Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO): Opportunities and Challenges
Released: 2002-07-02T00:00:00

Background

Debate over the creation of a federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) position has ebbed and flowed over thepast five years as Congress has sought to addressgovernment information technology (IT) organizational and management issues. In private sector organizations witha CIO, this person serves as the seniordecisionmaker providing leadership and direction for information resource development, procurement, andmanagement, with a focus on improving efficiency andthe quality of services delivered. The possibility of creating a federal CIO, to be located in the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB), was originallyconsidered in an early draft of what became the Clinger-Cohen Act in 1995 ( P.L. 104-106 ). However, the idea ofa single federal CIO was dropped in favor ofcreating CIO positions within the executive agencies in the final version of the law. The mixed results ofagency-level CIOs, combined with a growing interest inbetter managing government technology resources, brought renewed attention to creating a national CIO positionduring the 106th Congress. In addition, therecent piecemeal efforts to move governmental functions and services online has led some observers to call for anelectronic government (e-government) "czar" ora federal CIO to coordinate these efforts. (1)

During the mid-1990s, Congress considered several bills focusing on governmental reform and improved management of public resources. The option ofestablishing a federal CIO was one of several proposals to address these problems. The success of CIOs in theprivate sector is often cited as an example forgovernment to follow. However, the interest in establishing CIOs in the federal government was generated by theexperience of local and state governments. Atthe time forty states had some form of a CIO operating in a policy capacity, as did several major cities. For many,their experience demonstrated that there was aneed for someone to articulate a "vision" of information resources that helped coordinate agency activities and goalsrather than reinforce the artificial"stovepipes" that separated them.

However, the idea of a federal CIO was dropped in favor of agency-level CIOs following testimony at a July, 1995 Senate Governmental Affairs Committeehearing. At this hearing, a number of arguments were made in favor of eliminating the single federal CIO provisionsin the Clinger-Cohen Act. Some critics ofthe proposal argued that the operational nature of the CIO position (i.e., the development of technical standards,determining the applicability of procurementlaws, and maintenance of performance and efficiency indicators) was a poor fit with the traditional policy role ofOMB. Other critics argued that creating a federalCIO was adding another layer of bureaucracy and centralizing decisionmaking procedures. They contended thatit was counterproductive to the purpose of theClinger-Cohen Act, which was to decentralize decisionmaking processes and purchasing decisions away from theGeneral Services Administration (GSA) to theindividual executive agencies. A third argument made by some critics at the time was that the role of a federal CIOwas too big for any one person or agency tohandle. Proponents of this view noted that the size of the Department of Defense alone was larger than some stategovernments, and that cross-agency groupsfocusing on specific problems would be a more effective approach. In light of this opposition, Congress decidedto instead designate a CIO in each of the majorexecutive branch agencies. These agency-level CIOs were tasked with the following responsibilities:

(1) providing advice and other assistance to the head of the executive agency and other senior management personnel of the executive agency to ensure thatinformation technology is acquired and information resources are managed for the executive agency in a mannerthat is consistent with chapter 35 of title 44,United States Code, and the priorities established by the head of the executive agency;

(2) developing, maintaining, and facilitating the implementation of a sound and integrated information technology architecture for the executive agency; and

(3) promoting the effective and efficient design and operation of all major information resources management processes for the executive agency, includingimprovements to work processes of the executive agency. (2)

Following the passage of P.L. 104-106 , President Clinton created the Chief Information Officers Council. Established by Executive Order 13011, FederalInformation Technology , on July 16, 1996, it serves as "the principal interagency forum to improve agencypractices on such matters as the design, modernization,use, sharing, and performance of agency information resources." (3) The CIOCouncil is comprised of the CIOs and Deputy CIOs from twenty-eight federaldepartments and agencies. (4) The Deputy Director for Management for theOffice of Management and Budget (OMB) serves as the Chair of the CIO Council andthe Vice Chair is elected from the membership. The CIO Council meets monthly and has six committees to addressspecific information technology managementconcerns such as enterprise interoperability, security and privacy, and e-government. The committees work to helpfacilitate the growth of government standards,share best practices, and help agencies work to be in compliance with reform legislation such as the GovernmentPerformance and Results Act (GPRA). TheCouncil's materials are sometimes used by the General Accounting Office (GAO) to help inform its methodologywhen evaluating the information technologymanagement progress of various agencies. (5) The Council also has workedwith the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to develop special pay rates forhard-to-hire IT professionals. (6)

Recent Legislative Proposals for a Federal CIO

During the 106th Congress (and the concurrent Presidential campaign) a number of policymakersmade proposals regarding the establishment of a federal CIO. While none of these bills passed, new bills have been introduced during the first half of the 107thCongress. A summary of the major provisions of the relevantbills is listed below, with a more comprehensive overview provided in Appendix A.

106th Congress

S. 1993 (Thompson), Government Information Security Act.

Requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to establish government-wide policies for the management of programs that:(1) support the cost-effective security of Federal information systems by promoting security as an integral part ofeach agency's business operations; and (2)include information technology architectures as defined under the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.

Requires such policies to: (1) be founded on a continuous risk management cycle; (2) implement controls that adequately address the risk;(3) promote continuing awareness of information security risks; (4) continually monitor and evaluate informationsecurity policy; and (5) control effectiveness ofinformation security practices.

Outlines information security responsibilities of each agency, including the development and implementation of an agency-wide securityplan for the operations and assets of such agency.

H.R. 4670 (Turner), Chief Information Officer of the United States Act of 2000.

Establishes an Office of Information Technology in the Executive Office of the President to serve as a source of technical, policy, andmanagement analysis, leadership, and advice for the President and federal agencies with respect to the development,application, and management of informationtechnology by the federal government.

Provides for such office to be headed by a Chief Information Officer who shall be the President's principal adviser on matters relating to suchdevelopment, application, and management of information technology.

Establishes in the executive branch a Chief Information Officers Council to assist and advise in the development and implementation offederal policies and practices with regard to agency development, application, and management of informationtechnology.

H.R. 5024 (Davis), Federal Information Policy Act of 2000.

Establishes an Office of Information Policy in the Executive Office of the President to be headed by a Chief Information Officer (CIO) of theUnited States who shall be the principal adviser to the President on matters relating to the efficient and effectivedevelopment, use, and management ofinformation technology and resources by the federal government. Outlines the Officer's duties and grants the Officercertain authorities and duties currently givento the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under existing law.

Incorporates certain provisions of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act concerning the use and acceptance of electronic signatures byexecutive agencies. Grants the Officer duties under such provisions currently given to the Director.

Requires the Officer to establish government-wide security and framework policies for the management of programs, and requires suchpolicies to address risk management and assessment. Outlines information security responsibilities of each agency,including the development andimplementation of an agency-wide security program for the operations and assets of such agency. Makes eachprogram subject to Officer approval and annualreview by agency program officials.

The 2000 Presidential Campaign. During the 2000 Presidential campaign, both major party candidatesexpressed support for establishing a federal CIO in some form. In a June 2000 policy statement on governmentreform, then-Governor George W. Bush stated hewould designate the Deputy Director of OMB as the federal CIO to coordinate e-government initiatives and facilitatethe development of federal informationtechnology management in general. (7) Similarly, Vice Presidential candidateSenator Lieberman issued a policy statement in July 2000 indicating his support for afederal CIO or "IT Czar" to work on e-government efforts and coordinate interagency projects. (8)

107th Congress

Since the Bush Administration took office, it has been widely reported that the President still favors the appointment of a federal CIO in some capacity, at thesubcabinet level or lower. (9) In a statement to the Congressional InternetCaucus on March 22, 2001, then-OMB Deputy Director Sean O'Keefe said that the BushAdministration opposed the creation of a separate federal CIO position due in part to concerns about agencyaccountability. Instead, O'Keefe stated that the BushAdministration intended to recruit a deputy director of management for OMB who will be responsible for oversightof agency-level CIOs and coordinatinge-government initiatives. (10)

On June 14, 2001 OMB announced the appointment of Mark Forman to a newly created position, the Associate Director for Information Technology andE-Government. As "the leading federal e-government executive," (11) thenew Associate Director will be responsible for the e-government fund, direct theactivities of the CIO Council, and advise on the appointments of agency CIOs. The Associate Director will also"lead the development and implementation offederal information technology policy." (12) The new position will report tothe Deputy Director of Management at OMB, who in turn will be the federal CIO. (13)

In January 2002, Norman Lorentz began work as the first Chief Technology Officer at OMB. Lorentz, a former USPS CTO, reports to Mark Forman. Lorentz hasbeen tasked to lead and coordinate multiple efforts to identify and develop the technological architecture needed to support federal government e-government andother information technology initiatives. (14)

Representative Davis (VA, 1st) has indicated he may reintroduce H.R. 5024 in the coming months, perhaps with some revisions to gain widersupport, as a means to further the debate. (15) On May 1, 2001 S. 803 (The E-Government Act of 2001) was introduced by Senator Lieberman. Thisbill was referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee, which held a hearing on the bill on July 11, 2001. Alsoon July 11, 2001 Representative Turnerintroduced a companion bill to S. 803 , H.R. 2458 (The E-Government Act of 2001). (16) On March 21, 2002, the Governmental AffairsCommittee reported S. 803 (now renamed the E-Government Act of 2002) with an amendment. On June 27,2002, the Senate passed S. 803 unanimously and the bill was sent to the House of Representatives for consideration. A summary of theirrelevant provisions is listed below, with a morecomprehensive overview provided in Appendix B.

H.R. 2458 (Turner), E-Government Act of 2001.

Establishes an Office of Information Policy in OMB to be headed by a federal Chief InformationOfficer (CIO). The CIO would provide"overall leadership and direction to the executive branch on information policy," and serve as the leader andcoordinator of federal e-governmentissues.

Establishes the CIO Council by law and task it to work with the federal CIO on issues such as developing collaborative multi-agencyinformation technology initiatives, coordinating the development of federal information technology standards, andworking with the Office of Personnel andManagement (OPM) regarding the recruitment and retention of federal information technology expertise andleadership.

Establishes as $200 million-per-year E-Government Fund for interagency information technology projects, administered by the federalCIO.

Establishes a Federal Information Technology Training Center to train federal government personnel in information technology andinformation resource management skills.

Establishes an Online National Library through the collaboration of the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian Institute, the NationalPark Service, the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences, and the Library of Congress.

S. 803 (Lieberman), E-Government Act of 2002.

Establishes an Office of Electronic Government in OMB to be headed by an Administrator. The Administrator would provide "overallleadership and direction on electronic government," and serve as the leader and coordinator of federal e-governmentissues.

Establishes the CIO Council by law and task it to work with the Deputy Director of Management of OMB and the Administrator of theOffice of Electronic Government on issues such as developing collaborative multi-agency information technologyinitiatives, developing common performancemeasures for agency information resources management, and working with the Office of Personnel and Management(OPM) regarding the recruitment andretention of federal information technology expertise and leadership.

Establishes an E-Government Fund for interagency information technology projects, administered by the Administer of the General ServicesAdministration.

Establishes a Federal Information Technology Training Center to train federal government personnel in information technology andinformation resource management skills.

Issues

A variety of policy options have been proposed, suggesting there is bipartisan support in favor of establishinga federal CIO position. However, there are somedissenting voices raising a number of issues that remain unresolved. This includes whether a federal CIO shouldin fact be established. If so, the organizationalplacement of the position, and the scope of responsibility and authority assigned to the position needs to bedetermined. Some of these issues arise from theimplicit paradox of trying to centralize management of decentralized technologies. Others are the result of differingopinions regarding how informationtechnology fits into the general scope of governance.

Should There Be a Single Federal CIO?

Although there is disagreement about the exact nature of the position, support for a federal CIO generated during the closing months of the 106th Congress appearsto have grown since the beginning of the 107th Congress. Discussed in greater detail below, supporterscite a variety of reasons to justify creating a federal CIOposition. Some of the reasons include a need to develop government-wide cybersecurity (17) measures and a need for a voice to advocate the appropriate budgetarysupport for both short and long term information technology projects. Another reason frequently cited is the needto coordinate the growing number of federale-government initiatives. As more government functions become available online, sustained and focused centralleadership becomes critical to improving federalIT performance and enhancing the delivery of services. (18) This includes thedevelopment of government information technology standards that will contribute to arobust and secure information infrastructure. A common theme underlying many of these arguments is the beliefthat the role of information technology ingovernance requires leadership with strategic vision to ensure that the improved productivity and efficiency expectedby the investment in technology is realized. Some observers also point to the role of CIOs in improving the performance and productivity of private sectororganizations as an example of what could be donein the public sector. (19)

In response, opponents of efforts to establish a federal CIO argue that the responsibilities of such a position are too complex and unwieldy for one person. Theybelieve that it is not possible for an individual to manage and coordinate the various information technology projectsand needs across the entire U.S. government. Related to this argument, some critics also contend that centralizing management of government informationtechnology is a step backward rather than forward.Instead, they suggest it is more appropriate to approach IT needs through smaller, interagency groups focusing ona specific task such as the processing of studentloan applications online or improving online tax filing procedures. (20) Another reason cited by some opponents is the organizational obstacles to change that willnot disappear with the establishment of a federal CIO. One obstacle cited is a budget process that favors separateagency projects rather than cross-agencyinitiatives. Another is a shorter term focus when major IT projects require long term planning and implementation. Some critics are also concerned about theimplications for agency-level planning and responsibility. They fear that centralized management by a federal CIOwill be a signal to agencies that they can relyon the federal CIO to supplant their responsibility for tougher IT issues and can reduce their resource commitmenttoward solving them. In contrast, these criticsbelieve that efforts to change from an industrial age government to an information age government must emanatefrom the bottom-up by agencies rather than fromthe top-down by a cabinet-level position. (21)

Where Should a Federal CIO be Organizationally Located?

The placement of the federal CIO is perhaps the most hotly contested issue. Specifically, there is disagreement over whether the federal CIO should be placed inthe Office of Management and Budget (OMB), or if a new office should be established within the White House tofocus solely on information technology issues. In September, 2000 the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology of theGovernment Reform Committee of the House ofRepresentatives held a hearing regarding two bills proposed by Representatives Turner and Davis earlier thatsummer (discussed above). Much of the testimonyfocused on the relationship between the proposed federal CIO and the OMB. Then-Deputy Director of Managementat the OMB, Sally Katzen, argued thatsituating oversight of information technology management within OMB's management and budgeting authority wasessential for the successful budgeting andexecution of information technology programs.

In response, critics of this approach argued that information technology programs are crucial enough to warrant autonomous management and budget authority byspecialists who can devote their full energy to the success of government information technology projects. Inaddition, some observers suggest there are lessons tobe learned from the lackluster results of the agency-level CIO provisions in the Clinger-Cohen Act. The GAO hascited the divided attention of agency-level CIOswith multiple spheres of responsibility as an obstacle for implementing information technology managementreforms. The GAO has further stated that the role ofthe CIO is a full-time leadership position requiring complete attention to information resource managementissues. (22)

The Bush administration has indicated a preference for assigning some of the responsibilities associated with proposals for a federal CIO to the Deputy Director ofManagement of OMB. The bills introduced by Representatives Davis and Turner during the 106thCongress both called for the creation of a separate positionwithin the White House. It has been reported that Senator Lieberman favors the creation of a new, separate CIOposition with deputy director status within theOMB. (23)

Potential Responsibilities of a Federal CIO

The responsibilities of the federal CIO are closely related to the organizational location of the position. If the federal CIO is expected to manage interagencyprojects and influence budget decisions, then the position will need the appropriate authority and stature tosuccessfully carry out the mission of the office. However, there is some disagreement over what that appropriate authority should be. Some proponents, includingRepresentatives Davis and Turner, and manyfederal agency-level CIOs, favor the idea of the federal CIO being a cabinet-level position. Other policymakers,including President Bush and Senator Lieberman,contend that the federal CIO does not require cabinet-level status. (24) On theother hand, in its recent report, "E-Government: The Next American Revolution," theCouncil of Excellence favors the creation of multiple positions at both the cabinet and sub-cabinet levels. (25)

Information Security. More specifically, questions have been raised about oversight of government informationsecurity. Some proponents have advocated that the federal CIO should be empowered to develop and implementa comprehensive response to informationsecurity threats. Indeed, some observers cite information security as one of the most important roles for a potentialfederal CIO, noting that federal informationsecurity currently falls under the jurisdiction of twelve congressional appropriations subcommittees and in practiceis carried out through a multiple ofuncoordinated (and potentially incompatible) efforts by various agencies and departments. (26)

In the September 2000 testimony before the House Government Management, Information and Technology Subcommittee, the GAO made three primaryrecommendations regarding governmental action to improve the state of federal information security. Two of thesethree recommendations focused on thecentralization of responsibilities. One recommendation was to have greater "prescriptive guidance regarding thelevel of protection that is appropriate for thesesystems." (27) The GAO witness observed that discretion is left primarily withthe individual agencies to decide which computer security measures to take and howstrenuously to enforce them. The second recommendation was to implement "stronger central leadership andcoordination of information security-relatedactivities across the government." (28) The GAO witness stated that oversightof government information security was "divided among a number of agencies,including OMB, NIST, the General Services Administration, and the National Security Agency," and concluded thatthis dispersed oversight resulted in a lack of"clear and central coordination" over key "roles and responsibilities." In addition, the GAO witness observed thatthere was a lack of sharing of informationregarding information security vulnerabilities and solutions. (29)

One of the central arguments in favor of centralized federal information security management is that it will establish a clear level of accountability for federalinformation security that is currently diffused. However, it is this very concern about accountability that hasconcerned opponents of this idea. Critics ofproposals for an "IT security czar," argue that agencies will assume they can minimize their responsibility to securetheir computer networks. Instead, thesecritics suggest IT problems such as computer security must be addressed at the agency level where change takesplace. (30)

Budgetary Authority. Another issue is budgetary authority. Many observers consider some control overfunding of IT projects critical to the success of a federal CIO. They note that major IT projects require long termplanning and implementation that is ill-suited tothe short-term focus of most budgetary processes. Currently, interagency projects coordinated by the CIO Councilare funded through an ad hoc, voluntary"pass-the-hat" process. (31)

Supporters of proposals to give a federal CIO some budgetary authority argue that having someone who recognizes the financial needs of information technology projects and has control over the flow of funding will help contribute to more stable planning and ensure thecompletion of the project. There appears to be little ifany significant opposition to assigning the federal CIO some form of budget authority. There has also beenrelatively little debate about what form it would take. Some observers have suggested either having the federal CIO control a portion of the various agencies' budgets forinformation technology projects or providingthe federal CIO with a single fund to support interagency projects. President Bush appears to favor the latter option. On February 28, 2001, President Bushproposed an "E-Government Fund," with an initial funding of $10 million in 2002, which would rise to $100million over three years. The fund was to be usedby the federal CIO to support interagency e-government projects such as developing a government-wide public keyinfrastructure (PKI) (32) for secure transactionsand helping agencies comply with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA). (33) However, the fiscal 2002 Post Service appropriations bill that wassigned into law on November 21, 2001 provided for only $5 million for the e-government fund. For the fiscal 2003budget, President Bush has proposedallocating $45 million for the E-Government Fund.

Appendix A: Legislation in the 106th Congress

S. 1993 (Thompson), Government Information Security Act

On November 19, 1999, Senators Thompson and Lieberman introduced S. 1993 , which was referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. Itwas later reported in the Senate by the committee on April 10, 2000 with an amendment. Although not creating afederal CIO by name, S. 1993 proposed the centralization of federal information security oversight in OMB. The bill specifically assigned theseresponsibilities to the Director of OMB, who inturn could delegate this authority only to the Deputy Director of Management of OMB. An exception for nationalsecurity systems was included that allowedthese responsibilities to be delegated to the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence. In manyrespects, the provisions in S. 1993 mirror other proposals calling for the designation of the Deputy Director of Management of OMB as the federalCIO. The bill would have given the OMB theresponsibility to establish government-wide information security policies, including the development andimplementation of standards and guidelines. In addition,agencies would have been required to conduct independent evaluations annually and report the results to the Directorof OMB. These results, in turn, were to becompiled and presented to Congress by the Comptroller General.

H.R. 4670 (Turner), Chief Information Officer Act of the United States of 2000

On June 15, 2000, Representative Turner introduced H.R. 4670 , which was referred to the House Committee on Government Reform. The purposeof H.R. 4670 was "to establish a central focal point to provide effective leadership for efforts by the FederalGovernment to use informationtechnology," to improve its efficiency and effectiveness, create opportunities for innovation, and to "provide amechanism for improved coordination amongFederal agencies" for the development and management of information technology projects. Among its primaryprovisions, H.R. 4670 would haveestablished the Office of Information Technology in the Executive Office of the President. This new office was tobe headed by the Chief Information Officer ofthe United States and advise the President on technical policy issues related to "the development, application, andmanagement of information technology by theFederal Government." The CIO was to be an appointee reporting directly to the President as the principal advisoron information technology matters. The CIOwould also be responsible for submitting an annual report to the President and Congress on the progress ofinformation technology initiatives withrecommendations for future actions. In addition to appointing the federal CIO as the Chair of the Chief InformationOfficers Council, H.R. 4670 would have established the CIO Council by law and asked the Council to assist the federal CIO with thecoordination of multi-agency initiatives, the developmentof performance measures, and consult with the private sector to improve federal government information technologypractices. The provisions of H.R. 4670 were not applicable to national security systems, as defined by section 5142 of the Clinger-CohenAct (40 U.S.C. 1452).

H.R. 5024 (Davis), Federal Information Policy Act of 2000

On July 27, 2000, Representative Davis (VA, 1st) introduced H.R. 5024 , which was also referred to the House Committee on Government Reform. Similar to H.R. 4670 , the purpose of H.R. 5024 was to create opportunities for innovation for the useand management of informationtechnology resources in the federal government, "harmonize existing information resource management laws inorder to coordinate and improve the FederalGovernment's development, use, and management of information resources," and "create effective management andoversight of related information security risksincluding coordination of information security standards."

H.R. 5024 sought to amend chapters 35-38 of title 44 of the United States Code. The proposed amendments to chapter 35 would have established theOffice of Information Policy (OIP) in the Executive Office of the President. It also would have established a federalCIO and deputy CIO to be appointed by thePresident and confirmed by the Senate. The federal CIO would be the head of OIP and Chair of the CIO Council. The CIO Council would also have beenestablished by law rather than executive order. Under H.R. 5024 , the federal CIO was to serve as theprincipal advisor to the President oninformation technology matters related to the functions of the federal government. The federal CIO would also havebeen responsible for providing direction toexecutive agencies on issues of collection and dissemination of information, public access to public information,statistical activities, privacy, and procurement ofinformation technology. In the area of statistical activities the federal CIO would have been responsible forcoordinating the policies and procedures forcollection, handling, classification, and sharing of statistical information within and between federal agencies. Thefederal CIO would also have been empoweredto appoint a chief statistician and establish an Interagency Council on Statistical Policy to assist carrying out theseduties.

To encourage the use of electronic documents in the federal government, H.R. 5024 would have provided the federal CIO with the responsibility todevelop and implement procedures for the use of electronic signatures and to conduct an ongoing study with theNational Telecommunications InformationAdministration (NTIA) on the progress of these efforts. To further support the movement toward electronicdocuments, H.R. 5024 called for thecreation of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS). GILS would have functioned as a distributedagency-based operation to help identify majorinformation holdings, enhance public access, and work towards the development of technical standards to ensurethe compatibility of information betweenagencies. Finally, similar to H.R. 4670 , the federal CIO would have been required to submit an annual reportto the President and Congress.

The bill proposed amendments to chapter 36 that would have reauthorized a significant portion of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) with few or no changes. (34)

The bill also proposed amendments to chapter 37 that focused on information security, designating it as specific area of concern for the federal CIO. This chapterof H.R. 5024 would have established an Office of Information Security and Technical Protection (OISTP)within the Office of Information Policy(OIP). The role of OISTP was to serve as the principal advisor of the federal CIO on information security matters(ï¿½3703). Overall, this chapter directed thefederal CIO to enhance information security measures through a variety of activities including the development ofstandards and guidelines, sharing best practices,promoting awareness, and making recommendations to the Director of OMB regarding budgetary actions. Althougha significant part of the federal CIO'sportfolio, ï¿½3705 of chapter 37 explicitly holds the individual agencies responsible for actively developing, assessing,and implementing their own informationsecurity measures. It also required each agency to conduct an annual independent evaluation of their informationsecurity practices and submit the results to thefederal CIO.

Proposed amendments to chapter 38 of H.R. 5024 focused on federal CIO's role in general information technology management concerns. Some ofthe provisions included encouraging performance-based and results-based procurement (ï¿½3803), enforcingaccountability, developing federal information systemstandards, and keeping Congress informed of the performance of these efforts (ï¿½3802 J). Some observers describe H.R. 5024 as a much more detailedversion of H.R. 4670 , combined with the primary elements of S. 1993 and PRA reauthorizationlanguage. (35)

Appendix B: Legislation in the 107th Congress

H.R. 2458 (Turner), E-Government Act of 2001 (36)

On July 11, 2001, Representative Turner introduced H.R. 2458 , a companion bill to the original language of S. 803 , which was referredto Committee on Government Reform. H.R. 2458 contains a variety of provisions related to the managementand promotion of electronicgovernment services. Its purpose is to establish effective leadership of federal information technology projects,require the use of Internet-based informationtechnology initiatives to reduce costs and increase opportunities for citizen participation in government, and promoteinteragency collaboration for e-governmentprocesses.

Title I establishes new organizational structures and amends different portions of Title 44 of the United States Code. Section 101 would establish the federal CIOposition to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Office of Information Policy would beestablished as an office in OMB. As head ofthe Office of Information Policy, H.R. 2458 would task the federal CIO with carrying out relevant OMBresponsibilities for prescribing guidelinesand regulations for agency implementation of the Privacy Act, the Clinger-Cohen Act, information technologyacquisition pilot programs, and the GovernmentPaperwork Elimination Act. It would also require the General Services Administration (GSA) to consult with thefederal CIO on any efforts by GSA to promotee-government.

Section 103 would amend Title 44 by adding Chapter 36 - Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services, which focuses on issues related to thefunctions of the federal CIO, the CIO Council, and the E-Government Fund. This chapter would make the federalCIO responsible for carrying out a variety of information resources management (IRM) functions. Some of these responsibilities would include; reviewingagency budget requests for information technologycapital planning and investment, reviewing information technology investment legislative proposals, evaluating theperformance and results of agency informationtechnology investments, advising the Director of OMB on IRM resources and strategies, providing "overallleadership and direction to the executive branch oninformation policy," promoting the effective and innovative use of information technology by agencies especiallythrough multiagency collaborative projects,administering and distributing funds from the E-Government Fund (discussed in greater detail below), consultingwith GSA on the use of the InformationTechnology Fund to promote e-government projects, serving as the Chair of the CIO Council, establishing andpromulgating information technology standards forthe federal government, establishing fora for federal, state, local, and tribal collaboration and consultation oninformation technology best practices andinnovation, promoting electronic procurement initiatives, and implementing accessibility standards.

Section 103 would also establish the CIO Council by law, detailing its organizational structure and mandate. In addition, Section 103 would establish a $200million-per-year E-Government Fund for interagency information technology projects. The fund would beadministered by the federal CIO in consultation withthe CIO Council. The provision would also allow funds be made available without fiscal year limitation and requirethe federal CIO to submit annual reports tothe President and Congress regarding the operation of the fund.

Title II focuses on enhancing a variety of e-government services and establishes the federal CIO's role as the leader and coordinator of federal e-governmentservices. The provisions most directly connected to the responsibilities of the federal CIO are described in greaterdetail while those less so are described in lessdetail. Section 201 covers federal agency responsibilities as they relate to the federal CIO. Some of theseresponsibilities include participation in the CIO Counciland submitting annual agency e-government status reports to the federal CIO.

Section 202 would require executive agencies to adopt electronic signature methods that would ensure acceptability and compatibility with OMB standards.

Section 203 would direct GSA to develop an online federal telephone directory.

Section 204 would direct the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian Institute, the National Park Service,the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences,and the Library of Congress to collaborate in the creation of an Online National Library.

Section 205 would direct the federal courts to develop web sites containing information about the operation of the court, dockets, and related materials. Similarly,section 206 would direct regulatory agencies to establish web sites containing relevant public information.

Section 207 would require the federal CIO to conduct a feasibility study on integrating federal information systems across agencies and implement up to five pilotprojects integrating data elements. Section 208 would direct the federal CIO to assemble an interagency task forceto develop and implement regulations andprocedures for the creation of an online database and web site providing access to federal funded research anddevelopment data. Section 209 would direct thefederal CIO to facilitate the development of common protocols for geographic information systems.

Section 210 would amend the Share-in-Savings procurement provisions of the Clinger-Cohen Act by allowing executive agencies to retain a portion of the savingsrealized from this type of procurement method. It would also direct the Administrator of GSA to move past the pilotprograms and provide general authority toexecutive agencies to use this procurement method.

Section 211would direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to contract with the National Research Council of the National Academy ofSciences to "conduct a study on the use of information technology to enhance crisis response and consequencemanagement of natural and manmade disasters." Itwould also direct the federal CIO to conduct pilot projects based on the results of the study.

Section 212 would provide for the establishment of a Federal Information Technology Training Center to train federal government personnel in informationtechnology and information resource management skills. Section 213 would mandate an interagency study on thebest practices of federally-funded communitytechnology centers.

Section 214 would direct the federal CIO to contract with a nonprofit, non-partisan organization to examine disparities in Internet access based on demographiccharacteristics. Section 215 would outline the federal CIO's responsibilities for maintaining accessibility, usability,and preservation of government information. Among its provisions this section would establish an Advisory Board on Government Information with its membersto be appointed by the federal CIO. Theboard would be tasked to conduct studies and submit recommendations to the federal CIO regarding thedevelopment of interoperable cataloguing and indexingstandards by federal agencies and ensuring permanent public access to information disseminated by the federalgovernment online.

Section 216 would require the federal CIO to establish a public domain directory of federal government web sites. Section 217 would require the Federal CIO topromulgate community standards for federal web sites regarding features, operation, and information provided. Section 218 would establish privacy requirementsregarding agency use of personally identifiable information and require the federal CIO to establish privacyguidelines for federal web sites. Section 219 wouldrequire any of the actions taken under this act to be compliant with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973regarding accessibility to people with disabilities. Section 220 would require the federal CIO to notify Congress if any of the provision in the act were obsolete orcounter-productive to its purposes.

Section 301 and 301 authorize appropriations for the bill through fiscal 2006 and has the bill take effect 120 days after it is enacted.

S. 803 (Lieberman), E-Government Act of 2002 (37)

On May 1, 2001, Senator Lieberman introduced S. 803 , which was referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee, which held a hearing on the billon July 11, 2001. On March 21, 2002, the Governmental Affairs Committee reported S. 803 (then renamedthe E-Government Act of 2002) with anamendment. S. 803 contains a variety of provisions related to the management and promotion of electronicgovernment services. Their purposeincludes to establish effective leadership of federal information technology projects, require the use of Internet-basedinformation technology initiatives to reducecosts and increase opportunities for citizen participation in government, and promote interagency collaboration fore-government processes. The descriptionbelow reflects the amended version of S. 803 , which was passed unanimously by the Senate on June 27, 2002.

Title I establishes new organizational structures and amends different portions of Title 44 of the United States Code. Section 101would establish the Office ofElectronic Government in OMB. This new office would be headed by an Administrator, who would be appointedby the President and confirmed by the Senate. As head of the Office of Electronic Government, S. 803 would task the Administrator with assisting theDirector of OMB, and the Deputy Director ofManagement, in conjunction with the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)to carry out relevant OMB responsibilities forprescribing guidelines and regulations for agency implementation of the Privacy Act, the Clinger-Cohen Act,information technology acquisition pilot programs,and the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. It would also require the General Services Administration (GSA)to consult with the Administrator of the Officeof Electronic Government on any efforts by GSA to promote e-government.

Section 103 would amend Title 44 by adding Chapter 36 - Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services, which focuses on issues related to thefunctions of the Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government, the CIO Council, and the E-GovernmentFund. This chapter would make theAdministrator of the Office of Electronic Government responsible for carrying out a variety of informationresources management (IRM) functions. Some ofthese responsibilities would include; advising the Director of OMB on IRM resources and strategies, providing"overall leadership and direction on electronicgovernment," promoting the effective and innovative use of information technology by agencies especially throughmultiagency collaborative projects,administering and distributing funds from the E-Government Fund (discussed in greater detail below), consultingwith GSA "to promote electronic governmentand the efficient use of information technologies by agencies," lead activities on behalf of the Deputy Director ofManagement, who serves as the Chair of the CIOCouncil, assist the Director "in establishing policies which shall set the framework for information technologystandards" to be developed by the National Institutefor Standards and Technology,"sponsor an ongoing dialogue with federal, state, local, and tribal leaders to encouragecollaboration and enhance consultation oninformation technology best practices and innovation, promoting electronic procurement initiatives, andimplementing accessibility standards.

Section 101 would also establish the CIO Council by law, with the Deputy Director of Management of OMB as chairperson, detailing its organizational structureand mandate. In addition, Section 101 would establish an E-Government Fund for interagency informationtechnology projects. The fund would be administeredby the Administrator of the General Service Administration (GSA), with the assistance of the Administrator of theOffice of Electronic Government. Theprovision authorizes appropriations for the E-Government Fund in the following amounts: $45 million for FY 2003,$50 million for FY 2004, $100 million for FY2005, $150,000 million for FY 2006, and "such sums as necessary for fiscal year 2007." The provision would alsoallow funds be made available until expendedand require the Director of OMB to submit annual reports to the President and Congress regarding the operation ofthe fund.

Section 102 consists of conforming amendments.

Title II focuses on enhancing a variety of e-government services, establishing performance measures, and clarifies OMB's role as the leader and coordinator offederal e-government services. The provisions most directly connected to the responsibilities of the proposed Officeof Electronic Government are described ingreater detail while those less so are described in less detail. Section 201 focuses on definitions used. Section 202covers federal agency responsibilities as theyrelate to the Director of OMB. Some of these responsibilities include participation in the CIO Council, developingperformance measures for e-governmentinitiatives, and submitting annual agency e-government status reports to the Director of OMB.

Section 203 would require executive agencies to adopt electronic signature methods that would ensure acceptability and compatibility with OMB standards.

Section 204 would direct the Director of OMB to work with the Administrator of the General Service Administration (GSA) to "maintain and promote anintegrated Internet-based system of providing the public with access to Government information and services."

Section 205 would direct the federal courts to develop web sites containing information about the operation of the court, dockets, and related materials. Similarly,section 206 would direct regulatory agencies to establish web sites containing relevant public information.

Section 207 would outline the responsibilities of the Director of OMB for maintaining accessibility, usability, and preservation of government information. Among its provisions this section would establish an Interagency Committee on Government Information with itsmembers drawn from executive branchagencies, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), as well as the federal legislative and judicialbranches. The Committee would be tasked toconduct studies and submit recommendations to the Director of OMB and Congress regarding the development ofinteroperable cataloguing and indexingstandards by federal agencies and ensuring permanent public access to information disseminated by the federalgovernment online.

Section 208 would establish privacy requirements regarding agency use of personally identifiable information and require the Director of OMB to establishprivacy guidelines for federal web sites.

Section 209 would provide for the establishment of a Federal Information Technology Training Center to train federal government personnel in informationtechnology and information resource management skills.

Section 210 would direct the Secretary of the Interior, working with the Director of OMB through an interagency working group, to facilitate the development ofcommon protocols for geographic information systems.

Section 211 would amend the Share-in-Savings procurement provisions of the Clinger-Cohen Act by allowing executive agencies to retain a portion of the savingsrealized from this type of procurement method, and extend the pilot-phase of the program. It would also requirethe Director of OMB, after the completion of fivepilot projects but no later than three years after the effective date of the provision, to submit a report to the SenateCommittee on Governmental Affairs and theHouse Committee on Government Reform regarding the results of the pilot projects.

Section 212 would require the Director of OMB to conduct a feasibility study on integrating federal information systems across agencies and implement up to fivepilot projects integrating data elements. Section 213 would mandate an interagency study on the best practices offederally-funded community technology centers.

Section 214 would direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to contract a study "on using information technology to enhance crisis responseand consequence management of natural and manmade disasters." It would also direct FEMA to conduct pilotprojects based on the results of the study.

Section 215 would direct the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) to contract with the National Research Council to examine disparities in Internetaccess based on demographic characteristics. Section 216 would require the Director of OMB to notify Congressif any of the provision in the act were obsoleteor counter-productive to its purposes.

Section 301 would repeal the expiration date on the Government Information Security Act (44 USC Sec. 3536).

Section 401 and 402 authorize appropriations for the bill through fiscal 2007 and has the bill take effect 120 days after it is enacted.

Additional Reading

CRS Report RL30153 , Critical Infrastructures: Background and Early

Implementation of PDD-63 , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL30745, Electronic Government: A Conceptual Overview , by Harold

C. Relyea.

CRS Report RL31088, Electronic Government: Major Proposals and Initiatives , by

[author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL30661(pdf) , Government Information Technology Management: Past and

Future Issues (The Clinger-Cohen Act) , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 98-67 STM, Internet: An Overview of Key Technology Policy Issues

Affecting Its Use and Growth , by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], Glenn J.McLoughlin, and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL31057 , A Primer on E-Government: Sectors, Stages, Opportunities,

and Challenges of Online Governance , by [author name scrubbed].