Homeland Security: OMB's Temporary Cessation of Information	 
Technology Funding for New Investments (01-OCT-02, GAO-03-186T). 
                                                                 
This testimony discusses the temporary cessation of funding for  
new information technology (IT) infrastructure and business	 
system investments related to the proposed Department of Homeland
Security. Integrating the diverse communication and information  
systems of the myriad of organizations that would be part of the 
proposed Department of Homeland Security would be an enormous	 
undertaking. Among the near-term challenges that would have to be
addressed to successfully tackle this task is developing an	 
enterprise architecture. Managed properly, enterprise		 
architectures can clarify and help optimize the interdependencies
and interrelationships among related enterprise operations and	 
the underlying IT infrastructure and applications that support	 
them. Another long-term challenge is establishing and enforcing a
disciplined IT investment management process. Well managed IT	 
investments that are carefully selected and focused on meeting	 
mission needs can propel an organization forward, dramatically	 
improving performance while reducing costs. To help tackle these 
challenges, in July the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)	 
issued two memoranda to selected agencies telling them to "cease 
temporarily" and report on new IT infrastructure an business	 
systems investments above $500,000, which are to be reviewed by  
IT infrastructure and business system investments to OMB, which  
are currently being evaluated by OMB and the investment review	 
groups. In addition, as of September 26, three agencies had	 
submitted emergency requests for expedited review, which were	 
subsequently approved. However, because the non-emergency agency 
submissions are still being evaluated, at this time it is too	 
early to assess the effects of OMB's action.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-186T					        
    ACCNO:   A05209						        
  TITLE:     Homeland Security: OMB's Temporary Cessation of	      
Information Technology Funding for New Investments		 
     DATE:   10/01/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Counterterrorism					 
	     Information resources management			 
	     Information technology				 
	     Investments					 
	     National preparedness				 
	     Strategic planning 				 

                                                                 
Homeland Security: OMB's Temporary Cessation of Information	 
Technology Funding for New Investments (01-OCT-02, GAO-03-186T). 
                                                                 
This testimony discusses the temporary cessation of funding for  
new information technology (IT) infrastructure and business	 
system investments related to the proposed Department of Homeland
Security. Integrating the diverse communication and information  
systems of the myriad of organizations that would be part of the 
proposed Department of Homeland Security would be an enormous	 
undertaking. Among the near-term challenges that would have to be
addressed to successfully tackle this task is developing an	 
enterprise architecture. Managed properly, enterprise		 
architectures can clarify and help optimize the interdependencies
and interrelationships among related enterprise operations and	 
the underlying IT infrastructure and applications that support	 
them. Another long-term challenge is establishing and enforcing a
disciplined IT investment management process. Well managed IT	 
investments that are carefully selected and focused on meeting	 
mission needs can propel an organization forward, dramatically	 
improving performance while reducing costs. To help tackle these 
challenges, in July the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)	 
issued two memoranda to selected agencies telling them to "cease 
temporarily" and report on new IT infrastructure an business	 
systems investments above $500,000, which are to be reviewed by  
IT infrastructure and business system investments to OMB, which  
are currently being evaluated by OMB and the investment review	 
groups. In addition, as of September 26, three agencies had	 
submitted emergency requests for expedited review, which were	 
subsequently approved. However, because the non-emergency agency 
submissions are still being evaluated, at this time it is too	 
early to assess the effects of OMB's action.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-186T					        
    ACCNO:   A05209						        
  TITLE:     Homeland Security: OMB's Temporary Cessation of	      
Information Technology Funding for New Investments		 
     DATE:   10/01/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Counterterrorism					 
	     Information technology				 
	     Investments					 
	     National preparedness				 
	     Information resources management			 
	     Strategic planning 				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-186T

HOMELAND SECURITY OMB*s Temporary Cessation of Information Technology
Funding for New Investments Statement of Joel C. Willemssen Managing
Director, Information Technology Issues United States General Accounting
Office GAO Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement

Policy, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery Expected at 10 a. m. EDT Tuesday October 1, 2002
GAO- 03- 186T

Page 1 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for
inviting us to participate in today*s hearing on the

temporary cessation of funding for new information technology (IT)
infrastructure and business system investments related to the proposed
Department of Homeland Security. This action was taken by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) in an attempt to identify redundant
investments or achieve more efficiencies in these investments by
organizations expected to be part of the proposed department.

Since the events of September 11, the President and the Congress have
responded with important actions to protect the nation* creating the
Office of Homeland Security, establishing a new agency to improve
transportation security, and working in collaboration with federal, state,
and local governments and private sector entities to prevent future
terrorist acts. In addition, as you know Mr. Chairman, on June 18, the
President transmitted draft legislation to the Congress for the creation
of a new Department of Homeland Security whose mission would be preventing
terrorist attacks within the United States, reducing America*s
vulnerability to terrorism, and minimizing the damage and recovering from
attacks that do occur. 1 After some brief background describing the
Administration*s Department of Homeland Security proposal, I will discuss,
at your

request,

information management and technology challenges facing the proposed
department and

OMB*s policy that selected agencies temporarily cease funding of new IT
infrastructure and business system investments.

Results in Brief Integrating the diverse communication and information
systems of the myriad of organizations that would be part of the proposed
Department of Homeland Security would be an enormous undertaking. Among
the near- term challenges that would have to be

addressed to successfully tackle this task is developing an enterprise
architecture. Managed properly, enterprise architectures 1 The House of
Representatives has passed (H. R. 5005), and the Senate is considering (S.
2452) legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security. Although
the bills are different, they share the goal of establishing a statutory
Department of Homeland Security.

Page 2 can clarify and help optimize the interdependencies and
interrelationships among related enterprise operations and the

underlying IT infrastructure and applications that support them. Another
near- term challenge is establishing and enforcing a disciplined IT
investment management process. Well managed IT investments that are
carefully selected and focused on meeting mission needs can propel an
organization forward, dramatically improving performance while reducing
costs. To help tackle these challenges, in July OMB issued two memoranda

to selected agencies telling them to *cease temporarily* and report on new
IT infrastructure and business system investments above $500,000, which
are to be reviewed by IT investment review groups. 2 Several agencies
reported new IT infrastructure and business system investments to OMB,
which are currently being evaluated by OMB and the investment review
groups. In addition, as of September 26, three agencies had submitted
emergency requests for expedited review, which were subsequently approved.
However, because the non- emergency agency submissions are still being
evaluated, at this time it is too early to assess the effect of OMB*s
action.

Background Under the President*s proposal, 3 22 existing major components
and about 170,000 people would be integrated into the new department in
order to strengthen the country*s defenses against terrorism. Table 1
lists the major components the Administration proposes to move to the new
department.

2 Two review groups were established, the (1) Homeland Security IT
Investment Review Group, which is to review IT infrastructure investments
and (2) Business Systems IT Review Group, which is to review business
system investments. 3 The President*s proposal entitled The Department of
Homeland Security, President George W. Bush, June 2002.

Page 3 Table 1: Major Components the Administration Proposes to Move to
the Department of Homeland Security (by parent department/ agency) a
Parent department/ agency Components( s) proposed to be moved

Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plum
Island Animal Disease Center

Department of Commerce Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office National
Institute of Standards and Technology*s

Computer Security Division Department of Defense National Communications
System Department of Energy Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis

Center Nuclear Incident Response Federal Emergency

Management Agency All

General Services Administration Federal Computer Incident Response Center
Federal Protective Service

Department of Health and Human Services Civilian Biodefense Research
Program Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear

Response Assets Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization
Service

National Domestic Preparedness Office National Infrastructure Protection
Center Office of Domestic Preparedness

Department of Transportation Transportation Security Administration Coast
Guard

Department of Treasury Secret Service Customs Service

a Other organizations also proposed to be part of a new Department of
Homeland Security are the Domestic Emergency Support Team, which is an
interagency group currently mobilized by the Attorney General in response
to major incidents, and a newly created National Bio- Weapons Defense
Analysis Center. Source: The President*s proposal entitled The Department
of Homeland Security, President George W. Bush, June 2002. The National
Institute of Standards and

Technology*s Computer Security Division was not included in the
President*s original proposal but was incorporated in the President*s
draft legislation to the Congress.

As we previously testified, the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security will be one of the largest reorganizations ever undertaken. 4
Performing a successful transition of this scale will

4 U. S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Critical Design and
Implementation Issues, GAO02- 957T (Washington, D. C.: July 17, 2002).

Page 4 take considerable time and money and, as a result, thorough
planning will be critical to the successful creation of the proposed

department. We have previously recommended that careful attention to
fundamental public sector management practices and principles, such as
strong financial, technology, and human capital management, are critical
to the successful implementation of government reorganizations. 5 Proposed
Department Faces Significant

IT Management Challenges As we have previously testified, 6 information
management and technology are among the critical success factors that the
proposed new department should emphasize in its initial implementation
phase. 7 As all of the programs and agencies are brought together in the
proposed department, it will be an enormous undertaking to integrate their
diverse communication and information systems.

Some of the challenges that the proposed department will have to face and
overcome include

establishing an effective IT management organization,

implementing appropriate security controls,

instituting mature systems acquisition, development, and operational
practices,

addressing human capital issues,

constructing and enforcing an enterprise architecture, and

establishing and enforcing a disciplined IT investment management process.

Let me now turn to the latter two challenges in more detail, given their
near- term importance and relationship to OMB*s recent actions regarding
the proposed department.

5 U. S. General Accounting Office, Government Reorganization: Issues and
Principles, GAO/ TGGD/ AIMD- 95- 166 (Washington, D. C.: May 17, 1995). 6
U. S. General Accounting Office, Proposal for Cabinet Agency Has Merit,
But Implementation Will be Pivotal to Success, GAO- 02- 886T (Washington,
D. C.: June 25, 2002). 7 Other critical success factors include strategic
planning, organization alignment, communication, building partnerships,
performance management, human capital strategy, knowledge management,
financial management, acquisition management, and risk management.

Page 5 Enterprise Architectures: A Hallmark of Successful Organizations

Our experience with federal agencies has shown that attempts to modernize
IT environments without blueprints* models simplifying the complexities of
how agencies operate today, how they want to operate in the future, and
how they will get there* often result in unconstrained investment and
systems that are duplicative and ineffective. 8 Enterprise architectures
offer such blueprints. Managed properly, architectures can clarify and
help optimize the interdependencies and interrelationships among related
enterprise operations and the underlying IT infrastructure and
applications

that support them. The development, implementation, and maintenance of
architectures are recognized hallmarks of successful public and private
organizations. Further, OMB Circular A- 130, which implements the Clinger-
Cohen Act of 1996, 9 requires executive branch agencies to use them.

In our February report on the use of enterprise architectures in the
federal government, we provided an initial version of an enterprise
architecture maturity framework to serve as a standard for measuring the
status and progress of agencies* architecture efforts. 10 Figure 1
provides a simplified depiction of this framework.

8 For example, U. S. General Accounting Office, Air Traffic Control:
Complete and Enforced Architecture Needed for FAA Systems Modernization,
GAO/ AIMD- 97- 30 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 3, 1997) and Tax System
Modernization: Blueprint Is a Good Start but Not Yet Sufficiently Complete
to Build or Acquire Systems, GAO/ AIMD/ GGD- 98- 54 (Washington, D. C.:
Feb. 24, 1998). 9 Clinger- Cohen Act of 1996, P. L. 104- 106, section
5125, 110 Stat. 684 (1996). 10 U. S. General Accounting Office,
Information Technology: Enterprise Architecture Use across the Federal
Government Can Be Improved, GAO- 02- 6 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 19, 2002).

Page 6 Figure 1: GAO*s Five Stages of Enterprise Architecture Maturity
(version 1.0) Source: GAO

Our February report found that agencies* use of enterprise architectures
was a work in progress, with much to be accomplished. This is demonstrated
by table 2, which lists the maturity stage (1 representing the lowest
maturity and 5 representing the highest) of the parent organization and,
if available, the entity within this organization that is proposed to be
moved to a new Department of Homeland Security.

Page 7 Table 2: Maturity Stage of Parent Organizations and, Where
Available, the Entity Proposed to be Moved to a New Department of Homeland
Security Note: Only those component entities for which we have enterprise
architecture data are

listed. Source: GAO

To its credit, OMB recognizes the importance of an enterprise architecture
and has reported that it is in the process of defining a framework for
creating a national enterprise architecture for homeland security.

IT Investment Management: A Process to Improve Performance and Reduce
Costs

Investments in IT can have a dramatic impact on an organization*s
performance. Well managed IT investments that are carefully selected and
focused on meeting mission needs can propel an organization forward,
dramatically improving performance while reducing costs. Likewise, poor
investments, those that are inadequately justified or whose costs, risks,
and benefits are poorly managed, can hinder and even restrict an
organization*s performance. Recognizing this, in 1996 the Congress passed
the

Department/ agency Enterprise architecture maturity stage

Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 1

1 Department of Commerce 3 Department of Defense 3

Department of Energy 2 Federal Emergency Management Agency 2 General
Services Administration 2 Department of Health and Human Services 1
Department of Justice

Immigration and Naturalization Service 3

1 Department of Transportation

Coast Guard 2

2 Department of the Treasury Secret Service

Customs Service 1

2 5

Page 8 Clinger- Cohen Act, which requires agencies to implement IT
investment and capital planning processes.

In support of the Clinger- Cohen Act, in May 2000, we issued the
Information Technology Investment Management (ITIM) maturity framework, 11
which identifies critical processes for successful IT investment
management and organizes these processes into an assessment framework
comprising five stages of maturity. Each stage builds upon the lower
stages and enhances the organization*s ability to manage its IT
investments. Figure 2 shows the five ITIM stages and provides a brief
description of each stage.

Figure 2: The five stages of Maturity Within ITIM

Source: GAO

Using this model, our evaluations of selected agencies, including the
Coast Guard and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, found that
while some processes have been put in place to help them 11 U. S. General
Accounting Office, Information Technology Investment Management: A
Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, Exposure Draft,
GAO/ AIMD- 10- 1.23 (Washington, D. C.: May 2000).

Page 9 effectively manage their planned and ongoing IT investments, more
work remains. 12 For the proposed new department, OMB has reported that it
is defining a framework for an IT capital planning process, which is an

important step in developing strong IT management at the outset. The ITIM
framework can provide a useful roadmap for new organizations* like the
proposed Department of Homeland Security* for implementing a fundamentally
sound IT capital planning and investment management process, because it
identifies the key practices for creating and maintaining such a process.

Agencies Told to Temporarily Cease Funding for New IT Infrastructure and
Business System Investments, but It is Too Early to Assess Effect In July,
OMB issued two memoranda 13 to selected agencies telling

them to (1) cease temporarily new IT infrastructure and business system
(i. e., financial management, procurement, and human resources systems)
investments above $500,000 pending a review of the investment plans of all
proposed Department of Homeland Security component agencies, (2) identify
and submit to OMB information on any current or planned spending on these
types of initiatives, and (3) participate in applicable IT investment
review

groups 14 co- chaired by OMB and the Office of Homeland Security.
According to OMB, its goal in issuing these memoranda is to seek
opportunities for improved effectiveness and economy (including millions
in anticipated savings). In addition, according to officials from OMB*s
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, another

purpose was to obtain an inventory of current and planned IT
infrastructure and business system investments for organizations that
would be moved to the proposed Department of Homeland Security. This
information is expected to help in the Administration*s transition
planning for the proposed department.

12 For example, see U. S. General Accounting Office, Information
Technology: INS Needs to Strengthen Its Investment Management Capability,
GAO- 01- 146, Dec. 29, 2000) and Information Technology Management: Coast
Guard Practices Can Be Improved, GAO- 01- 190 (Washington, D. C.: Dec. 12,
2000). 13 Office of Management and Budget, Reducing Redundant IT
Infrastructure Related to Homeland Security, M- 02- 12 (July 19, 2002) and
Review and Consolidation of Business Management Systems for the Proposed
Department of Homeland Security, M- 02- 13 (July 30, 2002). 14 Two review
groups were established, the (1) Homeland Security IT Investment Review
Group, which is to review IT infrastructure investments, such as local
area networks and desktop services and (2) Business Systems IT Review
Group, which is to review business system investments, including those
related to financial management, human resources, and procurement systems.

Page 10 Table 3 summarizes the funding for new IT infrastructure and
business system investments for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 that the

affected agencies submitted to OMB in response to the July memoranda.
Table 3 may not include all investments being reviewed by OMB and the
investment review groups. In particular, we did not include operations and
maintenance funding because OMB reported that its July memoranda did not
affect *steady state* spending

needed to continue operations.

Page 11 Table 3: Agencies* Reported Funding for New IT Infrastructure and
Business System Investments for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 (in thousands)
a IT Infrastructure Business Systems

Department/ agency Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003

Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003

Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 3,100 3,200 Not applicable b
Not applicable Department of Commerce Not applicable Not applicable Not
applicable Not applicable Department of Defense Not applicable Not
applicable No submission

requested by OMB c No submission requested by OMB

Federal Emergency Management Agency 7,500 4,000 1,700 700 Department of
Justice

Immigration and Naturalization Service d 40,155 83,900 0 0 Department of
Transportation

Transportation Security Administration

Coast Guard 40,300

No written response submitted to OMB e 0

No written response submitted to OMB Not applicable No written response
submitted to OMB

Not applicable No written response submitted to OMB

Department of the Treasury Secret Service f Customs Service g 0 200

0 4,000

0 3,790

0 4,210 a OMB sent the July memoranda to those agencies that had the
larger organizations that

would be part of the proposed Department of Homeland Security and did not
send them to the Departments of Energy and Health and Human Services and
the General Services Administration, which also have components that would
be moved under to the proposed department.

b Not applicable means that the agency reported that it did not have any
system investments meeting OMB*s criteria. c OMB did not request that the
Department of Defense provide information on business system investments.
d The Immigration and Naturalization Service also reported an additional
$2.85 million and

$3.05 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, respectively for internet and
intranet projects, but did not specify whether these funds were new funds
or for operations and maintenance. e The Coast Guard stated that it did
not provide OMB with a list of system investments,

noting that it addressed most of its investment issues with the investment
review groups. f The Secret Service reported no new funding for current
and planned IT infrastructure and

business system investments. However, its submission indicated that it
intended to conduct various planned upgrades, such as an upgrade to its
Enterprise Financial Management System, and the implementation of a search
engine using operations and maintenance funding. g In addition to the new
funding for IT infrastructure and business system investments

included in the table, the Customs Service*s submission stated that it had
*planned

upgrades for standard growth* for several initiatives in which it planned
to use operations and maintenance funding. Source: Applicable agencies. We
did not validate this information.

Page 12 The July memoranda also stated that, if an agency had a critical
need or emergency, it could submit information for an expedited review. As
of September 26, agencies had requested three

emergency requests for expedited review. Specifically, according to OMB,
the following emergency requests have been approved, (1) a Coast Guard
request to proceed with a licensing agreement with Microsoft, (2) a
Transportation Security Administration request to proceed with a task
order for a managed services contract, and (3) a Secret Service request to
go forward with a search engine that

would conduct database searches across the agency. Mr. Chairman, you asked
us to identify the process being used in reviewing the projects submitted
under OMB*s memoranda, the criteria being used in determining which
projects would go forward, and the length of time that the memoranda are
expected to be in effect. First, OMB has not yet finalized its process for
reviewing the IT infrastructure and business system investments reported
by the agencies. However, officials from OMB*s Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs told us that OMB expects to use the same basic process
that it used in addressing the emergency requests. Namely, (1) agencies
will submit information on their new IT infrastructure or business system
investments to OMB, (2) OMB and the applicable IT investment review group
will review the agency submission, and

(3) the applicable review group will make a recommendation. Once a
recommendation is made, according to these officials, the normal budget
execution process will be implemented, which may require additional action
by OMB or the applicable agency head.

Second, regarding the criteria for evaluating current and planned IT
investments of affected agencies, officials from OMB*s Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs stated that they will use the
principles contained in section 300 of OMB Circular A- 11 and section 8(
b) of OMB Circular A- 130. These circulars instruct agencies to develop,
implement, and use capital programming processes that, for example: (1)
evaluate and select capital assets investments that will support core
mission functions and

demonstrate projected returns on investments that are clearly equal to or
better than alternative uses of public resources, (2) ensure that
improvements to existing information systems and planned information
systems do not unnecessarily duplicate IT capabilities within the same
agency, and (3) institute performance measures and management processes
that monitor and compare actual performance to planned results.

Page 13 Finally, OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
officials did not know how long the memoranda would remain in effect,

stating that they will remain in effect until their goals are met.
Specifically, these officials stated that whether and how long the
investment review groups established by the memoranda continue to operate
will in large part depend on if or when legislation establishing the
Department of Homeland Security is enacted.

Impact of OMB*s Action Too Early To Assess Mr. Chairman, you also asked us
to address the impact of the OMB memoranda on the affected agencies.
Although OMB directed selected agencies to temporarily cease these
investments, it does not necessarily mean that work is to be stopped on
all IT infrastructure and business system projects at the applicable
agencies. First, the memoranda only pertain to funding for new development
efforts and not to existing systems in a *steady state* using operations
and maintenance funding. Second, the cessation

does not apply if funds pertaining to a development or acquisition
contract have already been obligated. Third, as I previously noted,
agencies can request an expedited review to obtain the approval to proceed
if they have an emergency or critical need. The following are examples of
how OMB*s direction to cease temporarily would apply in certain
circumstances.

If an agency had an existing procurement system in a *steady

state* in which no major modifications or modernization efforts were
planned, there would be no effect on the funding of this system.

If an agency had an ongoing contract with available obligations for the
development of a financial management system, there would be no effect on
this contract, but new obligations for development or modernization
efforts would be required to be approved by the Business Systems IT Review
Group.

If an agency wanted to award a contract for a new or modernized IT
infrastructure item, such as a local- area- network, over $500,000, it
would be required to obtain approval from the Homeland Security IT
Investment Review Group before proceeding.

At this time it is not possible to assess the full effect of the July
memoranda on the selected agencies. Except for emergency

Page 14 requests, according to officials from OMB*s Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, the investment review groups have not taken any
action on the agencies* submissions in response to the July

memoranda because neither they nor OMB have completed their reviews of
these documents. In addition, OMB officials stated that OMB is not
tracking whether, or to what extent, agencies have halted spending or
altered system plans as a result of the July memoranda. Although it may be
too early to evaluate the results of the July memoranda at this time, OMB
has stated that the investment review groups would track any savings
resulting from its actions, which should provide some information to help
assess the outcome of the temporary cessation in the future.

At least one agency has put planned initiatives on hold pending the
establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. Specifically, in its
submission to OMB in response to the July memoranda, the

Federal Emergency Management Agency reported that it had put all
initiatives related to two projects, including its Personnel Resources
Information Systems Mart, on hold pending the creation of the

Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my
statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other
members of the subcommittee may have at this time.

Contact If you should have any questions about this testimony, please
contact me at (202) 512- 6240 or via e- mail at willemssenj@ gao. gov.
(310006)
*** End of document. ***