U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

56–893 PDF 2010

S. Hrg. 111–728 

REMOVING THE SHROUD OF SECRECY: 

MAKING GOVERNMENT MORE TRANSPARENT 

AND ACCOUNTABLE—PARTS I AND II 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND 

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

OF THE

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 23 and APRIL 13, 2010 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

PAUL G. KIRK, JR., Massachusetts 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN KILVINGTON, Staff Director 

ERIK HOPKINS, Professional Staff Member 

BRYAN PARKER, Staff Director and General Counsel to the Minority 

DEIRDRE G. ARMSTRONG, Chief Clerk 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 1, 25 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 15 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Carper .............................................................................................. 47, 51 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 49 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 53 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010 

Vivek Kundra, Federal Chief Information Officer and Administrator for Electronic Government and Information Technology, Office of Management and 

Budget ................................................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Aneesh Chopra, Chief Technology Officer and Associate Director for 

Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of 

the President ........................................................................................................ 7 

Hon. David S. Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, National Archives 

and Records Administration ................................................................................ 9 

Ellen Miller, Co-Founder and Executive Director, Sunlight Foundation ............ 23 

TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2010 

John Wonderlich, Policy Director, Sunlight Foundation ...................................... 27 

Stephen W.T. O’Keeffe, Founder, MeriTalk Online .............................................. 29 

Thomas Blanton, Director, National Security Archive, George Washington 

University ............................................................................................................. 33 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Blanton, Thomas: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared statement....................................................................................... 85, 97 

Chopra, Hon. Aneesh: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Ferriero, Hon. David S.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Kundra, Vivek: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Miller, Ellen: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

O’Keeffe, Stephen: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement....................................................................................... 79, 93 

Wonderlich, John: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 89 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

Robert Pinkerton, Director, Public Sector Solutions, Adobe Systems, Inc., 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 75 

Stephen W.T. O’Keeffe, Founder, MeriTalk, prepared statement with attachments ..................................................................................................................... 79 

Thomas Blanton, Director, National Security Archive, George Washington 

University, prepared statement .......................................................................... 85 

Questions and Responses for the Record: 

Mr. Kundra ....................................................................................................... 101 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(1) 

REMOVING THE SHROUD OF SECRECY: 

MAKING GOVERNMENT MORE TRANSPARENT 

AND ACCOUNTABLE—PART I 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT,

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES,

AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper and Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Well, good afternoon, everyone. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

Senator Coburn and I were talking back in the anteroom about 

what is going to happen on the floor. It will be interesting to see 

what happens on the floor this afternoon, but we are going to go 

ahead and get started, and we will see how far we can go. We appreciate that our panel of witnesses could be here today. We will 

do as much as we can, and if we have to, we will just recess or adjourn and come back around midnight. [Laughter.] 

Well, maybe not that late, but it looks like we could be here for 

a long time tonight. Hopefully you will not have to be. But our 

thanks to our guests and our witnesses for joining us today. For 

the next hour or so, we are going to discuss ways that President 

Obama and his team of Open Government experts, some of whom 

are here today, can reshape old and inefficient bureaucratic agencies into lean—not so mean—citizen-focused machines. 

We have also invited a panel of outside experts to testify on 

areas where the Administration is doing well, what areas they may 

need to apply a bit more attention, and more importantly, how 

making agencies more open and transparent will make the lives of 

America’s 300 million citizens better. 

I am told that Albert Einstein once said that, ‘‘Information is not 

knowledge.’’ Now, I would also like to quote Albert Einstein who 

said, ‘‘In adversity lies opportunity.’’ I have never heard this quote, 

but my staff told me that he also said, ‘‘Information is not knowlVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:37 Dec 01, 2010 Jkt 056893 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56893.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT

ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
2 

edge.’’ And I think that statement is as true today as it was then. 

In the 21st Century, information is power. 

In fact, some would say that the U.S. economy has experienced 

a surge in job and wealth creation over the past three decades because of the information revolution and advances in technology. 

But like any other tool, information unto itself does not do us a lot 

of good unless we know how to use it. 

For example, just because we simply possess a hammer does not 

mean a house will build itself, but if we know how to use the hammer, then we can see how a house can be built and go right ahead 

and build it. I think the same is true with government information. 

So we called this hearing not only to see what agencies need to 

do to open up their treasure troves of information, but also I would 

like for us to learn how releasing this information will reduce 

wasteful agency spending, make senior leaders more accountable, 

and improve, we hope, the lives of everyday Americans. 

On his first day in office, President Obama took an extraordinary 

step in signing an Open Government Directive which instructed 

agencies to open their operations to the public. The idea behind the 

directive is that a more Open Government allows members of the 

public to contribute ideas and their expertise to government initiatives. This collaboration will hopefully improve the effectiveness of 

agenies by encouraging partnerships and cooperation within the 

Federal Government, across levels of government and between the 

government and the private sector. 

Further providing more government information by default instead of by exception will help reduce the financial and administrative burdens on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process and 

spur innovation in the private sector. But as our Administration 

moves forward on these new and exciting initiatives, I want to 

make sure that we are sticking to fundamentals. 

For example, I am told that despite the fact that legislation such 

as the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act have 

been law for decades, agencies have done an abysmal job when it 

comes to preserving their physical and electronic records. In fact, 

it was only 2 years ago when we held a hearing that touched on 

the fact that the Bush White House could not locate millions of emails, including those from the 3 months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. That type of situation is just unacceptable, and we 

need to make sure that it is not repeated again. 

Further, as our witnesses may know, I joined Senators Coburn 

and McCain and a former Senator named—— 

Senator COBURN. Obama. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Obama, a few years ago when he was 

a mere mortal, passed the Federal Funding, Accountability, and 

Transportation Act under the leadership of the fellow sitting here 

to my right. My colleagues and I put forward this legislation to increase the transparency and accountability of the Federal Government by providing access to information on Federal spending 

through a single, searchable, publicly available Website. However, 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released an 

evaluation of USAspending.gov, the Website created as a result of 

Senator Coburn’s legislation, and it seems that there have been 

some problems. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
3 

For example, GAO stated that there were widespread inconsistencies between the information provided on USAspending.gov and 

the actual physical records of transactions. And, furthermore, the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) apparently does not hold 

agencies accountable for ensuring that information placed on the 

site is accurate and reliable. So before we start pushing agencies 

to spend time and money on releasing more information, we want 

to make sure that the information we have is reliable and accurate. 

In closing, then, I will just add that as we discuss all the new, 

exciting initiatives that the Administration has underway or plans 

on undertaking in the near future, we need to keep our eye on the 

ball. Our job does not just end at making information freely available, but in making sure that the information can be effectively 

used to improve services to every American, to reduce wasteful 

spending, and to enforce accountability. 

Again, thanks to our witnesses for taking your time to be here 

with us today and for sharing your ideas on these and other important issues. I am not going to recognize Senator McCain, although 

my script says to do that, but I do want to recognize the Senator 

from Oklahoma whose initials I share and whose passion I share 

for trying to make government work better, more cost effectively. 

And I want to say, Senator Coburn, it was an honor to join you 

and a couple of our colleagues a number of years ago to pass legislation that we thought at the time could do a great service to this 

country. And I do not think we have realized its full potential yet, 

but we now have an Administration here that seems to be intent 

on making sure that we do reach that potential, and when we do, 

you are going to get a lot of credit. 

So thanks very much for being here today. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. Well, welcome to each of you. The 

President and I and Senator Carper and Senator McCain worked 

very hard to put into place one of the tools we thought that American citizens could hold us accountable by. I must say I am significantly disappointed at both the quality and the depth of information that is available. I applaud President Obama for wanting to 

make more steps towards transparency, but I would caution him 

that if we cannot do the first one, the simplest one, and we cannot 

do it well, why would we start off on other areas until we got the 

first one right? 

So I look forward to your testimony. I have a lot of questions 

about the Transparency and Accountability Act. It is of no value 

when the vast majority of the money is subcontracted and we do 

not have any intent or have the information with which to hold 

subcontractors, sub-grantees, sub-awardees, accountable. Let me 

just give you two examples. 

During Hurricane Katrina, we paid the Corps of Engineers $60 

a cubic yard to get rid of the debris. The guy on the ground eight 

layers lower was getting $6 a yard. We consumed $54 in sub-grantees before we picked up the first cubic yard of debris, and we paid 

10 times more for that than what the actual cost of picking up the 

debris and hauling it off was. If we are not going to do sub-awards 

and sub-grantees, there is no reason to have the site in the first 

place. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
4 

The other thing that is very dangerous about it is we are creating an expectation of the American public, and then we are going 

to pop the balloon. If the American public goes there thinking they 

can find out and it is not available—it was not just for Congress 

that we asked this. 

The other thing I would note is by June 30 of this year the law 

mandates—it does not say you may, it says you will have put in 

place a system to measure sub-grants, sub-awards, so that everybody in this country can see it. I am going to have a lot of questions in that regard. 

I know it is a tough effort. I do not deny that. But unless we 

have the OMB pushing down and holding the agencies accountable, 

it is never going to happen. I would like to see as much emphasis 

in fixing the Transparency and Accountability Act as the Administration plans to put on these other wonderful areas of transparency 

that we need. But if their results are the same as the Transparency 

and Accountability Act, we are going to create more disappointment in the American public. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Coburn. 

I want to turn to our witnesses and go ahead and introduce 

them. We may start voting at about 2:45 p.m., and if we do, if we 

just have one vote, Dr. Coburn, I do not know if you want to tagteam and I could stay here until maybe you could run and vote and 

then come back. But just think about that, if that might work for 

you. That way we can keep going. 

Senator COBURN. I will try to do that. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks so much. 

Let me just start by introducing our first three witnesses today. 

First we have a familiar face who is no stranger before this Subcommittee. Vivek Kundra is the Federal Chief Information Officer 

of the United States and responsible for overseeing the Federal 

Government’s management of information technology. He comes to 

us most recently from the District of Columbia where he was recognized by InfoWorld as one of the top 25 chief technology officers not 

just in the District of Columbia, not just in the United States, but 

around the world. Congratulations and we thank you very much for 

your service. We thank you for being here and for the dialogue that 

we have enjoyed in the past year or so. 

Next up we have the Hon. Aneesh Chopra, who is the Chief 

Technology Officer of the United States. I understand that Mr. 

Chopra and Mr. Kundra are the ones responsible for tag-teaming 

President Obama’s technology and transparency initiatives. Mr. 

Chopra comes to us from the Commonwealth of Virginia where he 

was the Secretary of Technology. Who was the governor then? Not 

Warner. 

Mr. CHOPRA. Tim Kaine. 

Senator CARPER. Tim Kaine, OK. I am told that you and Mr. 

Kundra also served together in Virginia at the same time. Is that 

right? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. OK. We are grateful for you to be here today 

and serving together once more. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Kundra appears in the Appendix on page 54. 

The final witness is the Hon. David Ferriero, Archivist of the 

United States and the head of the National Archives and Records 

Administration. Essentially, he is the defender of our Nation’s history. That is a heavy burden to carry. He has previous experience 

at the New York Public Library, at MIT, and he is a veteran of the 

U.S. Navy. 

We thank you, Mr. Ferriero, and the rest of our panelists for taking the time to be with us here this afternoon. I am going to recognize Mr. Kundra to begin with his opening statement. I was able 

to read everyone’s written statements, so if you want you can summarize for about 5 minutes. If you go a couple minutes over that, 

I will not rein you in, but if you go too far over, then I will have 

to. But we look forward to having a great dialogue here with you 

this afternoon. Thank you so much for your preparation and for 

your presence and for your willingness to have this discussion with 

us today. Thank you. 

And your entire statements will be made part of the record, for 

each witness. 

Mr. Kundra, you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF VIVEK KUNDRA,1 FEDERAL CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER AND ADMINISTRATOR FOR ELECTRONIC 

GOVERNMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE 

OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. KUNDRA. Good afternoon, Chairman Carper, Senator Coburn, 

and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity 

to testify about how this Administration is working to make government more transparent and accountable for the American people. 

On his first full day in office, President Obama signed the Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government. This Administration is laying a new foundation that changes the default setting of 

the government from closed, opaque, and secretive to transparent, 

open, and participatory. I would like to talk about Open Government not as an abstract idea or notion, but specifically how it is 

driving innovation, improving performance, and changing the way 

we serve the American people. 

Opening our government allows us to draw upon the knowledge 

of all Americans, not just those inside the Beltway of Washington. 

The Federal Government does not have a monopoly on the best 

ideas, nor does it have unlimited resources. We have seen how 

third parties can create tremendous value when given the opportunity. 

The Department of Defense’s decision to release Global Positioning System (GPS) data sparked innovations that touch our 

daily lives, helping us reach our destinations throughout the country and helping first responders save lives. 

To unlock the value of public data, we launched data.gov last 

May with just 47 data sets. Now there are over 169,000 data sets 

on every aspect of government operations, from public safety to the 

environment to health care. In just 10 months, third parties have 

already used these data sets to build applications that serve the 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
6 

American people such as FlyOnTime.us, which allows travelers to 

check wait times at security lines across the country and also view 

airline on-time performance. 

As we democratize data, we must also foster an innovation ecosystem to support the creative use of these data sets. That is why 

OMB released guidance this month to increase the use of prizes 

and challenges across the public sector and will launch a challenge 

platform to facilitate innovation. 

The concept of challenges and prices goes back to at least 1714 

when the British Government offered 20,000 pounds to anyone who 

could develop a method to calculate a ship’s longitude. The prize 

motivated clock maker John Harrison to develop the marine chronometer which solved the problem in a simple and efficient way. 

Open Government also helps keep the government accountable. 

As the President said in his inaugural speech, ‘‘Those of us who 

manage the public’s dollars will be held to account to spend wisely, 

reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because 

only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their 

government.’’ 

Last June, we launched the IT Dashboard, which allows the 

American people to monitor Information Technology (IT) investments across the Federal Government. Last July, the Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA) halted 45 IT projects that were significantly behind schedule or over budget, identified in part thanks to 

the IT Dashboard. In terminating 12 of these projects, the VA 

avoided wasting $54 million of taxpayer money. 

Building on the foundation of the IT Dashboard, we launched 

face-to-face evidence-based reviews of IT programs called TechStat 

Accountability Sessions. These sessions enable government officials 

to collaborate with one another to turn around or halt IT investments that do not produce dividends for the American people. 

As we continue to open up our government, we must balance our 

decisions with protecting the privacy of the American people and 

safeguarding national security. Individual pieces of data, when released independently, may not reveal sensitive information, but 

when they are combined, this mosaic effect could be used to derive 

personal information or information that is vital to national security. 

The government, unfortunately, has a history of not managing 

data quality from accuracy to completeness to timeliness. To improve data quality, OMB released the Open Government Directive 

on December 8, 2009. This directive actually requires every agency 

to designate a senior official accountable for data quality, objectivity, and internal controls across financial spending. 

On April 7, 2010, OMB will release a strategy for sub-award reporting to help carry out the vision of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transportation Act that this Subcommittee fought 

for. To provide better insight into Federal spending, we will launch 

an improved USAspending.gov platform. We are just at the beginning of what can be accomplished. Imagine enterprising Americans 

and government officials working virtually alongside one another to 

co-create the next generation of public services. Imagine being able 

to create and share dashboards on demand, powered by data, to 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Chopra appears in the Appendix on page 61. 

shed new light into government performance in the same way that 

we share YouTube videos with our family and friends. 

Open Government is not an abstract notion. It is a new way of 

doing business in Washington. The Obama Administration is committed to make the Federal Government work better for the American people. 

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

questions. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks for your excellent testimony. Very well 

delivered, thank you. Mr. Chopra, please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. ANEESH CHOPRA,1 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY 

OFFICER AND ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE 

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

Mr. CHOPRA. Thank you, Chairman Carper and Senator Coburn. 

I would like to expand upon my colleague’s testimony with particular emphasis on how we are harnessing technology, data, and 

innovation to improve the lives of everyday Americans. 

In my capacity as the Chief Technology Officer, I’ve had the 

honor and privilege of working with the American people in developing the recommendations that form the basis of our Open Government Directive per the President’s instructions in that memorandum that he signed on his first full day in office. 

Over the course of 2 months starting last May, we held an unprecedented consultation process that surfaced over 900 ideas, 

thousands of public comments, and over 300 draft versions of Open 

Government recommendations. The directive that we published December 8, 2009, referenced many of those recommendations and 

serves as an aggressive timeline for our entire Federal Government 

to meet specific milestones towards greater openness, including the 

publication of new high-value data sets on Data.gov. 

Now, what does Open Government mean to the American people? 

When the Department of Agriculture makes nutritional information available, parents can make smarter eating choices for their 

families. When the Department of Education makes key information available about colleges and universities, students can make 

more informed choices about the quality and cost of their education. When the Department of Labor makes information on workplace risks and hazards available, employers can improve the safety of their workplaces for employees. 

I would like to highlight three examples to better illustrate our 

approach and its current impact on the American people. 

On the topic of innovation, our engine of economic growth, as we 

all know, is born on the ingenuity of America’s small businesses. 

To that end, I am pleased to announce that today the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), will begin providing 

data on awardees of the Small Business Innovation Research Program that utilize a new streamlined process for contracting and 

will extend this streamlined process to future Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) solicitations. Initially, DARPA will display 

data on the number of awardees that are eligible for this streamVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:37 Dec 01, 2010 Jkt 056893 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56893.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT

ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
8 

lined process, how many awardees have opted for it, and the average number of days it has taken to complete the streamlined agreement. 

As an example, Mr. Chairman, typical contracting in this domain 

might take 5 to 6 months to complete. But we believe that this 

streamlined approach will take, on average, less than 60 days. 

That represents a 60- to 70-percent reduction in both time and 

cost, savings that will help small businesses throughout the country in achieving lower costs and getting them to work faster on the 

important projects we have in front of them. 

In energy, we recently concluded a Smart Grid Forum online 

which focused on the impact the Nation’s energy consumers will 

have in promoting innovation in smart grid products and services. 

Specifically, we invited all Americans to participate in a discussion 

on how best to deploy the smart grid, with particularly engaging 

discussions occurring on data access and consumer ownership. 

The thoughtful comments that we received will help our Nation 

accelerate the development of innovations to address some of the 

most challenging smart grid goals that we have, from deployment 

of smart grid solutions to the development of standards needed for 

the exchange of data, to ensuring cybersecurity in the smart grid. 

Put simply, Mr. Chairman, I want to know my energy usage on a 

real-time basis in my home, and this process helped to bring that 

forward. 

In education, on February 15, Education Secretary Arne Duncan 

announced the launch of the Open Innovation Web Portal at innovation.ed.gov, bringing together key stakeholders in education, including those who previously had no voice or way to elevate their 

ideas, in a collaborative manner so that those ideas can turn into 

reality. The Open Innovation Web Portal is a trial initiative that 

has engaged many stakeholders in education—from teachers to 

school administrators, parents and foundations, nonprofits and forprofit organizations alike—all to develop the innovations that our 

country desperately needs to achieve our President’s goal to be the 

Nation with the highest percentage of college-educated citizens. 

The Department of Education has posted an initial set of challenges to engage the community around the Department’s key priorities, including human capital and data. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, to make it simple, if a teacher in Delaware 

has a terrific idea to help kids understand physics better, this portal will allow that individual to find development capital from the 

philanthropic community so that the idea can be tested, validated, 

and scaled. 

Last, Mr. Chairman, I would like to end my remarks on how our 

commitment to an open and transparent government is surfacing 

and executing on the very best ideas from everyday Americans. 

Last August, President Obama challenged the 19,000 front-line 

workers within the Veterans Benefits Administration to reduce the 

backlog of disability claims and streamline processing. Todd Bonn, 

a dedicated veterans service representative from the offices in 

Togus, Maine, submitted an idea through the VA’s Innovation Initiative Website to improve certain performance metrics to get the 

agency to focus more on results and less on process. He was one 

of 7,000 participants submitting and voting on over 3,000 ideas 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Ferriero appears in the Appendix on page 67. 

from each of the 57 regional offices within the Veterans Benefits 

Administration (VBA). His colleagues in Maine prepared a business 

plan that was pitched to a panel of national leaders, including 

Craig Newmark from Craigslist. Todd’s idea was one of 10 selected 

for implementation, and what is remarkable about this is that his 

idea will take very little time and effort to reprogram the performance database. VA will implement this initiative by the summer at 

no incremental cost to taxpayers. Todd’s story is yet another example of how this Administration is leveraging the principles of Open 

Government to meet our Nation’s challenges. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time, and, of course, we look 

forward to answering your questions. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. Thank you again for an exciting and, 

I think, uplifting bit of testimony. Thanks so much. 

We have started the vote. I am going to try, if possible, to allow 

Mr. Ferriero to finish his testimony, but if we run short, we will 

have to run out and come back in a little bit. But I think we have 

two votes, and I think we will be able to just bear down and stay 

here. Thank you. 

Mr. Ferriero, go ahead. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID S. FERRIERO,1 ARCHIVIST OF THE 

UNITED STATES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. FERRIERO. Thank you for inviting me to participate in this 

hearing on making government more transparent and accountable. 

The last time I appeared before you was my confirmation hearing 

in September, so it is truly an honor to return. I would also like 

to thank you for the opportunity to testify alongside two visionary 

leaders whose work I deeply admire, Vivek Kundra and Aneesh 

Chopra. 

As the Subcommittee knows, on December 8, 2009, President 

Obama issued the Open Government Directive with the aim of 

making our government more accessible and accountable by improving transparency, public participation, and collaboration in and 

among the Federal agencies. This directive was enthusiastically received by the National Archives for the core of our mission is serving democracy by providing access to the essential documentation 

of the rights of American citizens and the actions of their government. 

NARA’s own Open Government plan describes how we are providing guidance and services to assist Federal agencies with carrying out their plans. Our Records Management Program provides 

guidance for agencies on the records management issues highlighted in the Open Government Directive. Our National Declassification Center is taking a leadership role in ensuring that over 

400 million pages of classified records in NARA holdings are declassified and made available to the public by the end of 2013. 

Our Office of Government Information Services has provided 

Questions and Answers on the Open Government Directive which 

outlines transparency issues that are relevant to the Freedom of 

Information Act. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
10 

Today, however, I would like to focus my testimony on what I 

feel is the backbone of Open Government records management. To 

put it simply, the government cannot be accountable if it does not 

preserve and cannot find its records. Although I have only been in 

the job for 5 months, I have seen and heard enough to be concerned 

that across the government we are falling short in our records 

management responsibilities, particularly in regard to the exponential growth of electronic records. The long-term success of the 

Open Government Initiative—and the future of the National Archives—hinges on the ability of each Federal agency to effectively 

manage their records. 

At the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), 

our records management approach is grounded in these three principles: Agencies must economically and effectively create and manage records necessary to meet business needs; records must be kept 

long enough to protect rights and assure accountability; and 

records of archival value must be preserved and made available for 

future generations. 

NARA’s National Records Management Program is made up of 

nearly 100 full-time staff members. They have the enormous job of 

working with Federal records officers in over 250 different Federal 

agencies. They develop policy, guidance, and training. They conduct 

studies so others can learn best practices and avoid costly mistakes. They also work with agencies to conduct self-assessments of 

records management programs. This is part of the Archivist’s statutory authority to conduct inspections and report findings to the 

appropriate oversight committees and the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

Most notably, they work with agencies to schedule and appraise 

records. This is how we ensure proper documentation of our government’s actions. The statutory authority to grant Federal agencies disposition authority to manage their records is the most important responsibility I exercise as Archivist of the United States, 

because it determines what records will come to the National Archives for permanent preservation and access. 

Given that records management is the backbone of Open Government, the central question is: What is needed to ensure that Open 

Government values are realized and that NARA’s mission is accomplished? 

My answer has two parts. First, heads of agencies and senior 

leaders across the Federal Government need to understand that 

the records and information they and their organizations are creating are national assets that must be effectively managed and secured so that the public can be assured of the authenticity of the 

record. Heads of agencies and senior leaders need to be held accountable for managing these assets. This is required by law in the 

Federal Records Act, but moreover, it is good government and a 

necessary condition of Open Government. 

In the next 30 days, NARA plans to send to Congress and OMB 

a report based on agency self-assessments carried out in September 

2009. Our preliminary analysis of the data suggest that 79 percent 

of reporting agencies have moderate to high levels of risk associated with their records management programs, particularly with 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
11 

electronic records. These levels of risk in agencies should be a great 

concern to all who believe in open and accountable government. 

Second, senior agency leaders must work with NARA, OMB, and 

GSA, as well as with groups like the CIO Council, the Federal 

Records Council, and the Federal Web Managers Council, to develop the IT tools necessary to manage electronic records. 

The technical challenges associated with developing the IT tools 

for records management are not insignificant; however, these tools 

do not exist today because, in my view, the Federal Government 

has not deemed recordkeeping a high priority in IT systems. The 

Federal Government spends over $70 billion annually on information technology that, to a large degree, creates or receives Federal 

records in some form. Developing cost-effective electronic records 

management tools that work and then integrating them into agency IT systems needs to be a high priority. 

In conclusion, as Archivist of the United States and the leader 

of over 3,000 dedicated National Archives employees, I would like 

you to know that we are committed to doing all we can to carry 

out the National Archives mission to provide access to the essential 

documentation of the rights of American citizens and the actions of 

their government and to build an Open Government that values 

transparency, citizen participation, and collaboration. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, 

and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Ferriero, thank you very much, and my 

thanks really to each of you for setting the stage for what I think 

is going to be a very interesting and I think very productive and 

helpful hearing. 

We start off, first of all, it looks like we have two votes back to 

back. I have 7 minutes to get there. I am going to recess for probably about the next 20 minutes, and we will be back. Dr. Coburn 

may come back before I do. 

We will be back shortly, and we look forward to asking questions 

of our first panel. But thank you for getting us off on the right foot. 

With that, the Subcommittee stands in recess for roughly the 

next 20 minutes. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Senator CARPER. All right. You have all been having enough fun. 

Back to the salt mines. Thanks for hanging in here, folks. Good to 

be back with you. We had two votes, and if we are lucky, we will 

be able to get this hearing in without any further interruptions. We 

could be in session all night, but fortunately you will all be spared 

that. 

I have a couple of questions for folks on this first panel, and one 

of the things to do is I love to go into schools. I think we have over 

200 public schools in Delaware. I also think I have been at almost 

every one of them over the years. And whenever I visit a school, 

kids ask really great questions. Some are really funny questions, 

too. For example, are you married to a movie star? Do you live in 

a mansion? Do you have a limousine? And on and on and on. Sometimes they ask me what do I like about my job. One time a kid not 

long ago asked me this question: ‘‘What do you do?’’ [Laughter.] 

I thought that was a pretty good question. And I said, well—he 

was in elementary school. I said, ‘‘Do you have rules in your 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
12 

school?’’ ‘‘Yes.’’ ‘‘Do you have rules on your bus?’’ ‘‘Yes.’’ ‘‘Do you 

have rules at home?’’ There was kind of a mixed message on that 

one. But I said, ‘‘My role is to work with other Senators, Representatives, and the President and Vice President to help make the 

rules for our country.’’ And I said, ‘‘Just like you have rules in your 

school and on your bus and at home, we have rules for our country. 

We call them laws.’’ And he said, ‘‘Oh, I get that. I get that.’’ 

What do you do? How would you explain your job? Because a lot 

of what we are going to cover here today and what we have covered 

in hearings leading up to this day can be another world for some 

people. The topics may not make that much sense, and it is hard 

to relate to what we are actually talking about. But when people 

say, ‘‘What do you do?’’ I want you to explain it in simple terms. 

And then I am going to ask some questions to follow up and see 

if we cannot bring what you are talking about here today to terms 

that it will be real in the lives of most people in our country. 

Mr. Kundra, do you want to go first? What do you do? 

Mr. KUNDRA. Sure. So, simply put, what I would say to a school 

kid is essentially when you apply for college and you have to fill 

out that student aid application, part of my role is make sure that 

the Department of Education is using technology to make your life 

easier; or when your parents have to go online and interact with 

their government, it is to make sure that they can easily interact, 

whether it is filing taxes or filing for a passport. It is to use technology ultimately to serve the American people. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. Mr. Chopra. 

Mr. CHOPRA. Oh, man, that is a hard one to follow. 

Senator CARPER. I am sure you are up to it. 

Mr. CHOPRA. Mr. Chairman, I would describe my role as producing three P’s. The first of those P’s is to ensure that we have 

the right policies that harness technology, data, and innovation for 

national priorities. The second is to make sure that we make 

thoughtful investments in platforms, that is, a modest investment 

in the public sector spurs a much larger investment in the nonprofit sector to expand and leverage the goal. And then the third 

is to support public-private partnerships, and that often means no 

new laws and no new funding, but a way to bring, as the President 

described, an ‘‘all hands on deck’’ approach to advancing a certain 

priority. 

I am happy to engage on any examples in those domains, but 

that is essentially what I focus on. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. Mr. Ferriero. 

Mr. FERRIERO. And I am the records guy. My job is to make sure 

that we are collecting, protecting, and encouraging the use of the 

records of the government. 

Senator CARPER. All right. The folks that all of you serve, we 

think they are interested in Open Government. A lot of them say 

that they are. How is Open Government going to help them from 

your perspectives, each of you? 

Mr. KUNDRA. Well, so in a big way, if you think about the innovations we have seen across the board, there has been this Old 

World view that the public sector has a monopoly on innovation 

and creating solutions. But if you think about just Apple, for example, and how Apple essentially created the App Store, and what 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
13 

happened is Apple did not go out there and build 150,000 applications. What it did is it provided a platform that allowed for innovation to happen on top of that. Or if you think about YouTube, 

YouTube did not go out there and create every video that you see 

there. It is the American people and people around the world that 

created that content that makes it so valuable. 

In the same way, when you think about government, it is a huge 

shift when you look at it in the context of Open Government where 

we are shifting power actually to the American people and not concentrating power in the hands of government employees. At the 

same time, by moving towards this architecture where we are 

building platforms allows third parties to start innovating, such as 

with spending data, and as Senator Coburn said, and providing the 

ability to see a $60 contract and recognizing that only $6 out of 

that $60 contract is actually going towards doing that work. By 

shining a light on those types of issues, we can rethink public policy; we can rethink how we are investing in money. But, more importantly, it is making sure that the American people now have as 

much power in terms of knowing how their government works and 

not just sending tax dollars over to the government and hoping 

that they are spent well. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. Others, please. 

Mr. CHOPRA. It is difficult to follow my colleagues in describing 

this, Mr. Chairman. I would say three things. 

First, the average American would want greater confidence that 

their government is working for them, so a great deal of transparency, including spending but even beyond, on the actual performance and outcomes more broadly is how we view the transparency component. 

The second component is what I would call news you can use. My 

wife and I have two little girls, a 3-year-old and a 1-year-old, and 

we recently installed car safety seats. I am not the strongest guy 

in the world: You stick your knee in, you plug it in, and it is all 

really difficult to install. The National Highway Traffic and Safety 

Administration has a database on the ease of installation of car 

seats of every manufacturer in the country. 

Senator CARPER. No kidding. 

Mr. CHOPRA. Yes, we just published that data for the first time 

in machine-readable format in January. So now every product has 

information on their ease of installation of that car seat online. 

News you can use. We have made it available so others can use it. 

And then the third one is the notion that somewhere someone 

has an idea on how our collective well-being can be improved. And 

the notion that your idea can be heard by your government and, 

frankly, acted upon it so that it can actually become real, Open 

Government allows us to shrink the concept of time from when you 

have an idea to when it can actually take hold and people can see 

those concepts being put into use to advance our collective wellbeing. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. Mr. Ferriero. 

Mr. FERRIERO. Let me answer that from two different perspectives. 

One, this is very much a bottom-up initiative. Each of the agencies has been encouraged to create an Open Government plan. And 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
14 

for my own agency, seeing how this process has unleashed talent 

in the organization in terms of thinking creatively about how we 

do our business, is for me one of the most important parts of this 

whole process. 

From the second perspective, I see a huge potential here to use 

the Open Government Initiative as a way of connecting our records 

management folks with our IT folks, because as I said, we cannot 

have Open Government if we do not have good records. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

I want to go back to a point that Senator Coburn and I mentioned earlier. About 3 or 4 years ago, several of us teamed up, 

under his leadership, with former Senator Obama, I think John 

McCain, among others, in order to pass something we called the 

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, and the 

original intent of that legislation was to shed a little bit of sunlight 

on the approximately $1 trillion that Federal agencies wrote every 

year in contracts and grants and in loans. One provision of the bill 

required OMB to set up a Website that would show where all the 

money was going. 

Unfortunately, the Government Accountability Office recently 

showed us that the information on the Website was inadequate in 

many instances and that agencies did not take the time to make 

sure that information was up to date. I have also heard that this 

type of situation may be happening on other transparency initiatives such as the Website used to track the stimulus spending and 

the Websites used to track overbudget IT investments. 

Let me just ask Mr. Kundra, if I could, what is the Administration doing to make sure that agencies provide accurate and up-todate information on previous transparency initiatives as well as 

ones that we may be undertaking in the future? 

Mr. KUNDRA. Senator, I share your frustration and Senator 

Coburn’s frustration in terms of how the government is moving forward and the quality of the data that is in a lot of these systems. 

But if I could just step back for a second, one of the challenges 

across the board as we look at the Federal Government is the number of systems that are out there. When this Administration came 

into office, there was a database that was set up, essentially 

USAspending 1.0. From a platform perspective, from a technology 

perspective, it was not scaled to be able to handle those trillion-dollars-plus transactions across the board. 

Second, if we looked at accountability at the agency level, one of 

the challenges was it was a culture of faceless accountability where 

everybody was responsible—— 

Senator CARPER. A culture of what? 

Mr. KUNDRA. Faceless accountability, so there was not a single 

individual accountable for the data. And then on top of that, what 

compounded the issue is that you had the grants community and 

you have the contracting community, and the communities themselves had not set the appropriate standards across the board so 

you could identify a grant from one agency and compare it to the 

grant from another agency. 

Part of what we have tried to do in the Obama Administration 

is on his first full day in office, the President issued a memorandum on Open Government. Immediately following that memoVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:37 Dec 01, 2010 Jkt 056893 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56893.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT

ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
15 

randum, we began scaling from a technology perspective the 

USAspending platform. The other area we invested in heavily as 

we looked at a nationwide system was with the Recovery Act. We 

wanted to make sure that we were not wasting taxpayer dollars by 

building two parallel systems. 

So there is a nationwide effort to collect data at a sub-award 

level and across there, and we wanted to make sure, as we were 

making those investments, that we could leverage those investments as part of the USAspending platform. And as part of the 

Open Government Directive, what we have done is we have made 

sure that there is a senior accountable official at agencies who is 

charged to make sure that the data quality is accurate, it is comprehensive, and it is timely. At the same time, on April 7, OMB 

is going to be releasing very specific guidance to agencies on subaward data collection. And we are also going to be launching shortly a new USAspending.gov platform. 

Senator CARPER. Say that last sentence again. 

Mr. KUNDRA. We will be shortly launching a new version of 

USAspending.gov. 

Senator CARPER. Do you have any idea when? 

Mr. KUNDRA. Shortly. 

Senator CARPER. Around here that can be quite a while. 

Mr. KUNDRA. In a matter of a month or so. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Good. Well, that is music to our ears. 

I am going to yield to Dr. Coburn, but before I do, let me just 

telegraph my next pitch, and I am going to come back and ask each 

of you to talk about some areas that the Administration and the 

Congress ought to be looking into to increase transparency and to 

try to reduce wasteful spending. But for now, Dr. Coburn? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Well, first of all, let me say to all three of you 

I have extreme confidence that you are the right guys for the right 

job. Had you put the same effort into USAspending.gov as you put 

into everything else, we would be a lot further down the road right 

now, wouldn’t we? 

Mr. KUNDRA. Senator, I think we have put tremendous effort on 

USAspending.gov—— 

Senator COBURN. I did not say you had not put effort. First of 

all, there is only one of these that is a law, and that is the Federal 

Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. It is the law. In 

fact, we are out of compliance on the law. There has not been a report from you all, which is required under the law. As a matter of 

fact, this will be the second year that we do not have a report. I 

hope we get that this time. But it is the law. 

The others are mandates by the President, and I applaud them, 

but they have held us up from achieving what we were trying to 

achieve. I have no complaints with your capability. But the fact is 

that right now USAspending.gov is not accurate, and it lacks the 

biggest component that is necessary for Americans to truly know 

what is going on with spending, and that is sub-awards and subcontracts. 

The whole idea behind sub-awards and subcontracts was for everyday citizens could actually see what is going on. So when they 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
16 

saw waste, they could report it. They could be a whistleblower. Because we do not have sub-award and we do not have sub-grantee, 

they do not have that ability. 

So we do not really have transparency with the Transparency 

and Accountability Act. I am not here to beat you up. I think you 

guys have worked hard. I think you have done a wonderful job with 

everything that you have worked at. But I am still wanting to 

know when the law is going to be followed. 

Mr. KUNDRA. Senator, that part of our strategy hinges on 

leveraging the investments that have actually already been made 

with the Recovery Board. And the April 7 guidance will speak specifically to how we are going to be addressing the sub-award issue, 

whether it is on the grant side or on the contracting side. 

Because of the recovery investments, we are going to be further 

along as we have addressed one of the most complicated issues, 

which is how do you build a nationwide system that is going to be 

able to collect sub-award data, and how do you do it in a short time 

span. And we are going to benefit as we look forward in terms of 

leveraging that infrastructure, given the momentum that was behind driving transparency related to the Recovery Act. 

Senator COBURN. I do not doubt that, but what you just told me 

is you choose to do this rather than follow the law. When is it going 

to be there? What is the answer to that question? When is it going 

to be accurate? When is the sub-award and sub-grantee information going to be on there? It is a real simple question. And if ‘‘I do 

not know’’ is the answer, ‘‘I do not know’’ is the answer. We have 

a law, and the fact is that we choose not to follow it. Just like improper payments, we have multiple agencies that will not comply 

with the law because they do not think they have to. 

Again, I will compliment each of you. I think you are rightly suited for your job. But I tell you what the people of Delaware and the 

people of Oklahoma want. They think if it is a law, it ought to get 

done and it ought to get followed. I have been around this place 

long enough to know that if I do not pin people down, it never happens. If April 7 is not going to happen, then my hope is the Chairman will have another hearing so we can talk about that. 

We are 31⁄2 years into this, and you may have been dealt a mess. 

I do not know. That is the usual thing that we hear from one Administration—it does not matter if it is Republican to Democrat or 

Democrat to Republican. It was not done right. But we cannot 

manage America without that information. You may be absolutely 

right that you have created the infrastructure and the base so that 

we actually will get there in the long run better. But part of not 

complying with the law is explaining to us why you are not complying with the law. 

I want to go back—first of all, car seats? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. I followed all the rules on them and pinched 

my finger every time. [Laughter.] 

Senator COBURN. I have grandkids, and it is tough. 

Mr. CHOPRA. It is tough. 

Senator COBURN. But it is designed to be tough so that the kid 

does not go anywhere. 

Mr. CHOPRA. You are right. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
17 

Senator COBURN. Let me ask you, Mr. Chopra. You said three 

P’s: Policy, platform, and public-private partnerships. 

Mr. CHOPRA. Yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. Is that being applied to the Transparency and 

Accountability Act? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Well, I serve in the Office of Science and Technology Policy. I do not know to what extent we have been actively 

involved in the OMB implementation of the Act, but we are using 

these principles across a wide range of national priorities. I am 

happy to give you an example of public-private partnerships, whatever would be appropriate for you. 

The one that we most recently announced about a month and a 

half ago was in health care, and it focused on an initiative we 

called Text4Baby. Given your background, Senator, to address 

issues surrounding the number of women who lack access to the information on appropriate prenatal care to address both pre-term 

birth rates that are too high and infant mortality rates that in this 

country are too high. We understood that many of the young 

women in this country have cell phones that could be used as a vehicle to convey this information. We did not have any government 

money to spur this kind of collaboration, but what we did have was 

an opportunity to bring an ‘‘all hands on deck’’ approach. So the 

cell carriers, through their industry trade association, the Consolidated Treaties and International Agreements (CTIA), waived text 

message fees for 2 years. About 115 partners—nonprofit, for-profit, 

a whole mix—built content and have distributed content three 

times a week to women in need. So 25,000 women are getting this 

service. We did not pay for, but it is an example—— 

Senator COBURN. OK. So that is great, but my question was 

about the Accountability and Transparency Act. 

Mr. Kundra. 

Mr. KUNDRA. In terms of partnering with the public, one of the 

things we have done as we have looked at these platforms with the 

Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) community. For example, 

the Sunlight Foundation launched an independent competition and 

actually created the applications. In my testimony, as I talked 

about FlyOnTime.us, it was a product of a competition that the 

Sunlight Foundation did. 

We have also seen private citizens actually build an application. 

For example, they took their recall data, and they built an application that allows you to see on your phone when a product has been 

recalled so you can prevent yourself from buying it. 

Senator COBURN. OK. We had two pilot sub-award programs that 

GAO said they were not successful. Are you planning more pilots 

or what is the plan with USAspending.gov? 

Mr. KUNDRA. So the plan as we move forward is to actually leverage the infrastructure that has been deployed, and also to go 

deep in terms of the sub-award data, which is to go to the $25,000 

limit that has been set to make sure that we can get as much of 

the data out there and roll it up and characterize it as possible and 

make sure that we can also show trends as we look at the 

USAspending.gov. 

Senator COBURN. What is the problem with the sub-award data? 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
18 

Mr. KUNDRA. The sub-award data is a pyramid problem. When 

you go down one level, you may deal with 100,000 recipients. When 

you go down the second or the third level, you may start dealing 

with a million, 2 million, 3 million—— 

Senator COBURN. Give me an example of a program where we 

have sub-awards that go to 100,000 people. 

Mr. KUNDRA. So let us say you give out a grant at a State level, 

whether it is at the Department of Transportation or whether it is 

at Health and Human Services, and at a State level where you 

begin to allocate that funding across the board and then that is the 

government recipient. 

Now as you get down to the private sector recipient and companies that may start disbursing those funds across the board, you 

end up getting thousands and thousands of—— 

Senator COBURN. Yes, but you are not at 100,000 on anything. 

Mr. KUNDRA. Well, I am talking about across—— 

Senator COBURN. I know, but let us just take a Department of 

Education grant. There are 50 States, plus Territories, and then 

they may give 100 per State. So you have 5,000. That is a small 

data set. What is OMB’s directive to all the agencies about subawards? Are they told that you have to do this or not? 

Mr. KUNDRA. So we actually issued guidance on sub-award data 

to try to collect that information. The challenge for us, as I mentioned before, was also on the technology front, which is we did not 

have a technology platform—— 

Senator COBURN. OK. So if you have the technology, then the 

real problem is not going to be technology. The problem is going 

to be compliance. 

Mr. KUNDRA. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. So what is OMB going to do about compliance? 

Is there any consequence to not following the law as far as the Accountability and Transparency Act? 

Mr. KUNDRA. So what we have already done is we have made 

sure that across the board there is a senior accountable official assigned at each of the agencies who is going to be accountable for 

the reporting of that data. And that is what I meant when I said 

there is a faceless accountability in terms of everybody was responsible for data quality—— 

Senator COBURN. No. I agree. Well, Mr. Chairman, thanks for allowing me to go a little bit over on my questioning time. I will submit a few other questions to you. 

Anything either of the other of you want to add before I finish? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Well, if I may—I would make two comments. 

One, this Congress did authorize about $37.5 million in this year 

for what we call the Partnership for Program Integrity, basically 

a fund that would allow us to get after the issue of federally funded 

government services that are State-administered, locally delivered, 

and anything in between. So my presumption is that a great deal 

of the architecture and the way we can get better data will come 

out of the grants process—to get that money out and to find ways 

to be more efficient. Coming from Virginia’s State government, 

Senator, I can tell you our own accounting systems at the State 

level were very difficult, so Federal funds would come in, the State 

systems are often 20 or 30 years old, and their financials would 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
19 

only have a few items of information associated with the actual dollar figure. Then a separate system altogether would administer 

where the money ultimately went and the ability to cross-walk 

the—— 

Senator COBURN. But there is an easy way to fix that. With 

every grant acceptance, a State or an individual signs that they 

will comply, and here is what compliance means. It is easy. Then 

the onus is on them to comply: If you take this money, here is what 

you have to do to comply. 

Let me just share with you a minute until Senator Carper comes 

back. Almost every week, I have a whistleblower that contacts my 

office. Not having sub-grant and sub-award data keeps us from 

eliminating waste in this country. There is $350 billion a year in 

waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication in the Federal Government 

right now that I can document. How do you get it out? The only 

way to resolve these problems is to have the data there so that 

when you get a whistleblower and you have the data, you do not 

have to present a significant case because it is there already. 

If we can ever get the sub-award and sub-contract data—and, remember, 98 percent of everybody in this country is doing the right 

thing, but the ones that are costing us are the ones like on Medicare fraud and some of these other things, they are costing us a 

ton. When we do not have that data, we cannot leverage the information. When we go to try to get the information, guess what? 

Even on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which has 

subpoena power, unless we subpoena it, most of the time we cannot 

get it, information that should already be online. 

So I want you to understand how important this is as a tool for 

us, and looking at what our financial situation is, what you guys 

are doing is more important than anything that I do up here every 

day, what you all are doing because it is going to pay far greater 

rewards and far greater dividends. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Coburn and I are interested, as he just 

reminded us, in trying to ensure that folks are doing what they are 

supposed to be doing. And it is hard for us to police every person 

in government or folks that are not in government to ensure they 

are doing what they need to be doing. 

One of the things that I like to do—and I think he does as well— 

is to try to find ways to incentivize people or agencies, people within agencies, to do what they ought to be doing, to do the right 

thing. And one of the things we have focused on over the years is 

trying to ensure that when Federal agencies have surplus properties that they do not need, that they sell them and get to keep 

some of the money to help fund their programs. 

We are interested in making sure that not only do we have agencies stop making improper payments, but actually to identify where 

the money has gone, particularly in—— 

Senator COBURN. Would the Senator yield? Just for the record, 

we spend $8 billion on properties we do not want and that are 

empty that the Federal Government owns. Every year. There is $8 

billion. That will pay for the extender package that is coming on 

to the floor. But yet we are not doing it because we do not have 

all the data. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
20 

Senator CARPER. Yes. But one of the things we are interested in 

doing is trying to go out and collect all the money that is 

fraudulantly taken out of Medicare by fraudsters. If we allow contract recovery folks to go out and recover the money and let them 

keep a portion of it, then we can incentivize them to do a much better job. If we can do the same thing with whistleblowers, let them 

keep some of the money that is actually recovered. But the idea is 

to find ways to incentivize—use financial incentives to harness 

market forces and get people to help us do what needs to be done. 

I like to say—and Dr. Coburn has heard me say this once or 

twice—that the role of government is to steer the boat, not row the 

boat, and one of the things that always fascinates me is how do we 

harness market forces to drive good public policy outcomes. 

What I want to do is ask you all to take a minute—and I will 

start with Mr. Ferriero and then we will go to the other panelists. 

Are you trying to find ways to use prizes or rewards for people to 

be able to develop a more effective way to use agency information? 

What kind of results are you seeing so far, if you will? And is this 

something that we ought to be thinking about expanding in the future? What is your office doing to get the word out on these kinds 

of competitions? Are there ways that we can help put a spotlight 

on these competitions so that more people will want to participate? 

Can you all just take a moment and take a shot at that, please? 

Thanks. And, Mr. Ferriero, if you want to respond, you are welcome to. 

Mr. FERRIERO. Sure. That is part of the Open Government plan 

that is being created now by the Archives, and there is the intention of creating within our agency opportunities for competition for 

coming up with new ideas about how we go about doing our business. And this is something that is very much why I am so excited 

about the plan, is that it is staff driven, it is from the bottom up. 

And we do not have concrete examples of that yet, but it is a definite part of our Open Government plan. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. Mr. Chopra. 

Mr. CHOPRA. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely a key priority for us, and we think that is a terrific tool when thoughtfully 

designed—you cannot just have prizes and competition for anything—to achieve pretty dramatic outcomes. 

Senator CARPER. How do we do the design there to make sure 

that what we are designing actually is going to be appealing to 

folks whose cooperation we need? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Well, we have built a community of practice that 

was launched in conjunction with the guidance that was released 

on March 8 so that we could incorporate best practices in that 

model. There are nonprofit and for-profit stakeholders who have 

been experienced in prize design, the most famous being the X 

Prize that is contributing to our community of practice. But even 

beyond, companies like McKinsey, the Joyce Foundation, and others have been contributing and publishing on best practices and 

how to achieve the proper design. 

But they run the gamut, so you might have a design to try to 

develop breakthrough new ideas that you had not thought of before. DARPA’s most recent $40,000 network design challenge really 

allowed us, with a very small amount of money, to think about how 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
21 

do these new emerging social networking technologies help to advance big challenges. And they had a simple one: Find 10 balloons 

that were floated all over the country that all in one morning 

would be up and then brought down by the evening. The entire 

land mass of the United States was in play, and through social networking, the winning team built an incentive system. Your point 

about financial incentives? They tiered the payment structure to 

get thousands of people to volunteer to look out and invite their 

friends and neighbors to say, ‘‘Hey, where are the balloons?’’ In 9 

hours, they found all 10 balloons across the entire land mass. 

Senator CARPER. Were they mostly found in Delaware, do you 

think? [Laughter.] 

Mr. CHOPRA. Actually, I got a map in my head, but I cannot 

think of where it was. 

Mr. FERRIERO. But guess where the team was from? 

Mr. CHOPRA. MIT. A lot of love. 

But I say that because there are prizes that spur new thinking, 

as was this prize. There were prizes that achieved outcomes goals 

where government investment may not be the right goal. So we 

want to help young people learn about healthier eating habits. It 

is one of the First Lady’s top priorities in her Let’s Move! campaign. We do not have a lot of government money. Whether we 

should or we should not—your point about row versus steer the 

boat is a great one. But we found $40,000 in modest prize money 

to spur all this creativity in the gaming community and the application development community, to take the nutritional information 

from the Department of Agriculture and find a way to help parents 

make better choices in food preparation for their kids and to educate kids on the food choices they have. 

There are communities popping up all over the country saying, 

‘‘Hey, we will sign up and help. We want to be a part of this.’’ For 

a very modest investment, you can spur a great deal of leverage 

in behavior. 

I think the point you are making is a good one. How do we get 

this right? The guidance memo that OMB issued acknowledged 

that certain Federal agencies have certain explicit authorities. The 

Department of Defense (DOD), the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, (NASA), and the Department of Energy (DOE) are 

explicitly authorized to run certain prize competitions. Others do 

not have some the same authorities, but have some other vehicles 

that might allow prize competitions. So we describe this marble 

cake framework for how one actually conducts prizes and competitions, and we are looking at ways to hopefully make that a little 

bit easier. And with your partnership and collaboration, Mr. Chairman, we would love to engage further. 

Senator CARPER. Great. Thanks. Mr. Kundra, the last word. 

Mr. KUNDRA. And I think when you think of prizes, they are not 

just limited to monetary prizes. So what we have seen is, for example, at OMB we launched the President’s Security and Freedom 

Ensured Act (SAVE) Award, which is essentially to find gamechanging ideas to help save money. And there was a woman at Veterans Affairs who came up with the idea of saying, well, why is it 

that every time we discharge a veteran from a hospital, we throw 

away the medicine that may be half empty, and recognizing that 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
22 

a lot of the talent and energies in the front lines, obviously, of the 

public sector and harnessing those ideas and baking them into how 

we run the government. 

Second is when we launched the IT Dashboard—and we still 

have issues, frankly, around data quality. But what is happening 

is we are getting the American people who are sending us e-mails 

or are coming in and saying, ‘‘Well, why is it that you are spending 

all this money on this particular project? Maybe there is a better 

way, a third way.’’ So, really, helping improve actually performance. 

And the third area I would say which is looking at how we fundamentally change the way we deliver services to the American 

people such as the application I was talking about, where someone 

could create an application using data from the Department of 

Transportation or, as Aneesh mentioned, car safety data or looking 

at data around consumer protection or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data around foods that may have been recalled. 

We are seeing people actually creating all these mobile applications that the government would have spent frankly years and millions of dollars building. And so we are finding mechanisms in 

terms of using challenges and prizes also to save taxpayer dollars 

as well as find innovative approaches and improve performance. 

Senator CARPER. All right. It has been a great panel and a tough 

act to follow, but we have some folks sitting behind you that are 

going to give it a shot. We very much appreciate your being here, 

preparing for this and responding to our questions. We will have 

some more questions that we will want to submit and ask you to 

respond to those as promptly as you can. 

Mr. CHOPRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Maybe at the end of the day we will not only 

provide better transparency but a lot better service for less money, 

and that is a pretty good goal for all of us. Thank you very much. 

Good to see you. 

I would ask the second panel to come to the desk at this time, 

if you would. 

Good afternoon. It is great to see you all. Thank you for joining 

us. There is Steve O’Keeffe going around here with crutches, and 

what is that device on your left foot there? What is that? I wore 

one of those a couple years ago when I broke my foot in a race. 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. I guess I can remove it soon. 

Senator CARPER. Eventually I got to stop wearing it. Hopefully 

you will, too. 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Thanks. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks for joining us. Coming off the disabled 

list (DL), as we like to say in baseball, off the disabled list. 

I am going to give a brief introduction to our witnesses and then 

ask each of you to proceed. 

Our first witness is Ellen Miller, co-founder and Executive Director of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization dedicated to the openness and transparency of government. 

Ms. Miller is also the founder of the Center for Responsive Politics 

and Public Campaign where she focused her attention on the influence that money has in politics. She was named one of the 15 people the next President should listen to—I do not think I made that 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
23 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Miller appears in the Appendix on page 72. 

list, but I am glad that you did—by Wired Magazine. It is quite an 

honor, and we thank you for joining us today. 

Our next witness is Rob Pinkerton, Director of Public Sector Solutions for Adobe Systems. Mr. Pinkerton has an extensive background in government and technology, serving in both the public 

and the private sector. Notably, he has been an emergency medical 

response technician in Virginia. Whereabouts? 

Mr. PINKERTON. Henrico County, Richmond. 

Senator CARPER. All right. A law clerk in the city of Baltimore 

and a legislative assistant in the U.S. Senate. Who did you work 

with? 

Mr. PINKERTON. Strom Thurmond. 

Senator CARPER. Strom Thurmond. Well, we thank you for your 

service and thank you for his, too. 

Our next witness is Steve O’Keeffe, founder of MeriTalk, and I 

am told that MeriTalk is an online community of technology experts that focus on leveraging technology to improve the way that 

agencies operate. I understand that you have tasked this community of experts to grade the Administration leading up to our hearing and that you will report back the results today. We thank you 

for your help. 

Our last witness also has had some experience before our Subcommittee. Mr. Blanton is the Director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University. Mr. Blanton has been a 

leading national advocate in reforming the way that agencies classify and protect information. I understand that you have conducted 

over more than 40,000 Freedom of Information Act requests. That 

is a lot. Mr. Blanton, we thank you and all of our other panelists 

for being here. 

I am going to recognize Ellen Miller to begin her opening statement. Just try to keep your remarks within 5 minutes. If you get 

too far beyond that, I will have to reel you in. But we are glad you 

are here. We look forward to your testimony. Everything that is in 

your printed testimony will be made a part of the record, and feel 

free to summarize as you see fit. Ms. Miller, thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF ELLEN MILLER,1 CO-FOUNDER AND 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION 

Ms. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the invitation to be with you today. 

On a personal note, I want to just mention that 30 years ago I 

was a staffer to this Committee, so I have a particular affection for 

the Committee for which you do your fine work. 

Senator CARPER. No kidding. Didn’t they have child labor laws 

then? [Laughter.] 

Ms. MILLER. They did. The Chairman was Senator Ribicoff at the 

time, and Ranking was Senator Percy. So it was some time ago. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Ms. MILLER. I am delighted to be here. 

My name is Ellen Miller, and I am the co-founder and Executive 

Director of the Sunlight Foundation. Sunlight is a 4-year-old nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to using the power of the Internet to 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
24 

1The hearing was adjourned before these three witnesses made their statements. The prepared statements for Mr. Pinkerton, Mr. O’Keeffe, and Mr. Blanton appear in the Appendix on 

pages 75, 79, and 85, respectively. 

catalyze greater government accessibility and openness and transparency. We take our inspiration from Justice Brandeis’ famous 

adage, ‘‘Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.’’ We are 

committed to improving access to government information by—— 

Senator CARPER. Ms. Miller. 

Ms. MILLER. Yes? 

Senator CARPER. Please forgive me for interrupting. I have just 

been advised by my staff that on the floor of the Senate there has 

been a move to stop all the proceedings and hearings that are going 

on in the Senate, and we are compelled to stop at this point in 

time. I regret it, but there are rules here that unless there is a 

unanimous consent to proceed for a hearing—as you may recall, in 

the Senate we can only go for so long, and then we have to stop 

our hearings. And the whistle has blown, unfortunately, and we 

and all the other committees and subcommittees that are holding 

hearings have to now at this time cease. I feel very badly about 

that. It is not my doing. But we are not going to ask you to stay 

around, but I am going to ask you at some point that it is convenient for you and for us, we are going to ask you to come back and 

have an opportunity to hear from each of you. 

So with that having been said, maybe after the start of recess, 

we will be able to hold these hearings in a way that we would like 

to. But I am going to have to adjourn at this point in time. 

Again, my apologies, Ms. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Pinkerton, 

thank you, Mr. O’Keeffe and Mr. Blanton.1

Mr. BLANTON. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. I have had a chance to look through your testimonies. You have a lot to offer, and we want to be able to have 

not just those of us who have read your testimony benefit from it 

but a lot of people who have not. 

So that having been said, again, our thanks to you and I apologize to you for any inconvenience that this may have caused for 

you, and I look forward to seeing you again soon. Thank you very 

much. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(25) 

REMOVING THE SHROUD OF SECRECY: 

MAKING GOVERNMENT MORE TRANSPARENT 

AND ACCOUNTABLE—PART II 

TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2010 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT,

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES,

AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Good afternoon. This is a little bit like church. 

In church, you have the pews up front and the pews in back. The 

pews up front are always empty, and if our witnesses will turn 

around, you will see what I mean. The folks are sitting in the back 

pews there. Some of them look kind of young. I do not know where 

you ladies and gentlemen are from. Where are you all from? Well, 

this is like ‘‘American Pie.’’ This is good. [Laughter.] 

We are glad you are here. 

To our witnesses, this group has your back. 

Mr. BLANTON. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Our Subcommittee will come to order, and our 

thanks to our guests and our witnesses for being here today. For 

the next hour or so, we are going to discuss ways that President 

Obama and his team of Open Government experts can reshape 

both old and inefficient bureaucratic agencies into lean, not so 

mean, citizen-focused machines. And we had hoped to hear from 

our panel of witnesses today a couple of weeks ago, but there were 

larger issues at play, and unfortunately we had to take a rain 

check. As I recall, we had to basically stop our hearing. There is 

a procedure, a process in the Senate that at the beginning of the 

legislative day, the Majority Leader or his or her deputy will ask 

unanimous consent for the committees to meet beyond a 2-hour 

limit, and if we do not get that unanimous consent, we cannot 

meet. And the unanimous consent was sought, was refused, somebody objected from the other side, and as a result, we had to close 

down all of our committee hearings throughout the Senate abruptVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:37 Dec 01, 2010 Jkt 056893 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\56893.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT

ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
26 

ly. And we apologize again for the disruption. We are just glad that 

our witnesses were willing to come back, and nobody objected today 

so we can all be here. 

But before our hearing ended last month, we were able to hear 

from one panel, and that was from the administration’s top officials 

who are leading the Open Government Initiative. I applauded them 

then and I will do so again today. The Administration released 

guidance to reduce wasteful agency spending to make senior leaders more accountable and to improve, we hope, the lives of everyday Americans. 

It should not be a talking point anymore that agencies should be 

as transparent and accountable as possible, and change needs to 

start at the top. When I was the age of these old people sitting— 

actually, these young people sitting out in the audience, to say to 

somebody that they were transparent was not a compliment, and 

it is interesting today that we want our agencies, we want those 

that are serving us, we want our legislative process, we want our 

leaders to be transparent in what they are trying to do. So what 

was not a compliment a few years ago is today. We are very much 

attempting to be transparent. 

Now that we have an opportunity to hear from our panel of outside experts, I hope to finish the discussion we started a couple of 

weeks ago and learn in what areas the Administration is doing 

well, what areas may need some more attention, and more importantly, how making agencies more open and transparent will make 

the lives of 300 million Americans a little bit better. 

Just to recap why this hearing is important, every year agencies 

spend nearly $1 trillion—think about that, $1 trillion—on contracts, grants, and loans. Yet it seems like every week or so we receive another report from outside watchdogs—actually, they are 

kind of like inside watchdogs, but the Government Accountability 

Office, which is a Federal agency, or from an agency’s Inspector 

General outlining significant wasteful and inefficient spending. You 

expect some of that with an operation as big as the Federal Government, but there is plenty of waste that still goes around, and 

the folks at GAO and the Inspector Generals help us to identify 

that. But at a time when a lot of Americans are trying to keep from 

losing their jobs or avoid foreclosure on their homes, we in the Federal Government, need to lead by example and not by exception. 

I like to tell my staff, if it is not perfect, make it better, and try 

to focus on doing everything well. I believe that phrase can be applied here. There is more that both the Administration and the 

Congress can do to make sure that we are spending Americans’ 

hard-earned tax dollars wisely, and we need to work together to get 

it done. The American people demand it. 

In closing, I just want to add that as we discuss all of the new 

and exciting initiatives that the Administration has under way or 

plans on undertaking in the near future, we ought to keep our eye 

on the ball. Our job does not just end at making information freely 

available, but in making sure that information can be effectively 

used to improve services to every American, to reduce wasteful 

spending, and to enforce accountability. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
27 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Wonderlich appears in the Appendix on page 89. 

Again, our thanks to our witnesses of this panel, one of whom 

showed up wounded—he is coming off the DL, the Disabled List— 

to be here with us today, and we are grateful for that. 

My statement says I will now recognize Senator McCain for his 

opening statement, but he has not joined us yet, and he may during the time that you all are here, and I hope so. And if he can, 

we will recognize him when he arrives. 

Again, thank you. Your entire statements will be made a part of 

the record, and I will just ask maybe, Mr. Wonderlich. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN WONDERLICH,1 POLICY DIRECTOR, 

SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION 

Mr. WONDERLICH. Chairman Carper, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. As you said, my name is John 

Wonderlich, and I am the Policy Director for the Sunlight Foundation. The Sunlight Foundation is a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated 

to using the power of the Internet to catalyze greater government 

openness and transparency. We take our inspiration from Justice 

Brandeis’ famous adage, ‘‘Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.’’ 

We are committed to improving access to government information by making as much of it as possible available online. Indeed, 

we believe it is important to redefine ‘‘public,’’ as in the phrase 

‘‘public information,’’ as meaning online. We focus on creating databases and new tools and Websites to enable citizens to get the information they need to be informed participants in our democracy. 

We believe that transparency and openness are essential foundations for public trust and that without the former, the latter cannot 

survive. 

The Internet is making increased transparency cheaper, more effective, and in higher demand every day as Americans come to expect instantaneous and constant access to all kinds of information. 

Given the rapid technological advances in how information can be 

captured, stored, analyzed, and shared, this is the time for government to rethink how it makes information available. 

There are three core principles for establishing an open and 

transparent government: 

First, transparency is government’s responsibility. Transparency 

must, first and foremost, be understood as the responsibility of our 

government since private and nonprofit responses can only reach so 

far. 

Second, public means online, so whenever the government has 

committed to making information public, the standard for public 

should include freely accessible online. Information cannot be described as truly public if it is available only inside a government 

building, during limited hours, or for a fee. 

Third, data quality and presentation matter. The Internet has redefined effective communications and publishing, and it is now an 

around-the-clock open medium in which now standard practices include continuous dissemination, permanent searchability and 

reusability, and other key features. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
28 

So why are these improvements in government transparency so 

important? First, transparency is the basis for informed participation in self-government. The public has rising expectations of greatly expanded access to government information so that they can 

play a fuller role in understanding, evaluating, and participating in 

the workings of their government. Our role as citizens is only as 

strong as our government is open. This idea is not an abstract, distant kind of public good. The actions that make up our civic lives— 

informed voting, active participation or analysis—these all depend 

on access to public information. Without that connection, citizens 

are left disconnected and dispirited, and substance and dialogue 

are replaced by apathy and divisiveness. 

Second, online transparency can create accountable and efficient 

spending, something that governmental bodies and cities and 

States and here in Washington are just now starting to discover. 

Third, when government makes data public, it can foster whole 

new businesses or industries. President Obama’s Open Government 

Directive recognizes this potential, noting that information that 

make ‘‘create economic opportunity’’ should be given special priority. 

And, fourth, and perhaps most importantly, open and transparent government is accountable government. Open information 

allows us to check what government is doing with our tax dollars 

and for whom. 

Sunlight’s vision is one of a rich, vital public sphere where politics is driven by dialogue and fact and merit drives decisionmaking 

in government. In that spirit, we are pleased to help shape the new 

policies and technology that will allow us all to benefit from a 

stronger democracy, creating new platforms and databases to inform and engage citizens, empowering journalists, lawmakers, and 

public officials, investing in our social infrastructure to demand 

and make better use of government information, and advancing the 

bold and responsible policies that will ultimately open our government. 

Thank you very much, and I am happy to answer any questions. 

Senator CARPER. That is your story and you are going to stick 

to it? 

[Nodding affirmatively.] 

Senator CARPER. Good enough. 

I failed to introduce Mr. Wonderlich before he began speaking, 

and I will just say just a couple things. 

Is it true that you are the Policy Director at the Sunlight Foundation? 

Mr. WONDERLICH. Correct. 

Senator CARPER. And is it true that the Sunlight Foundation is 

a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to openness and 

transparency in government? 

Mr. WONDERLICH. Sounds right. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Is it true that in this capacity you 

work with the Congress, you work with agencies, and the public 

sector to develop smarter policies that help reform bad government 

practices? 

Mr. WONDERLICH. Indeed, yes. 

Senator CARPER. And that is why we asked you to be here today. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
29 

1The prepared statements of Mr. O’Keeffe appears in the Appendix on pages 79 and 93 respectively. 

Mr. WONDERLICH. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Steve O’Keeffe, founder of—do you call it 

MeriTalk? You founded it, didn’t you? 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. I did. 

Senator CARPER. How long ago? 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Two years ago. 

Senator CARPER. Two years ago. And before that? 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. I had been working in the public-private domain 

for about 20 years. 

Senator CARPER. Where did you learn to speak English? 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. That was in London. 

Senator CARPER. OK. You speak it better than the rest of us, I 

think. 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Well, differently, maybe. 

Senator CARPER. I did an interview this morning on Fox Business Network, and the guy who was interviewing me was British. 

He kept asking me, ‘‘What are you saying?’’ [Laughter.] 

He was wondering what I was saying. No, we actually had a 

Kumbaya moment. We actually agreed on some things. It was pretty amazing for both of us. 

I am told that MeriTalk is an online community of technology experts that focus on leveraging technology to improve the way that 

agencies operate. I understand that you tasked this community of 

experts to grade the Administration, give them a grade leading up 

to our hearing, and that you will report back the results today. And 

I just have one question before you start: Do you grade on a curve? 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. No, it is not graded on a curve. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Fair enough. All right. Well, good. You are 

recognized. Please proceed. Thanks again for being here. 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN W.T. O’KEEFFE,1 FOUNDER, 

MERITALK 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Chairman Carper and Subcommittee Members, 

thank you for the opportunity to speak to you here today. My name 

is Steve O’Keeffe, and as you mentioned, I am the founder of 

MeriTalk, the government IT network. MeriTalk is an online community that fosters public-private collaboration and dialogue in the 

government IT community. 

First, I would like to congratulate you on the innovative format 

for this hearing, breaking it into two parts. Seriously, while the 

separation between government and industry panels was unorthodox—— 

Senator CARPER. I just want you to know, Mr. O’Keeffe—forgive 

me for interrupting, but I just wanted you to know the room is just 

emptying out. [Laughter.] 

Moments after you started to speak, everybody got up and began 

to leave. But we have a new group from Delaware that are here 

to bolster you and they are here to cheer. So go right ahead. 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. It is probably because they cannot understand 

me. [Laughter.] 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
30 

1The slides presented by Mr. O’Keeffe appears in the Appendix on page 82. 

So just to say, apart from everybody leaving, I wanted to congratulate you on the unorthodox format for this hearing, breaking 

in into two parts. Here we are in the reloaded session. While it was 

unorthodox, it did provide us the opportunity, candidly, to connect 

with some of the people who spoke in the first panel, the government experts, and engaged in some very meaningful dialogue. Just 

last week, I met with Vivek Kundra at OMB and with Mike Wood 

at the Recovery Board. We reviewed the results of the MeriTalk 

Ogov Study, which I am going to present in a minute or two here, 

and exchanged perspectives that will help shape the path forward 

on both sides of the equation, both government and industry, real, 

meaningful public-private dialogue. Perhaps this should be the format going forward. We should stop every hearing halfway and reload it. 

Senator CARPER. Did you happen to engage them once the hearing had to stop? Is that when you all had a chance to talk? 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. How fortunate. That is great. We may want to 

do that more often. 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. I think it could be the new thing. 

Senator CARPER. It could be. 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. So I would like to begin by noting that President 

Obama’s Open Government Directive is not a stroke-of-a-pen initiative. If you will pardon the hyperbole, it is analogous to President 

Kennedy’s challenge to go to the Moon in 1961. Nobody expected 

to see a spaceship take off one year after the announcement, and 

if they did, I would put it that few people would have jumped on 

board to ride that spaceship just one year after the announcement. 

Many of us have had the opportunity to ride on the Open Government Apollo 1, and I think we have had some mixed experiences, 

candidly. 

Just over a year ago, after the signing of the Open Government 

Directive, Open Government is getting mixed reviews. In my written testimony, I talk about some of our firsthand experience trying 

to build applications on top of the first version of the IT Dashboard 

from OMB as well as for searching for content on Recovery.gov. I 

guess the net of our experience was that it was pretty frustrating. 

If I might, the juice just really was not worth the squeeze once we 

had gone through the process. 

That said, seeing as this is an Open Government hearing, we 

thought it would be appropriate to bring the community’s voice into 

this hearing, so that is why we hosted the Ogov Survey on 

MeriTalk prior to the initial hearing to get the community’s read 

on how we are doing in Open Government. And with that, let me 

present a couple of slides here.1

The first is we asked, Do you think the government is more open 

today than it was when President Obama took office? And while 53 

percent say yes, there is a surprising number of people that think 

that, no, the government is not more open, and also a significant 

number that think that they are not sure whether it is more open 

or not. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
31 

Senator CARPER. Interestingly enough, I saw some polling data 

today at a luncheon presentation, and the President’s favorables 

and unfavorables or uncertains kind of reflect those numbers right 

there. Isn’t that interesting? 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Yes, it is. Well, hopefully we can get the Open 

Government—send them an op and hopefully get the President’s 

approvals up. That would be great. 

Do you feel that Open Government is providing—— 

Senator CARPER. I am glad you got that in before Senator 

McCain joined us. [Laughter.] 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. There will be more people leaving the room. 

We asked: Do you feel that Open Government is providing you 

with a voice in how government works? And you will see that 58 

percent of the sample say no, which is interesting. So when we look 

at this notion of Open Government as a way for citizens to have 

a say in how their government operates between elections, we are 

not really meeting that requirement right now. I think that is an 

important point. 

These are just a few of the questions that we put. We asked: 

How would you grade OMB’s IT Dashboard? And what we see is 

only 4 percent give that Dashboard an A grade. When I sat down 

with Vivek Kundra, he was keenly interested in this feedback. You 

will see that 37 percent give it a C grade and 21 percent give it 

a D grade. So there is a lot of room for improvement. 

One of the things that I think was very encouraging is a very 

open path in terms of discussion about what the feedback is. There 

is no denial from the executives. 

We asked: What was the biggest challenge to Open Government? 

And the No. 1 point here was management resistance to transparency—hardly a huge shock. Obviously, we are trying to introduce new ideas, and so I think we need a lot of evangelism inside 

the government and talking about the requirement to civil servants 

about the requirement to do this because this is a new way of looking at things. 

Another point here, 16 percent said the absence of a proven 

model and infrastructure for real citizen engagement, so looking at 

all this Web 2.0 stuff where we are looking at how to put that together as it evolves provides something that is really valuable. 

And then we asked: Should the government execute research to 

identify what citizens like and dislike, what they want and need 

from Open Government? So if the government is building a product, which is a new role for the government, it will be a great idea 

first to have some understanding of what citizens are looking for 

in Open Government rather than just building what we think, if 

that makes sense. 

So as I mentioned in my opening comments, I had the opportunity to sit down with Vivek Kundra at OMB and with Mike Wood 

at the Recovery Board since our first hearing. Both of these executives were keenly interested in the results of the MeriTalk Open 

Government Study and, importantly, open a dialogue about how to 

improve the state of Open Government. 

Vivek Kundra advised that OMB has made significant upgrades 

to its IT Dashboard since we looked at it last year. We talked about 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
32 

1The slide referenced by Mr. O’Keeffe appears in the Appendix on page 83. 

2The slide referenced by Mr. O’Keeffe appears in the Appendix on page 84. 

the opportunity for better communication with the community on 

the site’s functionality as very important. 

That said, we took a look back out on the site, and we did find 

that the platform has much improved. I would like to present just 

a couple of slides from that to show the kind of data that is available today on the site. The data is there, the analysis we provided, 

and there is significant opportunity for public-private partnership 

going forward in this area. So a couple of quick slides. 

This is the first slide looks at what the government’s information 

technology and management spend.1 This is $40.2 billion with a ‘‘b’’ 

each year. And so what we see here is that 64 percent of that 

spend is going on maintaining legacy systems. So keeping up expensive legacy systems, and in many circumstances we might perhaps be better off looking at modernizing rather than trying to put 

Band-Aids on the existing systems. And this speaks to cloud and 

many other initiatives looking at modernizing government’s IT infrastructure. 

We break out here by DOD and civilian, and what you see on the 

first chart there on the left-hand side is that DOD spends significantly less on maintaining the old than the civilian agencies, so 

maybe there is a way to look at accelerating that modernization 

and taking a leaf out of the DOD’s book. 

The next and final slide that I will show you is a further breakdown of that data, and what this shows is information infrastructure maintenance, information management, information security 

spending.2 The red is information security spending, and you will 

see that far and away the lion’s share of information security 

spending is happening in the Department of Defense. There are red 

portions on each of these civilian government’s charts, but it is so 

marginal that you really cannot even see it. So sometimes graphing 

data provides new insight, and our intent is to look at taking data 

that is being published by the government and repackaging it in 

fashions that will provide applications and value for the American 

public. 

Mr. Wonderlich talked a little bit about this notion of the private 

sector providing additional value-added, and we very much support 

that notion. 

We are currently in dialogue with a series of Federal agencies to 

ground source some of the numbers that we pulled from the Dashboard to find out whether they are indeed accurate, and so we look 

forward to continuing that dialogue and proving that out. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I await your 

questions. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. I thought your colleague who helped 

with the presentation on the charts just did an exceptional job. 

[Laughter.] 

Do you want to introduce her? 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Yes, this is Lauren Walker. She is really the 

brains of the outfit and helps out in all circumstances. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
33 

1The prepared statements of Mr. Blanton appear in the Appendix on pages 85 and 97 respectively. 

Senator CARPER. I was watching her from time to time during 

your presentation. I could just barely see her lips move when you 

spoke. [Laughter.] 

You guys are pretty good at that. Thank you. 

Our last witness is actually somebody we have seen around here 

before and we welcome him back: Thomas Blanton is the Director 

of the National Security Archive at George Washington University. 

Mr. Blanton has been a leading national advocate in reforming the 

way that agencies classify and protect information. We are pretty 

good at overclassifying, as I recall. 

Mr. BLANTON. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. And as I stated during last month’s hearing, I 

understand that you have conducted more than—is it 40 Freedom 

of Information requests? Is it 400? 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS BLANTON,1 DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

SECURITY ARCHIVE 

Mr. BLANTON. Forty thousand. 

Senator CARPER. It is 40,000. That is probably more than anybody around—well, maybe not, but that is a lot of 40,000 Freedom 

of Information requests. I can hear them say, ‘‘It is him again. It 

is Blanton again with another FOIA request.’’ That is a lot. I do 

not know if you get paid by the FOIA request, but if you did, you 

would be well off. 

Mr. BLANTON. The pharmaceutical industry does about 10 times 

as many. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. BLANTON. We are just a small nonprofit media outfit trying 

to keep the government open. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Well, we are glad you are here, and thanks 

for joining our panel again today. I want to apologize for your having to come back, but we are glad that you are willing to. And as 

Mr. O’Keeffe suggested, maybe some real good has come out of the 

fact that we were disrupted last time and had a chance to have a 

dialogue that otherwise would not have occurred. 

Mr. BLANTON. I would echo that, Mr. Chairman. 

Last time I actually got to personally congratulate Vivek Kundra 

on the CIO Council winning the Rosemary Award, named after 

Rosemary Woods for her infamous 181⁄2-minute gap in the Watergate tapes. And we gave it to them this year, to the Chief Information Officer Council, because although they have been in charge of 

best practices for government’s IT, all that spending that Mr. 

O’Keeffe is talking about, since 1996 they have never addressed the 

crisis in electronic records and e-mail preservation. And if they cannot on the front end of those billions and billions put in the preservation and access piece, then none of us are going to have any documents to FOIA request for down the road, and we will not know 

what our own government has done. 

So your hearing last time gave me the opportunity to give him 

my own personal congratulations, but that is the least of it. I just 

want to make three points today, Mr. Chairman. One of them is 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
34 

just the importance of this process and this hearing and this followup, because by calling Vivek Kundra, Aneesh Chopra, and David 

Ferriero last time, you actually forced some decisions on them. 

They had to face up and push the agencies to come up with tangible deliverables and to be able to come here and tell you we are 

doing something really positive here. You have the bully pulpit, 

and your role, I think, is truly essential to the progress that we are 

already seeing. 

I think that is my second point. I am more optimistic today than 

I would have been on March 23 if you had me on the panel right 

after them. And the reason why is between March 23 and today, 

those agencies have all deposited their Open Government plans on 

the public. And it is a fascinating process to see the bureaucracy 

itself churning. They have been ordered to do so by the President, 

by the Office of Management and Budget, and they have actually 

created interagency processes where some of their best and brightest are trying to come up with ways to make their process more 

open to the public. They have systems that are trying to identify 

those high-value data sets they can put out there. You see this bureaucratic motion happening, and change will come of that. 

But that is really the third point, which is we are not there yet. 

It has not changed. Maybe the wheels over at the White House— 

this is Norm Eisen . He likes this metaphor. He says, ‘‘We have 

turned the wheel all the way over with our directives and our orders and our guidance and the memos and Day 1 pronouncements 

by President Obama. But it is a super tanker, and so the ship is 

just barely moving like this.’’ 

Well, I am here to tell you today is not a super tanker. It is actually a fleet. And there are aircraft carriers and there are dinghies, 

and we have actually found a couple of rowboats, too. And let me 

tell you, they have no radio equipment to be in touch with the 

White House, and they do not know what is going on, and they 

have not received the word yet. 

What we released last month was our eighth audit governmentwide of how Federal agencies are responding to Freedom of Information requests, and we did a real simple thing. The President had 

put out a directive on his Day 1 in office for agencies to get more 

responsive, change your Freedom of Information practice. The Attorney General then in March for Sunshine Week last year put out 

specific guidance to all the agencies saying: Change your FOIA 

practice, your regulations, and your training materials. 

So we did a simple thing. We filed Freedom of Information requests with all 90 major Federal agencies, said: Show us. What did 

you change? Give us a copy of your regs before and after. Give us 

a copy of your training materials. Give us a copy of your guidance. 

Give us a copy of anything that you changed in response to the 

President and the Attorney General. And I can tell you today 13 

out of 90—only 13 out of 90—Federal agencies made any concrete 

change to their actual FOIA practice in that first year. 

Now, why I am more optimistic. That made headlines across the 

country on March 15, and the headlines were, ‘‘Report faults 

Obama’s efforts at transparency,’’ or ‘‘Agencies lag Obama message.’’ That was Monday morning. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
35 

Tuesday morning, the White House Chief of Staff and the White 

House Counsel sent a memo to all 90 agency heads saying: Remember us? Change your Freedom of Information guidance, practice, 

regs, and show it to us. 

Twenty-four hour responsiveness, and that is, I think, Mr. 

O’Keeffe’s experience talking to Mr. Kundra and others in this. 

They are not defensive about it. They want to change it. They need 

us pushing to change it. They need you holding oversight hearings 

to change it. They need agencies to get why it is in their interest 

and the taxpayer’s interest to be more open. And that combination 

of pressure can actually make the change. But diversity of agency 

response is the great challenge. 

We are right in the middle today, with Openthegovernment.org, 

Mr. Wonderlich’s great outfit as well, where we are looking at all 

those Open Government plans and saying what is real, what is 

Memorex, what is really going to be a change, and what is just 

promises for the future. And it is a fascinating diversity because 

some of them are really impressive. 

In my written statement, I describe my colleague Gary Bass has 

highlighted the Department of Health and Human Services and 

saying this is a really impressive Open Government plan. They 

have tangible high-value data sets they are going to have out by 

the end of the year. They have done this on their flagship initiatives. This is great. 

Others of those plans just say: Well, something? We are going to 

keep planning to write this plan. We will plan on planning, and we 

will plan some more, and then maybe we will plan again and we 

will give you the plan. And that is great, but it is not openness. 

You can see how frustrating it must be if you are sitting at the 

White House and you are trying to turn the ship or change agency 

practice. Our first governmentwide audit was whether Attorney 

General John Ashcroft back in 2002 had changed the way Freedom 

of Information requests were responded to. And, again, he sent out 

this memo saying, we at the Justice Department will defend you 

if you can find any reason to withhold information from the public, 

we will defend you. 

So we asked the agencies: What did you change? Fascinating. 

Four or five agencies actually had written memos from their counsel’s office to their program people saying this is the end of the 

Freedom of Information Act, you do not have to respond to anymore requests. The vast majority of agencies, 30 or 40 of them, just 

sent a copy of the memo out to their field offices, but did not actually change their own regs or practice. And then there were four 

agencies that wrote us back, and they said: Excuse me. What 

Ashcroft memo was that? Could you send us a copy? We never got 

that one. 

I can tell you, every agency has gotten the Obama memo and the 

Holder memo, and you can see it in just the responsive process on 

the FOIA requests, and you can see it in the responsive process to 

the White House. But change, it is still in the future. 

So let me just end with a suggestion. We are in the middle right 

now of this evaluation of agency Open Government plans, which is 

sort of where the rubber meets the road. My bet is by the end of 

this month or certainly by the first or second week of May, 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
36 

Openthegovernment.org is going to publish our rankings, ratings, 

and evaluations. We are all volunteering. We have a whole network 

of people all pitching in, taking this or that agency, looking at it 

against a set of criteria. ProPublica just won the Pulitzer Prize yesterday. They are pitching in on this, too. A lot of us are doing it. 

I have a recommendation for a hearing that when those ratings 

are done, you not just invite Openthegoverment.org to present the 

evaluations, but you pick the two best agencies and the two worst 

agencies and have their chief information officer come in, their 

chief Freedom of Information officer, maybe their deputy head of 

the department, maybe even the Cabinet Secretary, and tell you 

why are you so good, what is your lesson, what is your best practice, and why are you so bad. And I tell you, I think you will see 

direct change coming out of that subcommittee hearing. 

I really appreciate your attention to these matters. It matters so 

much, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Thank 

you, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. Thanks very much for your comments 

and your counsel, and thanks for your advice on—— 

Mr. BLANTON. For what it is worth. 

Senator CARPER. It is going to be a pretty interesting hearing. I 

have a couple questions for individuals, but I have a question or 

two for the full panel. The first question I am going to ask is for 

the entire panel, and I do not care in what order you respond, but 

I would like for everybody to share at least one thought on it. 

One of the reasons we ask two panels to testify is to, first of all, 

provide Administration witnesses with an opportunity to really set 

the stage or attempt to set the stage about what we are actually 

working on; and then we invite a second panel of outside experts— 

that would be you—to provide us some food for thought, to provide 

just outside-the-box ideas and observations. In essence, your job is 

to let us know what the Administration ought to be thinking about 

going forward or perhaps what they could be doing better. And you 

have mentioned a number of those already here today. 

Can each of you tell me two or maybe three areas where my staff 

or I ought to focus on to help the Administration reduce wasteful 

spending and to improve services to the people we work for? Maybe 

two, maybe three ideas for our staff. What can we do to help make 

sure that the Administration reduces wasteful spending and improves services to our citizens? 

Mr. BLANTON. All right. You started right in this direction at the 

last hearing, and I was really impressed that both you and Senator 

Coburn pressed Vivek Kundra on, OK, when is the subcontracting 

information going to be up there, and that is a great step forward 

because that is where the competitors are going to be able to see 

what the other folks are up to. That is where you are going to level 

the playing field some on both the procurement side but also on the 

effectiveness side, which is what your questioning goes to. 

It is interesting to me—and I still remember the Obama-Coburn 

bill, or was it Coburn-Obama bill? And it seemed like—— 

Senator CARPER. Or in Delaware it was the Carper-ObamaCoburn bill. 

Mr. BLANTON. I stand corrected, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. No. Senator Coburn was the lead. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
37 

Mr. BLANTON. It seemed to me that there was a meeting of—— 

Senator CARPER. Barack Obama was just a mere mortal. 

Mr. BLANTON. Just a junior Senator then. 

Senator CARPER. He was a new guy. 

Mr. BLANTON. It seemed to me there were two theories of governance that came together in that bill, and one theory from Senator 

Coburn is that the more people see of what the government spends, 

the more they will see the waste, the fraud, and the abuse, and 

they will demand that it stop. And there was another theory of that 

government spending which is that if people can actually see—it is 

that old notion of when people only vote for bond issues for a school 

when you can see what the money goes to. If you see what it goes 

to and you have got some built-in accountability so that there is 

counterpressure against waste, people might actually support it. 

They might actually want it. And it seems to me that argument is 

a perpetual argument in the American system. I still remember— 

I think Bill Moyers said the American eagle has two wings, a right 

wing and a left wing. It is a permanent argument, right? And that 

is great because that is a dynamic tension. But the commonality 

is that transparency is the key that will lead to those greater services. You can get to that subcontract data. I know it is required by 

law. I think it is supposed to be all up by October. Is that correct? 

Senator CARPER. I think so. 

Mr. BLANTON. Yes. Then I think we are a big step along the way. 

I think if you can also reinforce this whole Open Government process, because I really do see a level of new energy in the bureaucracy, now that they have deadlines that are set, now that they 

have been tasked by the President and by the budget folks, they 

are producing some ideas. Some of the ideas are terrible. Some 

ideas do not go anywhere. Some of them could really be best practices that will directly, I think, address what you are trying to 

achieve. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. WONDERLICH. So when the Open Government plans were released on the January 7, 2009, my organization looked specifically 

at the component of each agency’s Open Government plan and how 

well they fulfilled the requirement to inventory existing data, highvalue data, and identify future data to be available for download. 

And what we found was, I think, what we expected, and that is, 

very mixed results. Just as Mr. Blanton was describing, President 

Obama’s clear political will to open up the Executive Branch translates into mixed results when you look at real change within the 

agencies. So through the lens of did agencies identify high-value 

data, the results are clearly mixed, and I think we can see some 

of the limitations of a concrete requirement like Mr. Blanton was 

describing. 

So the first point I would make is to look into the idea of data 

inventories. On top of the current Open Government Directive, 

there are existing statutory requirements for agencies to list all the 

information that they have that has been largely ignored for a decade or more. So I think the idea of telling the public what is 

knowable about an agency is a very powerful one, and that is why 

my organization is focused on it. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
38 

Now, beyond the idea of the concrete requirement, I think one of 

the untold stories of the Open Government Directive is this idea of 

encouragement and brainstorming and collaboration. So in the last 

few days, the White House released this stretch criteria document 

which is bonus criteria or things that the agencies should do to 

move beyond what the directive requires, and I think that is a very 

unusual and laudable move for the White House to say: You know 

what? Our directive is not comprehensive and it does not go far 

enough. But that is not a failure. In fact, we are encouraging agencies to think about what should come next. And so I would encourage you and your staff to perhaps connect with the idea process 

that is happening across agencies and some of these working 

groups that are not just thinking about what the requirements are 

now but what they should become maybe in a 3-year time frame. 

I think there is a lot of really valuable work being done there. 

Then the third thing is I would encourage—and this is very 

much along the lines of what Senator Coburn was talking about at 

the first part of this hearing, that the problems that plague 

USAspending.gov and, by extension, the Recovery Website I think 

are much deeper and endemic issues than just building a Website, 

so questions of what kind of financial reporting systems have to be 

rebuilt from the ground up in order for the FFATA bill to actually 

come to fruition. I think that is a longer-term question that is 

going to take real effort to address and the one that we are looking 

into finding answers for. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thanks very much. Mr. O’Keeffe. 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. I will make a couple points. 

Senator CARPER. Do you agree with anything they have said? 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Not at all, no. 

Senator CARPER. OK. [Laughter.] 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Yes, of course. Got to keep us awake. But I think 

that the focus is very much on what data the government is publishing, and I think one of the things we have to look at is what 

data is America interested in consuming, and so I think more research on who is interested in this data and what kind of information we should be putting out is very important. 

I spent about a year or so working in the Department of Homeland Security in the National Cyber Security Division, and at DHS 

we launched a thing called the National Cyber Alert System, and 

it was a subscription-based service where you could log on to find 

out what problems were happening on the Internet and what might 

affect your computer. There were two different systems, two different levels. One of them was a technical level. That was for technical people. And then one was a regular level for regular people. 

And so what I would do is I would get these messages coming 

across my desk, and I would call my mother-in-law, and I would 

read them to her and find out whether she understood what I was 

saying. And if she did not understand what I was saying, then I 

would send them back to Carnegie Mellon. So after about 2 weeks, 

Carnegie Mellon got very frustrated with my mother-in-law. 

But what we have to do is understand what is the American public interested in. Who are the audiences for this Open Government 

content? Let us look at this hearing. Apart from a lot of the school 

group that left earlier, this is not a packed house, and so we need 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
39 

to work out what it is that people are looking for from Open Government and provide that content. 

The other thing I would say is that it is garbage in, garbage out, 

and so there is a lot of discussion, and Senator Coburn was quite 

forceful in terms of this subcontractor issue and reporting subcontractor performance and so on. And the net of it is if we do not 

have a better program management system and a more standardized program management system in government, then the data we 

get is going to be less than optimal, and the outputs that we can 

produce are going to be less than optimal. 

We need to do the same thing from a program management 

standpoint and also from a procurement standpoint. Wouldn’t it be 

great if we had better quality data coming out of the agencies, people coding the same information in the same fashion. So I would 

say, that, yes, we need to look at the information that is coming 

out of the agencies, but we have to take one step further back and 

look at how that information is being captured, how we are managing projects in government, how we are managing and recording 

the procurement process, and also on the other end who is interested in consuming this data and what are their opinions. What 

are the outcomes of these efforts, not just the behaviors, which I 

think are very important. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Well, thank you very much. I thank 

each of you for your thoughtful responses. 

Some of you have criticized the Open Government movement as 

focusing a little bit too much on inside baseball. Now that we are 

in baseball season, we will use that as an example. For example, 

the previous Administration typically focused their efforts on 

uploading outdated agency reports online that were many times 

difficult to find and oftentimes more difficult to understand. And 

although these reports were better than nothing, Americans want 

transparency in the day-to-day services that they depend on like 

Medicare, veterans’ benefits, tax work done by the IRS, or maybe 

getting small business loans. 

How will Open Government help them? And how do we make 

sure that we prioritize our efforts to help citizens? So a two-part 

question. 

Mr. BLANTON. The way we have looked at the Freedom of Information system is it is a kind of market signaling or should be a 

kind of market signaling to the government to help answer Mr. 

O’Keeffe’s question about what are the audiences, what do people 

care about, what do they want to get out of their government. And 

if you look at the largest user groups of Freedom of Information, 

according to agencies’ own reporting, it is veterans asking about 

their service records and their benefits; it is senior citizens asking 

about Medicare and Social Security and projecting their lifetime. 

And those are in the tens of millions, those information requests. 

And so the one problem is that many of those are personal or private. That is first-party information. They are asking for it about 

themselves or about their family. You do not put that on the Web, 

or you probably should not, not if it accompanies a Social Security 

record number, right? And yet there are probably ways—and this 

is what I think I am most optimistic about the Open Government 

plan focus on tools like dashboards that make the online experience 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
40 

so much easier to navigate so that you can then get to those individual—those pieces of information most directly relevant to your 

own needs, your own life. And if the Web can deliver what the 

promise is and that the dashboard kind of toolkit allows for, this 

single click, double click navigation right to the place, then the system can be far more responsive, but we have got to clean up the 

Freedom of Information nonresponsiveness of agencies, do exactly 

what Mr. Wonderlich and the Sunlight Foundation are trying to do, 

get more of the high-value data sets on the Web so people can go 

search for themselves, because I cannot predict what Mr. O’Keeffe’s 

mother-in-law is going to want to know from a given set of files, 

but it is our obligation—— 

Senator CARPER. But can Mr. O’Keeffe predict? 

Mr. BLANTON. Maybe he cannot even predict, exactly. 

Senator CARPER. OK, just checking. 

Mr. BLANTON. But if you set up the navigation tool so that his 

mother-in-law can go to the site herself and look around, make it 

as easy as doing an online search in any of the major search engines, then you are at a place where you are going to get the benefit of the wisdom of crowds. 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. It is a full-time job trying to predict what my wife 

wants to do, so I have not spent that much time pondering my 

mother-in-law’s requests. 

As far as this notion of how will Open Government help and how 

to prioritize, I would put it that research obviously is very important, understanding, what are the priority issues, but maybe that 

is not necessarily the role for government. Maybe the role for government is to clean up the data, to provide transparency and accountability in order to show the faith in our democracy, to improve 

the quality of our bureaucracy and the efficiency of our bureaucracy. 

But by publishing the data in a format which is machine readable and intelligible, as Mr. Wonderlich had mentioned, there is an 

opportunity to unleash the private sector to develop new applications which will deliver value in multiple veins. So we are looking 

at perhaps almost a cable television model of applications that 

could provide value for different segments of the community, and 

how we work out whether those are actually delivering value, well, 

they will either succeed or they will fail. And so if you look at 

things, for example, like health or veterans’ health, why shouldn’t 

pharmaceutical companies step in and underwrite applications that 

will be written on top of government data which would deliver 

value to the American public. 

So I think that the notion of the government developing this 

complete infrastructure, from source, from cradle to grave, if you 

will, in the Open Government model is not necessarily the way to 

go. I think what we have to look at is at what point is the data 

high quality to begin with? Is it served up in a fashion which is 

easily navigable? Is it delivering value inside the government? 

Looking at the priority areas but then potentially providing the opportunity for the private sector to step in and deliver value-add on 

top of that, and if they succeed or fail, that is going to be largely 

a product of whether they are delivering value or not. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
41 

Mr. Wonderlich, you get the last shot at this question. 

Mr. WONDERLICH. Thanks. So I think there is this existing—the 

way things work now, so much of our government’s data is collected for the benefit of maybe 10 government regulators. And for 

the life of me, I cannot figure out why that has been the case for 

so long. 

For example, the Department of Labor just released as one of 

their flagship initiatives a unified search for different accountability data, so certain OSHA violations and mine safety health 

data. And I think that is a great move, but it also leaves me wondering why that was never released before. So if that data is valuable to collect and should have a behavioral impact on the people 

that they regulate, then shouldn’t it have been released to the public in the first place? And I think the mind-set responsible for not 

releasing that is one that says we know how this data should be 

used best, and it is our job to fix the problem. And I think what 

is happening now is there are whole teams of developers, many of 

which are organizing through our Sunlight labs, who are chomping 

at the bit to create new businesses and new visualizations of how 

power and how our country works and how they can use government data to start to tell those stories and hold people accountable. 

So on the question of priorities, I agree we have to have priorities 

about what to open, but I think at the same time we should recognize that we do not have all the right answers, and we should unleash the private sector and the nonprofit sector to help to start to 

find those answers. 

Senator CARPER. I think that response gives us a pretty good 

segue to my next to the last question. Just based on what you have 

heard your colleagues at the panel saying here today, some of the 

discussion, some of the questions, some of the responses to those, 

is there anything else that you would like to either amend your 

original statements, opening statements, or maybe reinforce or underline, re-emphasize something that you had said in your opening 

statement? Just be thinking about that for us, if you will. 

I think there is a saying I like to remind my staff when we are 

considering what the role of government should be in America, and 

this is not original to me, but I like to say that the role of government is to steer the boat, not to row the boat. And people say, 

‘‘What do you mean by that?’’ And I use the analogy of health care 

delivery. In England, for the most part, the doctors and nurses and 

health care folks actually are government employees. In this country, that is not the case. We have doctors, nurses, and so forth in 

the Defense Department and the VA, but for the most part health 

care delivery is—it is either done through nonprofits or it is done 

through for-profit entities. But the role of the government, as I 

think, is to steer the boat, not row the boat. 

I also like to tell them that public policy should really try to leverage market forces. At least one of you referred to that here 

today. And we ought to really seek to incentivize people to do what 

is the right thing. 

In last month’s testimonies, Mr. Kundra and Mr. Chopra mentioned setting up prizes and awards for people to compete for if 

they developed a more effective way to use agency information, and 

that strikes me as an effective model, an interesting model but a 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
42 

potentially quite effective model that could lead to some interesting 

results. 

What type of results are we seeing so far? And is this something 

that Congress ought to think of expanding in the future? And, second, are there other ways we can incentivize agencies to do the 

right thing before it leads to a problem? 

Mr. WONDERLICH. On the question of prizes and awards, that is 

a topic that my organization has some experience with. 

So we ran something called the Apps for America contest, and it 

has happened twice, and right now we have a Design for America 

contest going on, and this is really an effort for us to say there is 

this powerful new force in the country which is that of the developer, whether working for a business or perhaps on their own, and 

trying to say what happens when you take those developers and set 

them free on Data.gov, what kind of useful things get created. So 

things like FlyOnTime.us, which is a Web page where you can see 

for any flight, how often is this delayed, if this is an important 

flight, should I aim for a different time. 

Senator CARPER. I wonder if we have those for trains. 

Mr. WONDERLICH. I do not know if that exists, but if we—— 

Senator CARPER. I will have to find out. I used to be on the Amtrak board, and I ride the train a lot. Amtrak used to have an ad 

campaign that went something like this: ‘‘Maybe your next flight 

should be on a train.’’ In Delaware we only have non-commercial 

airports. In Delaware, I like to say all of our next flights are on 

trains. 

I am sorry I interrupted you. Go ahead 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. I think they were going to go with maybe your 

next trip should be on a train. 

Senator CARPER. There you go. 

Mr. WONDERLICH. But from an investment standpoint, we had 

enormous success with spending something, along the lines of 

$30,000 in prize money and getting dozens and dozens of applications that you would pay far more than that to have developed, and 

almost everyone involved benefited from the notoriety of being involved and getting attention to what it is that they were able to 

create. So we have had some success with the prize model. I am 

not sure how broadly that could apply to solving some of government’s tougher problems, but I think that is an approach that the 

Obama Administration is committed to experimenting with and 

seeing how far we can take it. 

On a similar level, the phenomenon of the Dashboard, which I 

think we are seeing more and more of, there is the IT Dashboard. 

OIRA now has a Dashboard about pending regulations, and the Department of Justice just announced a new FOIA Dashboard. I think 

those are all very useful things to display what is knowable about 

a certain behavior. I think we can assume that will have a strong 

effect on behavior, and it will be interesting over the next couple 

of years to see what the limit is of how much behavior can be affected by displaying it. But I think that experiment is currently underway. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. So I think that the initiatives that are taking 

place are good, and we need to innovate in order to change to 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
43 

achieve different outcomes. At the same time, we need to realize 

that we are going to fail in some areas, and this is not something 

that the government is very comfortable with. And so one of the 

outcomes of innovation is failure in certain areas, so we need to develop walls around programs, try new approaches and recognize 

they may not succeed. And I know it sounds a little strange to say 

that government needs to embrace the idea of failing, but I do 

think that is important. In order to succeed, you have to try again. 

I think that this notion of prizes is a great idea, and I think 

wholeheartedly we support the innovation prizes that Mr. Kundra 

is working on and look forward to working with him on in that 

area. And at the same time, we need to look at both the stick and 

the carrot, so the prizes are a great idea. We also need to continue 

looking at reports that show how agencies are doing. And what I 

would recommend is that rather than just looking at measuring behaviors—and I think if you look at information security, FISMA is 

a perfect example of that where we measure whether or not you 

put in all this paperwork. We are not really measuring whether or 

not your agency is actually more secure. 

Senator CARPER. We do a similar thing in education. When we 

measure performance in a classroom by educators or in a school or 

in a school district, we measure a process. We do not measure outcomes. 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Right. 

Senator CARPER. Although speaking of leveraging resources and 

a race to the top, I am amazed at how effectively the Department 

of Education through Secretary Duncan has taken about $4 billion, 

which is, admittedly, a lot of money, but literally to leverage enormous changes in over 40 States in the way they deliver education. 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. No. I think that is right. One of my colleagues has 

a severely disabled child, and so his wife has to go into the schools 

with Jack in order to take these tests. And it is critical that the 

kids actually take the test in order to get through the process. Of 

course, the kids cannot take the test, so the mother has to put the 

hand on the button in order to make sure they check the box, in 

order to file the paperwork, in order to get the funding. And so 

really what we have to do is focus increasingly on what are the outcomes that we are looking for and try to measure outcomes rather 

than behaviors. 

Senator CARPER. Fred Voltaire is the guy I—— 

Mr. BLANTON. Oh, Mr. Voltaire. Right, your college roommate. 

I was in Bulgaria a few years ago, and they had developed prizes 

for the government ministries who were the best and the worst at 

answering public request information. And the best award was 

called the Golden Key Award, and it was this beautiful, huge skeleton key on a trophy pedestal. Beautiful. The minister showed up 

to accept it, very happy. The bad award was not—they did not have 

Rosemary Woods to call on, and so for them it was the Rusted Padlock Award, also on a pedestal. And let me tell you, no minister 

showed up to accept it, but that was what all the newspaper stories 

led with, was the Rusted Padlock. And I think that is part of the 

problem with the prize approach, which is the news is the negative, 

when actually our challenge is how do you accentuate the positive, 

right? 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
44 

And so that is why I would say, when you are looking at constructing hearings, have a couple that are subperformers, but get 

a couple of the best practices ones, because the best practices ones, 

the prize winners are the ones that prove that the old bureaucratic 

refrain is resources, we just do not have enough resources, is not 

correct. The real difference between the high performers and low 

performers is not resources. It is leadership and will and pressure. 

Senator CARPER. Well, we try to put a spotlight on both good behavior that we can to incentivize more of and that which is not so 

good. 

The last question was just to say after looking at what each of 

you have been saying in response—just in your opening statements 

but also in response to questions and listening to the responses of 

others to the questions that have been raised, is there anything 

that you want to say or add in closing? It can be something new, 

maybe a new thought. It could be just to emphasize or underline 

already something that has been said by you or by someone else. 

We will start, Mr. O’Keeffe, with you, if you do not mind. 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Right in the middle. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. 

Mr. O’KEEFFE. I would just close with reiterating what I talked 

about earlier, which is, this is really analogous to a trip to the 

moon, and it is going to take some time. So, Vivek Kundra was 

really put to it by Senator Coburn about the subcontractor issue, 

and I think it is a very important issue, but I think that we have 

to be practical about what can be done and the time frames associated with it. So if we have program management and procurement 

systems where the data is not properly passed and there is not sufficient fidelity, then it is going to be impossible to get the data that 

we require, so we need to be realistic about what can be done. 

I do not mean to say that letting people off the hook is the way 

to go, but I think we need to be practical. I think that we need to 

focus on outcomes, so it is not just a matter of publishing data. We 

want to work out what our priorities are and what we are looking 

to get out of this, who our audience is. And at the same time, I 

think that the notion of engaging with the private sector—and by 

doing that we allow the government to perhaps insulate it from 

some of the turbulence and ups and downs associated with getting 

new business models, which I think is a great idea. 

And, last, I would say that, I appreciate the hearing. It is great 

to have these issues raised, and we are looking for more dialogue 

with the Administration, with the government on how to make this 

better. The answers are not going to come from one source. They 

are going to come from this crowd sourcing and discussion. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, thank you. Mr. Blanton. 

Mr. BLANTON. I would like to reiterate something that I mentioned to you when you came down from the podium when we 

called off that last hearing. I think I said to you, ‘‘Mr. Chairman, 

that first panel of government witnesses was brilliant.’’ And it was 

brilliant for this reason: That the money and the power was at one 

end of the table, Mr. Kundra’s end of the table, and the legal responsibilities were in many ways at the other end of the table with 

Mr. Ferriero, the Archivist of the United States. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
45 

Senator CARPER. I remember when you said that. 

Mr. BLANTON. And the National Archives is an orphan agency, 

unfortunately, and down at that end is where the money and the 

energy is and where the focus is, and yet our real challenge, I 

think, as citizens, as people who care about Open Government and 

transparent and accountable government, is to turn the Archives’ 

role from that orphan agency out in the hinterland into being an 

integral part of the information technology development on which 

we are spending $40, $60, $80 billion a year, so that it is a seamless piece, so we are not saying to Mr. Ferriero, OK, pick up the 

mess after we have created all these very different legacy systems, 

all these different forms of metadata, all these different kinds of 

software and hardware, you have got to save the historically important stuff that is important to individuals and for history, but you 

are not integrated with what Mr. Kundra is doing. 

I think at one of our previous discussions I suggested that the 

concept we should be after for that integration is something that 

you see on personal computers today, an automatic, built-in, backup process at the time that you are running your network or at the 

time you are running your ethernet. The Apple Mac has a time 

capsule function where I never have to back up my little computer. 

It is every day listening to my computer when I log on the net looking for a new file or an updated file and automatically saving it. 

The role the National Archives should play 5 years, 10 years, 15 

years from now, should be the back-up hard drive for the whole 

Federal Government. But to get from where it is today, orphan 

agency spending only may be $400 million a year and then a cleanup after the parade mode is going to be permanent failure unless 

it switches over and becomes that back-up hard drive on the net 

for the whole Federal Government. To me that is the great kind 

of challenge, I think, institutionally. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. Mr. Wonderlich, last 

word. 

Mr. WONDERLICH. Thank you. So to me, I think we are at a really transformative moment for at least two reasons. One is because 

the gap between people’s expectations and what the government is 

delivering is at an all-time high. If you look at our experience as 

consumers or shoppers or students, it is very different from our experience as citizens. The other reason is the way that President 

Obama raised the issue on the campaign trail of transparency and 

promised very big things about changing the way the government 

works. And that leaves us in a situation where the press and the 

public are very hungry for an evaluation, and it would be really 

simple right now to try to assign a pass-fail grade. To me, I think 

that would be an enormous mistake because what is happening is 

much more important and much more complicated than you could 

evaluate with a simple pass or fail. 

So I think the challenge that I see right now is to take these 

transparency issues, which are really some of the things that people care most about, like earmarks or the way Federal money is 

spent or the way influence works in Washington or the way our decisions are made, and keep the momentum that is happening now 

moving forward in a way that is meaningful but also recognizes the 

complexity of the challenge. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
46 

So as evaluators, I think that is the challenge that we have right 

now. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. Again, I will go back to 

where I started off, and that is just to thank you for coming back 

and finding time in your schedules to be with us now a second time 

and to actually have a chance to share your thoughts with us and 

to respond to our questions and actually reflect on what each of you 

have to offer. We thank you for that. 

When my wife asks me this evening, ‘‘How was that hearing that 

you were going to hold today?’’ I am going to say it was fun, and 

it also turned out to be, I think, highly informative, and we thank 

you for making it that way and sort of holding our attention and 

giving us some good insights going down the road. 

We discussed a lot of important issues that although to most of 

us, to a lot of people in this country, they seem fairly abstract, but 

they can also lead to real-world impacts. For example, one area 

that we have been focusing our efforts on is over-budget IT systems 

that many times just do not deliver what they were supposed to 

have delivered. 

I was happy to hear last month that, I think, because of our efforts, the Veterans Administration terminated, I believe, over $50 

million in bad investments, and the Department of Homeland Security will be finishing a review soon that also may lead them to start 

cutting some of their dead weight. We need to expand this kind of 

accountability to most, if not all investments that our agencies undertake. 

I also hear that the Obama Administration is leveraging the private sector to come up with new and even exciting ways to use 

massive amounts of government information. This type of thinking, 

I believe, recognized that our government is not the only one with 

good ideas. In fact, many times it is the average citizen, or the 

above average citizen maybe, who knows where the problems lie 

and maybe has some pretty good ideas on how to fix them. 

So as we leave here today, I hope we will not stop discussing 

these issues. I think we will not. In fact, I want to invite our witnesses, or anyone else for that matter who might share our interests in these matters, to submit their ideas on ways to improve 

how our agencies are operating and to reduce wasteful spending. 

Now, usually my colleagues who were unable to be here today 

will submit some questions for the record, and if you do receive 

them. You have as much as 2 weeks to submit questions, and if you 

would be so kind as to respond to them promptly, we would be 

grateful for that. 

You all make a good team, and we appreciate very much, again, 

your taking your time to share not just part of your afternoon but 

some really good ideas with all of us. And with that having been 

said, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(47) 

A P P E N D I X 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.048
48 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.049
49 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.050
50 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.051
51 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.052
52 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.053
53 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.054
54 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.001
55 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.002
56 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.003
57 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.004
58 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.005
59 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.006
60 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.007
61 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.008
62 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.009
63 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.010
64 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.011
65 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.012
66 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.013
67 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.014
68 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.015
69 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.016
70 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.017
71 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.018
72 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.019
73 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.020
74 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.021
75 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.022
76 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.023
77 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.024
78 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.025
79 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.026
80 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.027
81 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.028
82 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.029
83 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.030
84 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.031
85 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.032
86 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.033
87 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.034
88 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.035
89 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.055
90 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.056
91 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.057
92 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.058
93 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.059
94 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.060
95 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.061
96 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.062
97 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.063
98 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.064
99 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.065
100 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.066
101 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.036
102 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.037
103 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.038
104 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.039
105 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.040
106 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.041
107 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.042
108 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.043
109 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.044
110 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.045
111 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.046
112 

Æ 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER56893.047