[House Hearing, 107 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] H.R. 2458 AND S. 803, THE E-GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2002 ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND PROCUREMENT POLICY of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 2458 AND S. 803 TO ENHANCE THE MANAGEMENT AND PROMOTION OF ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND PROCESSES BY ESTABLISHING AN OFFICE OF ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, AND BY ESTABLISHING A BROAD FRAMEWORK OF MEASURES THAT REQUIRE USING INTERNET- BASED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TO ENHANCE CITIZEN ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION AND SERVICES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES __________ SEPTEMBER 18, 2002 __________ Serial No. 107-184 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform ______ 86-062 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2003 ____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------ JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma (Independent) Kevin Binger, Staff Director Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DOUG OSE, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia Ex Officio DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director Victoria Proctor, Professional Staff Member David McMillen, Minority Professional Staff Member C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on September 18, 2002............................... 1 Texts of H.R. 2458 and S. 803................................ 6 Statement of: Everson, Mark W., Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget; Linda Koontz, Director of Information Management, General Accounting Office; Mark Forman, E-Government Administrator, Office of Management and Budget; Pat McGinnis, president, Council for Excellence in Government; Thomas Gann, vice president of government relations, Siebel Systems; and Roger Baker, executive vice president, CACI............................................ 188 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Baker, Roger, executive vice president, CACI, prepared statement of............................................... 241 Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, prepared statement of......................... 3 Everson, Mark W., Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, prepared statement of............... 190 Gann, Thomas, vice president of government relations, Siebel Systems, prepared statement of............................. 235 Koontz, Linda, Director of Information Management, General Accounting Office, prepared statement of................... 203 McGinnis, Pat, president, Council for Excellence in Government, prepared statement of.......................... 228 Turner, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, prepared statement of............................ 186 H.R. 2458 AND S. 803, THE E-GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2002 ---------- WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2002 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas M. Davis (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia, Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, and Turner. Staff present: Melissa Wojciak, staff director; George Rogers, Uyen Dinh, and John Brosnan, counsels; Victoria Proctor and Teddy Kidd, professional staff members; Ryan Voccola, intern; David McMillen and Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff members; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk. Mr. Davis. Good afternoon. We are going to start with opening statements. I am going to put my entire statement in the record and try to be quick. We may have a series of votes shortly, and I want to move through this as quickly as we can. Today's legislative hearing is on S. 803 and H.R. 2458, the Electronic Government Act of 2002. Both of these pieces of legislation attempt to establish a new framework for managing the Federal Government's information resources. Both create a new position within OMB to centralize and coordinate information management, and both bills authorize a number of programs to promote or establish E-government within the Federal Government. For the last 20 years, the management of Federal information resources has been governed by a set of laws directing specific information functions, and one law, the Paperwork Reduction Act, which is intended to tie them together in a coordinated approach to information resources management. Under that law, which is in effect today, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is responsible for overseeing Federal agency information activities, including information technology management. There have been many complaints about OIRA and agency information resource management. S. 803 does not address OIRA's job. Instead, it carves out pieces of the information management puzzle and identifies it as electronic government, and gives it to a newly created OMB Office of E-Government. If this bill becomes law, Congress will have created two overlapping information management structures. The subcommittee will review the effectiveness of creating such a structure, and will seek whether or not we should examine current law in order to assist agencies in the complex task of information management. While the government continues to be the largest purchaser worldwide of IT products, it is uncertain whether or not the government is receiving its return on investment. According to the JFK School of Government at Harvard, over 45 percent of the government's IT projects fail. Recognizing these ongoing management challenges, the President appointed Mark Forman, Administrator of E-Government at OMB, to lead a more centrally coordinated approach to IT investment and the deployment of E- Government services to citizens. S. 803, if passed by the Senate, will codify this new management structure for e- government, but it does make the position Senate-confirmed; it currently is not. The subcommittee will review the current structure of the e-government Administrator and ascertain if this is the appropriate management solution for the IT challenges facing the Federal Government. I want to thank Senator Lieberman and Congressman Turner for their work on this legislation to date. I look forward to working with both of them and with the administration on a comprehensive information management bill that addresses the government's need for more centralized and coordinated management. I would now yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee for any comments he may wish to make. [The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Davis and the texts of H.R. 2458 and S. 803 follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.221 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.222 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.223 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.224 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.225 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.226 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.227 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.228 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.229 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.230 Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 2458 and S. 803. These bills are companion pieces of legislation which was introduced in the Senate by Senator Lieberman, and I introduced it in the House. S. 803 is the result of the Senate action on the legislation which was reported unanimously out of Senate committee as I recall. And I'm very hopeful that we can move this bill along for further action. We all understand clearly the impact that information technology has had on our economy and our government, and this legislation has as its underlying purpose an effort to bring information technology to bear on the activities and functions of the Federal Government in a more effective and efficient way than we have been able to do in the past. I want to commend Chairman Davis for his attention to the issue and his hard work on this legislation as well as other bills that we have dealt with to try to promote the better utilization of information technology in our Federal Government. I am looking forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of witnesses today. One of our witnesses, Mark Forman, who is the Associate Director for Information Technology and e- government in the Office of Management and Budget, will find in this legislation his position created statutorily. One of the primary efforts of this bill was to elevate the stature and the status of the individual in our government who would be in charge of implementing and employing information technology. And I appreciate the work that OMB did in negotiating provisions of the bill in the Senate which is before us as S. 803. When it comes to information technology, effective use of the Internet, and other cutting-edge information resources, the Federal Government clearly continues to play catch-up with the private sector. It seems that we have been able to implement great advances in the private sector while our government continues to lag. And as a result, we are losing money in the Federal Government, we are wasting the time of millions of citizens who could be better served with a greater utilization of information technology and the delivery of government services, and most importantly, we have failed to provide the kind of effective government that we are capable of providing if we employ information technology. It is for those reasons that Senator Lieberman and I introduced this legislation. We are hopeful that it will move forward in the legislative process and provide great promise for improving the services of government to the American people. Again, I thank the chairman for holding the hearing on this bill, which was joined when we introduced it in the House by 38 other cosponsors. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Turner follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.005 Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Mrs. Davis, any comment? OK. Well, we are going to proceed to our panelists at this point. I call our witnesses to testify: Ms. Koontz, Mr. Forman, Ms. McGinnis, Mr. Gann, Mr. Baker and Mr. Everson. As you know, it is the policy of this committee that all witnesses be sworn before they may testify. If you would rise with me and raise your right hand. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you. You may be seated. Mark, I understand you may have to leave at 3 o'clock. Is that right? Mr. Everson. Yes, sir. Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Why don't we start with you, and then we will go with Ms. Koontz and move right down. And I think I will try to get everybody in, but if you have to leave before questions we will understand, and we'll just submit them to you later. So why don't we start with you, and then, Linda, we'll go to you, and then Mark, and go straight down. Thank you for being with us. STATEMENTS OF MARK W. EVERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; LINDA KOONTZ, DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; MARK FORMAN, E-GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; PAT McGINNIS, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL FOR EXCELLENCE IN GOVERNMENT; THOMAS GANN, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, SIEBEL SYSTEMS; AND ROGER BAKER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CACI Mr. Everson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I think that you have already stated quite correctly in the two opening statements the importance of this legislation. I'm happy to comment on it. I would like to provide a little broader perspective about what we are trying to do within the administration. I think it's already covered in my statement, but as to the details of this whole area, obviously Mark is very competent to answer the questions. I am a little concerned that if we elevate his position, he will start to feel that he has to be held to an even higher standard and do even more than what he is doing today, which would be very hard, principally for me, to try to keep up with him. But the E-Government Initiative, as you know, it's a part of our overall President's management agenda. We feel that those five areas which we have identified within the administration as being central to good management and government are closely linked with strategic management and human capital, improved financial performance, competitive sourcing, budget and performance integration, and expanded e- government. We are monitoring those centrally. They come out of my office as the Deputy Director for management at OMB. They are also very closely targeted and monitored within the President's Management Council, which I chair, which is the group of chief operating officers of the departments and major agencies. I think the E-Gov Initiative is off to a great start, largely through Mark's leadership, but with the help of the Congress and others who have identified the very real potential--largely unmet, as has been indicated just moments ago--up until this time in government. Some of the challenges that you are well aware of are working across agencies to eliminate redundant expenditures, to harness technology in a way that supports missions, and also to get it done, as I know the chairman knows, expeditiously through good procurement practices and other areas that help us make the government more efficient. We do support this legislation. We think it will provide a parity, if you will, to Mark's position that is important, along with the position I used to hold, that of Controller,and also that of Administrator for Procurement Policies held by Angela Styles. We do not, however, favor the Senate confirmation element of the proposal. We think that it's time to try and make executive branch appointees able to get on the job quicker. That whole process can be overly burdensome, delay the effectiveness of getting someone on the job, particularly in an area such as e-government where people coming from the private sector are used to fast-moving changes and not 6-month- long processes. And for that reason, and also the fact that my own position is DDM, which would supervise this role if Senate confirmed. We think that we are covered on that base. That is really the principal reservation we would have about this area. I will leave my written statement. Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. The entire statement will be made part of the record. Mr. Everson. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Everson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.016 Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Ms. Koontz. Ms. Koontz. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to participate in today's hearing on S. 803, E-Government Act of 2002. In my remarks today I would like to briefly comment on some of the key provisions of the bill. As you know, the Federal Government faces many challenges in effectively managing information resources and technology, including improving the collection, use, and dissemination of government information, strengthening privacy and information security, and developing IT human capital strategies as 803 focuses on the critical goal of enhancing the management and promotion of e-government. To accomplish this goal, the bill's provisions address many of these challenges. For example, the bill would make government information better organized and more accessible to the public through a variety of means, including establishing an interagency committee to study these issues and make recommendations to OMB. At the same time, the bill recognizes that over 40 percent of the households in America are now connected to the Internet, and includes provisions to ensure that access to government information is not diminished for these citizens. The bill would also protect privacy by requiring agencies to perform privacy impact assessments. This requirement would provide a much-needed focus on privacy implications of collecting personal information, and could help ensure that the government collects only that personal information that it needs. The bill would also improve information security by repealing the expiration of the Government Information Security Reform Act, which, based on first-year implementation, has proven to be a significant step in improving agencies' security programs and addressing weaknesses. In addition, Mr. Chairman, we note that the bill you introduced, the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002, also reauthorizes GSRA, and contains a number of changes that would further strengthen information security. The bill would also address the critical issue of IT human capital needs by requiring OPM and others to analyze the government's personnel needs, oversee training, and assess the training of Federal employees in IT disciplines. This requirement is consistent with our prior work that has found that leading organizations identify IT skills, determine needed future skills, and determine the right skill mix. S. 803 would also establish an Office of Electronic Government within OMB, headed by an Administrator appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Administrator would oversee implementation of the bill's provisions and other e-government initiatives. A strength of this approach is that it would provide the benefit of putting a high-level executive within OMB to focus full time on e- government activities. However, a complicating factor is that the Federal Government's information resources and technology management leadership would be shared between two offices, the proposed new office and OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, has existing responsibilities for these areas. One alternative is to create a single position devoted exclusively to the full range of information resources and technology management functions. There are various ways to accomplish this. One approach would be to establish a Federal Chief Information Officer. Such a position could help address the many challenges facing the government for effectively implementing e-government and other major IT initiatives. Nonetheless, this bill is an important step toward addressing these issues. That concludes my statement. Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Ms. Koontz follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.036 Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Mr. Forman. Mr. Forman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner, Ms. Davis, thank you for your leadership in making the Federal Government an e- government. I recognize and respect that your efforts predate my return to government last year, and I would also like to recognize Senators Thompson and Lieberman for their leadership in e-government. We are pleased today to inform you of some of our progress in electronic government as well as comment on S. 803. Recent studies show that the Internet has become the primary channel between citizens and government. Similarly, -e-business has become the primary way organizations improve their effectiveness and efficiency. For e-government a strategic question is how do we leverage the more than $50 billion we invest each year to make government more citizen-centered and results-oriented. The government uses modern secure technologies to make government respond faster and better to the needs of citizens. And e-government agencies use e-business tools to lessen paperwork burdens and enable all levels of government--local, State, and Federal--to work together. As e-government deploys, conducting business with government becomes easier, more private, and more secure. Citizens should need no more than three clicks of a mouse to get what they want. Achieving this vision requires agencies to integrate and simplify their operations while addressing six chronic problems described in our written statement: paving cow paths, redundant buying, inadequate program management, poor modernization blueprints, islands of automation, and poor IT security. As OMB's Associate Director for IT and E-Government, I've led the work to achieve the President's e-government vision. Twenty-four cross-agency e-government initiatives were selected on the basis of the value that they would bring to citizens, while generating cost savings or improving the effectiveness of government. Agencies have since identified additional opportunities for using e-government to work across boundaries, to improve performance, and reduce costs. Significant progress has been made on e-government initiatives. I have a long list in the written testimony, but for a few examples: GovBenefits.gov provides access to information and services of 110 government programs from 11 Federal agencies representing more than $1 trillion in annual benefits. The government online learning center, golearn.gov, is the first milestone of the e-training initiative, and has provided over a million training courses and e-books to Federal employees since its launch in July. The improved FirstGov Web site selected by Yahoo is one of the 50 most incredibly useful Web sites and now provides government services within three clicks of your mouse as well as easy navigation and better search capabilities. EZ Tax Filing recently announced a unique private/public partnership to provide citizens easy, secure, free opportunities to prepare and file their taxes via the Internet. And recruitment One Stop, expanding the existing capabilities of the USAJobs.gov Web site to provide a one-stop streamlined Federal employment application processes, improve service delivery to job applicants, and enhance the government's position as a competitor for top pound. Indeed, the new Web site hosted the virtual IT Job Fair, which was initiated in response to the chairman's request in that hearing of the subcommittee late last year. One of the most significant findings to emerge from the E- Government Initiative came from a review of the Federal Government's enterprise architecture. The purpose of this effort was to identify opportunities to simplify processes and unify work across the agencies and within the many lines of business of the Federal Government. The foundation is the business reference model which describes the government's lines of business and its services to citizens, independent of the agencies and offices involved. The outcome of our efforts in the Federal enterprise architecture will be a more citizen- centered and customer-focused government that maximizes technology investments to better achieve mission outcomes. Separate agency appropriations for e-government make it difficult to budget for, fund, and manage cross-agency projects. To help overcome this barrier, the President included in his fiscal year 2003 budget proposal a $100 million e- government fund for innovative inner-agency project. The fund the President proposes leverages cross-agency work in e- government and improves citizens' ability to access Federal services and Federal information online. We have made great strides in implementing this fund in 2002. Our intent for 2003 is to fund cross-agency initiatives that achieve consolidation of redundant IT investments. We are pleased that S. 803 matches both the amounts proposed by the President's budget for fiscal year 2003 and 2004. Currently, however, the appropriations bill passed by the Senate Treasury-Postal Appropriations Committee also provides $45 million in fiscal year 2003, while the companion legislation in the House stands at just $5 million. Fully funding the administration's request as authorized by S. 803 is critical to achieving the promise of e-government. We look forward to working with both the authorizing appropriations committee to provide for full funding. We believe that S. 803 as passed by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs is much improved, as Mark indicated. We are especially supportive of the alignment of several of the activities' initiatives of the bill with the administration to further e-government. We also support S. 803's strong discussion of the importance of privacy. The Senate's e-government bill also reauthorizes the Government Information Security Reform Act. The first report to Congress under that statute established a baseline, and agencies have developed plans of actions and milestones to close the security performance gap. Moreover, OMB has integrated this into the budget process. Mr. Chairman, your leadership in the development of FISMA clearly indicates that we agree on this critical priority. The administration looks forward to working with the House to address final issues and secure enactment. However, we have a concern with one element of the version of FISMA that was attached to H.R. 5005, the House homeland security bill. We have discussed this issue with the subcommittee staff and look forward to your leadership in restoring the original language. Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much. Pat, we have a vote on the floor. We probably have a couple. I'll wait until the end of this one. So I'm going to recess the meeting, and we will get back as quickly as we can. Mark, we are probably not going to be back in time to get to you, so you can probably head out. We appreciate your being here. Look forward to hearing the testimony of you and Mr. Gann and Mr. Baker in just a few minutes. So we will recess the meeting, go over and vote and come back. Thank you. [Recess.] Mr. Davis of Virginia. The hearing will reconvene, and we will proceed with Ms. McGinnis. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your patience. Ms. McGinnis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join Mark in commending you for your leadership in promoting E-government and also to commend the Senate committee as well. At the Council for Excellence in Government, as you know well, we think about this ambitious mission both in terms of excellent performance and also in terms of the American people's understanding, participation and trust in government. So we chose e-government as a strategic priority because we see the potential it has to break down bureaucratic barriers and leap ahead to a level of service protection and connection that the American people want and need. I would like to introduce you to someone I think you already know, Dave McClure, who has joined the Council as our Vice President for E-government. And so we---- Mr. Davis of Virginia. Is that an elected position or an appointed position? Ms. McGinnis. It is not Senate confirmed, and so we were able to do this---- Mr. Davis of Virginia. We could put it into our legislation. Ms. McGinnis [continuing]. And so we were able to do it in a much faster time. As you know, early last year the Council released a blueprint that we call E-government: The Next American Revolution. I know you know it, Mr. Davis, because you were with us when we released that. It was developed through an initiative that involved 350 leaders from government, business, civic groups and the research community. We put together a set of guiding principles to help frame choices; and our recommendations focused on leadership, the creation of a strategic investment fund, collaboration, insuring an adequate and well-trained work force for e- government, privacy, security, interoperability, access and education. We are very pleased that all of these issues are addressed in S. 803 which, in our view, provides a very valuable framework for building e-government. So my main message today is to urge you to complete your work on this bill so it can be enacted during this Congress. Because we have focused so much on the perspective of the American people on the potential of e-government, we have organized over the past few years a series of public opinion polls conducted by Peter Hart and Bob Teeter to help us understand that so that this could be citizen centered and results oriented, as Mark Forman said. The most recent poll was released last February and provides some important insights. You can look at all of the findings, but let me just highlight a few. First of all, e-government has gone mainstream. More than half of the American people are visiting government Web sites, 56 percent; and that number is 76 percent of all Internet users. They are very positive about the potential for e- government, particularly as it relates to homeland security and better integrating the collection and use of the data that we need to protect us. The--people are concerned about security and privacy, especially identity theft and hackers getting access to information. A large number of--a majority of people say they are willing to give up some privacy if it strengthens homeland security. We have also surveyed government leaders at the Federal, State and local level and, again, a large majority are very positive about the potential of e-government and the effect it can have on how government operates. And most, 62 percent want to proceed quickly, rather than deliberately and slowly, to expand e-government. So we think that S. 803 is a big step in the right direction in terms of creating an Office of Electronic Government, particularly, and the creation of the e-government fund for the very important cross-agency initiatives that will glue this together and create the kind of e-government platform that we need. We have a few suggestions for strengthening the legislation which I have included in my testimony and won't go into detail because they are fairly minor suggestions. I guess, again, the main message is, in the interest of time, we hope that you will be able to move this legislation. One suggestion that I will highlight is that we think it would be useful in this bill to set a specific goal of universal on-line access to government within, say, 5 years, building on the NSF study that's authorized in the bill. And it may be advisable to call for that study within 1 year and involve the Census Bureau, other Federal agencies, the private sector and civic groups to determine specifically what it will take to achieve the goal of universal access within 5 years. Another suggestion that I would like to highlight is the suggestion that we also made in the Senate, and that is that you authorize a Congressional Office of E-government. This bill calls for an Office of E-government in the executive branch. You also suggest bringing the judicial system on-line, and we think it would be very helpful as well to bring the whole legislative process more directly to the American people with the help of a congressional resource and that would be to provide assistance to individual Members, to committees, not only to make this connection but also to advise about the use of E-government as a policy, as a tool to achieve the policy objectives that you seek. I would also like to challenge you to give, beyond this legislation, serious attention to the more flexible appropriation of funds for e-government. Because the biggest barrier we see to realizing the potential that's there is the lack of collaboration across departments and agencies among levels of government and, frankly, across congressional committees as well, perhaps joint hearings or meeting with the Appropriations Committee to look at models for flexible funding to consider how to not only encourage but perhaps even require greater collaboration across agencies in underwriting the infrastructure of e-government. So I appreciate very much--I thank you, Mr. Turner, for introducing this bill and your leadership on this issue. Thank you for including me, and I'll look forward to the discussion. Mr. Turner [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. McGinnis; and thank you for your excellent suggestions. [The prepared statement of Ms. McGinnis follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.041 Mr. Turner. Next, the Chair would recognize Mr. Gann, who is with Siebel Systems, and I believe is here on behalf of the Information Technology Industry Council, if I am correct. Mr. Gann. Right. Mr. Turner. Thank you. Mr. Gann. Congressman Turner, I'd like to thank you on behalf of the Information Technology Industry Council and also Siebel Systems. Is that better now? OK. I'd like to thank you for welcoming us here. The Information Technology Industry Council very much looks forward to sharing its views regarding the importance of establishing e-government as the central tenet for transforming the role of government as we move into the 21st century. We applaud the vital role being played by this committee and its members as leading advocates of e-government and look forward to working with you to help achieve a successful transformation. A little bit about Siebel Systems. We were founded in 1993. We're a leading provider today of e-government and e-business solutions. We enable corporations and public sector institutions to sell to, market to and serve customers across multiple channels and various lines of business. Today, we're a $2 billion business. Today, aging populations, declining government revenues and rising expectations of government performance are colliding to dramatically increase the pressure for change within government. Government institutions at every level are facing unprecedented demands to improve the quality of service they provide. Increasingly, governments have responded with initiatives to modernize government through the acquisition and deployment of information technologies. While the resulting gains in productivity have been substantial, it has become increasingly clear that the mere accumulation of high-tech tools is not sufficient to address the many challenges outlined above. Rather, the process of government itself must be transformed, as well as the way we think about government. The business world has had to learn a similar lesson. One of the consequences--and, we believe, distinct benefits--has been a pronounced shift in the way companies are organized from a product focus to a customer focus. This development has produced many benefits including a deeper real-time understanding of what the customer needs and wants. At the same time, however, it has revealed a whole new set of challenges for management. For example, not so long ago, if a business wanted to conduct a transaction with its financial institution, its options were unlimited, so long as it took place at a branch office Monday through Friday from 10 until about 3. Customer expectations, though, have changed greatly since then, requiring organizations to be ready to conduct business 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, across all channels. And by all channels I mean the Web, e-mail, call centers, field agents, branch offices, what have you. This revolution in service was accomplished through the effective deployment of networked information technologies, which are enabling forward-thinking businesses to track and coordinate each interaction, each customer's interaction, recognizing and acknowledging customers every point of contact while maintaining a seamless, ongoing dialog. These lessons indeed don't just apply to business. They also offer important insights for government organizations as well as a glimpse of the promise of e-government in the future. As businesses have transformed to adapt to this new multi- channel world, four concepts have emerged as being quite fundamental in this process. We believe government would benefit from incorporating them into their own e-government blueprint. First, effective e-government solutions have been designed around the citizen. Just as businesses have dramatically improved their performance, governments can do the same by focusing first and foremost on the citizen. Second, solutions that have embraced the full range of information technology and communications capabilities have met with the most success. While the Internet has created many efficiencies, it is worth remembering that still today consumers and constituents communicate with organizations through a broad range of channels. So any solution should take that into account. Third, governments are recognizing that reorganization can best be done through the use of best of breed suppliers in such a way that information flows can be enhanced. Fourth, administrations are using e-government as a tool to train, retrain and attract the best government employees, which will in turn secure the future ability of them to continue to serve constituents in the best possible way. Finally, I would like to say that we believe the administration's efforts in the e-government area have really been very commendable. Mark Forman's effort with regards to these 24 quicksilver projects really have been very good in that they've focused attention on pilot projects such that deep learning can be pushed through organizations to really promote the kind of change and transformation that will truly enhance e-government. And so we think it's a good effort and we think investment in those efforts are worthy. So, to sum up, ITI and Siebel Systems would like to thank you for allowing us to share our views; and we look forward, as an association, to playing a valuable, hopefully useful role in working with the government and legislators to make the dream of e-government a reality. Mr. Davis of Virginia. [presiding]. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Gann follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.045 Mr. Davis of Virginia. I didn't mean to walk out on your testimony, Ms. McGinnis, but we had a vote down the way in Commerce, and I had to go vote. So, Mr. Baker, thank you for being with us. Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Turner. Thank you for inviting me to testify before the committee today. I would like to thank my employer, CACI International, a fine Northern Virginia company, for giving me the time to testify here today but make clear that the comments are strictly my own. I was the Chief Information Officer for the Department of Commerce for 3 years, beginning in 1998. During that tenure, I was an outspoken proponent for the creation of a Federal CIO for the reasons that I'll discuss. For a private sector IT executive coming into the Federal Government, the problems with government IT are readily apparent: There is no cohesive strategy, there are too many points of control, and there is a nearly complete lack of standards and processes. These root causes lead to fundamental, long-term issues: There is tremendous duplication of effort and cost; and there is widespread, poor performance in critical areas including information security, disaster recovery, privacy protection, runaway programs, e-government progress--which we will talk about today, I'm very confident--service levels to internal customers and services to citizens and businesses. In my view, the need for a Federal CIO with sufficient management power to drive change across all aspects of government IT is compelling. I've already mentioned cost. I believe that at least 25 percent of agency IT funds are wasted each year due to the tremendous duplication of effort caused by the ad hoc infrastructure. I should note that without empowered IT management the infrastructure of the Federal Government has grown in a chaotic and ad hoc fashion. In my written testimony I've included four specific examples from the Commerce Department that are representative of the issues that exist on a much larger scale across the Federal enterprise. Commerce, like the rest of the Federal Government, operates far too many data centers, networks, Web servers, help desks and a variety of other infrastructure items. Consolidation just inside of Commerce would save hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and consolidation across the Federal enterprise would save billions of dollars a year, which, frankly, could be applied to better purposes like e-government. Second, in this ad hoc structure, many IT organizations don't have sufficient focus or expertise to adequately address critical items like information security, disaster recovery and privacy protection. Because these types of problems are often viewed as nonessential to the accomplishment of the local mission of the program office, policy issued by OMB, department CIOs and others regarding mandatory information system protections has been widely ignored for years. Third, in the chaotic structure of government IT management, it creates most of the problems encountered in Mark's efforts and others' efforts to improve responsiveness to citizens and create cross-government solutions. Mark Forman's success at spurring the 24 cross-agency initiative in his position at OMB is undoubtedly the best argument for the creation of a strong Federal CIO. The first technologist to hold such a position at OMB, Mark sees the issues from a governmentwide perspective and in just over 1 year has made major progress in examining duplicative efforts and getting agencies to work together. More importantly, utilizing the existing authorities of OMB, Mark has been able to compel a level of agency compliance with his programs that I would have characterized as impossible less than 2 years ago. But addressing all of the government's IT issues would take both strong senior leadership and the creation of an effective management structure through which change can be compelled. While this legislation is a good first step, there are many steps further required from this point. Mr. Chairman, private sector companies have established strong central CIOs for one reason, profitability. Reducing cost, avoiding risk and better serving the customer are compelling profitability issues that have forced private sector conditions to deal with their internal politics and create a strong central CIO. Though profit is not a motivation for change in the Federal Government, cost reduction, risk reduction, customer satisfaction are. That's why we need a Federal CIO. We need somebody with the charter to look at Federal Government IT as an enterprise issue, to find the common problems and enforce common solutions, to convince all parties that change is required and to compel adherence for the good of the enterprise. We need a strong, empowered leader who can galvanize the support necessary from both the administration and the Congress to address the hard issues, to find solutions to the root causes of the Federal Government's IT malaise. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner, thank you for providing me the time to present my views on this important issue; and I look forward to your questions. Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6062.051 Mr. Davis of Virginia. Let me start with GAO and OMB. There have been many complaints about OIRA and agency information resources management. S. 803 doesn't address OIRA's job. Instead, it carves out pieces of the information management puzzle and it identifies it as electronic government. If this bill becomes law, Congress will have created two overlapping information management structures. How do we reconcile this? Any thoughts? Ms. Koontz. Well, as--our major concern with the structure that's created under S. 803 is that it does create a situation where responsibility and accountability for the information functions are shared between the E-Gov administrator and the administrator of OIRA, who already has these responsibilities under the PRA. One alternative to doing this is to create a single position that would have responsibility for the full range of information functions and would have that as their exclusive responsibility. That could be a CIO, and I'm sure there are other models that could be followed as well. Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Forman. Mr. Forman. When the Office of IT and E-government was created, we took a teamwork approach with it in OMB; and I think we've been tremendously successful in working the team approach between the information technology and policy issues that relate to OIRA's role and my role, directing the Office of IT and E-government. I think you have to keep in mind some of the changes in the world associated with putting things on-line. There are information technology policy issues that are maybe little ``i'' and big ``T'', and there are some that are big ``I'' and little ``t,'' but in the end we know that the Internet offers us a tremendously new way to interface with the citizens, and those won't necessarily have information policy issues. So there's got to be overlap, and I think our approach has been successfully to apply a teamwork as opposed to try and parse that up into two different groups and then have to duke it out or have to figure out how we work together as a team. Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. Section 207 of the legislation contains an information collection and dissemination management structure for the Federal Government. Do you have any thoughts on the timeframe that's put forward in the legislation for centralizing reporting on information collection by Federal agencies? You expressed some concern about the interagency committee formulating the recommendations to an e-government administrator based on past failures in this area. In your view, what will it take to make this committee a success, or is there an alternative structure that might be considered as we review the legislation? Ms. Koontz. Section 207 deals with a very important issue, and that is dealing with accessibility of government information to the public. We think it's quite reasonable that the first step that could be taken here would be to form an interagency committee and study what it would take in order to better organize and categorize government information. The thing I would like to underscore about this particular provision is the difficulty of implementing this kind of initiative. Just as the Senate report that accompanies S. 803 talks about previous initiatives that have really provided sort of mixed results, and it will be really important for the interagency committee to look at these lessons learned and to incorporate it into their plans for moving forward. The complexity of this undertaking and the difficulty in getting agencies to implement something like this, I think it's very difficult to say how long it would actually take to accomplish all the things in Section 207. But, at the same time, I do understand the need to put definite timeframes on initiatives in order to get things to move forward and hold people accountable for them. Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. Mr. Forman, S. 803 largely puts into statute OMB's current IT organizational structure and the sharing of IT duties between the administrator of the Office of Electronic Government and the administrator of OIRA. What challenges have you faced in addressing this sharing of duties and how do you overcome them? Mr. Forman. I really haven't faced any challenges. John Graham and I get along terrifically well. Our staffs get along terrifically well and work very closely as a team. As Mark Everson said, maybe that's a function of the personalities; and we are very sensitive of the fact that you can't run a government or an organization just based on personalities. So there may be issues and we believe it's worthwhile to discuss those as we look toward the future, what should that permanent structure be. Mr. Davis of Virginia. What do you think some of those issues might be? If you didn't get along, what could you see as potentials? Mr. Forman. Well, I could see potentially different issues with respect to the question of certain information policy issues related to what content should be presented at the Web site; how to reduce the paperwork burden, for example, by leveraging electronic reporting versus by leveraging the data items that are actually reported on. And today by leveraging the same staff it's very easy to work through those issues. Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. What benefits do you see in establishing the CIO Council in statute? Do you think the Council has the resources that it needs to fulfill its mission? Mr. Forman. Well, we've established the CFO Council in the statute. There are four basic management councils that we're using to associate with management agenda and support the President's management council. So it does give us some parallel structure with the CFO Council. The intent is--in the past, we've relied on kind of a pass- the-hat approach to fund the CIO Council and in the future we want to incorporate that into the actual budget request of the President. So it's consistent with that. Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. FISMA was included in H.R. 5005. You can appreciate we had to work quickly to negotiate provisions that would be acceptable to other committees with limited jurisdiction. In your testimony, you made reference to a concern that OMB has with the current version of FISMA. Could you elaborate? I mean, we still have to go through a conference on this, and we want to---- Mr. Forman. Sure. Mr. Davis of Virginia. --we may have more flexibility in the conference than we did getting it through the House. Mr. Forman. I understand. In your original version of the bill, appropriately you recognized the policymaking responsibility has to rest at a governmentwide level. Much like the other issues that we're addressing today on why you need a governmentwide focus for e- government, we have a similar issue with security; and it would be very difficult to have one department essentially setting the policies and try to enforce that in others. We've seen even with the standards process concerns about NIST or the Secretary of Commerce trying to issue standards and get compliance from other departments. The appropriate structure we believe is what you laid out in your original version of the bill with that resting at OMB under the Director's authority. Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. I thank you. Pat McGinnis, let me ask a couple of questions. A couple of years ago, the Council recommended the establishment of a Federal CIO. Is this still your position, and do you think S. 803 helps or hinders the establishment of a Federal CIO? And if you could elaborate on that. Ms. McGinnis. S. 803 is really consistent with our recommendation. We recommended that the Deputy Director for Management of OMB be designated the Deputy Director for Management and Technology, to be clear that this is an overarching, strategic part of the management of the Federal Government and that an Office of Electronic Government be created which would be headed by someone who we gave in our recommendation the title Federal CIO. It's very much the concept of the office as provided in S. 803, and we did envision that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs would continue, but that there would be an important need for coordination there. Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. You also mentioned that the bill could be strengthened by the addition of language relating performance management and evaluation more explicitly to the Government Performance and Results Act, and you call for a road map for the Federal Government's e-government strategy that clearly outlines where we are going, what the priorities are, action steps required, etc. Could you elaborate on how the two bills can better address these two areas? Ms. McGinnis. Well, I think in the case of relating to GPRA, simply making that connection explicitly in the legislation would be desirable so that when the agencies are putting together their strategic plans they are focusing on these performance measures and especially these as cross- cutting performance measures. So that's a simple change in the bill. The road map doesn't necessarily need to be required in the legislation. It strikes us as a very important management tool to bring people together from across agencies and across sectors to go through this process, and I think Mark would welcome this and, in fact, is really engaged in it. We would just like to see it mapped out in a very explicit way: Where are we in terms of some of the problems that Roger has suggested with infrastructure and security and privacy, where do we need to go, what resources do we have, and what's the path. It's just logical. Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. Mr. Forman. Mr. Chairman, if I may. Mr. Davis of Virginia. Sure. Mr. Forman. I think this is one of the key issues that I've seen since I've been in my job a little over 15 months, and it's one of the reasons we focused on the Federal enterprise architecture. You know, GPRA was put together to focus on program budgets--and we do. We've got several thousand or over 1,000 programs in the Federal Government. But when we look at the way we've set up agencies and organizations there are clear functions. As we've tried to lay out the functions of the agencies and departments in the business reference model, we've found that we'll have to figure out this road map or this relationship between programs and the business functions of a department. So disaster management, for example, we've looked at having perhaps three core functions, and we call them subfunctions. We can lay out the performance measures for disaster planning, disaster response, but then you overlook or overlay that against the programs. We have grant programs, and the grant programs in some cases is supposed to help with disaster planning. But the business function that we have as a government is managing a grant program, and so that overlay or that road map has another set of performance measures. Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you. I am going to yield to Mr. Turner for questions. I have got to cast another vote in the Commerce Committee, and I'll be right back. Mr. Turner [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Forman, I would like to have you elaborate a little bit on the position that OMB took in the Senate regarding the Federal CIO. I mean, it appears to me that the opposition to a Federal CIO centered more on a turf battle than it did substantive objections to that position; and I would like for you to really lay out for us what the OMB position is on that and give me a clear indication of why we ended up with what we now have after negotiations in the Senate. Mr. Forman. Well, the first part of the puzzle is trying to figure out what's in a name. So whether we call it an administrator, an associate director or a CIO, the key thing to focus on is what are the functions. And, indeed, when Mitch Daniels crafted my job, he took the job functions right out of a GAO report--a very good report I'd ask you to take a look at, if you haven't already done so--that says what the best practices for CIOs are and what should their responsibilities be. And that was the basis for coining my job. I think that's the basis for a lot of responsibilities certainly in our negotiations in working with the Senate side on what that administrator, associate director, CIO would do. Now, the question I think remains, where do you put it in the executive office of the President. And my power, my ability to drive change absolutely is associated with my ability to affect the budgets, pure and simple. You hear the same thing in any large corporation. If you can get control over the budgets you can get control over the investments and the infrastructure, etc. So it was critical for us that my position reside within OMB so that we can work the management and budget integration, the same reason that OMB was set up and structured in general in the legislation, the Clinger-Cohen Act and other authorizing legislation for OMB. In other words, we know that we invest redundantly in lots of information technology; and we know that there are ways to fix that. It's not rocket science. It's management. But in order to make that occur you have to be able to work the resources both within a department and across departments. I compare my situation to my counterpart in the U.K., Andrew Pinder. My daily discussions, if you will, are with different departments to get them to go along. His daily discussions are with his budget director to get his budget director to go along with a governmentwide or cross-agency approach. That's not an issue for me. So any other position, outside of being within the Office of Management and Budget, we would not be able to have that management budget decision integration. And that's how we ended up in our position, at least. Mr. Turner. Well, I'm not sure you have convinced me. It does seem that there are some very obvious things that are in that Senate bill that detract from the stature of the position that was created. For example, you would think that the--a Federal CIO or a person with that responsibility should clearly be designated as the Chair of the CIO Council; and yet the only way you get that, as I understand it--and I guess this is current law--is you're designated as the Chair by the Deputy Director for Management, who is actually the Chair. It seems that when you look at the--and you're familiar, of course, with the debate that occurred in the Senate over Senate confirmation. Senate confirmation always seems to add some stature to a position. And I believe I'm correct that the-- under the current law, the administrator of OIRA is a Senate- confirmed position; and yet we did not make this--I gather you're opposed to making this position Senate-confirmed in the Senate. So it just seems that there has been a diminution in the status of the position which I think most observers, no matter what they call the individual--I mean, we say, many times, maybe it doesn't matter what the name is, it's just what your statutory responsibilities are. But, in truth, in fact, the title ``Chief Information Officer'' has a meaning in the private sector that gives that position status; and yet we seem reluctant to give that title to an individual within government. So I'm a little bit concerned that we have diminished the role in several particulars that I regret that has occurred in the Senate. I know Mr. Baker is a strong adherent to a strong Federal CIO. Do you agree with me on my observations? Mr. Baker. Mr. Turner, I would tell you that 18 months ago I 100 percent agreed with you. I agree with Mark on one key component, and that is the ability to leverage the budget is everything inside a government. His ability to apply a carrot and a stick to programs inside the government to compel adherence has been very vital to his success. The key--I believe you hit on the other key thing, though, which is stature. The person must be viewed as carrying a substantial amount of weight, both by the Congress and by the agencies. You know, I haven't worked in the environment that Mark is in, but I remember the John Koskinen period. And John did a very good job of going around to the Secretaries and making certain that they were focused on Y2 K because of his stature inside of the organization and the knowledge that he had the full attention of the President on the Y2K issue. I think that full attention is a key thing, but I also believe the budget is important. I think if I were to tell you my thinking today on this, knowing what I know today, it would be yes probably inside of OMB, but probably at least at a par with the Deputy Director for Management, if not, as Ms. McGinnis said, actually being the Director of Management with the technology focus. It must be--in my view, it has to be someone who has managed technology before. We have had lawyers in the DDM job who have said, my job is to be the Federal CIO, and they didn't get it. Mr. Forman. I would ask to think of a couple things here. First of all, the statute that we confer on my position, or for that matter any of the other management agenda elements, is how we are managing the Federal Government, and we treat the five management agenda leaders as equals, and that's important. Also a key part, one of the reasons why I think it's important, you know, as Mark laid out, to understand, e- government in and of itself is not going to change this government. It's not going to fix the human capital issue we have. It's not going to fix the performance-based budgeting or performance management issue that we have. But, by the same token, they all go hand in hand. They're all interrelated. I think Mark understands that and has brought tremendous tools and capabilities to the administration of the government in using those five key levers to improve management. So there is some danger in focusing on just one management agenda item and ignoring, for example, the human capital issue, you know, but by the same token I would never ask for my own department--you know, that would not be productive. And by the same token, I think it makes sense Director James heading up the human capital initiative, because that is their focus. There is a substantial body of law and authority that goes along with that. One of the key issues I think to be sensitive to is while in government management, management issues vary with the times, with changes in society and technology. What may be right for this period may not be right 2 years from now. And so I think you also have to consider it's always easier to lock things into statute than it is to change them or take them out of statute. So how much of that you want to actually lock in in terms of titles versus authorities is a careful balancing act, and we are very willing and open to working with the committee to work through that. Mr. Turner. Mr. Baker, one other question for you. From your experience as the CIO at Commerce, do you have any suggestions to offer for this legislation now that we have put the CI O Council in statute? Any other improvements that we might make? Mr. Baker. I was almost afraid that you would ask that one. I just tell you that, from my experience, the problem with the CIO Council is that it doesn't have any authority. A good example. It was my committee--my Privacy Committee of the CIO Council that brought the privacy impact assessments out of IRS and made them a CIO Council--I guess I would call it a policy or recommended process. We are able to give them some altitude, but in no way could we compel their use. I think the fact that they are now in the legislation is a good example of the inability of the CIO Council to make any of their recommendations actually stick in any of the agencies. It's a volunteer organization. Following anything that it--any of its recommendations is strictly voluntary inside of the agencies. I believe it's good to bring the CIOs together. My preference would be to have an organization that is part of the management structure for the Federal CIO, someone that both brings recommendations on how to manage, but also is to an extent beholden to the Federal C IO. I would just tell you that one of the biggest problems with the CIO Council was getting people to show up. There are only a few CIOs that really put a lot of effort into what the CIO Council is doing, And I think it's good for them in their careers, but it's nowhere in the performance plan of a CIO in an agency. I would like it as an organization, but as Mark said, codifying things in the statute makes them more difficult to change in the long term. I'm afraid to say I'm not sure it's productive enough to be something that you put in statute right now with the way that it operates today. I just didn't make any friends out of a lot of people I've worked with that statement, but that's what I think. Mr. Turner. So I gather that among the problems you mention, if we had a stronger CIO to chair the Council, the Council members might have a little more interest in attending the meeting and feel like they had somewhat greater empowerment to be able to accomplish some of their goals. Mr. Baker. Right. I also believe it's important somewhere along the path to give the Federal CIO some level of management control over those CIOs, whether it's hiring and firing, whether it's a yearly report to the Department head on how's your CIO performing, or whether it's 50 percent of their performance basis. In my written testimony, I can refer you to General Motors and IBM. You know, they've wrestled with the strong central CIO and dual reporting, and I think that's a way to think about it. We also thought--we also have implemented at Commerce that same sort of thing. If you--you need to have a management structure if you really want something to change. Mr. Forman. Mr. Turner, if I may. We have got, I think, some changes under way with the CIO Council. I guess the terms that I used to hear right before and when I came to government was CIO Council was a hobnobbing group. You know, it's a few-- group of folks that control the whole thing. And I think there was that general sentiment among a lot of the CIOs. Attendance has always been good at the meetings we've had at either every quarter or every other month, but now there is a focus on how can we do something with the committee, and hence we restructured it into three groups, a group that works on work force, IT work force, and we have, as you know, some major, major issues there. And I think they have been doing an increasingly good job, but we are going to look at this as one of the major budget issues, and we may need to do more in terms of a leadership role on IT work force. It's one of the things that we highlighted in our testimony that is appropriately highlighted in the bill. Another committee is Best Practices. And one thing about technology folks, and you see this elsewhere, if they come up with good ideas, they want to share those ideas, and they want to be annointed for those ideas. And we have given them that forum, and we can take advantage of that. I like Rosabeth Moss Canter's concept: We shouldn't call it best practices; we should call it useful practices, because that's really what they are. And so getting that word out is important. And the third is the Architecture Committee, and that's where we really are going to see some work. And we, both Norm Lorentz, our Chief Technology Officer, and I, have talked about it extensively. How do we organize that and get a process set up for agreeing to key standards? And so we are looking at essentially at, first round, some of the key security-related components, if you will, that will standardize on. It's a little different than the standards that NIST develops. It's more adoption of standardized components. That's going to be a different role for the CIO Council, but they are all actively engaged, and that's where they want to take the organization as we would like to see that. Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Forman. I didn't know, perhaps our witnesses had comments on subjects we've been discussing here. I would invite your input if you have thoughts on it. Otherwise, that concludes my questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia [presiding]. Thank you very much. Ms. McGinnis, let me get back to you. I know your support for the Digital Tech Corp Act, which I think is very thoughtful. Do you think passing S. 803 absent complementary legislation for the IT Federal Government work force would diminish the overall effectiveness of this legislation? Ms. McGinnis. Well, I did suggest that strengthening those work force provisions by considering perhaps adding the digital tech corp to this bill, if it were possible to do that in the time remaining. I mean, my main caution is--or message is, you know, let's get this passed in this Congress if possible, because it is a useful framework, and it does address the work force issues, although it certainly does not go as far as we need to. And I think everyone here would agree with that. So I was suggesting that perhaps this could be added to strengthen the bill. Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you. Mr. Gann, let me ask. S. 803 as it's currently drafted doesn't contain many provisions that would improve the IT acquisition process. I would like to include provisions to expand the existing share and savings legislation, to allow for cooperative purchasing on the GSA IT schedules, to remove the Trade Agreements Act for IT products. In your view, will these additions facilitate the rapid employment of technology by government? Mr. Gann. Right. I think you have brought a very important set of issues. Speaking on behalf of the Information Technology Industry Council, I think there is a great deal of concern in the association and its members regarding the Trade Agreements Act. There is a view that this act has served to be a discompetitive incentive for a lot of our organizations in that it puts all kinds of burdens, paperwork burdens, compliance burdens to comply with the act, particularly at the time when information technology companies are so competitive internationally. So we think the costs of that system outweigh the benefits. Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thanks. Mr. Baker, in your statement you paint a pretty dismal picture of the current Federal IT environment in which substantial waste and inefficiency is common. What actions would you suggest that the current administration take to address these problems? If you would rattle off several. Mr. Baker. I would think that from my testimony that you could read that I'm a very strong proponent of management. Again, if you really want something to change, I think you have to manage that change. Strengthening a Federal CIO with agency CIOs, having a reporting relationship with that. I will just tell you that a power that I think would be great for you to have to give to Mark is the ability to take the savings from some consolidations and use them for e-government and things that he views as more productive. You know, going back to your share and savings point, there are a lot of things that the private sector would probably like to do. Let's say a good private sector company might decide that they could do networks much more cheaply in the Commerce Department than the Commerce Department does them. In the past it's been difficult for the agency to see a benefit from doing a share and savings, and I think that's a primary thing that you have to find is where are the carrots for the agencies and for others to get it done. I would just go back to the major piece. It's a management issue. Those thousands of different organizations inside of government don't see it to be in their benefit to have a common enterprise architecture or to give up power to a more central authority on the infrastructure issues. You have to overcome that fundamental issue, and that by itself is a bit of a management challenge. I wish I had a real solution for you, Congressman. It's a tough problem. Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. I understand. You also recommend against making the CIO Council statutorily based. Mr. Baker. Right. Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Could you please explain what problems you would foresee if the Council is established in law? Mr. Baker. Well, I guess a major reason for doing it, I believe, is to provide them some funding. And right now, as Mr. Forman said, it's a pass-the-hat funding for this. It does--CIO Council does productive things. It brings good practices to light for use across government, and it is a good forum for getting together and exchanging information. But again, I see its primary use really being advising that Federal CIO and being a forum for pulling attention to certain issues. The issue in making it statutory is I think it becomes more difficult for it to be more at that point if it's in statute as a certain thing. And frankly, as Mark pointed out, when he came in, he saw a need for certain changes. It may well be that those changes need to continue, and if it's in legislation, it is obviously much more difficult to change. I don't think it's such a valuable institution today that it's something that needs to be created in statute, and I'm not sure the statute really does anything more for it than give it a funding pool, and there might be other ways to do that. Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. OK. All right. I think those are my questions. Mr. Turner, do you have any other questions? Anything else anyone would like to add? Mr. Gann. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the association, I also wanted to address one other point as it relates to procurement. We felt that the work that you and your committee had done on H.R. 4629 to establish a technical innovations program was really very sound, and we think that using the same model language more broadly in any government would indeed be a very good thing. Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you. In fact, I was going to ask you what you thought of that. Anybody else agree with that? Are you alone there? You know what we are talking about? Mr. Forman. No. Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. That's OK. I know what you are talking about. Go ahead. I appreciate it. Mr. Gann. Would you like me to continue? Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Please. Mr. Gann. Well, I think the big issue is there are huge benefits to putting in place quick pilots such that quick learning could take place that can be pushed out throughout departments, and I think that's very helpful. I think the way you've increased the threshold for allowing slightly larger dollar procurements to be put in the fast-track process is a good thing, so we applaud you and thank you. Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much for being with us today. We are going to see what we can get done before the end of this Congress, and I think we have made an appropriate record here. I thank Mr. Turner for his thoughtful comments and sponsorship legislation. If you have any other thoughts you want to add, we will give you 10 days, keep the record open, if you would like to come back and reflect on anything you have said, and the briefing paper will be made part of the permanent record, and these proceedings are closed. Thank you very much. [Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]