[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WHO'S WATCHING THE COOP? A RE-EXAMINATION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES'
CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS PLANS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-26
__________
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
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-468 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
JON C. PORTER, Nevada BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ------
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (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
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 28, 2005................................... 1
Statement of:
Hoover, Reynold N., Director, Office of National Security
Coordination, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; Marta Brito Perez,
Associate Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management;
and Linda Koontz, Director, Information Management, U.S.
Government Accountability Office........................... 15
Hoover, Reynold N........................................ 15
Koontz, Linda............................................ 37
Perez, Marta Brito....................................... 29
Kane, James A., Ph.D., president and CEO, Systems and
Software Consortium; Julie Williams, director, Internet
business solutions group, Federal civilian agency practice,
Cisco Systems; and Kevin Luten, public policy
representative, Association of Commuter Transportation..... 62
Kane, James A............................................ 62
Luten, Kevin............................................. 88
Williams, Julie.......................................... 71
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 4
Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois:
Letter dated February 21, 2005........................... 101
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Hoover, Reynold N., Director, Office of National Security
Coordination, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, prepared statement of..... 18
Kane, James A., Ph.D., president and CEO, Systems and
Software Consortium, prepared statement of................. 65
Koontz, Linda, Director, Information Management, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of.... 39
Luten, Kevin, public policy representative, Association of
Commuter Transportation, prepared statement of............. 91
Perez, Marta Brito, Associate Director, U.S. Office of
Personnel Management, prepared statement of................ 31
Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada, prepared statement of..................... 111
Ruppersberger, Hon. C.A. Dutch, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland, prepared statement of.......... 12
Williams, Julie, director, Internet business solutions group,
Federal civilian agency practice, Cisco Systems, prepared
statement of............................................... 74
WHO'S WATCHING THE COOP? A RE-EXAMINATION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES'
CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS PLANS
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2005
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Davis of Virginia, Shays, Duncan,
Dent, Waxman, Cummings, Kucinich, Davis of Illinois, Watson,
Ruppersberger and Norton.
Staff present: David Marin, deputy staff director/
communications director; John Hunter, counsel; Rob White, press
secretary; Drew Crockett, deputy director of communications;
Jaime Hjort, Michael Layman, and Brien Beattie, professional
staff members; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Sarah D'Orsie,
deputy clerk; Tania Shand and Mark Stephenson, minority
professional staff members; Earley Green, minority chief clerk;
and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.
Chairman Tom Davis. Good afternoon. I want to welcome
everybody to today's hearing on Federal agencies' continuity of
operations planning [COOP].
Continuity of operations planning is the mechanism by which
Federal agencies ensure that essential Government services
continue to be delivered during a major crisis that disrupts
normal operations. This is a complex process involving the
identification of essential functions, the exploration of
numerous emergency contingencies, and the allocation of
appropriate resources to prepare for catastrophic events.
In the stark new reality that now confronts our society,
after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon,
much has been said and written about the continuity of Federal
leadership, including Congress. However, more important than
anything that goes on up here is the hard work that Federal
employees do every day to keep the wheels of government
churning. Members of Congress don't guard our borders; they do
not deliver the mail or keep the government's payroll books in
order. It is Federal employees who do these things and more,
and they do a spectacular job day after day with no pomp or
circumstance.
However, what happens if the headquarters of a Federal
agency or many Federal agencies is incapacitated in the
aftermath of an attack or a major natural disaster? Federal
Government agencies need to be prepared with a plan to continue
doing the most important tasks to serve the American people
under any circumstances, and it is this issue that we grapple
with this afternoon.
In a hearing held by the committee almost a year ago to the
day, the Government Accountability Office reported significant
inadequacies in Federal continuity of operations planning,
including deficient guidance for Federal agencies in
identifying their essential functions, and insufficient
allocation of resources to ensure a continued delivery of
services in a crisis.
Consequently, I asked the GAO to continue to monitor
Federal COOP planning to ensure that agencies are in compliance
with the latest executive and congressional guidance and report
back to us annually. We now have the results of GAO's first
update.
In its survey of 45 Federal agencies' COOP plans, the
number of essential functions ranged from 3 to 538. This begs
the question: If an agency has 538 essential functions, how
essential can they be? What is the priorities? Since last
April's hearing, FEMA, the executive agency for Federal COOP
preparedness, has issued updated guidance designed to better
assist agencies in the identification of essential functions.
The committee is interested in hearing today about what
progress has been made in clarifying this important first step
in the continuity planning process.
GAO also reported the majority of COOP plans did not fully
identify the mission-critical systems and data, or fully
establish resource requirements necessary to maintain essential
services during a crisis. GAO has cited inadequate oversight by
FEMA as a contributing factor in this problem, focusing, in
particular, on the fact that FEMA will no longer be verifying
agency readiness information submitted via an on-line reporting
system. However, FEMA has told us that the on-line reporting
system was never designed to be an assessment tool, but rather
to provide authorities with status reports during a crisis.
FEMA has also expressed its concern that GAO has not taken into
account the field exercise that it has conducted to test
readiness.
We will be delving into these issues today to try to get at
the true state of Federal COOP planning with the goal of
providing FEMA and all Federal agencies the support they need
to perform this important function and to prepare all Federal
agencies so they can continue essential functions for our
citizens in the event of disaster.
Finally, it is imperative that we incorporate telework into
its Government's continuity planning. Telework, or allowing
employees to work from home or other remote locations,
leverages the latest technology to give significant flexibility
to managers. The committee held a hearing last July on this
issue, because frankly, many Federal managers have been slow to
implement telework at their agencies. The Federal telework,
mandate in the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations
Act made the Office of Personnel Management responsible for the
establishment of telework policies across all agencies by last
April. This deadline was not met, and it is unacceptable.
I look forward to hearing from OPM today what progress it
has made in encouraging telework implementation government-
wide. This should be a no-brainer for Federal agencies. But,
unfortunately, politics is like a wheelbarrow; nothing happens
until you start pushing.
A provision in the fiscal year 2005 Appropriations Act will
withhold $5 million from the budgets of several agencies if
they continue to balk at telework implementation. Telework is
not just common-sense efficiency, but an important national
security consideration as well. The decentralization of Federal
agency functions inherent in a healthy telework strategy can
greatly increase the survivability of those agencies in the
event of a terrorist attack or other disruptive crisis. It can
even serve to reduce traffic congestion, which, as we all know,
is a major problem around here, particularly when one considers
the various evacuation scenarios in the event of a disaster in
Washington.
It doesn't take a disaster, however, to cause significant
disruption of daily life in this region. I am sure we all
remember what happened when a disgruntled farmer had a bad day
and decided to park his tractor in a pond on the Mall. We need
to make progress on this.
I am pleased to note that FEMA has added some telework
language in its revised COOP guidance, and I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today about how we are translating
that guidance into practice. The committee looks forward to
hearing from FEMA, OPM and GAO in the first panel on the
government's progress in all of these areas. We will also be
hearing from some experienced private sector witnesses today on
their insight into what we in Government call COOP, and what
they refer to as business continuity.
I want to once again welcome all of you and thank you for
being here today.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.002
Chairman Tom Davis. I'm now going to recognize our
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Federal Government's continuity of operations planning
is a critical first step necessary to ensure its effective
response to a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other
catastrophe. I am pleased that you, Mr. Chairman, are giving
this issue sustained attention, given some of the troubling
reports we have from the Government Accountability Office and
others. The attention is well deserved.
If September 11 and the anthrax attacks here on Capitol
Hill were wake-up calls on the importance of effective
contingency planning, this year's Patterns of Global Terrorism
report, which will be released by the State Department
tomorrow, demonstrates the continuing urgency we need to give
this issue.
Early this week, I wrote to Secretary Rice urging the
release of the detailed data in this report, and yesterday the
administration did release it. The report shows a dramatic
uptick in terrorist incidents in 2004. And, in fact, there were
about 650 significant incidents in 2004, more than triple the
175 terrorist incidents from 2003, the previous 20-year high.
The terrorism data the administration has released should
foster a sense of urgency in Federal agencies, urgency needed
to improve their contingency plans, and which they seem sorely
to need. If September 11 was a wake-up call, then it seems some
agencies may be nodding off when it comes to contingency
planning.
One of the first steps in effecting contingency planning is
the identification of the central agency functions, yet GAO
reports agencies may not be doing this basic first step
effectively and thoroughly. Though there has been some recent
improvement, GAO reports that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency [FEMA], has inadequate oversight over agency contingency
plans. The most troubling, FEMA apparently no longer plans to
even try to verify readiness information agencies report to it.
Mr. Chairman, these are very troubling findings which must
clearly be addressed quickly. I commend you for this hearing
and urge you to continue your efforts.
I would also like to commend my colleague, Representative
Danny Davis, for his work in seeking to improve agencies'
telecommuting policies. His legislation from last year, H.R.
4797, would require agencies to create and evaluate a
demonstration project on telework. This is a good idea that
deserves bipartisan support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Davis, any opening statement?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Normally I wouldn't, but I do indeed, because I think this is
such an important discussion, and such an important topic.
Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Waxman, in the late 1990's,
the Government Reform and Education and the Workforce
Committees held oversight hearings to examine the barriers to
telecommuting and the Federal agencies' development and
promotion of telework programs.
It was then thought that the primary benefits of
telecommuting were reduced traffic congestion and pollution,
improved recruitment and retention of employees, reduced the
need for office space, increased productivity, and improved
quality of life and morale of 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 11,
we have another very compelling reason to push Federal agencies
and our staffs to develop and to implement the infrastructure
and work processes necessary to support telecommuting. It is
for 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 of the Federal agencies, prepared to serve the American
people if, in an emergency situation, our primary places of
work are no longer available to us?
You only have to read the Government Accountability
Office's [GAO's], updated report on continuity of operations
entitled, ``Continuity of Operations: Agency Plans Have
Improved, But Better Oversight Could Assist Agencies in
Preparing for Emergencies,'' to know that the answer is no. The
GAO report notes that in addition to the threat of terrorism,
severe weather conditions and environmental hazards at Federal
buildings can lead to the prolonged closure of Federal
buildings and can interrupt essential government services. The
report states that prudent management, therefore, requires that
Federal agencies develop plans for ensuring the continuity of
such services in emergency situations. These are referred to as
continuity of operations [COOP], plans. These plans lay out an
agency's approach to maintaining services, ensuring proper
authority for government actions, and protecting vital assets.
Neither the Office of Personnel Management [OPM], nor the
Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], the agencies
responsible for providing emergency preparedness guidance in
COOP, have adequately addressed workforce considerations
related to the resumption of broader agency operations. While
COOP efforts should give priority to the safety of all
employees and address the needs of those who directly support
essential operations, the resumption of all other operations is
crucial to achieving mission results and serving the American
people.
The GAO report states that only 1 of the 21 agency
continuity plans in place on May 1, 2004, documented plans to
address some essential functions through teleworking. Two other
agencies reported that they planned for nonessential staff to
telework during a COOP event, but their continuity plans do not
specifically mention teleworking.
In the next few weeks, I will introduce legislation that
will push agencies to do just that. The legislation, H.R. 4797,
which I introduced last year, would require the Chief Human
Capital Officer Council to conduct and evaluate a 30-day
demonstration project that broadly uses employee 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
addressed during an extended emergency. I intend to revise the
legislation to take into consideration GAO's recommendations. I
hope that you, Chairman Davis and Ranking Member Waxman, will
join me as cosponsors of this bill.
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 infrastructures needed to
reestablish agency operations. In a world where everything is
possible, we must be prepared for all of the possibilities.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.004
Chairman Tom Davis. Members will have 7 days to submit
opening statements for the record.
Are there any other Members that wish to make statements?
Mr. Ruppersberger. Real quick, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
the hearing.
During the hearing last year on this subject, we learned
that GAO found some significant deficiencies in the various
Federal agency COOP plans, and that those deficiencies were due
in part to inadequate guidance from FEMA. I was very disturbed
by GAO's findings, because, as we all know, the Government
cannot function without reliable and realistic plans for
continuity.
Now, I understand that GAO did a followup study to gauge
FEMA and agency progress as of May 1, 2004, in developing COOP
plans. I have conflicting feelings about their findings. On one
hand, I am pleased there was some improvement in the number of
agencies with COOP plans, but on the other hand, it is
disappointing that two major agencies still had no plan as of
May 1, 2004, and that FEMA's oversight was still considered
inadequate.
I am encouraged that FEMA has since reissued and expanded
their Federal Preparedness Circular 65 to address GAO's
concerns regarding their lack of guidance to the agencies.
Hopefully with the update, FPC-65, all agencies will at least
have some plan on the books. The next step is to ensure that
the plans are adequate and effective in maintaining essential
government operations during a crisis.
I am looking forward to the discussion as to how telework
can become a vital part of agency's COOP plans. Last year I
cosponsored Mr. Davis's bill, H.R. 4797, which required a
demonstration program of conducting an agency's operations from
alternate work locations, including employees' homes. I think
with a little tweaking, telework could become an important part
of our agencies' plans, and I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.006
Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
followup hearing, because I believe, based on the GAO report,
that continuing oversight is going to be necessary to get the
kind of more rapid movement that these hearings have asked for
from COOP.
We do note some improvements. I think it is always
important to note improvements, because I know agencies and
their employees strive to make improvements. One has to wonder
why the improvements have been so slow, the improvements in
such a vital notion as making sure that the Federal Government
keeps operating in the event of an emergency. I cannot help but
think that one of the reasons why is that these agencies are
not in the security business, and in essence, without a whole
lot of help, they are having difficulty doing what we have
asked them to do.
There is going to have to be a lot more help, a lot more
leadership, in my judgment. It is simply not their expertise.
You are the ABC Agency, you are trying your best to get that
done. Here comes folks concerned, as well they might be, with
homeland security and tell you, by the way, make sure you can
continue your operations, and since you know your operations
best, do it.
Well, it turns out to be harder than that. The level of
detail that the GAO report, for example, indicates is necessary
in order to really have a plan is simply not there. Many of the
agencies, they can't tell you how many folks they would need to
have on duty in order to have continuous operations--that is a
detail, that is a very basic detail--or what kind of data, what
kind of computers you need to have. That is a harder one,
because that involves secure measures. You would have to have
not only computers and data, but you would have to know how to
get to them.
Mr. Chairman, I am particularly concerned, because a lot of
the fall-out would be right here in the District of Columbia.
That is where most of the Federal employees are. That is
certainly where headquarters are, where the most essential
employees are, and where people are going to look to see if our
Government is running, if it is not running, where agencies are
located here, is just not running.
I looked at what FEMA's responsibility is. I can only
conclude that FEMA needs help, too. And I understand that the
White House is itself giving some leadership. They need to give
a lot more leadership on this issue, especially if there is
going to be any consistency here. In some cases it will not
matter if one agency knows how to keep running and another does
not, because you know what, this is one seamless government,
and it will not do to have certain agencies up and certain
agencies down, and that is how the administration has to look
at it. They either are all up, able to communicate with one
another, able to keep the Government working, or if one or two
of them are down, all the rest of them may be down because of
the particular function that agency serves.
Yes, at bottom it is complicated, so complicated that I
don't even think it is fair to ask agencies to do this without
a great deal of help, and I think the two GAO reports that we
have are a real indication of that.
So I look forward to hearing what has occurred and what we
can do to help improvements come about.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, thank you very much.
We are going to now move to our panel. We have Reynolds
Hoover, the Director of Office of National Security
Coordination at FEMA, Department of Homeland Security; Marta
Brito Perez, the Associate Director, Office of Personnel
Management; and, of course, Linda Koontz, the Director of
Information Management, Government Accountability Office. Thank
you all for being here.
Would you rise with me and raise your right hands. And can
we have the two people behind you state their names for the
record.
Mr. Sweetman. Jim Sweetman, GAO.
Mr. Marinos. Nick Marinos, GAO.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hoover, we will start with you.
STATEMENTS OF REYNOLD N. HOOVER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NATIONAL
SECURITY COORDINATION, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; MARTA BRITO PEREZ,
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; AND
LINDA KOONTZ, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
STATEMENT OF REYNOLD N. HOOVER
Mr. Hoover. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is Reynold Hoover. I am the Director of the
Office of National Security Coordination in the Federal
Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], which, as you know, is a
part of the Department of Homeland Security. I thank you very
much for the opportunity to be here today to discuss FEMA's
role in supporting continuity of operations programs [COOP],
for the Federal Government.
As you know, FEMA was designated as the executive branch
lead agent for COOP and continuity of government programs by
multiple authorities, which also requires departments and
agencies to develop COOP plans and procedures to support their
essential functions.
In our capacity as lead agent, I am proud to report that we
have provided and continue to provide a wide range of support
and assistance to the Federal executive branch to develop this
critical capability. This afternoon I would like to briefly
highlight for you and the committee the progress that we have
made to ensure that the Government's ability to deliver those
essential services following a disaster from an alternate
facility will be maintained.
As you may recall from Under Secretary Mike Brown's
testimony a year ago, we published Federal Preparedness
Circular 65 that combines all previous COOP-related Federal
preparedness circulars into one comprehensive document that
includes definitive guidance on the essential elements of a
viable COOP capability. But more importantly, the FPC also
incorporates many of the GAO's previous recommendations for
COOP capability improvement, including detailed information on
essential functions, the importance of interdependencies
between departments and agencies, and the identification of
telework as an option for COOP planners.
In addition, we have produced a series of documents,
including templates, self-assessment tools and awareness
materials, that have been widely distributed to the interagency
community and are available through FEMA's Web site.
As a part of our ongoing initiative to better define
essential functions, and to provide a more coordinated approach
to government-wide COOP planning, we have been working with the
Homeland Security Council to help identify department and
agency primary mission essential functions that support eight
national essential functions identified previously by the
Homeland Security Council. As a result of this initiative, we
expect to incorporate those national essential functions into
the Department's primary mission essential functions in future
planning and exercises.
But our COOP coordination responsibilities are not limited
to the national capital region. In fact, we have established
numerous interagency working groups at the headquarters and
regional level. The centerpiece of this effort is the COOP
Working Group in the National Capital region that is comprised
of 76 departments and agencies, and has members as planners
from the legislative branch, the judicial branch and the
District of Columbia.
At the regional level, FEMA has established COOP working
groups with the assistance of GSA and OPM that support many of
the Federal executive boards and Federal executive associations
across the country.
Because training readiness is a key to COOP preparedness,
we believe exercises are critical to identifying, assessing and
correcting COOP plan and program deficiencies. In that regard,
we have been concentrating on building a national COOP exercise
program, and as you know, Mr. Chairman, in May of last year, we
conducted Exercise Forward Challenge 2004, the first-ever,
full-scale COOP exercise for the Federal executive branch.
Today we have already begun preparations for Forward
Challenge 2006, which will be an externally evaluated exercise.
Our support, however, for COOP exercises extends beyond the
Washington, DC, area, and in partnership with GSA, our FEMA
regions have conducted and will continue to conduct interagency
COOP exercises nationwide.
The foundation of this exercise program is a robust
training component, which has been a primary focus of FEMA.
Working in close collaboration with OPM, GSA and the COOP
Working Group, we have developed and delivered the COOP
Managers Training course, in a train-the-trainer-type format,
and I am proud to say that as of March of this year, all 30
major departments and agencies have participated in the
training courses that we have delivered across the Nation. In
fact, a total of 682 Federal, State, local and tribal officials
have been trained and certified as COOP instructors. An
additional 41 course offerings will be coordinated across the
country by the end of this fiscal year.
Recognizing the GAO's concerns for FEMA to take a greater
role in assessments, and realizing a need to better understand
COOP alternate facility requirements, we have been conducting
Federal department and agency alternate facility site visits to
provide an assessment of current capabilities and identify
common issues facing COOP relocationsites. Through these site
assessments, we will be in a better position to address and
coordinate planning and preparedness needs for departments and
agencies.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let me conclude
by saying I believe that FEMA, in our role as the lead agent
for the executive branch continuity of operations and
continuity of government programs, and the Department of
Homeland Security has significantly enhanced the Federal
Government's preparedness to perform its essential functions
across the full spectrum of all hazards, threats and
emergencies. Working with our partners throughout the
government, we will continue our leadership role by providing
planning and programming guidance, conducting exercises and
assessments, developing resource capabilities, and building the
relationships necessary to ensuring an effective government-
wide COOP program that is coordinated and responsive to any
threat or emergency.
Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
your questions and the questions of the committee.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoover follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.017
Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Perez, thanks for being with us.
STATEMENT OF MARTA BRITO PEREZ
Ms. Perez. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
members of the committee. I am very pleased to be here
representing the Office of Personal Management. I appear to you
today to discuss the Federal agencies' use of telework and its
inclusion in Federal agencies' continuity of operations
planning.
It is my responsibility at OPM to work with the agencies to
ensure that they have focused their attention on this critical
aspect or their continuity of operations. The committee has
been consistent in emphasizing the importance of telework and
its significant benefits, particularly following the tragic
events of September 11. I am pleased to report to you that OPM
has played an important role in helping agencies recognize the
need of emergency planning, as well as the need for
incorporating telework in their COOP plans.
It is, in fact, a reality that since September 11th,
telework has become a matter of necessity for many employees
and employers. While you and other Members of Congress have
long recognized the need and the benefits of telework in
reducing traffic congestion and air pollution, in addition to
positive impacts on employee morale and retention, we have all
come to recognize the important role that telework plays in an
agency's ability to continue to perform mission-critical work
in times of crisis or calamity.
Using a train-the-trainer approach, OPM has partnered with
FEMA to deliver human capital-oriented emergency preparedness
training to agency COOP managers. Thus far we have provided
training in each of FEMA's 10 regions. This ongoing FEMA-
sponsored COOP training includes an OPM segment on the various
human capital tools that are available to Federal planners
through their human resources efforts and the staff to secure
and to ensure the continued operations of Federal agencies
during a crisis. Telework is identified in the training as one
of those tools for emergency planners to use in developing
schemes to leverage the capability of the Federal workforce
during times of crisis and disruption.
Since, after September 11, OPM began working with the
Federal executive boards to improve communication capability
with special emphasis on emergency preparedness. In 2002, OPM
identified emergency planning as an integral component of human
capital management. In 2003, OPM administered the first annual
emergency preparedness survey to assess the extent to which
agencies were considering emergency planning, shelter in place,
securing the workforce, with particular attention to those with
special needs, as well as to look at the use of flexibilities
and tools that were available to managers.
Following the completion of the survey, OPM held several
briefings in Washington, DC, to share the results with the
senior managers and representatives from around the agencies.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government is
geographically dispersed. Approximately 90 percent of the
executive branch employees work outside of the Washington, DC,
metropolitan area, and as such, OPM has been working with the
Federal executive boards across the country to deliver an
emergency preparedness training to Federal employees throughout
the Federal Government.
Since October 2004, 22 training sessions have been held,
focusing on the human capital tools that are available to
Federal organizations and their emergency planning. Again, as
part of that training, OPM emphasizes the importance of a
strong telework plan to provide Federal agencies the capacity
to employ its workers outside of their normal workplace when
emergency circumstances dictate.
Today over 20 agencies have participated in our training.
To our cadre of human capital officers at OPM, we provide
hands-on, one-on-one assistance to the agencies as well. On
numerous occasions during the past year, OPM has provided
consultation and support to agencies challenged by weather and
traffic disruption. Certainly we have had a number of events in
the Washington area where we have supported our agencies.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, OPM has been a leading advocate
of the need to better prepare a Federal workforce in order to
cope with any possible crisis which could affect Federal
workers and government operations. In addition, we are grateful
for the attention that this committee has directed to Federal
agency's COOP plans, with over 1.8 million nonpostal executive
branch employees spread across the agencies, each with a
distinct and important mission.
We simply must incorporate employee safety with business
needs. OPM's goal is to make telework an integral part of the
agency operations, rather than a new or special program. I am
sure that--I assure you that OPM will continue to champion
telework as a key human capital strategy and do everything that
we can to facilitate, to educate, to guide the incorporation of
telework into the agencies' overall operations and emergency
preparedness planning and use.
Thank you. And I will be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Perez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.023
Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Koontz.
STATEMENT OF LINDA KOONTZ
Ms. Koontz. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to participate in the committee's
hearing on Federal continuity of operations planning.
As has been discussed, a range of events can interrupt
essential government services, and so Federal agencies are
required by Presidential Decision Directive 67 to develop plans
for ensuring the continuity of such services in emergency
situations. This directive designates the Federal Emergency
Management Agency as executive agent for executive branch
continuity of operations planning, and FEMA has issued planning
guidance to agencies.
About a year ago we testified before this committee on
agency compliance with FEMA guidance. At that time we stated
that a number of agencies did not have continuity plans in
place as of October 1, 2002. Further the essential functions
identified in those plans varied widely in type and number, and
the plans generally did not comply with FEMA's guidance.
Since that time the executive branch has taken a number of
important steps to improve continuity planning across
government. These are fully discussed in the report we did at
your request, and that is being released today. Specifically,
since our last review, FEMA has issued a new version of its
guidance that provides additional needed detail on each of the
planning areas, including the identification of essential
functions.
In addition, the White House has issued guidance on
essential functions and initiated the process to identify and
evaluate agency-level functions. In doing so, the White House
noted that in the past, many departments and agencies have had
difficulty in clearly identifying and articulating their
essential functions, which are the foundation of effective
continuity planning. This is a condition we recognized in our
prior and subsequent reviews of agency continuity plans.
However, while the White House efforts should improve the
identification of essential functions, the lack of a schedule
to complete this effort makes it unclear when these
improvements might take place.
You also asked us to look at the Federal plans in place as
of May 1, 2004. We found that agencies had made progress in
improving compliance with FEMA's guidance, particularly in the
area of tests, training and exercises. In addition, all but one
of the agencies reviewed now has a plan in place.
However, significant weaknesses remained. For example, 31
of 45 plans did not fully identify mission-critical systems and
data necessary to conduct essential functions. In our prior
review of 2002 plans, we noted that insufficient oversight by
FEMA contributed to agencies' lack of compliance with the
guidance. FEMA has since improved oversight by conducting an
interagency exercise in May 2004, and providing training to key
Federal, State and local personnel. FEMA also plans to collect
information from agencies on their readiness, but does not plan
to verify this information.
Finally, you asked us to what extent agency plans address
the use of telework during emergencies. We found that although
FEMA guidance was in place as of May 2004 it did not address
telework, one agency's plan included telework as part of its
continuity strategy. Also 10 others reported that they planned
to use telework, but these plans were not clearly documented.
Since then FEMA's new guidance directs agencies to consider
telework in continuity planning. However, the guidance does not
address the steps that agencies should take to ensure they have
made preparations necessary to use telework effectively in an
emergency situation.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, FEMA's revisions to its guidance
and the White House effort have the potential, if effectively
implemented, to help agencies better identify their essential
functions and thus develop better continuity plans. In
addition, agency continuity plans are slowly improving.
Finally, agencies appear to be making increasing use of
telework in their continuity plans. However, we think there are
further opportunities to ensure preparedness. Consequently, in
our report that is being released today, we are recommending
that a schedule be established for the White House effort, and
that FEMA further improve its oversight of agency continuity
plans by verifying that these plans are indeed fully compliant
with the guidance.
In addition, we are recommending that FEMA, in consultation
with OPM, develop more detailed guidance on telework. With
executive branch progress to date and the additional steps we
have recommended, as well as continuing oversight by this
committee, we believe that the Federal Government can ensure
that it is fully prepared for emergencies.
Thank you. That concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer questions.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Koontz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.042
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Hoover, throughout your testimony
you characterize FEMA's role in the COOP planning process as
lead agent and advisory assistance, to resource and providing
training. Doesn't some agency have to exercise comprehensive
authority and control over all of the other agencies to compel
compliance, and who should that be?
Mr. Hoover. Well, yes, Mr. Chairman, we are the lead agent,
and in that capacity we work very closely with all of the
departments and agencies. And I think we have made significant
strides in ensuring that departments and agencies are compliant
with the COOP guidance that we have put out as well as the most
recent guidance that came out from the Homeland Security
Council with regard to the national essential functions. And we
think that in combination with the efforts and the support that
we are getting from the Homeland Security Council, we are
making great improvement, and that the guidance that we have
now and the role and responsibilities we have now are
sufficient to get departments and agencies moving forward in
the right direction.
Chairman Tom Davis. I have heard it said that data is the
one resource that once it is lost can't be recovered. I know
that sounds cold and unfeeling, but it does highlight the
importance of maintaining security back-up systems.
If Wall Street loses its financial records, they are gone
forever, and the result would be financial chaos. Similarly, if
the government loses its vital data, it would have profound
consequences for the security of the country, and government is
behind the private sector because it doesn't have the same
market pressures on it. This school of thought, therefore,
advocates a datacentric approach of continuity of operations
planning.
Let me ask GAO to comment on its views of the Federal
Government's efforts to back up and secure its data, and then
ask FEMA and OPM how they are working to secure this important
resource.
Ms. Koontz. Well, I think that, in general, we can say that
the vital records area, which is ensuring that you have the
information that you need in order to perform essential
functions during an emergency, was probably one of the weaker
areas that we looked at when we evaluated continuity plans as
of May 1, 2004.
Chairman Tom Davis. Can you give an example, something that
if it really--as of that date, if it were lost, could be a
severe problem?
Ms. Koontz. There are many things in the Federal Government
that I am sure that if they were lost would be very valuable,
including all kinds of files involving recipients of benefit
programs across the government, any data dealing with economic
health of the agency. I could not even begin to enumerate all
of the different kinds of information that is so valuable, if
it were lost, it would be disastrous.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Let me just ask FEMA and OPM how
you are working to secure these resources.
Mr. Hoover. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that
is in the new revised guidance for Federal Preparedness
Circular 65 is an area that deals specifically with vital
records and functions. Certainly if you go to an alternate
facility and don't have reach-back capability to those vital
records and functions, as you mentioned, you won't be as
effective as you could be.
So we put out guidance to the departments and agencies, and
we help them implement that guidance by ensuring that they have
the back-up capability and they have redundant capability not
only in communications, but also in maintaining vital records
and having that reach-back capability.
We are working with departments and agencies to improve
that. We have recognized that is an area that needs to be fixed
across the government, and I think we are making some
improvement in that area.
Ms. Perez. Mr. Chairman, I will speak, obviously, from an
OPM, an agency perspective in terms of having its own
information and data backed up, but I can tell you that we are
certainly following the guidance that is--the FEMA guidance,
and that OPM does have all of its data, retirement information
and so forth, backed up. So we feel comfortable that we have
met all of their requirements and the guidelines.
Chairman Tom Davis. The GAO study revealed--Ms. Perez, this
is for you. The GAO study revealed that 19 of 23 agencies
surveyed have a telework policy in place, but only 1 of the 19
agencies had their telework policies play a role in COOP. Why
this disconnect?
Ms. Perez. Yes. In fact, Linda and I had a conversation
prior to the beginning of the hearing, Mr. Chairman, and
frankly, we have--since we survey the agencies on a regular
basis, we did a survey in 2003 and 2004, and just surveyed them
again in 2005. And I think our data may be a little more
current than perhaps what--the GAO information.
All of the agencies, with the exception of one, currently
have a policy, a telework policy, in place. The response that
we are getting from the agencies with regards to how many of
them are actually using telework as a flexibility in their COOP
operations, it is a little bit higher than that. We actually
surveyed about 65 agencies. We have--about 35 percent of
agencies say they have--they are using telework as a
flexibility on a situational basis. About 40 percent of the 65
agencies said that they actually have COOP as a permanent
part--telework as a permanent part of their COOP planning. So I
think that it may be the timing of the survey. Our data
indicates that agencies continue to make progress, and that
they are doing probably a little bit better than perhaps when
the data was collected by GAO.
Chairman Tom Davis. In the written testimony on our next
panel, Julie Williams from Cisco says the one of the keys to
success of Cisco's telework policy is it has provided 100
percent reimbursement on the cost of broadband services to the
employees' homes of up to $75 a month. Federal Government
currently reimburses workers up to a $100 a month for commuting
costs like Metro.
Is employee reimbursement for broadband service an idea the
Federal Government could pursue?
Ms. Perez. Certainly. We have left up to the agencies what
policies they use in terms of implementing what is
reimbursable. The Federal Government does not have currently
the capability, I don't think, of reimbursing for personal
expenses. So I think that is something that would have to be
looked into. Is it a good policy or not would have to be
considered.
Chairman Tom Davis. You would have no objection to
individual agencies having that discretion, I gather, if we
gave it to them?
Ms. Perez. I think that it would be entirely up to--
somebody would have to analyze the costs and so forth and see
whether it makes sense in the context of the agency's
operations.
Chairman Tom Davis. It wouldn't be every employee, but
certainly for some employees. I mean, you talk about continuity
of operations and the like. It seems that would be something
that we might be interested in looking at.
Ms. Perez. Certainly something that would be worth
considering.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hoover, do you expect FEMA's June 2004's guidance to
improve the agency COOP plans?
Mr. Hoover. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question. We think
that the guidance that we put out is a significant improvement
over previous guidance that had been developed before September
11th. In fact, we combined three Federal preparedness circulars
that were previously out on the COOP subject.
We included in this Federal preparedness circular that we
released in June a section on human capital management that OPM
helped us on. We included an annex in there on alternate
facility site selection that the GSA helped us on.
So we think that the new guidance that was put out, in
addition to the most recent guidance on the eight national
essential functions, and we have asked departments and agencies
to identify their primary mission-essential functions that
support that, are all things that will help improve the
Government to be prepared to perform its essential functions
from alternate facilities.
Chairman Tom Davis. It seems as though some agencies have
made less progress than other agencies; that is, some seem to
be moving further ahead than others. Would you hazard a comment
as to why some seem to be doing better than others?
Mr. Hoover. Well, I think that is a fair assessment that
some departments and agencies are moving quicker than others in
regard to making sure that they have all of the elements of a
viable COOP plan in place. But I would say that on whole, if we
look at the 76 departments and agencies that are involved in
our COOP Working Group, which are most of the major departments
and agencies in the National Capital region, and certainly out
in the regions as well, they are all making improvements in
their COOP planning and preparedness, and folks have really
taken an important renewed emphasis on COOP planning and COOP
readiness.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Do you think that there is anything
that will help to spur them on or cause them to intensify,
perhaps, their efforts?
Mr. Hoover. I think one of the most important things that
has helped reinforce the importance of continuity operations
and/or COOP programs has been the emphasis that the Homeland
Security Council has placed on it. And with issuing the
guidance with regard to primary mission-essential functions, we
think as we finish that review of the submissions that we have
from all of the major departments and agencies in the National
Capital region, as we finish that review, we will be able to
even provide more refined guidance for COOP planning and make
us in a better position again to deliver essential functions in
the event of an emergency.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Ms. Perez, a witness on the next
panel, Kevin Luten, will testify that the Federal Government
lags behind the private sector in the Washington region when it
comes to telecommuting.
The 2004 state of the commute by the Washington, DC,
Council of Governments found that 15 percent of private sector
employees teleworked, compared to only 12 percent of Federal
employees. As of today does the Federal Government have a
functioning telework program in place that would sustain an
agency operation during an extended emergency?
Ms. Perez. Well, the Federal Government--it is a big
organization, sir. I would say that agency by agency it differs
in the quality and the extent to which they are prepared to use
telework as an alternative flexibility in deploying their
workforce.
With regards to why they use it and how they do not use it,
I think that the Federal work continues to educate them. We
provide a lot of guidance. Agencies continue to attend our
briefing sessions. We have a quarterly event that we hold. We
get a lot of questions from the agencies, and I think they are
continuing to try to get better at this.
There is still some reluctance in the way that our managers
sometimes view telework. If we can't see them, we can't touch
them, they may not be working as hard as we want them to work.
But I think with continuous education and guidance from FEMA
with regards to using it, and OPM as a tool for emergency
planning, it could continue to grow. But it varies from agency
to agency, sir.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Ms. Koontz, based upon the
information that you have, does it appear from just your
observation that there is a high level of serious intent or
seriousness or feeling of need to seriously pursue this kind of
activity?
Ms. Koontz. I believe that with the recently initiated
White House effort, and the attention that they are placing on
creating a framework for identifying agency-level essential
functions, I think we now have the sense of urgency and the
intention that we need to get this done.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Just have another question or two for this panel.
Mr. Hoover, in your testimony you highlighted the
establishment of the COOP Working Group, a Federal, State, and
a local forum for the National Capital region designed to
assist the executive branch in COOP capability development. Is
Metro included in this working group?
Mr. Hoover. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The District of Columbia has
a representative, as well as the legislative branch and the
judicial branch participate. And that group meets every month
to discuss COOP planning, and other COOP-related issues.
Chairman Tom Davis. So it is safe to say that this signals
FEMA's view of the central role of Metro in the National
Capital region's preparedness.
Mr. Hoover. Yes, sir.
Chairman Tom Davis. What can be done to ensure that Metro
is a full partner in COOP preparedness?
Mr. Hoover. Well, I would say that they are. And the fact
that they attend our monthly COOP Working Group meetings, and
certainly the efforts within the Department of Homeland
Security's National Capital Region office, we have been working
on issues such as evacuation and credentialing, and the D.C.
area is very much a part of that.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Thank you all very much. I
appreciate it. We will take a 2-minute recess as we move our
next panel ahead.
Our next panel consists of James A. Kane, the president and
CEO of Systems and Software Consortium, welcome him back; Julie
Williams, a director of the Internet Business Solutions Group
in the Federal Civilian Agency Practice, Cisco Systems; and
Kevin Luten, the public policy representative at the
Association of Commuter Transportation.
We will recess for just a couple of minutes.
[Recess.]
Chairman Tom Davis. The meeting will come back to order.
Are you ready to be sworn in? If you would stand up, I will
swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. We will start.
Dr. Kane, I will start with you. We will go straight down
and try to limit it to 5 minutes. I think you know the rule.
Then we will go right to questions. Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF JAMES A. KANE, Ph.D., PRESIDENT AND CEO, SYSTEMS
AND SOFTWARE CONSORTIUM; JULIE WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR, INTERNET
BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, FEDERAL CIVILIAN AGENCY PRACTICE,
CISCO SYSTEMS; AND KEVIN LUTEN, PUBLIC POLICY REPRESENTATIVE
ASSOCIATION OF COMMUTER TRANSPORTATION
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. KANE, Ph.D.
Mr. Kane. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, distinguished guests and committee staff members,
thank you for inviting me here today to provide insights on the
importance of telework and continuity of operations planning.
I am Jim Kane, president and CEO of the Systems and
Software Consortium. The role of the Consortium and its
relationship to your interest and support, Chairman Davis, and
to Representative Frank Wolf's initiatives through the Telework
Consortium are described in my written submission, so in the
interest of time, I will proceed to the major points of my
testimony.
I am pleased to be here today to offer two key insights as
inputs to the committee's deliberations and to offer two modest
recommendations I believe can significantly contribute to the
success of telework-based solutions in continuity of operations
plans. My first insight corresponds to the committee's interest
in the respective roles of OPM for implementing telework
programs and for FEMA's role in continuity of operations. My
first insight is to ensure that these agencies are clear on the
concept of telework.
The phrase ``telework'' as used by OPM and GAO is referred
to by them as telecommuting and/or flexiplace. It conveys the
image of a solitary worker remotely connected to a central work
site. This is in dramatic contrast to the more contemporary
concept of telework, which embraces spatially distributed work
teams using high-bandwidth telecommunications to perform
routine business activities.
Contemporary telecommunications is taking the ``place'' out
of the word ``workplace.'' If you doubt that, walk through an
airport, walk through your neighborhood Starbucks. Are these
people telecommuting or are they simply working in a more
contemporary way? Accordingly, this committee's concern should
not be merely whether an agency has telework in their
continuity of operations plans, but rather whether the guidance
being provided reflects what is now possible using contemporary
practices for telework.
If past is prologue in this area, yes, we will have
guidance on telework as an element of continuity of operations
planning, but it will be equivalent to having guidance on how
to adjust the rabbit ears on your TV set to get those three
channels of network television.
My second insight is offered from the perspective of the
committee's interest in the plans of individuals for
incorporating telework in their continuity of operations plans.
Pilot deployments of telework solutions are essential for
successful large-scale implementations. Against that backdrop,
I refer you to the GAO report of July 2003 and, specifically,
to figure 1 on page 5 of that report. The figure lists 25 key
telework practices for implementation of a successful Federal
telework program, yet nowhere on this list does it say anything
about actually implementing pilot projects as a key success
factor. It is as if you have the cookbook, you have the
ingredients, but you never cook the meal.
We at the Telework Consortium have learned that pilot
projects are essential. They enable us to ensure that the
appropriate technology is deployed and that adequate resources
are in place. But even more important is that pilots enable the
participants to see and experience what is now possible. It is
the behavior of people more than the performance of technology
that enables telework-based solutions to support agency
missions whether in normal times or emergency operations.
Therefore, in evaluating GAO reports as to whether telework and
continuity of operations plans are coordinated, the real issue
is not whether they are on paper, but whether they have been
tried in practice.
The committee should not place false confidence in the few
agencies that have at least coordinated telework in their
continuity of operations plans. If the agency is not already
running pilots, confidence in that agency's ability to support
continuity of operations could be misleading.
In closing, let me offer two modest recommendations. First,
leverage what you already have in place and have invested in.
Despite the continued interest and personal efforts of
yourself, Chairman Davis, and Representative Wolf, agencies,
with few exceptions, are not taking advantage of the Telework
Consortium as a resource. I would recommend to the committee
that agencies use the Telework Consortium as a resource for
their telework programs to ensure they are getting maximum
benefits from the pilot projects they should be conducting.
My final recommendation is that I would again, as in my
previous appearance before you, encourage you to consider a
National Center for Distributed Work. We are now experiencing a
technology revolution that will affect how government agencies
operate. A national center could focus on pilot implementations
of contemporary telework-based solutions in a continuity of
operations environment. This could provide valuable insight to
both government and industry on how to ensure an increasingly
safe, adaptive and productive work environment.
In closing, I again thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the entire
committee for allowing me to share my perspectives on telework
with you today. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kane follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.048
Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Williams, thanks for joining us.
STATEMENT OF JULIE WILLIAMS
Ms. Williams. Thank you, Chairman Davis, Ranking Member
Waxman and other distinguished Members. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify today regarding Cisco's experience with
business continuity planning and the importance of telework as
a key enabler of our strategy to provide highly available,
responsive, secure and essential business operations.
My name is Julie Williams and I am the director of our
Federal civilian agency practice for Cisco's Internet Business
Solutions Group. So today I will focus my comments on Cisco's
experience with our business continuity planning and the
important role that telework plays in enabling that continuity
strategy.
As a publicly traded company, Cisco has a corporate
responsibility to its shareholders to maximize shareholder
value in all areas of the business. Ensuring business
continuity is a critical element of that shareholder
responsibility. The company is responsible, in order to do
this, to maintain a continuous operating infrastructure to
support its financial systems and controls. To accomplish this,
Cisco has established a robust business continuity management
framework that defines the key elements for uninterrupted
access to mission-critical corporate data and resources in the
event of a natural disaster, homeland security threat or other
significant interruption.
That framework contains four layers beginning at the bottom
with network resilience. The other three layers, in order, are
application resilience, communications resilience, and finally,
workforce resilience. It is this top layer and last layer, the
workforce resilience layer, that provides the capabilities for
employees to remain fully connected to enterprise
communications and applications systems even if they cannot
report to their normal work location.
Each layer of resilience depends on those layers beneath.
That is, it is impossible to achieve workforce resilience
without a foundation of resilient communications, and it is
impossible to provide resilient communications without basing
it on a resilient network infrastructure and applications.
In our experience, many organizations, to date, have
focused on optimizing the network application and communication
layers and have largely ignored that workforce layer in their
BCM planning. So we have invested heavily as a company in this
top layer through focused development of employment tools and
teleworking policies. These tools and policies allow us to
conduct business anytime and anywhere in the event of
significant interruptions, and are critical to maintaining our
shareholder value.
A key element for success is Cisco's corporate Internet,
our Cisco Employee Connection. CEC provides the foundation for
our corporate information and processes worldwide. It gives
employees 24-by-7 access to the tools, information and
applications they need to be effective and contribute to our
bottom-line revenue-generating activities. In effect, CEC
becomes just another work location such as a cubicle, a remote
branch or a coffee house.
So I would like to give you some ideas of many of the tools
and applications that our employees access via CEC, and these
are what we consider our essential functions which are critical
to running the business. For example, our employees and
executives can enter and process all of our customer orders;
track up-to-the-minute performance data, including our bookings
data, revenue and operating expenses; record, distribute and
play critical video and audio communications; and the like.
So where does telework fit into this equation? Teleworking
is essential to our continuity of operations plan as it enables
access to these critical tools and processes. Many
organizations overlook this top element of that workforce
resilient layer and, instead, focus on the remaining layers.
The events of September 11 and subsequent anthrax threats
taught the world that continuity planning must extend beyond
the physical buildings and allow workers to connect from
anywhere they may be in order to begin planning through and
recovering from disruptions.
With this highly available foundation of networks and
applications and the ability to have real-time video
connectivity with peers, coworkers and management, Cisco
employees with virtual offices feel less need to be attached to
the Cisco office location and spend more time with customers
and partners.
Over 90 percent of Cisco's employees telework 1 to 2 days a
week, and this productivity has generated significant financial
benefits for our organization. Through our experience,
deploying business continuity solutions, as well as helping
other government and private-sector organizations deploy these
same successful programs, we have found that there are several
key underlying factors that need to be in place to enable this.
The first is to migrate much of the organization's business
activities and processes to paperless activities, make
application tools available to support access and operation in
a digital mode, ensure full access to all of those assets from
remote locations, develop a cultural migration plan for the
organization to accept individuals' becoming remote individual
contributors; and this, in turn, requires that we define and
capture new metrics to allow the management process to take
place on a virtual basis.
Finally, we feel that allowing the monthly reimbursement of
Internet service provider access for teleworking is a key to
our internal success. And in our experience with Federal
organizations to date, the flexibility to reimburse employees
for this broadband service cost, similar to the method for
reimbursing more traditional commuting expenses like Metro,
will be essential to increasing the adoption of telework and
tele-COOP across government.
So, in summary, I would like to mention that the U.S.
Federal Government has publicly affirmed its responsibility to
its citizens by putting into place a plan for sustaining a
Constitutional form of government through any disruption. The
continuity of operations is the means by which government plans
to fulfill this responsibility, just as Cisco's business
continuity management initiative is the means to fulfill our
responsibility to our shareholders and employees. We each need
the deployment and integration of all four layers in the
business continuity model and framework to support the needs of
this displaced workforce, and we need to support swift movement
toward a true paperless government to help maximize the impact
of the tools and processes we employ to manage the Nation.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other
committee members for inviting me here today; and I am pleased
to answer your questions.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.062
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Luten.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN LUTEN
Mr. Luten. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank
you very much for the opportunity to participate in this dialog
on the role of telework in the Federal workplace concerning
continuity of operations planning.
My name is Kevin Luten. I am the planning director of Urban
Trans consultants, a national transportation management
consulting firm; and I am here representing the Association for
Commuter Transportation [ACT], as their Washington regional
public policy representative.
I can also say that I am a full-time teleworker, and
perhaps Dr. Kane has run into me at Starbucks on Pennsylvania
just a few blocks from here. So I am familiar with the
dynamics.
Before I start, I would like to express ACT's appreciation
to Chairman Davis and the rest of the committee for holding
this hearing. Chairman Davis' commitment to a secure and
efficient government is exemplified by his actions and this
hearing. It is this commitment and dedication that will be
needed in order to ensure that the Federal Government continues
essential operations in the event of an emergency, natural or
otherwise, large or minor.
The members of ACT represent a broad coalition of
organizations from major private-sector businesses and
institutions to State and local transportation agencies. But we
all have one thing in common. We are all working cooperatively
to make transportation work better by making it more efficient
and less costly, for government, communities, businesses,
families and individuals. This means helping businesses and
communities balance needed infrastructure improvements with
complementary investments in the programs and policies that
address the demand side of the transportation equation.
ACT and its members have been very involved with regional
planning agencies on emergency management planning. There are a
number of different ways that demand side strategies can play a
role in emergency situations. A key element of this equation is
teleworking. Whether it is home-based or remote office-based,
teleworking moves the work to the employee rather than moving
the employee to the work.
I would like to offer a few examples of the different ways
that teleworking is increasingly important to businesses, talk
specifically about the role of teleworking as a strategy for
emergency preparedness, and offer some lessons learned from the
private sector that can help guide Federal policy and program
implementation.
Companies implement telework programs, as you know, for
many reasons, including increasing productivity, decreasing
facility cost and facilitating expansion, increasing employee
productivity and improving employee morale and improving labor
recruitment and retention. In short, companies are pursuing
aggressive telework programs to enhance productivity and
economic competitiveness. These companies recognize that the
extremely fast pace of change in computing and information
technology is fundamentally changing the way that many
companies do business and compete in today's global economy.
Adapting to and incorporating these technological advances
into all aspects of business operations from how people work to
where they work to when they work is increasingly critical to
maintaining competitiveness. In one example, AT&T, a large
number of employees are permanently moving out of traditional
offices and into virtual offices. AT&T is pursuing a
fundamentally new corporate strategy by building operations
that are net centric instead of building centric. Essentially,
they are organizing operations around networks instead of
buildings.
AT&T, in 2003, had 17 percent of their managers working
full-time in virtual offices and 33 percent of managers working
at least 1 day a week in remote offices. As Congressman Davis
noted, in the metropolitan Washington COG's 2004 State of the
Commute report, it found that 15 percent of employees at
private-sector companies in the Washington region are
teleworking today versus 12 percent of Federal workers.
AT&T's network-based structure is expected to generate over
$150 million in benefits to AT&T by increasing productivity,
reducing overhead costs such as real estate and enhancing
recruitment and retention.
Productivity gains are perhaps the most significant but
least understood benefit of telework. AT&T teleworkers have
consistently reported gaining about 1 extra hour of job-based
productive time each day when working at home. Essentially they
redirect the majority of their commuting time, on average 80
minutes a day, into work activities.
How does this relate to telework and emergency
preparedness? Increasingly, companies are finding that
teleworking is not only an effective business strategy, but
helps address issues such as improving retention, reducing
facility cost and increasing productivity. But also it is
essential in preparing for and recovering from emergency
situations.
My company is currently helping the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council in Florida to help companies develop pilot
telework programs as a key part of their emergency preparedness
planning. In the aftermath of last year's hurricane season,
Florida is emerging at the forefront of using telework to
maintain business and community operations in the wake of
natural disasters. These programs can keep companies running,
keep communities functioning and greatly reduce the larger
economic hardships imposed by these events.
A few lessons learned from Florida are that, one,
telecommunications infrastructure tends to be more robust and
include more redundancy than our roadway infrastructure;
second, that organizations with established remote access
programs were more resilient than those that did not have
established programs; and most importantly, preplanning is key
to quick response and quick recovery.
Lessons from the private sector and from areas hit hard by
natural and man-made disasters in the past lead our
organization to urge the Federal Government to continue to
speed its implementation of telework for all employees and to
focus on advanced planning in order to fully utilize telework
as a core element of contingency planning for Federal agencies.
Just a couple of specific recommendations: abundant
preplanning, including the use of pilot programs for the
integration of telework into contingency planning at all
Federal agencies; increasing education for managers and
executives; providing adequate resources to develop and
implement telework capabilities; reissue, clarify and assert
the Federal standards for telework eligibility; and the last
two comments, to explore other demand-side strategies such as
ride-sharing and the use of mass transit options in addition to
telework as part of contingency planning.
Last, I would encourage you, Mr. Chairman, to explore the
reimbursement of telework office and connectivity expenses as
part of a pretax arrangement. ACT has been actively involved in
those pretax arrangements for both transit and van pooling in
the past and continues to support those activities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Luten follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.068
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, thank you all very much. That was
very useful testimony.
Let me ask anybody, are there any specific Federal
Government departments or agencies that currently have telework
policies that you would recommend?
Mr. Kane. Yes. TIGTA at Treasury, the Treasury Inspector
General Tax Administration, they have been one of the pilots we
have worked with over the years, and they are clearly out in
front. Very impressive.
Chairman Tom Davis. Anybody else want to offer up any?
Ms. Williams. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are currently working
with two to three agencies right now on some demonstration
projects.
Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Kane, in your testimony, you
emphasized a more contemporary concept of telework that is
really different from GAO's concept of telework, which they
also referred to as telecommuting or flexiplace.
What is different?
Mr. Kane. Chairman Davis, I think there are probably at
least three key dimensions.
First of all, a lot of the telework, in terms of
telecommuting, it tends to sort of assume fairly low bandwidth,
and the amount of bandwidth availability now is different.
Second, that means the types of applications that you can
take, that you can implement on your desktop, whether it is at
home or at Starbucks or at the airport, is entirely different,
particularly in terms of going well beyond text to do graphics
and video.
One of the best pilots where I got tremendous insight was
when we worked in Loudoun County and they produced a whole
magazine--graphics, layout, financial information--again, just
with current software available.
And third, just the amount of processing power that is
available. All of this is becoming less and less expensive. And
so we have more powerful technology at a lower cost.
Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Williams, in your testimony, you
note that Cisco has a policy of reimbursing employees for their
home broadband connections.
What percent of employees or how many employees take
advantage of this?
Ms. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I would say that just about
all, 90 percent, of our current telework employees take
advantage of this reimbursement service. I think the reason
that we find there is such a high adoption rate is, as Mr. Kane
mentioned, the cost of traditional commuting is skyrocketing
and the cost of these new broadband services is being reduced.
In fact, some of the costs for some of the residential and
business-class broadband services are actually starting to come
down, and those are the services that provide the very high-
bandwidth capable to do video and voice and data to the home.
Chairman Tom Davis. What percent of these employees would
have paid for it anyway, out of their own pockets, and what
percent--I mean, it is hard to guess, I guess--are you
incentivizing to now have the full bandwidth?
Ms. Williams. It is a bit of a difficult question to answer
in that most of our employees, when they started with the
company, had the ability to utilize this service from the get-
go. So there is a bit of a difference in that.
We have not been shifting our employees from a pay-on-your-
own to a company-sponsored program. However, I do believe that
because of the productivity gains that they feel they gain as a
result, as well as the quality-of-life balance that they
receive, that they would in fact offer to pay for that
broadband service themselves if they had to make the choice.
Chairman Tom Davis. I wonder if there is a way to tell the
percent of employees who qualify for this and have the full
broadband versus ones who don't qualify for this, if I give you
a delta of people that you have incentivized, that you actually
are paying for. I appreciate the comment.
Mr. Luten, you made mention of the same thing in your
remarks. Any observations on that?
Mr. Luten. Sure. I think that I agree generally with Ms.
Williams' comments. It does depend on the circumstance.
I think we are also seeing some shifts, that Dr. Kane
referred to, in the way that communications technologies are
available that is moving these expenses perhaps beyond just
based in the home and opening up more regionwide broadband
connectivity that is increasingly available, including here in
the Washington, DC, area.
So we may be talking about connectivity that doesn't just
limit you to the office or even limit you to the home, but that
keeps you connected in a variety of applications, which greatly
increases flexibility for companies.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In my opening statement, I mentioned legislation that I had
introduced last year calling for a pilot program. How in your
estimation, each of you, would such a program help plan or move
us further along relative to telecommuting?
Mr. Kane. Representative, if I might respond to that. I
think there are three areas.
First of all, for military tactics, you know that the first
thing that breaks is the plan after the first shot gets fired.
And so, while agencies may have a plan, it is really the
pilots, the demonstrations that you are advocating that let you
first assess how good the plan is.
Second, when you do these types of demonstrations and
pilots, you have the opportunity to tailor your response. It is
sort of like, do you move the picture a little bit to the right
or to the left.
Is the network quite optimized? Are people quite familiar
with the software? What types of business processes are you
supporting? Is it more of a financial transaction or is it more
of a client service delivery type of transaction? That all
implies some subtle adjustments.
Finally, and as I emphasized in my testimony, what I
believe is the most important is people realize what is
possible. They use the system available to them in ways that
probably weren't first envisioned, and it becomes
institutionalized in the way that they work. Thank you.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams. Yes, Representative. I second Dr. Kane's
comments about the need for pilots. I do believe, personally,
that the program that you are speaking of will help
organizations, particularly the employees and the managers,
understand what is possible, because you don't know what you
can't see and manage. Those have been some of, I guess, the
adages regarding not embracing telework.
But with the new technologies in place, there are
capabilities to manage by objectives, create new measurements
for employee effectiveness and managerial effectiveness, and I
think that the demonstrations will allow these folks to
understand the possibility of changes in behaviors and
attitudes toward working differently as we move the economy
forward.
Mr. Luten. Just following up on those comments, I certainly
agree that planning is critical in terms of revealing what the
hurdles are to successful teleworking. The time to understand
those hurdles is ahead of time and not during a time of crisis
when understanding these things becomes much more jumbled in
other issues. So planning ahead of time is certainly critical.
Certainly another thing that we are seeing in other areas,
however, are the spin-off benefits of exploring pilot programs.
We have worked with a lot of hospitals in rural areas who have
developed, for example, ride-sharing programs for emergencies
like snowstorms and other circumstances. Folks try these things
in times of emergencies, or in this case, during a pilot
activity, and it does create spin-off benefits where folks will
try these things on a more regular basis. That's another thing
I would note. There are probably additional spin-off benefits
of pilot programs beyond just planning for emergencies.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. How much of a factor should cost be
in doing telework planning? How much of a consideration should
we give or do we give to cost as we plan for telecommuting?
Ms. Williams. Representative, I think the answer to that
is, in our experience, working with many of the agencies, it
has been difficult for them to understand where to find the
additional funding for these types of initiatives. What we have
experienced is that there are significant savings in terms of
real estate costs, traditional commuting expense costs that can
defray these types of programs, as well as the efficiencies
gained from having access to better applications and services
to accomplish the work a bit more quickly and more efficiently.
So I do think it is a challenge for agencies to understand
where to find the funds, and I think that the flexibility in
allowing agencies to use some of the savings from other
programs can help fund these types of initiatives.
Mr. Kane. Representative Davis, I think I might take a
slightly different perspective than Julie in that, the last
time I checked, the Federal information technology budget as
reported by OMB is somewhere in the neighborhood of $61 or $62
billion. I think the potential savings that agencies could
achieve by telework, there are probably enough puts and takes
within $62 billion where cost should not be an issue for
implementing wide-scale telecommuting, telework programs.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
Mr. Luten. Let me just followup on the idea that looking at
this comprehensively from an organizational perspective seems
to be the best approach; that integrating the potential savings
in some areas with additional costs in other areas, that in
order to look at this stuff properly, we have to be looking at
it as part of a comprehensive approach and integrating telework
into our overall operations and not thinking about it as a
stand-alone, adjunct idea.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
If I could ask Ms. Williams, what percent of the Cisco
employees did you indicate telecommute?
Ms. Williams. Approximately 90 percent of our employees
telecommute at least 1 to 2 days per week, and that percentage
is actually higher in Europe where we actually--they are able
to use the higher percentage of mobility applications there.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, could I just ask unanimous consent, I have
two letters here, one from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council and one from the Association for Commuter
Transportation.
Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection, they will be put in
the record. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.072
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry
that another meeting prevented me from hearing the witnesses on
the first panel, and maybe some of these things were discussed
a little bit on the first panel; but let me just ask you,
almost everybody seems to be very favorable to telework and
telecommuting and so forth. I don't have anything against it.
But when I practiced law, we tried to anticipate or discuss
more about what the weaknesses in our case were or what the
problems might be, so we wouldn't be caught by surprise and so
we would be better prepared.
I guess one thing I am wondering about is, what are the
problems with this or--and more specifically, in the briefing
paper we have this statement. It says, ``FEMA recognized that
improper identification of essential functions can have a
negative impact on the entire COOP plan.'' That sounds kind of
bureaucratic to me, because I am not really clear exactly what
``improper identification of essential functions'' means. I
would like to hear comments from each of you about all that.
Dr. Kane.
Mr. Kane. Representative Duncan, I am not sure quite what
the phrase means, either, but let me try to respond as best I
can.
Certainly, when we see obstacles in telecommuting and
telework, it is not so much technology sorts of issues, but
they probably fall into two areas. No. 1 is the function. We
can't do this dispersed; we have to be all in the same room to
do this.
Driving over here today, one of our staff members was
telling us the pilot we are doing with Loudoun County, their
board of supervisors, where they found out yesterday that they
could sort of mark up some documents, where the chairman was
one place and another member was another place and they were
working it together. That is sort of, probably, illustrative of
the functions that don't apply themselves or are not
appropriate for the types of activities that could be supported
by remote, distributed work.
And I think, second, as Chairman Davis discussed at the
hearing last July, there is some managerial resistance, ``I
have to see it to know you are working.''
Mr. Duncan. Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams. Yes, Representative Duncan, thank you.
I echo Dr. Kane's confusion on the comments about how to
miscategorize essential functions. I think, from our
perspective, we look at functions that are critical to our
business to protect our shareholder or to ensure shareholder
value, and when I look at the same corollary for government, I
would anticipate that the agencies would look at essential
functions and categorize those that are essential to the
citizens and maintaining their financial viability of
government.
It is difficult to understand why it is difficult to
categorize the right functions when I think of--I think folks
ought to take a different tack and look at what is valuable to
the citizen and what is valuable to them as members of
government.
Mr. Duncan. OK.
Mr. Luten. I will just say briefly, in following up on Dr.
Kane's comments, I think the weaknesses we see in telework are
that, in fact, our telecommunications infrastructure is
accelerating faster than our ability to change in our workplace
culture. And I think that is the challenge of the modern
workplace, to keep up with the changes in technology that are
essentially always two steps ahead. Things are more possible
than they are easy to implement. Workplace culture, managerial
culture, service culture, those things seem to be the biggest
hurdles to effective programs.
Mr. Duncan. My time is about to run out already. You have
led me into another area, or really two areas. One is, there
was a comment made a while ago about the costs coming down. The
computers do wonderful and miraculous and great things. I agree
with all that. I think, though, that everything has become much
more expensive because of them; and what I am getting at is
this.
The computer companies tell us that a computer is obsolete
the day it is taken out of the box, technology is moving so
fast, and so you always have to buy new equipment, it seems,
every time you turn around. I know we do for our offices.
I am wondering about the expense of all this, since we are
talking about all these people working generally 1 or 2 days a
week at home. Do they have to duplicate with all the equipment
at home that they have in the offices? It seems that could get
kind of expensive.
And then, last, I am a little concerned about the national
security situation, because I heard on the CBS radio news a
couple of years ago that computer hackers got into the Top
Secret files at the Pentagon more than 250,000 times in the
previous year. So it sort of led me to believe that really
there are no secrets of any kind really anymore.
But do we have some concerns about that, about getting
certain information that we would have to limit or prohibit
people from working on at home?
Mr. Luten. I think data security obviously is a critical
element of any good telework plan. I think when we talk about
people working at home a few days a week, as well as working in
the office place, a couple of things are offsetting those
additional costs.
One is, as you mentioned, the fact that all this equipment
is coming down in price significantly. Two, that many people
that we find----
Mr. Duncan. I don't think it is coming down. It seems to me
it is going in another direction. At any rate, what I am
wondering about is, is there any tax loss when the company
writes off all this office space that they are not using--and
they write off also, the employee does, a home office? I don't
know. Anybody?
Mr. Kane. If I might comment, you've raised two issues, one
which was a cost issue, one which was a security issue. I will
say that one of our member companies, a very, very large
defense contractor has found that it is more cost effective for
them simply to buy laptop computers for their employees and
have the employees take it home.
No. 1 is, it has more flexibility and so it is not--to the
extent the company is going to have to update its equipment
every 3 years or 5 years, whatever, you've provided one
computer that can be both at home as well as at work or on the
road.
And second, what was more important for them was the
security consideration, that they were able to configure those
laptops to avoid viruses, to put in the appropriate protection;
so, for that company, it was very much a security
consideration.
Mr. Duncan. OK.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Watson.
Ms. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am just wondering. We are talking about telework, but if
there were a gigantic disaster, are we sure that regardless of
where people would work, that we could communicate? I am
thinking that if they are on a system and there is a disaster,
let's take September 11, that touched everything in a radius
around the World Trade Center.
I am just wondering, are we planning for alternative ways
to communicate? Are we planning on looking at virtual offices,
homes, and so on as teleworks? What is the breadth of what we
are planning?
Let me give you an example of my concern. On September 11,
as you know, when those towers were coming down, there were
first responders walking around with pieces of equipment that
did not work. That is the reason why we lost so many
firefighters, because they didn't get the message to evacuate
quick enough.
I am just sitting here listening to all this, this high
technology and so on, we will have them here rather than at
their regular workstations, but does reality say they're going
to even be able to operate from their homes?
Mr. Luten. I have a couple of comments.
One, I think that we aren't likely to see in a significant
event 100 percent of people being able to continue to work
through a telework arrangement. However, we are likely to see--
--
Ms. Watson. Can you explain that? Being able to work
through--what do we mean by that statement?
Mr. Luten. Being able to complete their job duties without
being in their normal, physical offices.
Ms. Watson. How are they doing that? That is what I want to
hear.
Mr. Luten. Let me answer that if the question is--if people
are dispersed in terms of their home locations, the
telecommunications infrastructure in major events has proved a
little more resilient than transportation infrastructure. So we
may lose some percentage of the telecommunications system and
lose a percentage of our workforce, but we can still find, even
if it is 40 to 50 percent of people who are able to continue
working, because the communications in the area where they live
is still working. If we have done good planning up front,
people understand how to communicate and they understand what
the alternate means of communicating are--maybe that's advanced
contact lists of cell phones for everyone in your company, etc.
Planning these things out in advance can be a big benefit.
In 2004, in the hurricane season, the total economic impact
of all the hurricanes was in the neighborhood of $42 billion. A
lot of that was lost worker productivity. Even if we can get 30
to 40 percent of people continuing to work, we can offset a lot
of that impact.
Mr. Kane. Representative Watson, if I might also comment on
this, the answer to your question of how do they communicate is
the Internet. If you have skepticism of that, let me share with
you what I believe is one of the untold success stories of
September 11.
Technology developed by the Department of Defense in 1969,
called the ARPAnet, which was originally developed to support
communications in time of attack, which evolved into the Milnet
which has subsequently evolved into the Internet, worked
exactly as military planners planned it out in the early
1970's.
I know personally, while no one else was able to sort of
communicate and cell phones weren't working and land lines, I
have a daughter who lives in Manhattan, and we were doing e-
mail all day on September 11 over the Internet just as military
planners had figured out approximately 30 years earlier.
Ms. Watson. OK. That is one scenario, the one we know.
Suppose there is a nuclear explosion at one of our plants
and so on that will destroy everything in a radius of maybe 45,
50 miles. Are you thinking forward? Are you thinking backward?
We were shocked by September 11. So I would say this is an
opportunity to look at how we communicate not just among the
administration, but out there in the hustings. If it is an
enormous kind of attack that could happen, are you sure that
our systems can function?
Ms. Williams. Representative Watson, I would like to answer
that, giving an example of how our company architects its
business continuity plan and how teleworkers are able to work
in the event of a catastrophe.
As I mentioned in my testimony, the business continuity
plan really has four layers. The bottom layer is the network
layer where, for example, a data center of one agency would
need to be replicated many thousands of miles away from its
center to provide for the right continuity. The teleworking
aspect of it, as long as those data centers were replicated in
the right manner, would then allow employees anywhere, it could
be outside of the country, to access those mission-critical
applications in that data center.
And to the point that Dr. Kane mentioned before, it is the
Internet protocol which is different from some of the radio
interoperability protocols or radio frequencies that are in use
today that provide that capability to access those
applications.
So you have your data centers that are dispersed and then
you have the teleworking capability from any location around
the world, or the globe for that matter; and in fact, that's
how our employees overseas access our mission-critical
applications that are actually based in the United States. So I
think the technology is changing a bit where we have an
increased capability for resilience than we did have before.
Ms. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shays [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Watson.
Mr. Dent, you have the floor.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon. Dr. Kane, you have discussed how current
technology has changed the type of work that now can be done
using commercial telework. Can you give us some specific
instances about technology and what it now enables, and then
also just cite some specific departments or agencies that
currently have telework policies that you would recommend?
Mr. Kane. Let me cite a couple of Federal agencies and some
at the local level.
As I mentioned in one of my earlier responses to, I believe
it was Chairman Davis, the Treasury Inspector General, the tax
administration group there, has certainly been on the forefront
of telework at the Federal level; and just about 2 months ago,
we at the Telework Consortium started working with the
Securities and Exchange Commission to implement some pilots
there. So those are two good examples.
At the local level, we have just started a pilot with the
Loudoun County board of supervisors. As I said, one of my
favorite examples is a magazine, the Loudoun County magazine
which--you think of a magazine and how graphic intensive it is
and everything that goes into a magazine. It was produced
without an office. We supported that as a pilot, to just
demonstrate that something you would think that people would
have to come together could be produced and nobody ever had
face-to-face contact in the production of it.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Luten, I just have one question. You stated that ACT
has had success in educating managers and executives about
telework. What educational techniques did you find effective?
Mr. Luten. Primarily, the No. 1 educational technique is,
one, experience that others have had. So more often than not,
peer education can be one of the more effective forms when you
are talking about managers, because no one learns more than
they can learn from someone who does a similar job that they do
in a similar location. So if we can find good peers, that's one
good example or one effective example.
Probably the second is the notion of a pilot and just
trying these things. More often your fears and expectations
turn out to be different than reality. So getting people to try
something initially can overcome a lot of those initial
obstacles.
Mr. Shays. Do you have anything else?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. No.
Mr. Shays. Let me then just conclude. That is the only
question that I had.
Is there anything that you wish we had asked that you had
prepared to answer, anything you think we need to put on the
record that wasn't asked? That applies to all three of you. If
there is, I would like to do that now. Sometimes frankly we get
the most interesting response from this question.
Anything, Dr. Kane?
Mr. Kane. No, thank you, sir.
Mr. Shays. Ms. Williams, any comments you would like to
make?
Ms. Williams. No, thank you, sir.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Luten, anything?
Mr. Luten. No.
Mr. Shays. Thank you all very much. This hearing, with
that, will adjourn.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Note.--The GAO report entitled, ``Continuity of Operations
Agency Plans Have Improved, but Better Oversight Could Assist
Agencies in Preparing for Emergencies,'' may be found in
committee files.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter and
additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1468.074