[Senate Hearing 111-134]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GOVERNMENT 2.0: ADVANCING AMERICA INTO THE 21ST CENTURY AND A DIGITAL
FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES,
AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
of the
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2009
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-391 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
JON TESTER, Montana
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION,
FEDERAL SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
John Kilvington, Staff Director
Erik Hopkins, Professional Staff Member
Bryan Parker, Staff Director and General Counsel to the Minority
Justin Stevens, Minority Professional Staff Member
Deirdre G. Armstrong, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Carper............................................... 1
Senator Burris............................................... 13
WITNESSES
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Hon. Vivek Kundra, Federal Chief Information Officer,
Administrator, Office of Electronic Government and Information
Technology, Office of Management and Budget.................... 4
David A. Powner, Director, Information Technology Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office............................... 17
Karen S. Evans, Former Administrator, Office of Electornic
Government and Information Technology, Office of Management and
Budget......................................................... 19
Phillip J. Bond, President, TechAmerica.......................... 20
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Bond, Phillip J.:
Testimony.................................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Evans, Karen S.:
Testimony.................................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Kundra, Hon. Vivek:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Powner, David A.:
Testimony.................................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 46
APPENDIX
Questions and Responses for the Record from:
Mr. Kundra................................................... 77
Mr. Powner................................................... 82
Ms. Evans.................................................... 86
Mr. Bond..................................................... 90
GOVERNMENT 2.0:
ADVANCING AMERICA INTO THE
21ST CENTURY AND A DIGITAL FUTURE
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management,
Government Information, Federal Service,
and International Security,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R.
Carper, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Carper and Burris.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. The Subcommittee will please come to order,
and my thanks to our guests and witnesses for being here today.
We are going to be joined by Senator McCain shortly.
Today's hearing is the latest in a series of hearings that
this Subcommittee has held to examine the effectiveness of
agency information technology investments. It is widely
recognized that technology has transformed the way that we as
Americans interact, the way we socialize, the way we conduct
our business. For example, it is becoming more and more common
for the average American to start the day by firing up their
computer rather than by opening up a newspaper.
We have come to expect accurate and reliable information on
demand. Businesses must have an effective presence online in
order to remain relevant and to remain competitive. If they
want to stay in touch with their customers and gain
efficiencies, they must constantly seek out and harness the
latest technology innovations.
Similar things could be said about the Federal Government.
The Obama Administration appears to be filled with some of the
most tech-savvy men and women to sign up for government
service, at least in the time that I have been around here. I
applaud the President's early commitment, including during his
time in this body, to use technology to make government more
transparent and more effective.
I look forward, I think we look forward, to hearing more
details from Mr. Kundra today about the Administration's
technology agenda and how we can make better, more cost-
effective use of the latest innovations. I say this because
this Subcommittee has extensively examined two critical issues
that call into question the Federal Government's ability to use
technological innovation to save money, to improve customer
service, and to better achieve agency missions.
The first area involves failing IT investments. All too
often, agency technology investments from something as simple
as a new accounting system to something as complicated as a so-
called virtual fence on the Mexican border are finished
millions of dollars over budget, years behind schedule, and not
performing as planned. Not all, but too many. In fact, many
times agencies pay twice the going rate for obsolete technology
that does not serve their agency's needs or the people that are
served by those respective agencies.
To make matters worse, Congress has often learned about
these failed projects after it is too late and millions of
dollars have already been misspent and in some cases wasted. To
address this problem, I have introduced legislation today,
along with Senator Susan Collins of Maine, that will give
agency leadership and decisionmakers in Congress the
information they need to know whether our investment in new
technology is making a true impact, the kind of impact that is
intended.
Our bill, The Information Technology Investment Oversight
Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act--and I repeat--no, I do
not want to repeat that. That is quite a name. But this act
would also give OMB new tools that it can use to help agencies
fix troubled projects hopefully before they fail.
The second area that often prevents the effective use of
technology within the Federal Government is the risk we face
from cyber attacks. Just this morning we had a full Committee
hearing on this particular issue and concern. But as we know,
our Nation comes under attack every day by hackers, by cyber
criminals, and even by other sovereign nations or people within
those sovereign nations in many cases, I think, with the
understanding and the permission of their governments. Our
oversight has shown that, to date, agencies have failed to take
necessary steps to ensure that sensitive information and
critical infrastructure are secure.
There is no clear evidence today of a significant and
disruptive cyber attack against the United States, but
countries such as Estonia, Georgia, Australia, and Brazil,
among others, have already been victims. The technical
capability and expertise is available if a terrorist group or
country that wanted to do us harm decided to use it. In fact,
it can be easily bought and sold right there on the Internet.
In addition, Americans' sensitive personal information, as
we all know, is constantly at risk. A number of agencies store
a significant amount of the kind of information that identity
thieves and criminals might find valuable. Agencies also hold
sensitive security information. Just last week, we learned that
someone had gone online to steal the plans for the most
technologically advanced fighter jet, the F-35. I have
introduced another bill today to address this pressing problem,
and that bill, called the U.S. Information and Communications
Enhancement Act, would organize the Federal Government to deal
with these 21st Century challenges such as cyber threats, among
other things, by establishing an office within the White House
to coordinate the work of the various agencies involved in
cyber security.
This legislation would also strengthen the Department of
Homeland Security's role in cyber security and give agency
security officers more authority to enforce and test security
standards.
We look forward to working with our new Administration, the
Obama Administration and the new team, on these and other
issues. And when Senator McCain arrives, I will recognize him
for any statement that he wishes to make, but until that point
in time, let me just take a few minutes to introduce our first
witness who has joined us. I very much enjoyed meeting with you
earlier this week and thank you for spending the time to do
that and for being here today.
There is a lot of debate on the pronunciation of your name,
so let me just try and you just coach me until I get it right.
Vivek--correct? Is it ``Kun'-dra'' or ``Kun-dra' ''?
Mr. Kundra. ``Kun'-dra.''
Senator Carper. ``Kun'-dra,'' emphasis on the first
syllable. Thank you. Vivek Kundra was appointed as the first
Federal CIO of the United States by President Obama in March
2009. In that capacity, he directs the policy and strategic
planning of Federal information technology investments and is
responsible for the oversight of Federal technology spending.
The Federal CIO establishes and oversees enterprise
architecture to ensure system interoperability and information
sharing and ensure information security and privacy across the
Federal Government.
Mr. Kundra has been recognized among the top 25 CTOs in the
country--is that true? All right. In the country--and as the
2008 IT Executive of the Year for his pioneering work to drive
transparency, engage citizens, and lower the costs of
government operations.
Prior to joining the Obama Administration, Mr. Kundra
served in Mayor Fenty's cabinet as the CTO for the District of
Columbia and Governor Kaine's cabinet down in Virginia as
Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Technology for the
Commonwealth of Virginia. His diverse record also includes
technology and public policy experience in the private sector
and in academia. You must be a lot older than you look. That is
a very good resume.
Following the appointment of Mr. Kundra, President Barack
Obama said these words: ``Vivek Kundra will bring a depth of
experience in the technology arena and a commitment to lowering
the cost of government operations to this position.'' He went
on to say, ``I have directed him to work to ensure that we are
using the spirit of American innovation and the power of
technology to improve performance and lower the cost of
government operations. As Chief Information Officer, he will
play a key role in making sure our government is running in the
most secure, most open and efficient way possible.''
I received last night on my way home a copy of your
testimony, and I had a chance to read it, and I said to you in
a short conversation we had here before the hearing began that
I thought it was one of the most lucid, understandable pieces
of testimony that I have actually read on this subject. I do
not know if you write your own material, but if you do, keep it
up. If you do not, just hang onto the person who wrote this,
because it is good. It is good stuff.
All right. With that having been said, I was going to kid
you and say that we normally swear in our witnesses and ask you
to rise and take the oath. We do not do that. I will not do
that with you. We are just going to ask you to take it right
from the top. Your full statement will be made a part of the
record, and once you have completed it, we will have some
questions.
Thanks for joining us and please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. VIVEK KUNDRA,\1\ FEDERAL CHIEF INFORMATION
OFFICER, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. Kundra. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on how the
Federal Government can use information technology to change the
way agencies achieve their missions as well as how information
technology can enable agencies to spark innovation, interact
with citizens more effectively, and ensure transparency while
reducing energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Kundra appears in the Appendix on
page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To begin, consider the three major revolutions that have
fundamentally transformed society: The Agricultural Revolution,
the Industrial Revolution, and the Information Revolution. In
all cases, a fundamental principle holds true: Technology has
been pivotal in driving structural change.
In the Agricultural Revolution, stable food production
created an environment where a person could literally spend an
entire lifetime within a 25-mile radius of their birthplace.
The Industrial Revolution brought about an era that enabled
rapid movement of goods, supplies, and people, which
fundamentally changed the way the economy evolved. The pace of
commerce quickened, and the world became significantly smaller
through ships, trains, and planes.
Today, in the same way that the Industrial Revolution made
the physical world smaller, the Information Revolution has
fundamentally transformed society. The world is smaller and
more connected, and information can be shared across the globe
in a matter of seconds in ways that were structurally
impossible. New relationships and networks can form
spontaneously.
The Federal Government is also going through stages of
transformation as it enters the digital world. First, Federal
agencies place information online without changing the
underlying business processes. Essentially, they ``webify'' the
Federal Government.
In the second phase, the focus shifted to the automation of
back-end processes and improvement of citizen services and how
citizens can access those services. However, we have yet to
turn these concepts into reality.
The next phase, advancing America into the 21st Century and
realizing the promise of Government 2.0, entails a fundamental
shift in the interaction between the American people and their
government. It requires a context-driven government.
President Obama has made it clear that we must use
technology to reform government and to improve the exchange of
information between the Federal Government and its citizens.
Context-driven government means that government information and
services are provided to citizens when and where they need it
as they go about their daily digital lives.
For example, a teacher checks her smartphone before heading
out for the day. An alert flashes, and she realizes it is Earth
Day, so she decides to walk. On a site that is fed by NOAA
data, she notices that it may rain and decides to take an
umbrella. Using an online map, she finds the closest coffee
shop on her way to work. She pays her mortgage online while she
waits and connects to our social networking site to make her
evening plans. This takes place in minutes, yet she has
traversed multiple organizations and multiple digital
destinations. The information and services are simply available
where needed and when needed.
Senator Carper. Let me just interrupt. I just thought that
was a great example.
Mr. Kundra. We must use context-driven government to bring
government to its citizens. Access to government services
should just be another component in a seamless digital
experience. Doing so not only provides better service to our
citizens, but also allows the government to leverage existing
platforms, therefore lowering the cost of government
operations.
As the President has stated, information maintained by the
Federal Government is a national asset and should be made
available to the public in a way that is easy to find and
ensure that we protect the privacy and the security of the data
that is being leveraged. Making the information and the
operations of government more open and accessible will drive
accountability, enhance performance, and also ensure that the
American people are engaged.
Structural change is never easy and will require a strong
focus on IT governance, from capital planning and investment
management to privacy and security.
On March 26, the President hosted an online town hall, the
first of its kind for any White House, and with almost 100,000
participants and over 3.5 million votes cast, it was an
unprecedented experience in public participation. We must and
will continue to engage the American people through such
platforms.
Through the use of social networking tools, increased
transparency of government data, and a strong focus on
collaboration, we can harness the power of innovation across
the government and realize the promise of Government 2.0.
This concludes my testimony, and I will be happy to take
any questions you may have.
Senator Carper. Good. Thank you very much for an excellent
statement.
I did not think about asking this before, but I did not
participate in the President's online town hall meeting that
had 100,000 participants and over 3.5 million votes cast. But
talk to me about the 3.5 million votes cast. Were those cast by
the participants and they just did it over the Internet? How
did it work?
Mr. Kundra. Actually, over the Internet after the questions
were written, so a lot of people participated by posing
questions, and other people--the 3.5 million-plus votes--
actually decided to vote on the questions that were already put
in place and voted up or down based on the questions they
thought reflected what they wanted to know from the President.
Senator Carper. All right. I have some questions of my own,
and I would like to ask those now.
On the campaign trail, there was a lot of discussion, as I
am sure you will recall, of using technology to make government
more efficient, more transparent, and more secure. In fact,
when I was on the campaign trail as governor, I remember
talking about that a long time ago, and again as a candidate
for the U.S. Senate.
Some of these ideas can be seen in the new Recovery.gov
website that was recently set up and will be tracking stimulus
funds down to the local level.
I also understand that you were behind the campaign using
technologies like YouTube and Facebook to reach new voters. Is
that true?
Mr. Kundra. I did not work on the campaign, but working
with the new Media Team, we are making sure that we get as much
information out to the people in the right context.
Senator Carper. All right. Let me just ask, what are some
of your top priorities that you have for using technology in
government?
Mr. Kundra. Sure. Part of it is recognizing that--let us
take Facebook, for example. There are 200 million users on
Facebook out of which 56 million of those users are in the
United States. Yet the Federal Government continues to make
investments in new platforms when we could be leveraging some
of the platforms that exist out there. So the real question for
us is to figure out--as technology has evolved, there are a set
of platforms that already exist. How can we ensure, for
example, as we advertise jobs, how do we make them available on
platforms that the American people are already using?
Second from a priority perspective is to look at the $71
billion that is already spent today on information technology
and back-end systems. How do we rationalize those investments
and ensure, as you mentioned earlier, that those investments
actually produce the dividends we are looking for, that those
projects come on time, on budget, and if they do not, that we
are willing to make the tough choices around either stopping
those projects or moving capital to where it is most effective?
Another area is around democratizing data, and what we mean
by that is take, for example, the Human Genome Project at the
National Institutes of Health. When the NIH, working with other
world bodies, decided to put all that data and that information
in the public domain, what it did is it spawned a revolution
around personalized medicine, and you ended up with a pipeline
of new drugs that were never imagined before for approval in
the FDA.
The same thing with GPS. The Federal Government has a lot
of data such as the satellites that were released by the
military when it came to GPS information. What that did, by
releasing that information, it spawned a whole new industry to
where you could literally look on a map and find out where the
closest coffee shop is or directions from one city to another.
So, in essence, making sure that we are doing a better job
when it comes to the dollars we are spending, the $71 billion
in capital; second, making sure that we are engaging the
American people by leveraging some of these new technologies;
and, third, ensuring that we create a much more transparent and
open government so that the American people know exactly what
is going on in terms of their government.
Senator Carper. All right. When you look ahead for the
balance of this year and the 3 years that follow, what would be
among your top priorities for this year and for the 3 years
that follow it?
Mr. Kundra. There are two key areas that we must focus on.
One is around IT investments. Second is around cyber security.
As you mentioned earlier, on cyber security we need to
ensure that the information that exists in our current--whether
it is our databases or applications and the processes that
exist today that have helped move the Federal Government to the
digital world are also safeguarded and that we have taken the
proper precautions to ensure the security of those systems. So
that is vital.
A big part of what we will be doing is looking at how do we
ensure a more secure environment when it comes to computing;
and, second, how do we ensure that we have a rational approach
to IT investment across the board.
Senator Carper. OK. On the next panel, we have your
predecessor, Karen Evans, and I see her here today. Welcome.
Nice to see you again. Under her leadership, OMB was able to
get the ball rolling on what I thought were some very good
ideas. Let me just ask, how do you propose to build upon some
of those successes? And are there areas where you plan to make
improvements beyond those?
Mr. Kundra. Sure. One of the areas we are looking at is--
there are two sets of lists right now: The management watch
list and the high-risk list. So how do we take that to the next
level and how do we ensure that we are not just looking at
lagging indicators but leading indicators around problems when
it comes to IT investment? Or if projects begin to go in the
wrong direction, how do we get ahead of some of those problems?
If we look at some of the reports that the GAO has issued
around some of the recommendations of taking this to the next
level, they are analyzing how do you get that information
faster. And, second, from our perspective, how do we ensure
that the frequency at which information is collected or data is
collected is happening at a pace that allows us to change the
trajectory of those projects?
If you look at precision guided missiles, for example, one
of the reasons those missiles actually hit their target is
because you get constant feedback, a loopback mechanism that
lets you know how you are performing in relation to where you
are. And what we need to do is increase the frequency and
consolidate into one list for some of those investments.
Senator Carper. You mentioned some analysis just a moment
ago, and let me just ask, when do you expect to provide the
results of that analysis?
Mr. Kundra. We expect to have some of that analysis done in
the next 2 months.
Senator Carper. All right. When you were working down in
Virginia with Governor Kaine, were you his Chief Technology
Officer? What was your title? You were part of the Department
of Technology and Commerce?
Mr. Kundra. Yes.
Senator Carper. Which is a logical coupling, but I am not
sure if every State follow that model. But in that experience
that you had, what were some of the challenges that you faced
there and the resolutions that you reached to those challenges
that you think are transferable to the work that you will be
doing for our country? I used to say as governor--in the
National Governors Association, we had something called the
Center for Best Practices where everyone who had a good idea,
whatever the issue might be, would submit it, and then the rest
of us could steal that idea and claim it as our own. But it was
just a great way to identify best practices and find contact
people in other States that could help us. But when you think
of some of the things that you were working on in Virginia that
you think might have relevance to what your new
responsibilities are, what are some of those?
Mr. Kundra. Some of them are actually around transparency
and how transparency can drive results. An example would be the
governor came into office, and with a biennial budget of $70
billion, his policy objective was to ensure that small women
and minority businesses were actually getting a portion of the
capital, the set-aside that he had. Yet there was no mechanism
in the cabinet to hold agency heads accountable for those
results. And a lot of the information around that was based on
self-reporting.
So what we decided to do was we decided to move forward
with an automated dashboard, and what this dashboard would do,
it would essentially bypass any self-reporting and would go to
what we called ``the golden source of data.'' So literally
going to the credit card companies and figure out how much
money were agencies spending on credit cards and going to the
central procurement systems and looking at how much money was
being spent. And from that dashboard, what we were able to do
is once we got that data, we were able to display results based
on agency, agency head, the cabinet, how much money was spent
on what businesses, and how they were performing. That allowed
the governor to literally move the needle by over 30 percent in
terms of his policy goals. In the same way----
Senator Carper. The needle on the dashboard?
Mr. Kundra. On the dashboard by holding agency heads
accountable, because he realized that by bringing agency heads
to the office, he was able to say, well, how come these numbers
are going the wrong way based on his policy guidance?
In the same way, we believe that more information,
transparency, and greater frequency--we did that on a monthly
basis, so you could see every single month what was going on as
far as a trajectory of those investments. So you could make
shifts much faster rather than on an annual basis, which is
what was happening before. That is one example.
Another area that I think also applies to a broader
economic principle----
Senator Carper. Is that something you could see us doing in
the Federal Government with this Administration?
Mr. Kundra. Absolutely. We believe that as we are looking
at the IT investments, one of the areas we are exploring is how
do we get as close to real-time data as possible and how do we
ensure that we can make as much of that information public and
available to the American people so that we have analysis that
is happening not just limited to OMB and the agencies, but the
American people can hold the government accountable for the
investments that are being made.
Senator Carper. OK. I understand another person was
recently appointed as the Federal Government's first ever Chief
Technology Officer. Could you just take a minute or two and
describe how you and the Chief Technology Officer will interact
together?
Mr. Kundra. Sure. The CIO role is based in the Office of
Management and Budget and is focused primarily on the oversight
of IT investments within the Federal Government.
The CTO's role is based in the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, and it is focused on advancing the
President's agenda around broadband, health IT, research and
development priorities for the country.
The two of us will be working very closely together to
advance the President's technology agenda.
Senator Carper. How will you go about doing that? How will
you go about ensuring that happens?
Mr. Kundra. Part of it is we also want to tap into the
ingenuity of the American people. So with the CTO, being able
to convene the brightest minds in the private sector, in the
NGO community, and bringing them together to work closely on
some of these policy issues and also to look at some of the
technologies that are being incubated, whether it is in Silicon
Valley or all over the country, and figuring out what are the
leading technologies that can be leveraged within the Federal
Government, and also looking at it from internally, from within
the Federal Government, to see how do we spark innovation, how
do we find the innovative path when it comes to these
investments.
A simple example is something that happened with TSA where
internally the CIO organization was moving forward on deploying
potentially a blog solution that would have cost over $70,000.
Yet one of the folks came there from the web managers' group
and said, ``Well, we could do this for free.'' And they began
to leverage a free platform rather than spending $70,000 of
taxpayer money.
Across the board there are many examples, and what we need
to make sure is we are engaging some of the innovative thinking
that is happening outside the Federal Government, and at the
same time ensuring that we are sparking that innovation within
the Federal Government.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks.
As I am sure you have experienced before at the Chief
Technology Officer in the District here, in the District of
Columbia, there are a whole lot of problems that can occur when
deploying technology. This Subcommittee is focused on IT
investments that many times come in over budget, behind
schedule, and underperforming.
You have emphasized your interest in increasing
transparency--you said it again here just a minute ago--in IT
investments, but we would like to hear about your specific
plans for improving the oversight of these investments. For
example, how will you provide more effective oversight for an
IT investment? When should Congress expect to see some changes
as a result of your efforts? And, finally, do you believe that
your office needs any additional resources or authority?
Mr. Kundra. Specifically, one of the areas, if we step back
and look at some of the big structural problems, why do these
investments go the wrong way or fail in a lot of cases? One is
we have very poor, in some cases, requirements from the Federal
Government. So the Federal Government essentially does not do a
good job defining what those requirements are.
Second, we have some runaway contracts that are in place.
Senator Carper. Some runaway what?
Mr. Kundra. Contracts. So what ends up happening is a
contract is awarded that is not fixed price, in some cases, and
one of the reasons you do that is because you do not know what
the requirements are up front. There are cases where you need
cost-plus contracts, but if we know what the requirements are
up front, we should be able to award fixed-price contracts.
That is another area, and that is something we are looking at
right now to figure out the proportion of contracts that are
fixed price versus cost plus and how those investments--what
types of results they yield.
Senator Carper. Which should be most common, fixed price or
cost plus?
Mr. Kundra. Fixed price should be most common, if we know
what the requirements are up front, we know what the scope is
of the project. Some of the investments that go south, one of
the reasons is because you end up with 400-plus change orders.
So you begin with a project that is very simple, yet the scope
keeps getting larger and larger and larger. So what we need to
ensure is we need to look at how do we move the agenda towards
defining requirements clearly, holding the private sector also
accountable when it comes to projects, and what I mean by that
is, once a contract has been awarded, scope has been created,
needs have been defined, we need to ensure that the companies
we have awarded these contracts to actually deliver on those
results. And the way that happens is ensuring that there is a
degree of engagement, a high degree of engagement, from both
the business side of the house and the technology side of the
house. If you move in one direction or the other too much, what
ends up happening is you end up usually having a failure in an
IT project. You need a high level of engagement from the
technology folks, and you need a high level of engagement from
the business side.
The way we want to move forward in that direction is we
want to be able to hold the CIOs accountable, working with
agency heads, and providing as much information as possible.
And that is what we are in the process of doing right now, is
rationalizing some of those reports to figure out how do we get
a greater degree of input from the agencies as these projects
are moving forward, because doing it on an annual basis is not
going to be good enough, because by the time you find out the
requirements have increased or the budget is out of control, it
is too late to make any adjustments. And, unfortunately, for
far too long in some cases, we have thrown good money after bad
money.
Senator Carper. Now, you may have answered this part of my
question, but I missed it. Part of my question was the question
about needing extra resources, additional authority. What did
you say in response to that part of my question?
Mr. Kundra. At this point what we are doing is we are
trying to see whether--if you look at the oversight function,
we could move towards one direction, which would be infinite
resources and we are overseeing everything, but the reality is
we cannot afford faceless accountability. And what I mean by
that is we need to be able to hold the CIOs accountable who are
responsible for being technology leaders within agencies. So we
need to ensure that there are proper resources within the
agencies on specific projects.
From an OMB perspective, we have the resources right now,
and as we are rationalizing how the reports are going to work
and what the frequency of that information is going to be in
terms of collecting, I look forward to working with you to
figure out what the appropriate solution is going to be in
terms of the resources.
Senator Carper. All right. Fair enough.
As you know, your predecessor, Karen Evans, was good enough
to testify before us on several occasions on egregious IT
systems that simply should never have been approved in the
first place. However, for one reason or another, projects were
still allowed to continue and to be funded.
I understand that you have an extremely powerful weapon at
your disposal to combat this problem. I understand that your
position has the power of choosing to approve or not approve an
agency's business cases.
Are you willing to tell agencies no, especially if they do
not plan the investment right the first time out?
Mr. Kundra. Absolutely, and I think given the current
economic climate we are in, especially now, we have to. We
cannot afford an environment where we would approve business
cases that are not well thought out, the requirements are not
defined. And, also, we need to ensure that we hold those
agencies accountable for the information that they are
presenting to us and the whole ecosystem. And the reason you
get into a lot of complexity here is because you have got an
ecosystem of the project managers, the CIOs, the agency heads,
the vendors, and accountability has to happen at every step of
the way, and we need to focus a lot more on leading indicators
rather than just lagging indicators. And the more information
we can get and the more frequently we can get information on
the health of some of these initiatives, the quicker we can
make some of those decisions.
Senator Carper. There is an old saying that if you fail to
plan, then you should plan to fail. I believe that there is a
lot of truth to that saying, especially in government--State
government, local government, or Federal Government. Further,
when the Executive Branch provides Congress detailed plans, we
are better able to hold agencies accountable.
Will your office be producing any strategic plans on how
you expect to achieve your priorities? And, second, will you
provide these plans to Congress so we can keep track of your
successes?
Mr. Kundra. Yes. We are actually working on that as we
speak as far as one, the agenda; two, rationalizing the reports
that we have talked about; three, in terms of what we are doing
as far as our transparency initiatives and the results we hope
to produce as a function of the transparency initiatives; and,
also, in terms of the path forward, making sure that from an
accountability perspective how do we measure success from an
OMB perspective. And I look forward to working with the new
Chief Performance Officer as we set out the agenda around
technology and innovation across the Federal Government, and
also the new Chief Technology Officer.
Senator Carper. All right. After a Subcommittee hearing--I
think it was last year, maybe July or August, somewhere in that
range--OMB developed a website that provided information on all
information technology investments in the Federal Government. I
would like to believe that they took that step because we kept
pressuring them or encouraging them to give us more
information. However, I do not believe that the website gives
us the information that we need.
For instance, there is relatively little information on
whether IT projects are millions of dollars over budget or
months behind schedule--or ahead of schedule, for that matter.
Let me just ask, will you commit to providing Congress with
information of this nature?
Mr. Kundra. Yes, Senator, and we plan to actually add more
information on that website.
Senator Carper. Can you give us some idea of the timing on
that?
Mr. Kundra. Sure. That is a part of our 2-month strategy
around transparency of the budget and IT investments.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Kundra, a lot of today's discussion is focused around
Government 2.0. That means that agencies will be embracing new
technologies to make their jobs easier and hopefully to make
citizens, the people that we serve, happier. However, the
Federal Government does not always move as fast as the private
sector. Sometimes, though, it moves faster. And some of that is
purposeful--that is, the government should not always move as
fast. But we do not want the government to make rash decisions
without first thinking things through.
What do you believe are the drawbacks of using new
technologies in government? And what can we do to address those
drawbacks? Delaware was the first State to ratify the
Constitution. We call ourselves ``The First State.'' So do
other people. And our State motto is ``It is good to be
first.'' I am always reminded, though, that there are some
things it is probably not good to be first in. Maybe it would
be good to be second or third. But what do you believe are some
of the drawbacks of using new technologies in government? And
what can we do to address those drawbacks? Or what can you do
to address them?
Mr. Kundra. Sure. We definitely want to make sure that the
government is not moving forward with untested, unproven
technologies or technologies, frankly, that will compromise the
privacy or security of the American people. Therefore, we need
to be deliberative, especially when it comes to privacy and
security. That is one of the reasons within the CIO Council we
have enhanced the Privacy and Security Subcommittee that is
looking at a lot of these issues and that is deliberating
around what is going on with a lot of these new technologies.
At the same time, what we need to do is we need to
recognize that the world has changed in terms of innovation and
the world has changed in terms of leveraging some of these
technologies in that we can put information out there that will
allow the American people, the NGOs, and the private sector to
actually incubate and create solutions that the government
would spend either years or millions of dollars doing.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you. I have a couple more
questions I want to ask. We have been joined by Senator Roland
Burris from Illinois. It is great to see you, and you are
recognized for a statement or for questions that you might
have. Thank you for joining us.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BURRIS
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a brief
statement, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate your comments
and am looking forward to hearing what the testimony of these
experts is going to be in terms of our information technology
and how that is going to impact the work in government, the
work in serving the people of America. And I know the wealth of
knowledge about information technologies available to us is
impressive. We are fortunate to have a President who has
pledged to rely on this knowledge and to embrace technology to
help agencies become more efficient, transparent, and secure.
But I am a believer in the old proverb, having grown up and
watched computers be created, ``Garbage in, garbage out.''
So the technology is only as good as the people who are
dealing with it, and I am just hoping and praying that we do
have the expertise and the knowledge with these appointments by
the President that they will make sure that we do not get any
garbage going into those computers.
What do you think about the creation of a cyber czar? Do
you have any thoughts or comments on that? We have a chief
technical officer and a chief information officer. What will
the creation of these positions do to ensure the government use
of information technology will make us more secure?
Mr. Kundra. Sure. On the cyber czar, I have actually been
working closely with Melissa Hathaway, who is leading that
effort, and those recommendations are forthcoming. She is just
in the middle of finishing up her 60-day review and will be
presenting her findings to the President around the creation of
whether it is a cyber coordinator or the right posture for the
United States when it comes to cyber security.
But you make a good point, Senator, around information
technology and making sure that we focus on--especially with
the CTO and the CIO role--not just technology, but technology
is nothing more than an enabler towards business needs and
common problems. And we also have to recognize that technology
is not going to solve everything. There is a huge digital
divide problem, and we need to realize that as we move the U.S.
Government towards a digital future, when we talk about
Government 2.0, we have to do it in a context of recognizing
that there are people, unfortunately, who do not have access to
communications networks, that unfortunately the digital divide
in some of the investments that are being made, who are not
going to be able to engage in this digital world; and also
recognizing that those communities with accessibility issues,
we have to also ensure that as the government moves in this
direction, it keeps everything in mind in terms of the various
constituencies that we have to ensure we are protecting and we
are providing information and services in multiple formats and
multiple ways.
Senator Burris. What are the biggest challenges to
advancing our technology needs at the Federal and executive
levels of government? What are your challenges?
Mr. Kundra. Some of the biggest----
Senator Burris. And do not tell me money.
Mr. Kundra. No. I believe that some of the biggest
challenges, frankly, are making sure that the Federal
Government is doing a good job defining what problem it is
trying to solve. As we talked about earlier, you cannot just
buy technology for technology's sake. It has to be grounded
deeply in a business problem, and that is why, as I mentioned
earlier, it is vital that there is a high level of engagement
both with the business side on the Federal Government end and
the technology side. If the business side is not going to be
leading with the technology side, you end up with failures in
technology projects.
Senator Burris. We were at a hearing earlier this morning--
I think, Mr. Chairman, that was about cyber security.
Senator Carper. Cyber security.
Senator Burris. And I am just wondering whether or not we
have cyber security issues here with all these technology
experts. I raised a question in that hearing this morning about
the possibility of the old saying, being an accountant and an
old bank examiner, one thing I would look for was double
bookkeeping to see if there were some double records being kept
somewhere. I just wonder in terms of your computer or
technology experience, in terms of cyber security, whether or
not that is something that is on the drawing board, in the
making, where we can get security by running two systems
simultaneously and one of them is a false system, which would
give misleading information if they were to break into it and
crack it, and the other one, of course, would be a little bit
more secure, and they will not know which one to be cracking
into.
Have you heard anything in that area going down in that
field?
Mr. Kundra. Sure. In security, there is this concept of
honey pots, essentially. What they are designed to do is create
an environment where hackers come in and are caught because
they are attacking the wrong systems. And that allows the
government to become smarter about the types of attacks, what
is going on, and how to confront some of those realities. But
at a macro level, there is a trend, obviously, as we move to
the digital world, whether that is our transportation
infrastructure, whether that is our health infrastructure,
whether we are looking automation in general, as more and more
processes move to the digital world, we need to ensure that we
are moving forward in a responsible way to safeguard those
systems and at the same time, as you suggested, ensure that we
are ever vigilant when it comes to information security.
Senator Burris. Because you are in Homeland Security where
some information is going to be pretty vital in what you are
doing, and I would imagine that would be certainly a source for
the hackers to get into your system, not only Defense or not
only the FBI or Justice, where they are trying to get some of
our secrets, but trying to know what type of plans we have. We
would certainly be interested in--I was just hoping as you all
start doing your planning and budgeting that you all start
looking--do you have any honey pots in your operation?
Mr. Kundra. I cannot speak to the security posture, but
what I can say is that is one of the reasons the President
moved forward in the very beginning of this Administration with
that 60-day review because we recognize how important security
is and how vital it is, especially as we move forward into the
digital world with all these business processes that we were
talking about.
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might have
another round if you have another round.
Senator Carper. I am just going to ask maybe one quick
question.
Let us say later tonight folks are coming home from work,
or whatever, and they turn on their television and they are
surfing the channels, and they come across this hearing on C-
SPAN, and you are testifying. And people say, ``I wonder what
he really does,'' maybe someone who does not have much of an
in-depth understanding of these issues, and most of us who
serve here are, to some extent, lay people, with a few
exceptions. But for folks who might be tuning in late, and they
say, ``What does this fellow do, anyway?'' A lot of times
people ask, especially young people, when I go to schools and
have town hall meetings, I do them in colleges and universities
all the way down to elementary school. We usually start with
the fourth grade because that is when kids in our State learn
about the Constitution and the three branches of government and
so forth.
But one of the questions that is often asked of me,
especially by young people, is, ``What do you do, anyway?'' And
I always explained that, ``Well, my job is to help make the
rules for our country, and that I work with people like Senator
Burris and the President and the Vice President and other
colleagues, and our job is to help make the rules for our
country, just like you have rules in your school, in your
homes, and so forth.''
But if someone was able to call in and ask one of these
questions over the Internet or something and say, ``Well, what
do you do anyway?'' How would you explain it so that most
American people could understand?
Mr. Kundra. Sure. One way I would put it is that I do three
basic things. One is to make sure that your government is using
technology so that you are receiving better services. In the
same way that you can go on Amazon and buy a book or you can go
on Facebook and socialize, we want to make sure that we
introduce efficiencies within the government so that you are
able to leverage technology.
Second is standing for you, the taxpayer, ensuring that
your government is spending money wisely when it comes to
investing in technology.
And third is looking at how can the government work
differently. Even though we have been organized in the physical
world in certain ways, how can we use technology to do things
differently in the Federal Government? In the same way from an
average citizen's perspective, as your life has changed from a
personal perspective from using the cell phone to E-mail to
social networks now, how do we ensure that your government is
doing the same thing and is moving forward to serve you better?
Senator Carper. Very good answer.
Senator Burris. Did you ask about tweetering? What is it,
tweeting?
Mr. Kundra. Twitter.
Senator Burris. Is that what you also do in that,
Twittering?
Senator Carper. He was Twittering while I was asking
questions. He is pretty good. No, not really. But I noticed our
next panel of witnesses were. We will find out more about that
later.
Anything else you want to add, Senator Burris? Is that it?
Senator Burris. Yes.
Senator Carper. OK. Anything else you would like to say
before you leave? I would ask you, if your schedule allows, to
stick around for a while during at least a part of the second
panel's presentation, I think that would be great. Sometimes
people feel like the Administration people need to run right
out of here, and sometimes I think they would benefit by
sticking around for a little bit. So if your schedule allows
you to do that, please do for a while. Thank you.
Mr. Kundra. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Carper. And thanks so much. I am sure some of my
colleagues will have questions for the record, and I would just
ask that you respond to those in a prompt way. Thanks very
much.
Mr. Kundra. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Carper. And good luck.
I would ask our second panel of witnesses to come on up and
join us, and as they approach the witness table, I am going to
go ahead and make some introductory comments.
Our first introduction will be for Dave Powner, Director of
Information Technology Management at the Government
Accountability Office--a person we have never seen here in this
Subcommittee hearing before. Actually, we see him a lot. And I
said to Erik Hopkins, who is the principal staff person on the
Subcommittee, that if we had to pay you and Karen Evans in the
last Congress for every time you appeared before us, that would
run up the Federal deficit even higher.
But in the private sector, Mr. Powner has held a number of
executive level position in the telecommunications industry. He
has been instrumental in helping this Subcommittee to provide
oversight of risky IT investments. And I know that Mr. Powner
has appeared before us on any number of occasions, but I want
to thank him again for taking time to come today and to be with
us.
Our next witness is Karen Evans. Ms. Evans is the former
Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government and
Information Technology at the Office of Management and Budget.
Ms. Evans previously held Mr. Kundra's position and oversaw the
implementation of IT throughout the Federal Government,
including capital planning and investment control. She is a 20-
year veteran of government service--I think I once commented
that she started at the age of 12, but a 20-year veteran of
government service who has testified before this Subcommittee
on a number of occasions, and we are delighted to have you
before us. Thank you for joining us.
I will just ask ahead of time: Is there life after
government? You do not have to answer it now, but we will make
sure that you have a chance here in just a minute.
Our final witness is Phil Bond, the President of
TechAmerica, which is one of the broadest U.S. technology
associations representing some of America's most prolific IT
companies such as Google and Microsoft. Mr. Bond has served in
both the private and the public sectors, serving as Under
Secretary of Technology in the U.S. Department of Commerce from
2001, I think--was it 2003?
Mr. Bond. No, 2004.
Senator Carper. He also served within the Department of
Defense from 1992 to 1999. What did you do in the Department of
Defense?
Mr. Bond. Office of Legislative Affairs for the Secretary.
Senator Carper. All right. I would like to recognize, first
of all, Mr. Powner for his statement, and I would ask him and
Ms. Evans and Mr. Bond to try to keep your statements close to
5 minutes, and if you get much beyond that, I will rein you in.
But we will let it go by a little bit.
Thank you. Your whole statement will be made a part of the
record, and I understand you may have oral statements that
abbreviate those written statements, but the full statement
will be made a part of the record.
Mr. Powner, you are our lead-off witness. Welcome. Nice to
see you back.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID A. POWNER,\1\ DIRECTOR, INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Powner. Good seeing you. Chairman Carper, Senator
Burris, we appreciate the opportunity to testify this
afternoon. As requested, Mr. Chairman, my testimony will focus
on OMB's oversight and transparency of Federal IT projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Powner appears in the Appendix on
page 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and your staff for
your in-depth oversight you performed over the past several
years of Federal IT projects. Much progress was made with your
oversight and Ms. Evans' leadership and cooperation. That
included improvements in the accuracy and reliability of
project business cases, better project planning through the
management watch list process, identifying high-risk projects
with performance shortfalls, and using project management tools
to better manage cost and schedule performance and to oversee
contractors.
Despite these improvements, many serious problems still
exist. Many projects are nowhere near their cost and schedule
and performance goals. Every hearing you have held, Mr.
Chairman, highlighted hundreds of projects totaling billions of
dollars that were at risk. And if we had updated information
for today's hearing, I am fairly certain that things would not
change.
Transparency of these problems also remains an issue given
the limited number of high-risk projects that have historically
reported cost and schedule variance problems. We have too many
unqualified project managers and a lack of engineers and
architects on the government side. Many IT projects lack basic
project management discipline. Far too often, the government
does not adequately define what it wants, manage risk, nor does
it oversee and scrutinize underperforming contractors. Projects
proceed forward with unclear baselines and with inaccurate cost
and schedule estimates. Project business cases and
justifications are too much of a paper exercise and involve
contractors too much, and executives, including CIOs, are not
always engaged in oversight.
Given these issues, the new Administration needs to bolster
the IT workforce, namely, qualified project managers, engineers
and architects. The Administration needs to have CIOs act like
CIOs where they have the appropriate authority and
accountability. The Administration needs to streamline the
business case process where it is less of a writing exercise.
The Administration needs to improve governmentwide project
management discipline by focusing on defining requirements
well, aggressively managing risks, not allowing contractors to
be in charge, and using proven tools to better manage cost,
schedule, and performance.
The Administration also needs to better monitor cost and
schedule performance at both the department and agency
executive level and from the Executive Office of the President
for all major IT projects. This could be done by leveraging the
existing Management Watch List and high-risk processes. I would
like to stress that OMB needs to decide on its oversight
approach and promptly implement it.
As we have just heard, Mr. Kundra clearly knows the issues,
but it is unclear what approaches will be used to address them.
Last, the Administration needs to highlight and swiftly
resolve major cost and schedule performance issues or
deviations by making key executives accountable along with
project managers.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, knowing what to fix is the first
step, and we would not have this information without your
leadership and oversight. Thank you. We look forward to working
with you and the new Administration as they roll out their
oversight processes. I would like to highlight the need to
build off of the progress over the past several years to ensure
that American taxpayers are getting the right return on the $70
billion investment the government is currently spending.
I would be pleased to respond to questions.
Senator Carper. We will have some in just a few minutes.
Thank you for being here. Thanks for your testimony again and
again. You are the gift that keeps on giving, so we are
grateful for that.
Ms. Evans, please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF KAREN S. EVANS,\1\ FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Ms. Evans. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. I am pleased to be invited back to share my views
on ``Government 2.0: Advancing America into the 21st Century
and a Digital Future.'' My written testimony includes
challenges facing the Federal Government and recommendations to
meet the expectations of society, especially today's
generation, which has grown up in a networked, collaborative
world. Simply put, Mr. Chairman, the text message generation is
not going to accept a carbon paper government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Evans appears in the Appendix on
page 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to focus my remarks specifically on
information challenges and cost-effective information
technology systems, but first I would like to commend the
Office of Management and Budget for again partnering with the
National Academy for Public Administration. In October 2008,
OMB and the CIO Council partnered with NAPA to hold the
National Dialogue on Health IT and Privacy. Starting yesterday,
NAPA is hosting a dialogue with the American people to address
how the Recovery.gov website can be useful to the citizens.
Innovations will happen organically as today's young people
who are growing up in a collaborative world move into the
Federal workforce, but there will be cases where Congress will
have an opportunity to break down some of the barriers for the
Federal Government through authorization or appropriation or
oversight. For example, the Paperwork Reduction Act, which was
intended to reduce the burden of collecting information from
the public, effectively prevents agencies from gathering
feedback or user-generated content online. Adding a website
survey requires an approval process which includes a public
comment period. So it is a Catch-22. We have to ask the public
to comment on whether the government can ask for comments.
Currently, there are two provisions in appropriations law
which prohibit agencies from competitively procuring IT systems
from shared service centers, and the use of persistent cookies
on Federal websites disables a wide range of Web 2.0
applications. If Congress wants to move the government into a
Web 2.0 world, these laws, regulations, and procurement rules
will need to be rewritten.
Congress, GAO, OMB, and Federal agencies have focused a
considerable amount of time and effort on ensuring investments
in IT are selected wisely, managed effectively, and delivered
successfully, and yet agencies continue to struggle. The
disciplines of capital planning and investment management are
insufficient to fully address today's IT investigation
challenges. OMB and agency heads alike would be well served if
agencies could provide a composite view of their IT program, a
road map of prioritizing their system investments which maps to
the agency's strategic plan. To do this, agencies should
bolster the role of department-level CIOs beyond a mere pass-
through of business cases to OMB. They should equip and empower
the CIO to provide meaningful investment analysis, strategy,
and oversight, and not to continue to allow component agencies
to disregard departmental policy and direction by investing in
IT independently of the department or the governmentwide
strategy.
Earned Value Management (EVM) is often touted as the magic
bullet solution to project management cost and overruns. This
is not necessarily my experience. EVM is an industrial-strength
solution for managing large-scale systems development efforts.
It is not well suited or intended for small and medium-size
projects. However, I do believe all IT investments should be
held accountable for managing their cost, schedule, and
performance on a routine basis perhaps using an Earned Value
Management or Earned Value Management-lite tracking system.
Too much emphasis is being put on to adhere to the
``original,'' ``programmatic,'' ``performance measurement,'' or
``current'' baseline reporting. Rather, we should actively
engage in risk awareness and management, and we should apply
strategies to invest in less large-scale, long-term, and
perhaps grandiose systems development efforts.
When addressing the 21st Century Government, we should
build on the foundation in place. In 2004, GAO identified 13
major areas of responsibilities for CIOs, whether they were
statutory requirements or critical to effective information and
IT management. Whereas people commonly associate the CIOs with
computers and information technology, a review of these 13
responsibilities makes it clear a CIO manages the information.
And to be successful, the CIO must address all of them, from
privacy and security to records management. They should not and
cannot pick and choose which ones they will address, but they
need to ensure they address them all.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this
concludes my statement, and thank you again for the opportunity
to appear before the Subcommittee. I would be pleased to answer
questions at the appropriate time.
Senator Carper. Thank you, ma'am. Thanks very much for your
testimony and for being with us again today.
Mr. Bond.
TESTIMONY OF PHILLIP J. BOND,\1\ PRESIDENT, TECHAMERICA
Mr. Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Burris. It is
a pleasure for me to be with you. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to talk about how government can use new Web 2.0
technologies and management practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Bond appears in the Appendix on
page 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With over 1,500 member companies, TechAmerica is the
largest advocacy organization for the technology community,
with 17 regional offices and affiliates in most States,
including, Senator Burris, a regional office in Chicago, I
wanted you to know. We are happy to testify here today because
we fundamentally believe that the government has a very
important role to play in spurring further innovation in, and
adoption of, Web 2.0 technologies. And as we look around the
world, we sometimes see other governments leading the way in
spurring this innovation--innovation in a digital world that
was largely created here in the United States. Let me give you
three quick examples.
New Zealand has launched an ``e-initiatives'' wiki, meaning
that people can comment there, which replaced an older and
static model for tracking progress of their e-government
initiatives.
As of April 24, almost half a million people are following
the daily activities of the U.K. Prime Minister on Twitter.
There is Twitter for you, Senator Burris.
And Sweden has opened a virtual embassy on Second Life.
Here in the United States, we see many States and
localities moving along this front. Certainly Vivek Kundra led
some of those in the District of Columbia.
Nearby in the Commonwealth of Virginia, they have RSS feeds
for 34 different kinds of information, including local news,
employment opportunities, and legislative information. Many of
the Virginia State Government agencies post videos directly
onto YouTube.
Similarly, the State of California Franchise Tax Board has
used YouTube as a venue to put videos out explaining tax
regulations.
Recently, with the flooding of the Red River, citizens
across the North and South were able to share information
directly with one another, uploading videos and other real-time
information using web and video blogs and social networking.
In Los Angeles, first responders there have used Twitter
and Google Earth to plan and allocate resources in responding
to wildfires there last year.
There are Federal examples, to be sure. FEMA and NASA,
among others, use Second Life. CDC has launched a swine flu
information piece on Twitter. GSA has an important new
agreement with Facebook, making that available to agencies. But
the embracing of these is often slower and hindered, as Ms.
Evans just referred to, by older regulations.
Our observation among our companies is that the Web 2.0
phenomenon is growing. It will create jobs and economic growth,
and it is one of the reasons our economy has traditionally been
so dynamic. But to fully realize the potential, we believe
America needs to recognize the following:
First, our Nation's lead in technology and innovation is
slipping. The world is getting more competitive.
Second, we do need more people with access to broadband
services, whether on the wire or wirelessly.
There are also, we believe, insufficient identity
management policies so that government can know the person is
who they say they are.
And then we would also point out, as Senator Burris and the
Chairman both have pointed out today, that legitimate, very
legitimate information security concerns, cyber security
concerns, can be sometimes seen as an impediment or a reason
not to adopt some 2.0 technology.
By the way, we also believe that a smart government cyber
security strategy can address those concerns and hasten the
deployment of 2.0 technologies.
There are some challenges specific to the government I
would like to mention. The Federal IT budget and uncertainty of
that or government by CR is certainly one problem. Some Federal
procurement laws and regulations and acquisition practices we
believe, frankly, do not allow agencies to keep up with the
latest technology. They are often a generation behind. Outdated
systems and disparate infrastructures render them unable to use
some of the latest technologies that are available through
social networking capabilities. And last, and certainly not
least, here I want to mention something that Mr. Powner
mentioned, which is the shorthanded procurement corps. The
professional procurement corps of the Federal Government is
dramatically shorthanded, and many of them will be retiring.
So we would like to put forward the following
recommendations, some of which have already been made by the
Federal web managers last year.
One, the Administration should require software and social
networking strategies from the different agencies.
Second, we believe that OMB and OPM should update Federal
guidance to individual users and the agencies on the use of
social networks and the software involved there.
We believe Congress and the Administration should consider
allowing a percentage of the savings from successful technology
projects to be available for the enterprise-wide challenge that
the CIO Council and others have identified because that kind of
funding is sometimes very hard to get.
And, finally, we believe that the GSA example with
Facebook, a single set of terms and agreements that can apply
to other agencies, is the kind of model that the Administration
should look at for all social media and social networking that
is out there.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, let me again join the others
in commending you and the Subcommittee for this important
hearing and subject, and thank you for the opportunity. I look
forward to any questions.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Bond.
Mr. Kundra has been good enough to stay with us. I think I
see him in the audience still. And while he is still here, not
to embarrass him or anybody else, but really to try to get some
advice or counsel or guidance from this panel to a new
Administration, the point person of a new Administration, let
me just ask--maybe start with Mr. Powner--what you heard in Mr.
Kundra's presentation that you found was especially
encouraging. And if you have any advice to him in his new
responsibilities, for him and the team he will be leading in
this Administration, what advice might you have for him?
Mr. Powner. Well, I think clearly the use of Internet-based
applications and the Internet to provide services to citizens,
that is a great approach, and we need to move forward with
that. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we have had several hearings--the
Census Bureau, that is one that comes to mind, where we could
more effectively use the Internet to conduct the census. So
that is one good example right there.
So all that is, I think, pushing the ball forward and using
the technologies that are out there to provide services to
citizens.
I think the one thing, though, that is the real challenge
is getting our arms around the $71 billion and the problems we
have had with cost and schedule delivery, getting the right
governance processes in place. Whether it is extending what Ms.
Evans has done with the watch list and high-risk list, or
creating a new dashboard that was mentioned, that is going to
be real important to make sure that we wisely spend the
American taxpayers' dollars.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Evans, I believe Mr. Kundra is your successor. Is that
a fair statement?
Ms. Evans. Yes, sir.
Senator Carper. I do not know if you have the opportunity
to do turnover. When I turned over the State of Delaware to a
new governor, she had been our Lieutenant Governor and there
was not a great deal of need for turnover. But when I succeeded
Mike Castle--he became Congressman, I became governor in 1993--
there was a lot of turnover, and it was very helpful to me. But
when I was in the Navy, we used to actually turn over almost
like a log from one squadron to the other, from one ship to the
other, and we called it a ``turnover log.''
But what kind of opportunities for turnover do you have
from one Administration to the next? And what have you been
able to do here? What did you hear from Mr. Kundra that you are
especially encouraged by? And what advice or counsel would you
have for him and his team going forward?
Ms. Evans. Well, I was encouraged by the priorities of the
Administration and the idea and the focus on transparency of
the data that the Administration is embracing and the use and
leveraging of existing technologies so that the government is
not reinventing the wheel over and over again, but leverages
what is already out there, and bring those services in.
What we did, the Bush Administration going out, is very
similar to what you described. We were tasked by President Bush
to make sure that the transition went as smooth as possible. I
probably left too many turnover documents for my successor, but
he has a great team behind him.
Senator Carper. I am looking to see if he is nodding his
head. [Laughter.]
He has a poker face right now.
Ms. Evans. And I left several boxes with several notes and
all hearings and what all were the outstanding issues. And it
is kind of liberating to be here as a private citizen, so I
will say that the VUE-IT Tool was put up in response to several
of the hearings that were here to get transparency into the $71
billion. So I am extremely excited about Mr. Kundra and what he
is talking about, taking it to the next level and rationalizing
those investments so that they really will produce the results
that we need so that those programs are successful.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Bond, what did you hear from Mr. Kundra that you were
especially encouraged by? And what advice do you have for him?
Mr. Bond. Yes, very encouraged, Mr. Chairman. I think there
is a high level of excitement about his appointment and some of
the others, folks who really, as we say in the tech sector,
``get it.'' It is clearly a top-tier issue for this
Administration, which is welcome indeed.
In fact, I think one of the reasons they are so encouraged,
too--not that Karen did not do this, but they are certainly
putting in the hours. Mr. Kundra met with a cross-section of
the tech sector last Saturday, which I think is a bit unique to
extend his working hours in that way.
I would offer three things, and this may be a bit
redundant, and pardon the alliteration, but I would say people,
procurement, and policy. About a third----
Senator Carper. Alliteration is good.
Mr. Bond. Alliteration is good and memorable, right.
People, about a third of the Federal employees on board at the
end of 2007 are due to retire by 2012.
Senator Carper. Say that number again?
Mr. Bond. One-third of those on board--I am citing GAO
here, so I am sure it is accurate. One-third of those on board
at the end of 2007 are eligible to retire by 2012, and that,
again, to this professional procurement corps, could be very
critical.
Second, in terms of procurement, we believe that some of
the milestones and benchmarks built into the procurement
process, often built in for weapons systems and other large
purchases, do not necessarily apply and can slow down the
process for an inherently commercial product, like software or
other applications. And so we would urge a look at that.
Then on policy, this really is an allusion to cyber
security, which undergirds all of this and must be a common
denominator, and as he said, kind of inciting the innovative
capability of the American people to be part of the process.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you for those comments.
I am going to withhold any further questions at this moment
and yield to Senator Burris and then maybe come back for some
additional follow-up questions.
Senator Burris.
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bond, please clarify for me, are you a private
contractor? Are you an adviser?
Mr. Bond. We are a trade association, Senator Burris.
Senator Burris. Oh, you are a trade association.
Mr. Bond. Correct. Right.
Senator Burris. So you do not have any contract with
Federal agencies currently?
Mr. Bond. Correct. We are all private sector members.
Senator Burris. And, Mr. Powner, you mentioned several
issues. I do not want to ask you to repeat your testimony, but
I was just hearing so many problems that you were outlining in
order to go forward. Would you pick out one or two of those
again?
Mr. Powner. I think you could summarize the Federal IT
problems probably in three buckets:
One, is people. That includes leadership and down to the
detailed workforce where we are looking at program managers,
engineers, and architects. We do not have enough good folks in
those positions across the board, and that is why it is so
difficult to oversee these contracts. We see it time and time
again. So, one, it is people.
Two, it is processes. Do we have the right processes? I
think Mr. Kundra mentioned about not defining well what we
want. Requirements definition and management on Federal IT
projects is poor with many of these projects and the root cause
for why many of them fail.
And then, I think, third is many times we do not hold
executives accountable from the CIOs to the agency heads. We
blame project managers and program managers when problems
occur.
So it is people, processes, and governance.
Senator Burris. And this has been going on, I assume, for
some time for it to get to the position where there is a
critical mass of problems.
Mr. Powner. Well, we have made strides. Ms. Evans, in her
position, did an annual assessment of the workforce and
attempted to shorten those gaps that we had. And there has been
progress in some of those areas, but there is still a ways to
go in all three.
Senator Burris. Mr. Bond.
Mr. Bond. I just wanted to throw out one additional point
there in regards to people, and that is this observation: It is
very hard for those folks who make their full-time living in
the technology sector to stay abreast of all the changes, and
so one of the great needs, we believe, is training resources
for those folks in the Federal Government, because the change
is coming so rapidly on so many fronts, it requires some real
training to stay abreast of all that.
Senator Burris. I wish you could see my notes up here, Mr.
Bond. You just touched right on my notes, because I am saying:
One, are the staff persons getting the proper training? Two,
are we keeping up with the equipment, the hardware that would
allow them to operate? Or is it antiquated? Because it is
changing so fast. I remember carrying a BlackBerry this big,
and my son looked at me and said, ``Dad, you got a Model T Ford
there. Why don't you get a Razor?''--or something he told me to
get. And it is happening. I assume it is happening also in the
government with these programs, and this hardware is coming out
for us to use. Is this because the manufacturers or the
industry is driving this new technology so that we can get rid
of it and make some more money and get some new equipment in?
How are you going to keep up with it?
Mr. Bond. I am sure the other experts here will have some
comments on that.
Senator Burris. Please. Feel free to comment.
Mr. Bond. I would say what drives the innovation is the
global competition, and we should thank our lucky stars that we
are the most innovative economy on the planet, but that does
create a non-stop environment of change, which is a challenge.
Senator Burris. Ms. Evans, do you want to comment, please?
Ms. Evans. Well, some of what you are describing actually
gets back to requirements definition, and you do not
necessarily want to have technology for technology's sake, but
we all use BlackBerrys, we all use cell phones and those types
of things. And it gets back a lot to what Mr. Bond is saying is
the procurement issues.
The life cycle of investments in the Federal Government,
they average 3 to 5 years. They make sure that they have
operations and maintenance, and they do 3 to 5 years because it
takes that long in order to be able to put through a
competitive contract that goes out there and adheres to all the
Federal procurement rules. And when you step back even further,
you have to work with procurement staff, and there are not a
lot of procurement staff there. So you have to get in line with
your procurement requirements along with all the mission ones
that have to do things that have already been mentioned, like
the virtual fence and those types of mission-specific things or
putting things up in order to deal with a pandemic, like what
we are talking about today. And so they have to prioritize what
their procurements are.
So the IT people a lot of times, their investments go down
because the idea is if it is not broken, then do not fix it
because we had such a terrible time the last time you
transitioned us over to a new technology.
So the agencies have a tendency not to introduce widespread
upgrades but phase them in for a multitude of reasons.
Senator Burris. Not only transitioning into new technology,
but how about transitioning to a new Administration. Like you
said, you just left your position, and the question--are there
some major programs that were good that you were working on
that have not really been complete, and the incoming
Administration can pick up on those programs and complete them
so there would be a continuity there, and as the continuity
comes with the updated or modern hardware and technology come
with the continuity? Is that the best that should happen or is
supposed to be happening?
Ms. Evans. That would be the best that would happen, and I
would like to highlight an example of that going on right now.
For example, Grants.gov, that is one-stop shopping for all
grantees to know where all the opportunities are for the
Federal Government. When the stimulus bill was passed, that
grew exponentially. So this Administration now is stepping back
because of where that particular technology solution was and
looking not only at the business requirements but the
technology itself so that they can leverage it and expand it
out and deal with the growth really fast and upgrade all the
hardware and all the capabilities that are there. And that is
what they are in the process of doing now.
Senator Burris. I hear something else, too, Ms. Evans, that
we are changing the laws probably so fast that technology is
not keeping up with Congress. Am I hearing that----
Ms. Evans. Well, that particular one, but I would suggest
that there are others that have not changed since 1946.
Senator Burris. OK.
Ms. Evans. That would help with moving some of this----
Senator Burris. We should change some laws----
Ms. Evans. There are some that you may want to consider
that could really help this.
Senator Burris. To really bring us into the 21st Century.
Ms. Evans. Yes, sir.
Senator Burris. And that would be--what is that, 2.2 or----
Ms. Evans. Well, one, I highlighted it in my written
testimony, but it deals with the Administrative Procedures Act,
and that really governs how the Federal Government does all its
rulemaking. And if we really want to move into a transparent
process--and so even when you talk about Twitter, if a Federal
Government employee does that as it relates to a rule, there is
a whole bunch of procedures that then go into place that they
just cannot go on Twitter and start tweeting with the public
about a rule. And they should be able to. They should be able
to do some of that so that you can get a rule out faster so
that you can respond to legislation that is immediate, like the
stimulus bill.
Senator Burris. My time is up, Mr. Chairman, but I
certainly have some more questions. But I will not bore the
panel with my----
Senator Carper. You are not boring them. They are sitting
on the edge of their seats. I can see from right here.
Mr. Powner, I know you have testified before our
Subcommittee on several occasions on exactly this topic, and
you stated before that OMB needs to improve its oversight and
its management of IT spending within agencies. You have been
very consistent with that. You alluded to this a little bit
earlier in the first round, but let me just ask you again. What
are your thoughts on the Administration's priorities in this
area? And do you believe that their priorities will help make
agencies more efficient, more responsive?
Mr. Powner. Well, clearly, transparency and using the
technologies to provide better service to citizens, that is
great. I think when you look at the management and oversight,
OMB's responsibilities tie back to the Clinger-Cohen Act to
track, analyze this investment that we are spending on $71
billion. There are three things we need to do.
One is we need to start with adequate justification where
we have a business case that justifies the investments. We
currently have a business case, frankly, that has gotten a
little bit unwieldy. It is rather excessive. We need to
streamline that and make sure that we have an adequate business
case that every investment is justified.
Second, we need to shine a spotlight on the problems that
we have, and I think the watch list and high-risk project watch
list were steps in the right direction, but we can actually
take that to the next level. We can do that for all major IT
projects. We can be more transparent with the shortfalls
associated with high-risk projects that are reporting
performance problems.
And then third--and this was the subject of a hearing we
had last summer, Mr. Chairman--is we now need to focus on
fixing the problem, tackling the root causes on why we have so
many troubled projects, whether it is people, whether it is
processes and those things. I can tell you right now that based
on all the work we have done for you and the data that Ms.
Evans has, we can go right down the list. Requirements
definition is poor. We do not manage risk well. We do not
oversee contractors well. We know where there are a lot of pain
points that we can improve going forward.
Senator Carper. Say that again? We do not oversee
contractors well. Is that one of the points you made?
Mr. Powner. Correct.
Senator Carper. And is it because in some cases the people
that we have on board, they are a part of the Federal
Government team whose responsibilities include overseeing the
contractors, they may not have the experience or the breadth of
training or understanding to be able to do that well?
Mr. Powner. It is both. I think it is training and
expertise to do that well, and sometimes there is just too much
faith placed in contractors. I will give you an example. We
have talked about these Earned Value Management reports. So all
contractors are to provide those to the Federal Government on
every project to see whether we have problems with cost and
schedule performance.
There are some agencies we go into and ask the agencies for
those reports, and it takes 3 or 4 months for the agencies to
get us those reports. And I question whether they actually have
had them all along. I mean, that is a core contract management
oversight technique that is not being utilized. It is something
you required back in 2005.
Senator Carper. Why do you suppose it is not being
utilized?
Mr. Powner. I will let Ms. Evans respond to that. A couple
things. There is a reluctance to lean on contractors, and
sometimes the government is flying blind. We do not realize
that we have got cost and schedule performance problems until
all of a sudden someone says we have a 30-percent variance.
Well, why didn't we know when it was 15 percent and 20 percent?
Because we were not watching what was going on.
So, you have times where folks were asleep at the wheel on
the government side, but then also, too, at times there is a
reluctance to really lean hard on these contractors.
Senator Carper. Ms. Evans, why is that?
Ms. Evans. On all of those issues or a few of those?
Senator Carper. No, the last one.
Ms. Evans. Well, I do think that at times it is hard for
the government and the agencies to lean on contractors because
if you are not clear with your requirements up front and then a
conflict occurs, then there is a traditional dance that the
government goes through with the contractors. And the
contractors will sit there and say, ``You did not define the
requirements,'' and the government will say, ``You never told
me.'' And we put those two together, and then I believe what
ends up happening is people are afraid to call a spade a spade
and say, ``You are not performing.''
And so you have to have your documentation in place. You
have to be a good project managers. And you have to understand
the tools that are in place. And you have to know--and you said
it. You plan and you have to have the plan because you have to
know where you are going. You cannot get there if you do not
have the plan.
And, Senator Burris, you brought this up as well, too.
Garbage in is garbage out. If you do not put the right
information or you have not taken the thought about what the
requirements should be, then you are not going to get what you
paid for because you do not even know what you asked for. And
that happens a lot on these government contracts, and sometimes
it is time because they had deadlines that had been promised
where they have to publicly meet deadlines, and they really
believe that they are going to make it. But they are not
because they did not put the proper planning in up front.
I do believe--and you mentioned in your opening statement
that you have introduced the bill dealing with the oversight,
and some of the enhanced authorities and things that you were
talking about specifically for the administrator of E-gov, we
give OMB and give that administrator the ability to go in, and
if you need somebody to be the heavy guy, OMB does it. I mean,
I did it when I was in OMB, and that is OMB's role as
oversight, to go in and say, ``Look, that is a legitimate
business need, but you are way off course. You need to stop and
you need to regroup and put together a team and really address
these weaknesses.'' And if transparency to the Hill is what
needs to be done in order to make sure that happens, then that
is what needs to be happening because you have the data now;
you need to move it and push the agencies to the next level of
performance and hold them accountable. And through hearings
like this, meetings with your staff, producing the information
on a regular basis will drive that improvement within the
agencies.
Senator Carper. OK. Mr. Bond, I would be interested in your
comments on this as well, please.
Mr. Bond. Yes, thank you. Since our association does
include a number of the leading contractors----
Senator Carper. I understand.
Mr. Bond [continuing]. Folks who are really household names
in that space, and I want to assure the Subcommittee that the
leading executives who work with us at our association
absolutely welcome robust oversight. Absolutely. But you will
hear our companies talk about the need for the government to be
a good customer, to understand their requirements and be able
to execute, cut down on the change orders and other changes
that come mid-course. But I think sometimes there is a
misperception on Capitol Hill or elsewhere that there is some
shyness about the oversight. In fact, robust oversight we
welcome.
Senator Carper. Just kind of thinking out loud here, I am
especially mindful, as this new Administration comes in, that
we have positions that are vacant, in some cases important
positions that are vacant for an extended period of time. In a
number of cases the senior people who come in and serve in
these leadership positions within agencies, they may be in for
a year or two. A case in point: Census. Dr. Murdoch came in. He
served for roughly a year. A new Administration comes in, he is
gone. He submitted his resignation the same day--as I recall,
his resignation was effective roughly the same day the
President and Vice President were sworn in. He had been on
board for maybe a year or so. I think by most people's account
he did a good job, but he is gone. And we have had a vacancy
since that time, and hopefully we are going to fill that
position soon. I think we have got a good nominee to come
before us shortly.
But that is just one example, and there are plenty of
others. And I think maybe that sort of--the way that we bring
people into leadership positions for a relatively short period
of time, a year or two, they are gone, we have vacancies,
sometimes for extended periods of time before we fill them
again. I think that kind of feeds the lack of oversight and
supervision and maybe leads to change orders. You have a new
Administration, you have a new person in who has a different
set of priorities than the last one.
We are probably going to try to address it with the Census
Director's position by looking at what happened in the IRS. The
IRS Commissioner who used to serve basically at the pleasure of
the President, and now the IRS Commissioner serves a 5-year
term. It can go from one Administration to the other, but that
person is there for an extended period of time. I think there
is probably a pretty good chance that we will be pushing for a
similar kind of approach on the Census Director. This idea of
literally on the eve of a census for us to sort of start and
stop all over again is--I think it drives this problem,
contributes to this problem. You all do not have to respond to
that.
I do want to ask one last question, Mr. Powner, and you may
have said it and I just missed it. But if you had to say what
may be the first thing that Mr. Kundra should do to improve the
management of information technology, if you said, ``The first
thing you do, this is what I would do first,'' what might that
be?
Mr. Powner. I think there needs to be a clear oversight
mechanism for all 800 major IT projects, whether you extend the
watch list process, whether you have corollary monthly
dashboard, but it needs to be real clear, the information that
agencies need to report to the Office of Management and Budget,
and then there needs to be aggressive follow-up on that.
Because as Ms. Evans has learned and all the work we did for
you, a lot of stuff that flows up is not always completely
accurate. You need to have checks and balances with IGs and GAO
and your hearings. But that is key going forward because we
have too much money on the line. And it is great that we have
talked about using web-based applications to move the ball
forward, but we do a lot of amazing things in this country, and
the majority of that $70 billion is spent on large IT projects
that we are controlling aircraft, we are putting environmental
satellites in the air, we are securing our borders, we are
making sure that the flying public is safe. And those things we
are not going to do with Internet-based applications. We are
going to do it the way we have always done it.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Let me yield to Senator Burris. Thank you for your
patience.
Senator Burris. Yes, I have a couple more questions, Mr.
Chairman, because the more we talk, the more these questions
are popping up.
I am concerned with reference to the contractors. Are there
contracts signed with defined terms and penalties and
agreement? Let us say if there is a change order that comes
through, is that contract with the Federal Government--since I
am new to the Senate here. I know in State government how we
did it. There were certainly defined work orders, but also if
there were any change orders that were needed, there would be a
limitation on the change orders as to what was really in the
specs when we entered the contract. Are there signed contracts
pursuant to, I assume, competitive bidding? Or is this a sole-
source type of operation?
Ms. Evans. So the answer would be yes, there are signed
contracts. There are different types of contracts within the
Federal Government. So there are performance-based contracts;
there are fixed-price contracts, cost-plus contracts and sole-
source contracts. They could do sole-source contracts. You have
to do it based on the need. There is a lot of variance.
Mr. Kundra talked specifically about fixed price. My
preference--and if we could go this way--would be performance-
based contracts, which means contractors really do not get paid
until the work is done because a lot of times under fixed-price
contracts, you pay a fixed amount, but if you do not get it for
5 years after the due date, that does not do the government any
good either.
And so you are supposed to specify, but if you put a
contract in place that allows a certain amount of flexibility,
it is flexibility on both sides, which means that the
government needs to be more responsible. And as Mr. Bond said,
we have to be good customers. When you put that contract in
place, you really should know what you are buying or what you
want to buy or what service you want to provide, and the idea
of how it should work functionally to allow innovation and the
contractors to propose technical solutions.
Senator Burris. Pardon me. Do you find that the contractor
who won that contract might have--that compliance might have
its sole package, and its package is not as up to date as what
was thought, and then when you really start halfway down your
project, you find that the package is not designed--or not
going to perform the way you thought it would perform, because
then this contractor does not have any more tools to put into
that to make the adjustment because he is trying to sell you
what his design package is about? Has anyone run into that
problem?
Ms. Evans. The answer is yes, that happens. Probably one of
the better examples--and the FBI will kill me on this one--is
they were doing their modernization----
Senator Carper. Be careful what you say. They might.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Evans. Yes, I know. They might, really. But GAO gave
them a good report at the end. But probably the best example to
hit on what you are talking about--there are actually two--is
the Sentinel project. It started out initially as a virtual
case file. The business requirement was needed, but what
happened was the FBI said, Well, I want this, this, and this,
and I want these packages, because I have looked at them all.
And then they did a procurement. When they brought them
together, they did not work together, and all the vendors then
said, well, it is not really our fault because you said you
wanted them all to work together. And so that project had to
stop, and they had spent 100 percent of the funds and had less
than 10 percent of the functionality.
So that project stopped, and they went back to, we are not
that smart like what we thought, we really should go back and
say here are the business requirements and this is how we want
the FBI to work----
Senator Burris. Did we have to pay more money for that
project?
Ms. Evans. We had to go back because it was the government
who said based on the contracts this is what we wanted. We
reviewed the contract and everything. And so they did a new
procurement, and this one GAO did review, and the management
and the oversight and the way that they do change orders and
how they hold people at bay and say, no, you cannot change--
they actually have successfully implemented that in the first
phase, and they are modernizing now. But it was, between the
two of them--because the government does at times think I know
more than what the contractor does, so I want this, this, and
this product, and then they have not done the due diligence to
see that they do not test together.
Senator Burris. One other follow-up question on that line
of thought. Once they get a project complete and it is up and
running, servicing that project is done by whom then? Is it
done by the contractor or by the personnel that is on board?
And are they up to speed on the functionality of that system?
Ms. Evans. That gets to what Mr. Powner was talking about
in the business case. When the agency comes forward, they are
supposed to talk about how they do the acquisitions, how they
are going to procure it, then how they develop it, and then how
they are going to maintain it. And as it moves through that
life cycle, OMB is involved in the oversight of that. So some
of the things, when it moves through and it is operational, and
then when you look at what the agency has done for its
workforce and they do not have developers and they do not have
the staff on board and they say they are going to manage it in-
house, OMB goes, Time out, time out. That is not a good
strategy. We just did all of these other things. How are you
actually going to maintain this and manage this going into the
future?
And so that is part of the oversight that Mr. Powner is
bringing up, and that has to be rigorous throughout the life
cycle of those projects.
Senator Burris. One last question, and I surely want to get
this in. Can any of you, the three of you all, discuss
America's stand compared to other countries in our use of and
reliance on information technology? How are we comparing with
the rest of the world in terms of our use of information
technology?
Mr. Bond. Yes, let me address that if I can, Senator, and
if you do not mind, I would like to back up and comment on the
other question just real quickly.
Senator Burris. Sure.
Mr. Bond. I think a straightforward way to think about the
different contracts and arrangements is to realize that the
Federal Government is spending over $70 billion, and there will
be different circumstances that would call for different kinds
of contracts, and to resist a one-size-fits-all kind of
approach. That means you have to understand, again, to make
that point about training, where the technology is going and
understand that, gee, now everybody is talking about cloud
computing, well, that may lend itself to more of a managed
service contract, which folks often have resisted. But it is a
different innovative new model, and so you have to understand
that when you are the government buyer and factor all that in
so that you do not march down a dead-end path, as----
Senator Burris. But, now, that will end up in the
information of the technology staff, but will that information
get up to the decisionmakers so that the necessary changes can
be made in a timely fashion? That is a major question.
Mr. Bond. Right. It is a fast-changing environment for
everybody.
Senator Burris. Yes.
Mr. Bond. On the question of U.S. competitiveness, I think
that there are--I know that there are a lot of different
rankings. OECD and others who have rated the United States now
as low as 8th and 14th in some different ratings. Others still
have the United States as No. 1 when you consider the
innovative capacity of our higher education system and research
universities and others. It is a mixed picture. But what no one
would debate is that our lead is less than it was and that the
rest of the world is catching up. They have looked at our
models, the use of research universities, technology transfer,
and other things, and they have tried to mimic it where they
can. And they have closed the gap. That in some ways makes them
better customers for us because we are only 5 percent of the
world's population, and we want them to be good customers. But
it has made it more competitive.
Senator Burris. Now, would some of that be through this
cyber fraud that they are stealing stuff from us in terms of
them catching up?
Mr. Bond. There is no question that economic espionage is a
fact of life in our world today, and one of our missions at
TechAmerica is to try to make sure that businesses across the
United States understand that there really is a threat out
there, that people do want competitive information. And that
means you need the most innovative protections out there.
Senator Burris. Because what I understand from our earlier
hearing this morning, even our closest allies might be
seeking--because we have all the goodies here. I mean,
everybody is spying or trying to steal something from America.
Mr. Bond. It is tough to be No. 1.
Senator Burris. You would think that our allies would not
be doing that, very close countries, but they are looking, I
assume, to see if they cannot come up with something and get an
edge from America, or maybe not necessarily on America but some
of their other competitors in the world. But we are still No. 1
you would say, Mr. Bond?
Mr. Bond. Well, I think we are when you consider all the
factors, but I think it makes policy all the more important
because we know they are trying to close the gap, and so if we
do not address old laws that are slowing us down--because
government often does spur the innovation, as Vivek Kundra
mentioned--if we do not get those policies right, the lead will
only close.
Senator Burris. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I have
to run to another meeting.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator. We are just delighted
you could come by. Thanks for your interesting questions.
Senator Burris. Thanks to the witnesses. They have been
very informative to me. I really appreciate that. Being new in
the Senate and having some of these statewide ideas and
bringing them to the national scene, the problems are about the
same.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
I want to just stick with what Senator Burris was asking
there just for a moment, kind of going back to our earlier
hearing today on cyber security where we have countries that
are major trading partners, major lenders to this country,
major holders of our securities, major countries in the world,
and there is plenty of evidence that they are not just involved
in trying to access weapons systems, complex advanced weapons
systems, but also there are elements within those countries
that are trying to steal intellectual property rights. We spend
a lot of time here in the Congress trying to figure out how to
protect intellectual property rights, and we have had enormous
debates actually for a couple of years on patent protection,
trying to get to a compromise on that. And we find out that
there are other entities within countries, and some who are
pretty friendly with us, that are literally coming in and just
making a joke out of intellectual property rights and patent
protection.
I like baseball--I like sports, but I like baseball, and I
sometimes think of things in the context of athletic
competition, but if you are a catcher for a team and you are
calling the pitches from your pitcher, literally in the full
view of a national television audience, you signal the pitch
that you are going to ask for. And you mix up your signals so
that no one knows for sure what you are asking for. And if you
happen to be the third base coach, you might be using a whole
variety of signals to tell the batter what to do--hold off on a
pitch, go for a pitch, hit behind a runner, hit a sacrifice fly
or whatever. That is a very simple notion, but there is a lot
of effort by the other team to figure out what signal, what is
going to be the next pitch, what are you telling the batter to
do.
Are we smart enough to be able to use a similar kind of
approach when somebody is trying to steal the plans for the F-
35? Do we have the ability to put up so many different options
out there, they are not really sure which one is the real F-35?
That is just one simple example. But do we have that
capability? I am trying to think, how do we play offense, how
do we play defense against this stuff? Clearly, we need to. We
are going to need to be able to do it a lot better than we
have.
Mr. Bond, I will start with you, but if anyone else has a
thought----
Mr. Bond. Sure. I think it is a fundamentally important
question that goes to our national competitiveness. It is a
competition. There are folks who would want to steal our
intellectual property and other advantages that they might be
able to secure.
So I think, first of all, it means that we really do have
to take advantage of our full innovative capacity because bad
guys are innovative and smart. We need to be that much smarter
and more innovative.
The good news is that our country has a rich tradition
there, and I am confident that we can remain ahead. But it does
mean that you have to be set up to enable and accept that
innovation and stay ahead of the bad guys. It also means that
we have to stand up for intellectual property rights all around
the world in multilateral and bilateral conversations, as I
know Administrations have for a number of years. Indeed,
congressional leaders here, as they travel overseas, have done
the same.
So we have to press on all fronts, and I would say that
includes FISMA reform, which I know is a particular interest of
the Chairman's that we need to strengthen, and then we need to
also look at cyber security R&D--basic R&D is a mission of
government in these days--so that the applications and the real
development of that can be taken by the private sector. And I
think there is more work for the Federal Government to do in
cyber security R&D.
So those are a few, I think, that we also in our
association's view we would be helped by having a real
quarterback at the White House who is the senior cyber security
leader as well.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Ms. Evans, do you have anything you would want to add on
this point?
Ms. Evans. I would like to add a little bit to that because
I think that this is a place where the Federal Government can
really lead by example. And so a lot of the things that Mr.
Bond is talking about are real high-level types of things that
are out there dealing with the industry as a whole and the
government as a whole to keep that competitive edge. But there
are things--I will give you another analogy. This is the same
as if you live in a homeowners' group and they are in your
group, they----
Senator Carper. You mean like a civic association?
Ms. Evans. Well, when you talk about your housing
development and you come in, what happens is if you put up
certain things--and this is a known fact--that if you put up
this house is monitored, that is a deterrent from people, and
they will move to the next house to see if it is or if it is
not. And so basic types of good housekeeping that Federal
agencies could do, and I would say industry could rise to this
occasion by building security right into the products. Instead
of agencies having to figure out what are the right settings,
just have those settings already built into the products
because we have been talking about how the workforce needs to
be bolstered, needs to have these skill sets, needs to be able
to do these things. And so if you are buying products that are
already secure and you implement them and you leverage the
buying power of the Federal Government, which I believe is part
of what is in the intent for the FISMA reform, that you now
raise the level up a level and so they may move on to the next
company or the next government or the next country and say, OK,
well, we are going to get the information from them.
But as we move into a more collaborative, networked world,
we have to be cognizant of where all those doors are. And so if
we put up the sign first and we say, well, we are monitoring,
and we have our security alert system, then we will need to
take it to the next level where, when people knock on my door
and it goes off, the police come to my house. Well, we would
want to take it to the next level, and then maybe go to even
the next level where you are preventing things and keeping
people out, which may not be kosher, so to speak, of your
subdivision that should not be there because you know that they
should not be there because they have bad intentions.
Senator Carper. Sitting in your seat this morning at
another hearing on cyber security, a full Committee hearing,
Alan Paller, who I am sure you all know, talked again and
again, and yet again, about the importance of getting it
straight right from the start with the procurement process. I
told him in my business, we try to stay--we are given kudos for
remaining on message. I said, ``Mr. Paller, you are definitely
on message.''
Mr. Bond. Yes, I just wanted to add to Ms. Evan's point
about building in security from the inside. I think often we
think of that like a patch or something. You have your system,
let's put a Band-aid on it for security.
Last week, I was out at the world's largest cyber security
show, and, indeed, this is exactly the focus of the private
sector industry, is building the cyber security in from the
very beginning on all products so that it is a quantum leap in
terms of the level of security. So that is the trend in
industry.
Senator Carper. Good. That is encouraging.
Mr. Powner, anything you want to add before I ask you one
more----
Mr. Powner. Yes, just one comment. I know Mr. Kundra
mentioned the 60-day review that Melissa Hathaway is currently
engaged in. We have a real need here in this country just to
take it up to another level. I believe the Federal Government
does need to lead by example. We have a lot of room for
improvement when we look at the whole--with FISMA and how the
agencies report. But we had a structure going back to 1996 in
the Clinton Administration that we put in place, a public-
private partnership arrangement because 85 percent of our cyber
critical infrastructure is owned by the private sector. And we
attempted for years to have this government-private
partnership, and it has not worked real well, to be frank.
One example, if you go back to Internet recovery, if the
Internet goes down, there is a requirement on the books that
there is a public-private Internet recovery plan. We have never
had that. You can go back to September 11, 2001, Hurricane
Katrina, look at lessons learned. We still never put that
together.
So there is a real need to bolster this public-private
partnership, and hopefully with the 60-day study and any
revisions to our national strategy--we actually had a pretty
good strategy in 2003, a national cyber strategy. The problem
is we have not implemented it well.
Senator Carper. That is a problem.
Ms. Evans, in your testimony you spoke to something that is
near and dear to my heart, and I am sure it is near and dear to
the hearts of most of the people in this room, and that is,
protecting our environment. As we know, a lot of the technology
that we consume includes some fairly hazardous, dangerous
``stuff'' that can pollute our groundwater when it is thrown
away. What more do you recommend the Federal Government should
do in this area that we call, I guess, ``green computing''? And
are there any programs that we maybe want to extend nationally
or even internationally to try and cut down on this kind of
waste?
Ms. Evans. In particular, the Environmental Protection
Agency is the executive agent to deal with the disposal of
equipment, and that is a big problem. And GSA is also involved
in the re-use of the equipment. So I think a lot of times when
the Federal Government buys equipment, the idea of how to
dispose of it and where it goes actually really does cause a
lot of problems, and it is a big environmental issue.
As green IT evolves and EPA continues to lead the way in
demonstrating what that should be, that also, again, could be a
place where the Federal Government can leverage its
requirements and say that they are only going to buy equipment
that does certain types of things because you are looking at
the life cycle of that equipment and its impact on the
environment when you go to dispose it.
So some of those things are the best practices that are
currently involved in EPA and really should be extended out,
and the CIO Council I would hope would take a look at that so
that they could then take those requirements and build them
into the procurements up front and get hardware that would meet
that, and then it would be easier on the environment to get rid
of.
Senator Carper. Anybody want to react to that comment?
Please.
Mr. Bond. Just a couple of points. I think what you have
described is a real shift in the whole mind-set of America, if
not the entire world, about getting more serious about impact
on the environment. That sent a strong signal to the leading
companies, so you will see many of them in the hardware space
with their own recycling programs, efforts to recycle those
specialty metals that are built in, and importantly, too, a
move to whole new materials that are going to be much more
environmentally friendly, whether it is the casing of the
computer or whatever, moving to new materials that are, in
effect, green.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks. I think I have one more
question that I am going to ask for the record--one more here
and then maybe a couple more that we will submit for response
in the record.
Mr. Bond, back to you. In your testimony, I believe you
mentioned several examples where other countries--I think one
might have been England, I think one might have been Canada--
were able to successfully use technology to change in some
pretty significant ways the way they operated. For example, I
think Canada uses the Internet for its census. I am told so far
it has worked fairly well. Dr. Coburn and I on this
Subcommittee have lamented in other hearings with the Census
Bureau over the last several years our unhappiness with the
fact that we are not using the Internet and some other
technology more extensively during our own census. But can you
give us an example or two, such as Canada's use of the Internet
for the census, that we might keep in mind for our own country?
Mr. Bond. Yes, certainly, Mr. Chairman. In the case of
Canada, they have been using the Internet and web-based
technologies to share some of that data rapidly, and what that
does is then makes it available for innovative uses by people
from the general public. This is one of the points that Mr.
Kundra was making earlier, that you need to be open as a
government to the innovative capability of the end users. It is
not just about the individuals on your payroll, but the
innovation that is out there. And so in that case, not only is
the data made available, which can have real business impact in
the near term because you know where the market is or where
people are, but also it allows those people to massage and work
with the data in new and creative ways that maybe have not even
occurred to the government of Canada.
Senator Carper. All right. Anyone else want to comment on
this particular point?
Ms. Evans. The one challenge, I think, that we will face--
because during my tenure we met several times, quarterly, with
many of my counterparts internationally--is the idea of
identity management, which has already been brought up. The
reason why some of these online types of activities with the
other countries and their services are successful is because
they are working on the issue and have identified the issue of
dealing with identity management and putting a solution in
place that the citizens trust. And here in the United States,
we are going to have a challenge with identity management,
dealing with the privacy aspects of that, and then how much
information do we really turn over to the government, to the
States, to the locals as it relates to me when I am acquiring
services from the Federal Government.
Senator Carper. OK, fine. This is a time when--I do not
always do this, but we have a minute or two and I want to do it
today, just to ask--and we have covered a fair amount of
territory here, and I am grateful for your being here. I am
very grateful for Mr. Kundra's appearance and testimony and
responses as well. We will have some more questions from our
colleagues who were not able to join us today and have
questions that they will want to submit, and I would just ask
that you respond to them in a prompt way, as you always do.
But is there anything, any parting comments, any last-
minute take-aways that you want to say, anything you want to
re-emphasize maybe that you have already said or you have
already heard, or maybe something that has not been said that
you think should be said for the good of the cause? Mr. Powner,
anything as we close out here?
Mr. Powner. I think clearly building on--there was a lot
Ms. Evans did to get the ball rolling, to improve transparency,
to heighten oversight, and I think we really do need to
leverage all the good things that occurred with the previous
Administration, but really take it to the next step. We need a
basketball analogy here. We need a full court press on the $71
billion.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Evans, are you going to sit there and take that kind of
abuse from him?
Ms. Evans. No, I actually am pleased to be here and be able
to represent the views of being able to challenge the agencies
to go to the next level. I think the foundation is there, and I
believe this is an opportunity. Many times you used to ask,
well, what can Congress do to help? And there are times when
there were things that I would have liked to have said, so now
I said them all in my testimony, which is I really do think
that there is an opportunity where Congress can really move the
agencies to the next level with accountability and taking a
look at some of the legislation and putting that in place so
that the transparency--so that you have the information that
can make the agencies--and if you are holding the agencies
accountable, they will perform. I mean, nobody comes to work
and wants to do a bad job. They really want to get the results.
And so if they are being asked over and over again, ``What are
you doing and how are you accomplishing this?'' I really do
believe that they will rise to that level and perform.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you. Mr. Bond.
Mr. Bond. I think I would only express on behalf of our
members their belief that this is the innovation headquarters
of the world, and they want to make sure that we get it right,
we get the policies right and so forth that will enable that to
continue. And so on behalf of the association, we are
extraordinarily pleased at the openness of you and your staff
and look forward to working with you to try to make sure we get
it right and keep innovation going here in the United States.
Senator Carper. All right. Well, I think that is a pretty
good note to close on. We look forward to meeting with you
again, and thank you again for your participation today.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0391.052