATION, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION

OF AMERICA

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Thank you for inviting GAO to testify today.

As requested, I will briefly summarize our statement.

Overall, integrating the diverse information systems of the many

organizations expected to be a part of the proposed Department of

Homeland Security would be an enormous undertaking. The information technology challenges would include establishing an effective IT management organization, implementing appropriate security controls, instituting mature systems acquisition development

and operational practices, and addressing human capital issues.

Among the near term challenges is developing an enterprise architecture. Managed properly, enterprise architectures can clarify

and help optimize the interdependencies and interrelationships

among operations and the underlying IT infrastructure and applications. Work we published earlier this year showed that agencies’

use of enterprise architectures was a work in progress with much

left to be accomplished. OMB has recognized the importance of architectures and has reported it is in the process of defining such

a framework for creating a national enterprise architecture for

homeland security.

8

Another near term challenge is establishing and enforcing a disciplined IT investment management process for the proposed new

department. OMB has also reported that it is working on this particular issue.

As part of tackling the IT challenges facing the proposed department, in July OMB issued the two memos that you mentioned earlier to affected agencies telling them to cease temporarily new IT

infrastructure and business system investments above $500,000

pending a review of investment plans and to identify and submit

information to OMB on any current or planned spending on these

types of initiative. This information is expected to assist in the administration’s transition planning for the proposed department.

OMB’s memos do not mean that the work is to be stopped on all

IT infrastructure and business system projects at affected agencies.

First, the memos only pertain to funding for new development and

modernization efforts and not to existing systems using operations

and maintenance funding. Second, the cessation does not apply to

funds pertaining to a development or acquisition contract that have

already been obligated. Third, agencies can request an expedited

review and approval to proceed if they have an emergency or critical need. As of last week, we are aware of three such emergency

requests that have all been approved.

However, at this time, it is not possible to assess the full effect

of the memos on selected agencies. OMB officials told us that except for those three emergency requests, the investment groups reviewing agency submissions have not yet taken action on them because neither they nor OMB have completed review of the documents.

In addition, OMB officials told us that OMB is not tracking

whether or to what extent agencies have halted spending or altered

system plans as a result of the July memos, although they stated

that savings from actions would be tracked in the future.

In reviewing the submissions to OMB, we did identify one agency, FEMA, that reported it plans to put on hold all initiatives related to two of its major projects.

In summary, OMB is acting to deal with some of the major IT

challenges to be faced in transitioning to the proposed department.

We look forward to seeing the results of these actions.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes summary of my statement and I

would be pleased to address any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Willemssen follows:]

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much.

Mr. Forman.

Mr. FORMAN. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss

homeland security IT investments. My remarks will focus on recent

administration steps taken to ensure that IT investments support

the homeland security mission and are appropriately integrated in

order to leverage technology for mission effectiveness while preventing redundant investments and wasted resources.

The national strategy for homeland security emphasizes that effective use of IT must accelerate response time but time to detect

and respond to potential threats and second, improve decisionmaking, making the right decisions at the right time. A modern IT

infrastructure is vital to ensuring we successfully meet these and

other homeland security goals.

The key principles for unifying an IT infrastructure include the

use of effective IT investment management techniques to accelerate

deployment, reduce risk and achieve mission goals; reduce redundant and siloed IT investments; and take maximum advantage of

economies of scale.

Business as usual will not enable us to meet our homeland security goals. As GAO has noted, we need a comprehensive review of

IT investment which is being conducted as described in my written

statement. In July OMB issued two memoranda as a first step toward better integration of IT infrastructure by using available

funds to deploy the highest quality technologies while providing an

opportunity to save taxpayers millions.

The scope of the memoranda include IT infrastructure and business management systems such as financial management, HR and

procurement systems. The memoranda do not affect steady State

spending needed to maintain operations, nor do they affect mission

IT investments such as the entry/exit project you mentioned in

your opening statement.

The intent of the memoranda is to ensure that modern investments are successful and prevent redundant investments and

wasteful spending. The memoranda identify homeland security IT

investment review entities and processes.

First, in response to an emergency request from an agency in accordance with the guidance in the memoranda, OMB and the IT Investment Review Group provide a quick response to the requesting

agency after conducting rapid review.

A second type of review focuses on larger IT investment issues.

It is this type of review that we expect the group to provide most

of the recommendations regarding consultation, integration and

elimination of siloed or redundant IT investments.

For example, the Transportation Security Administration to meet

its mission has a business need for network infrastructure at airports. However, INS, Customs, FAA and other agencies have already built and deployed telecommunications networks that would

likely be redundant with the newly created TSA network. An initial

assessment found that existing homeland security component agencies plan to spend $257 million in fiscal year 2003 on IT infrastructure that will support networks at airports. Clearly there are multiple opportunities for homeland security-related agencies to better

leverage IT investments so that TSA will not have to build its own

25

telecommunications network and homeland security workers can

easily communicate with each other traditional organizational

boundaries.

In taking this action, OMB is fulfilling its responsibilities under

Section 5113 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 to issue clear and

concise direction to agencies for ensuring efficient and effective capital planning for IT investments which is to include guidance for

undertaking efficiently and effectively interagency and governmentwide investments in IT to improve the accomplishment of missions

that are common to the Executive agencies. Consolidating and integrating the planned $900 million IT investments presents significant opportunities for savings, while better leveraging IT investments for our homeland security. This approach is key to ensuring that IT investments accelerate response

time and improve decisionmaking. Clearly this approach is neither

new nor surprising, simply good management.

To achieve our goals, we must all work to effectievly leverage IT

for homeland security. It requires the use of modern management

practices and a level of teamwork not always seen. It will also require and is already benefiting from a tremendous amount of leadership among the executive branch, the Congress and the IT industry. Collaborative leadership and support is vital to our performance. I would also like to commend the review groups for the initial

progress. I am particularly impressed by the level of team work

and cooperation in the groups.

Thank you for your continued leadership, Mr. Chairman, in

working toward effective and efficient IT management of the Federal Government’s IT resources.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Forman follows:]

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much.

Mr. Schambach, thanks for being with us.

Mr. SCHAMBACH. Thank you.

Before I begin my statement today, I would like to take just a

moment to convey to the subcommittee Secretary Mineta’s profound sorrow at the passing of his former colleague and dear

friend, Congresswoman Mink. The two had built a close friendship

during the years they shared together in the House. Congresswoman Mink was a strong advocate for woman and a highly respected member of the Asian-American community. She will be

sorely missed by her family and friends across the country, by you,

her subcommittee colleagues, by her constituents in Hawaii’s 2nd

District and by the Secretary of Transportation.

This is my second time testifying before your subcommittee in

the short 8 months since I have been the CIO of TSA. We are

building a world class agency from scratch, assuming new Federal

functions and completing milestones under stringent deadlines and

under the glare of the public spotlight. Our mission is to protect

the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. Our stated vision is to accomplish

this through our people, our processes and technologies. I am proud

that technology is appropriately a part of that vision.

One of our greatest challenges is creating an organizational culture of information sharing. We have a wonderful chance to get it

right with a blank sheet of paper in front of us and whether Congress ultimately approves the President’s proposal for a Department of Homeland Security, we recognize that we must engage

with our agency partners in a way that agencies have not always

undertaken. My staff has been working long and hard to craft a secure information technology-enabled organization that has access

to information at the right time and the right place.

Undoubtedly you have heard or read about TSA’s new information technology managed services approach to providing our basic

technology needs. We call it ITMS. We took a bold approach by describing our basic needs in a statement of objectives, the first step

in a performance-based contracting effort.

We described our basic needs in terms of employee and organizational capabilities like the ability to schedule a large number of

screener employees at an airport and asked our offerors to propose

not only the technical solutions but also how to tie their deployment success to the success of the mission and goals of TSA.

The winning offeror, Unisys Corp., proposed that they receive

both incentives and penalties based on whether TSA achieves or

does not achieve our agency goals. When you take into account that

we have such basic needs like access to computers, telephones and

radios that connect us to the broader organization, you can readily

recognize that success has a very basic definition at this stage in

our history.

Our contract contains two initial work orders. The first provides

for basic infrastructure and the second provides for deployment of

computer and communications capabilities to our estimated 800

TSA locations with a target of December 31, 2002.

About the time of contract award, which occurred in an amazing

31⁄2 months from requirements to award, OMB created the HomeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:58 May 07, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\86064.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
34

land Security Investment Review Group. This temporarily suspended the TSA IT Provisioning Initiative until the business case

was made and reviewed by the Investment Review Group.

In view of the President’s proposal to create a Department of

Homeland Security that will include TSA as an important element,

I agree that a reasoned approach to IT provisioning should help

avoid costly duplication of products and services and allows TSA to

leverage our significant buying power even further in a combined

view.

TSA quickly arrived at an approach allowing us to move forward

with our basic needs. We identified an investment evaluation

model and developed factors on which our basic deployment needs

would be decided. This was successful and within a short time, the

Investment Review Group approved our basic strategy for deployment. We now have a very basic decision model that is being used

to determine sharing opportunities where we have common presence with both the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

Many have asked if the TSA managed services approach is the

model for future government IT needs of this type. I can only say

that given our unique circumstances, I see this as the only way to

get our agency established in the timeframe that we have to operate. At the same time, the IT community seems to appreciate our

flexible approach. We told them what we needed to accomplish but

did not insist on a specific technical approach to carry out our

goals.

Our approach also complies with the President’s management

agenda. We believe we are prudently using the public’s money; we

are relying on strategic outsourcing and are making reasoned investments in our IT future.

That concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any

questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schambach follows:]

35

36

37

38

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hall. Thanks for being with us.

Mr. HALL. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today.

Since September 11th, the highest priority at the U.S. Customs

Service has been to keep terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States and to protect and secure our country’s

land borders, seaports and airports.

Customs has an operational presence at every port where people

and goods enter the United States. Therefore, we are well positioned to continue providing leadership and border security. Customs works in partnership with many Federal agencies, including

those potentially impacted by a new Department of Homeland Security to manage and control the tremendous volume of goods and

people entering and exiting the United States.

In addition, Customs currently develops and shares enforcementrelated intelligence with more than 25 Federal and State law enforcement agencies. This shared intelligence includes data on nearly 98 percent of all imported cargo and nearly 100 percent of international air passenger arrivals. License plate numbers of vehicles

entering the United States are also queried against Federal, State

and local indices.

As you are aware, a principal mission of the administration’s

Homeland Security Initiative is to coordinate border security activities among multiple Federal agencies. This coordination will require improved collaboration in examining cargo conveyances and

passengers and in sharing critical data. The Federal Government

will need to tear down unwarranted information stovepipes and

build a central information sharing clearinghouse and compatible

data bases. Toward this end, Customs co-chairs the Border Security Interagency Working Group with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and we are working with the Office of Homeland

Security and OMB and other agencies on the development of an enterprise architecture for the homeland security.

I also personally meet with the CIOs from a number of Federal

agencies including the U.S. Coast Guard, INS, Transportation Security Agency, Department of State, FEMA, Office of Management

and Budget and the Office of Homeland Security. These meetings

are intended to foster dialog on how best to leverage current technologies with a focus on improving information flow between the

agencies and to streamline information technology costs and services.

Customs is also working with the Department of Transportation,

the Department of Agriculture, Health and Human Services and

INS to incorporate their requirements into the automated commercial environment via shared interface with the trade known as the

International Trade Data System.

The Customs modernization program through ACE has already

begun to develop a single interoperable information technology

platform that can be used to strengthen our Nation’s borders. ACE,

among other things, is designed to enhance and integrate analytical tools, to provide better targeting and analysis of entry and passenger data, improve advanced information systems to provide a

more proactive approach to detect and interdict terrorists and other

39

illegal activities. Examples are the Customs Trade Partnership

Against Terrorism, CTPAT, and the Container Security Initiative.

Under the leadership of the Office of Homeland Security and

OMB, options to better address border security challenges are

being reviewed. The flexible information technology platform of the

Customs modernization program which reflects the partnership of

trade and border agencies provides the best opportunity to accelerate deployment of an integrated border security solution in support

of the critical homeland security mission.

Customs understands the rationale behind the OMB directive

and supports the efforts of the Homeland Security IT Investment

Review Group of which I am a member. We see this initiative as

critically important and a necessary first step to ensure effective

information sharing, careful analysis of current systems and eventual integration of systems for agencies moving under the proposed

Department of Homeland Security.

Based on guidance Customs has received from the Department

of Treasury and OMB, this directive does not affect Customs’ initial

modernization project, ACE. ACE is primarily a mission critical

Customs system to enable the processing of imports and exports to

ensure safe and efficient trade. Consequently, work on ACE has

not stopped or even slowed. In fact, the first fielding of ACE capabilities is fast approaching. Over the next 5 months we will introduce an Internet-based common user interface to selected Customs

users, certify the infrastructure to ensure that ACE meets its functional security and performance requirements and in February, we

will roll out ACE’s first capabilities to the trade community.

Although ACE is not affected by the OMB memoranda at this

time, Customs in keeping with the intent of the OMB directive to

eliminated duplication and ensure effective integration of agency

systems will submit our current ACE expenditure plan to the

Homeland Security IT Investment Review Group for formal approval before proceeding with the design and build phase of the

second major block of work on ACE.

Rather than an impediment, Customs believes the recent OMB

directive will help ensure that ACE is a truly coordinated effort of

all border security agencies. ACE could help accomplish the objectives of the Homeland Security IT Investment Review Group by potentially serving as an information technology platform for border

security that could be leveraged by other agencies in the border enforcement arena.

I firmly believe the Customs Service has the expertise, the experience, the tools and the personnel necessary to protect the borders

of our country and to serve as a critical deterrent to terrorists who

target America.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to

answering any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

40

41

42

43

44

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much.

Ms. Bates.

Ms. BATES. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you

this morning. Let me extend my compliments to you, members of

the subcommittee and your staff on your efforts to assure a managed approach to the information technology and telecommunications investments of the proposed Department of Homeland Security.

In my statement before the subcommittee, I will discuss two

main topics. First, I will address the impact of the July 19 OMB

memoranda regarding system development and modernization for

the homeland security components on FTS business. Second, I will

review the capabilities of GSA’s Federal Technology Service to support this new mission of securing the American homeland.

The Federal Technology Service is a channel to the market connecting government with private sector IT and telecommunications

providers. FTS works with Federal agencies, our customers to help

them choose the best solution, acquire it, implement it and manage

the financing for it. We have fulfilled this role for many years and

have developed important business relationships with nearly all

Federal agencies.

The agencies and departments currently designated for the new

homeland security organization are no exception. Of the 22 organizations designated for the new department, FTS currently provides

services and support to at least 20 of them. In fiscal year 2001, we

provided more than $150 million in technology services in support

directly to homeland security components and we expect to exceed

that amount in fiscal year 2002.

The range of FTS support is broad and varied. For example, domestic homeland security locations that receive telecommunications

services through the FTS 2001 contracts touch every State across

the country. GSA is also involved in an extensive project with the

newly formed Transportation Security Administration to meet

space, furniture, supplies as well technology needs at 422 airports,

150 Federal security director offices and 21 air marshall offices by

November 19.

Mr. Chairman, in preparation for this hearing, we have evaluated the FTS business impact of OMB’s memo. What we found is

that much of the business we do with Federal agencies falls outside

the parameters of OMB’s direction to the designated homeland security agencies. One reason for this is that the largest segment of

our customer base, particularly in the area of complex, national

systems integration projects over $500,000 is done with the Department of Defense.

Another factor affecting the impact of OMB’s memo on FTS business is that two-thirds of our IT solutions business is done through

our regional IT solutions organizations. The average dollar amount

of a task order in our regions is under $500,000 and the work is

generally performed at the regional field office level.

FTS offers a wide array of technical and acquisition expertise

and access to contract vehicles that are designed to support any

Federal agency. I can report that we have initiated contacts with

the Office of Homeland Security to open general discussions about

FTS’ capabilities to support the technology infrastructure needs for

45

the new department. Last month, I met with Mr. Steven Cooper,

Special Assistant to the President and Director of Information Integration for the Office of Homeland Security. We reviewed overall

support FTS is currently providing to homeland security components. In addition, we discussed some of the challenges they will

face in combining and consolidating the operations, infrastructures

and missions of 22 separate components under the proposed department.

I believe very strongly that FTS can apply its expertise effectively to help them as they move forward to architect their future.

I also believe that the excellent pricing available through our contracts can contribute to the savings goals that OMB has identified.

One area of particular significance to the homeland security organization will be security. FTS is a recognized leader in this area.

From our Smartcard Program to our digital signature initiatives to

our current role leading the e-authentication initiative for OMB,

FTS continues to seek and make available the best enabling technologies and services for e-government. I am proud to say that the

collective expertise and capabilities of the Federal Technology Service and our many business partners stands ready to support the

critical mission of homeland security.

I look forward to building on our already existing trusted intergovernmental relationships to help homeland security acquire and

deploy the 21st Century technology infrastructure they need to

meet the challenges of their very serious but essential mission.

Thank you again for inviting me to this hearing. I will be pleased

to respond to any questions you or the committee members may

have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bates follows:]

46

47

48

49

50

51

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

Mr. DiPentima, thanks for being with us.

Mr. DIPENTIMA. I am speaking today on behalf of the Information Technology Association of America.

Let me say right from the start that ITAA, its member companies and I personally voice support for OMB’s effort to coordinate

IT spending for the new Department of Homeland Security. We

think it is a prudent step to ensure wise IT investment decisions

and I think it is consistent with the goals and tenets of ClingerCohen.

Having said that, I would also like to offer some remarks and

some cautions both from an industry perspective, from myself and

my colleagues, as well as personally from the many years I spent

as the Deputy Commissioner of Social Security and the CIO of Social Security, having witnessed some of these investment coordination activities in the past.

First of all, I think there must be an overall enterprise architecture for the new department and for the agencies below that department. From an industry perspective, this is very similar to acquiring somewhere between 7 and 22 different companies and trying to merge them into a single company. We have a lot of experience with that and know what works and what doesn’t.

I think the administration is off to a good start, OMB and the

people working in homeland security, in laying out enterprise architectures and for both the department as well as the agencies

below them.

I think there needs to be some triaging of these projects—not all

of these projects are of equal importance. Some are mission critical

and must be addressed quickly and with some sense of urgency.

Some, in my opinion, make just good common sense. For example,

I would think the new department would want to consider a common e-mail system rather than having homeland security communicate to any large extent over the Internet.

Third, the task itself is daunting when some situations, investments particularly in mission critical systems, might have to continue even if they are not precisely in coordination with other activities. They shouldn’t be redundant, as Mr. Forman points out,

and they shouldn’t move in a direction contrary to the architecture

but they might have to, for mission critical purposes, be allowed to

continue for a period.

I also believe that most of the coordination for this new committee, most of these investments, will wrap around the ability to

share data. After all, the department is being brought together

mainly for the purpose of having like organizations communicate.

A great deal of attention will have to be given and I believe it is

to how to share this data among the many systems. Many of these

agencies, if not all of them, are not integrated within these agencies today, let alone having to integrate them across the new

Homeland Security Department.

With that, I will conclude my remarks and be happy to address

nay questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. DiPentima follows:]

52

53

54

55

56

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much and thank all

of you.

Let me start the questions. Mr. Forman, let me start with you.

OMB has said it is developing a homeland security national enterprise architecture. What is the estimated completion date of this

architecture, how is it going to relate to the Federal Government

enterprise architecture and what risks are we running making investment decisions for the Department of Homeland Security in the

absence of an enterprise architecture?

Mr. FORMAN. As you noted, the Federal Government is working

on a Federal enterprise architecture. It is a component-based architecture and works through several layers, starting with the business layer. It is actually the Office of Homeland Security that is

leading development with OMB and affected agencies of the homeland security national enterprise architecture which will fit within

and define those appropriate components of the Federal architecture, the inventory if you will, of what is already out there. There

are opportunity assessments and GAFF analyses that have to occur

and decisions priorities set to define the vision of the architecture

and logical physical elements that need to be deployed.

In answer to your second question, the architecture will be a national homeland security enterprise architecture so we also are

working with State and local organizations to ensure their input.

Given that it is component-based, business-driven, as recommended

by GAO, with the rapid rate of technologies many of which are relevant to the homeland security mission, this has to be an iterative

approach.

So we anticipate going through different levels of business architecture, the data and information architectures and the applications architecture, leveraging components in and out and they are

defined.

The final variable is the funding approval. We had requested

some money in a supplemental that was not approved for some of

this work and given current funding and depending on fluctuation

on that, we expect the first iteration by late spring or next summer.

The last element of your question, how does it relate to the Federal enterprise architecture and the issue of risk, I think I have addressed the relationship. These are essentially the homeland security elements, things like disaster management and response, the

entry/exit, etc.

Not all Federal agencies currently have an enterprise architecture as GAO has made clear. Generally, the best practices research

in GAO’s reports show that the risks are that we make overinvestment and redundant buys, interoperability problems as a result of

lack of agreement on standards, lack of business process improvements so we buy technology but we don’t really achieve the performance gains and that there are additional systems integration

costs associated with the lack of standards. Those are all the risks

and hence we move forward on the other part of the puzzle to make

this work, the IT Investment Review Group, having a capital planning process which I am very comfortable we have made good

progress on leveraging that architectural work that Steve Cooper,

the Office of Homeland Security and us have been working on.

57

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thus far, OMB’s freeze policy only

applies to infrastructure items and business systems. Are you considering a similar policy for the affected agencies’ mission systems?

Mr. FORMAN. The approach we have taken on the mission side

is much more varied. There are a number of joint initiatives going

back to the e-government strategy and the President’s budget decision. For example, as I mentioned in the hearing a couple of weeks

ago, geospatial one stop, disaster management, e-government initiative and Project SAFECOM are three mission related e-government and homeland security initiatives that we are proceeding

with joint IT investments via the budget process and existing capital planning process. We expect to add several others this year in

the capital planning process.

We are applying the tenets of the Clinger-Cohen Act, although

that doesn’t necessarily mean we issue a Clinger-Cohen letter. We

do it within the normal budget processes.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Other than the programs we already know are on this list, are there any mission-critical homeland security initiatives that have been delayed by this or any similar review? Specifically, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa

Entry Reform Act of 2002 requires the administration to put in

place a fully integrated entry/exit system by October 26, 2003. Do

you know the status of that and do you expect the administration

to release an RFP, which agency or department will be responsible

for the program and as far as you know, as you look at this, how

does that October 26, 2003 date look?

Mr. FORMAN. The first part of your question, the memoranda did

not affect mission-related IT investments, so no mission-related

programs were affected.

The entry/exit system is a joint initiative and we have asked the

agencies to come together and submit a joint 300 which has been

done, a joint business case. So we recently received that and we are

reviewing the joint business case.

It is an integrated project team lead by INS and consists of members from Departments of Transportation, State and Treasury. We

are not aware of any issues that would prevent the INS and the

Integrated Project Team from meeting the statutory deadline.

One point of departure, our data indicate that the actual mandated point is December 2003 for the entry/exit system to be in

place at air and sea ports and the 50 top land ports by December

2004. So the team is working to meet those deadlines. We don’t

have a timeframe when the RFP will actually be released but it is

our understanding that everything is on schedule for meeting those

deadlines.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much.

Mr. Turner.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Willemssen, I was looking at your report and

in conclusion, you say, ‘‘The impact of OMB’s action is to early to

assess.’’ You noted several things that this OMB memorandum

does not stop, several investments in information technology.

When you listed those, I guess what I was wondering is whether

you are suggesting that the freeze was not broad enough, perhaps

it wasn’t dealing with the full range of IT infrastructure issues or

58

whether those were just exceptions you deemed to be appropriate

from the freeze?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. The primary purpose of listing those was to

clarify exactly what the so-called freeze entailed. I think when

many heard that OMB was putting a freeze on IT spending at affected agencies, many observers hearing that said, oh, a freeze, everything is going to be on hold. Well, that is not what it is. There

are a number of exceptions.

We think OMB’s initial approach of focusing on infrastructure

and business systems is an appropriate one. We think the mission

side will also have to be assessed but I think picking infrastructure

and business systems first is an appropriate choice.

The apparent redundancies that may be there will be easier to

identify than it would be in the mission case. So I think the overall

approach is sound.

We look forward to further results on implementation and how

this is actually carried out. So we are generally in agreement conceptually with the plan but we are anxious to see the implementation and what actually occurs on these infrastructure and business

system projects.

Mr. TURNER. In the area of the exceptions, the mission side and

these other things you mentioned, are there areas there that need

to be looked at and it just so happened they were a bit more difficult to deal with or there are other impediments, contracts already in place and those kinds of things?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. What we would like to see is OMB and the entities involved in looking at the variety of systems is to continue

to aggressively pursue the development of the enterprise architecture. As Mr. Forman mentioned, not only what is currently out

there with the plethora of systems at many different agencies but

in what direction do they want to go, where do they want to eventually be and to get from that as is to B point, they will need to

put together a transition strategy. Then you will map that transition strategy against proposed investments and in many cases, I

think you are going to see things drop out also in the mission area.

Ideally and conceptually, you would like to have those architectural documents in hand so you know what to map to. Otherwise

it is very difficult to know where you are going and what the end

game is.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Forman, what would you estimate the percentage of IT spending the freeze affects as opposed to the total range

of things that Mr. Willemssen is referring to?

Mr. FORMAN. The total range, of course we don’t have the full

data on the mission side but on the infrastructure and business

systems side, it is somewhere in the $1.5 to $2 billion. What it affects obviously relates to what is already in the procurement cycle

versus what is underway, operations and maintenance and simple

modifications.

The approach here is not to consider this because of the way we

do IT in general in industry and in government as kind of light

switch on, light switch off, that most of the infrastructure investments, even today, are incremental except for the TSA issue which

is pretty much from the bottom up. I think that is essentially the

approach we have adopted there and is where we are going to see

59

the greatest payoff, looking at what is already deployed, what they

can leverage, and rather than putting in a new separate infrastructure that ultimately people won’t be able to communicate across

but building onto the existing infrastructure, in TSA’s case is probably where we will see the greatest payoff. There is a percentage

of the total budget and I would be totally guessing there.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Schambach, when we look at your agency being

created from ground up, now contemplating being a part of this

larger Homeland Security Agency, how does that impact the work

you have been involved in and how difficult is it and does it set

you back in accomplishing what you understand to be your mission

to be going through this process of having been authorized and

then moved into this larger agency? I would like a little perspective

on that from you?

Mr. SCHAMBACH. Certainly standing up TSA when we were just

looking at our own organization was a daunting enough challenge;

bringing the whole homeland security picture into place makes it

a lot more complex as you mentioned.

Selfishly I would say that had we been able to move ahead independently, we would be a bit further along than we are today. On

the other hand, looking at it from a more global government perspective, I see the need, as I said in my testimony, of going through

the process that OMB has stipulated, trying to bring together investments where that is possible.

I have had to insist on very quick decisionmaking in the Investment Review Group because we have such a schedule that we have

to stick to and thankfully the decisions have been quick. I hope it

stays that way as we go forward.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Schambach, in your view, what

do you believe allowed the contract award to move ahead for the

ITSM contract at TSA and what steps are you taking to ensure

that this major infrastructure project can be integrated into the

overall IT architecture at the new Department?

Mr. SCHAMBACH. I think two things allowed us to move forward

quickly. One is a recognition on the part of the Investment Review

Group of just what we were facing in standing up TSA’s as an organization without any infrastructure on the ground whatsoever.

With 31,000-plus employees on board right now, they are literally

using payphones in the airports to communicate. That is the difficulty we are having.

The second issue was we did arrive at a set of factors of how investment decisions would be made in the case of TSA, focusing primarily on where we have a common presence with Customs and

INS. That alternative analysis is being evaluated right now and

those decisions on the top 100 airports where we share presence,

those are the issues where decisions will be made in the coming I

hope week.

Mr. FORMAN. If I may, I would like to applaud the efforts by Pat

and his team. This is groundbreaking work for the Federal Government to have a scenario where one bureau essentially can work together with two other bureaus is cutting across the hierarchy instead of up and down the hierarchy and literally make a cost beneVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:58 May 07, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\86064.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
60

fit assessment as a partnership I don’t believe has ever been done

before.

This model, this cost benefit assessment tool, was put together

basically by some people working long and hard over a weekend.

So it did work fast but it is extraordinary work for the Federal

Government.

Mr. SCHAMBACH. In answer to the second half of your question,

on how do we ensure integration, we are very active members with

the enterprise architecture team at homeland security with the

common directory for e-mail with the Security Infrastructure

Group, so I think we are laying plans that ensure we integrate

with the rest of homeland security.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Hall, let me ask you, has the

Customs Service altered any of its systems plans as a result of the

new Department?

Mr. HALL. The short answer is no with the exception of our email system. We were in the midst of rolling out a new e-mail system for U.S. Customs. Because of an inventory that was done with

the other potential components of the new department, we learned

that we were odd man out and the other departments were using

one product and we were using a different one, and we are in the

process of replanning that effort. Rather than go forward with our

system, we are going to align with the rest of the department.

There has been no real delay or effect on our mission critical systems or our ongoing projects.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Is the Customs Service a member

of the Investment Review Group established at OMB?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. What degree of input do you have

into the projects of other agencies that will be in the new Department going forward?

Mr. HALL. Actually there is very active discussion that comes on

the projects that come before this board for review. I think the

principal benefits of the process we have put in place is, at least

in my career, it has been extraordinary visibility over what other

bureaus are doing, other agencies are doing and also an opportunity to make sure our projects are aligned as we go forward and

that we avoid any unnecessary incompatibilities that might be

built into the initial plans. So the benefit to date has been one of

coordination and being able to share across some of these projects.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Ms. Bates, presumably the components of the proposed Department use FTS or FSS contracts for

some of their IT needs. To what extent does OMB’s freeze policy

jeopardize these existing contracts? I take it not much from your

comments.

Ms. BATES. There is no jeopardy to the contracts. As you know,

the contracts are non-mandatory and they are also open to all of

the government, so there is no jeopardy there.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Did their policy contradict any of

the clauses in the contracts?

Ms. BATES. No, not at all.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. You mentioned GSA’s involvement

with TSA to meet space, furniture, supplies and technology needs

at airports, security director offices, and air marshall offices. How

61

is FTS involved in this project and how does the OMB freeze affect

this, the ability to equip offices?

Ms. BATES. The FTS piece of that very important project is providing the local telecommunications services at all of those locations as well as some direct broadcast satellite services for news

and the like. The project has been in total coordination with Mr.

Schambach’s office and it is understood that this could be viewed

as interim with a deadline of November 19 to be later replaced as

the overall architecture is developed.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. DiPentima, thanks for mentioning that the OMB freeze has complicated companies’ efforts to develop plans concerning their allocation of resources. In my district,

we have a number of companies that, in some cases, have had to

let people go because they thought they had won something and all

of a sudden it is pulled back. They had hired people in anticipation

of moving ahead and now they are not sure when they will get the

word or if the contract is even going to continue. That is a concern.

I think it is outweighed by the overall Government concern that

this money be spent right and be well coordinated but it is a concern and that is why we are trying to push and find out what the

dates are from Mr. Forman and others that everything will start

moving again.

Given the examples of this from companies, have there been

other effects on the private sector as a result of the freeze policy

and if you don’t have any right at your fingertips, we would be

happy to keep open the record and you could document them; but

we would like to have them in the record.

Mr. DIPENTIMA. So far, I think the way OMB is approaching this

is the right way. We did have concern on the TSA contract because

that is a very important area. I mentioned before mission critical.

There is a very delicate and not clear line between infrastructure

and mission critical systems. Certainly all the things that Pat

Schambach has to do to get his new agency in place

infrastructurewise, his entire mission depends upon him getting

that in place.

I don’t have any clear examples to share with you here today but

I certainly would like to keep the record open and allow ITAA to

come back and respond to you in writing on that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

Assuming that a Department of Homeland Security is enacted

and the Senate can finish their act and we can get together with

them and get this enacted in short order, what do you think are

the most immediate systems issues that the Department should

tackle?

Mr. DIPENTIMA. I think it is probably, as I mentioned in my comments, not unlike what would happen if we were to acquire a dozen

new companies at once. You would have to go after the infrastructure the way OMB is doing. In our case, we would move quickly

to common e-mail systems, common recordkeeping, time and attendance, common telephone and other communications systems

because you are not going to carry out your mission if you do not

have the proper infrastructure in place to do that.

I think the way OMB is coming at this is the right way, not unlike we would do it if we were bringing together acquired compaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:58 May 07, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\86064.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
62

nies. I hate to think that we would try to bring together this many

acquired companies at once. So the challenge is, as I said before,

daunting but we would do very much what OMB is doing.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much.

Mr. Willemssen, in your testimony you note that OMB is using

Section 8(b) of the OMB Circular A130 to determine what IT

projects should go forward at the homeland security agencies. What

is your view of this criteria? Are these the appropriate planning

questions to ask as OMB reviews spending decisions by agencies?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Those criteria would be consistent with our

views. In fact, we assisted in commenting on A130 when the last

version was put together. It appropriately focuses on an IT capital

planning process, enterprise architecture, having needed security

controls in place and focusing on process redesign before going out

with major acquisitions.

For particular investments, it has that focus on select control and

evaluates those investments from the standpoint of cost benefit,

risk and schedule. That is consistent with the guidance and methodologies we have previously published. So we would be supportive

of that.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. In your testimony, you note that

you have not had an opportunity to assess the impact on agencies.

At this time, can you comment on the impact this freeze has on facilitating timely information sharing among the agencies? You note

that a data base project was approved in a timely manner for the

Secret Service. Do you think OMB is handling the expedited review

process appropriately?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. The three projects we are aware of that went

through the emergency request process, we didn’t see any delays

there that had any adverse impact on the affected agencies, so I

think that has worked fairly well to OMB and the agencies credit.

In addition, in terms of your question on facilitating timely information sharing among agencies, I think eventually that will be an

outcome of this process. Again, consistent with my testimony, it

has been too early to tell because we haven’t seen the actual decisions from the groups formed to look at infrastructure and business

systems, so I think that is a very likely outcome if the implementation activities are consistent with the broad framework that OMB

has set out.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. What is unique at the Customs

Service that it is already at Stage 5 of the GAO’s enterprise architecture while other agencies are lagging behind? What can other

agencies learn from this?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Mr. Hall may want to add to this but I think

we have been working with Customs for quite some time on their

enterprise architecture and as part of our mandated reviews of

their A system, so I think a large part of the credit goes to Mr. Hall

and his leadership and dedication to making the enterprise architecture a reality. I think executive leadership really is a key factor.

In line with that, a recognition of the importance of architectures

and what I have heard from the witnesses today I think it has been

fairly consistent that there is a recognition of the importance of

that, especially with the proposed Department of Homeland Security.

63

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Do you want to comment on that?

Mr. HALL. I think there are two major things that have allowed

us to succeed with our enterprise architecture effort. One is you basically have to understand what it is and how you build one and

I think of it as an engineering discipline, and I believe we have

that at the U.S. Customs Service.

Perhaps the most important is management support at the very

top. I think what makes it work at Customs is that the senior leadership supports the process, allows us to require projects to comply

with and that it is an integral part of how we decide what gets

funded and what doesn’t.

When you have that environment, it makes it fairly straightforward to implement an enterprise approach.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

I am going to take a moment to thank everyone for attending

this hearing. I want to thank the witnesses, I want to thank Congressman Turner, as always, for participating and thank the staff

for organizing it. I think it has been very productive.

We are going to enter into the record the briefing memo distributed to subcommittee members and we will hold open the record

for 2 weeks from this date for those who may want to forward submissions for possible inclusion. Mr. DiPentima, in particular, if you

have any specifics to add from your organization’s perspective, it is

important to understand what the effect is on companies out there,

their hiring practices and the employees.

Mr. DIPENTIMA. We will, Mr. Chairman.

[The information referred to follows:]

64

65

66

67

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. There being nothing else, these proceedings are closed. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

Æ