Although the American people expect world-class public services and are demanding more of government, the public’s confidence in the government’s ability to address its demands remains all too low. The government’s successful implementation of information technology could improve this confidence. Indeed, according to the Council for Excellence in Government, “Electronic government can fundamentally recast the connection between people and their government. It can make government far more responsive to the will of the people and greatly improve transactions between them. It can also help all of us to take a much more active part in the democratic process.” Government use of Internet-based services is broadening and becoming more sophisticated. In particular, public sector agencies are increasingly turning to the Internet to conduct paperless acquisitions (electronic malls), provide interactive electronic services to the public, and tailor or personalize information. However, the government must still overcome several major challenges to its cost-effective use of information technology. At the beginning of this year we issued a series of reports—our Performance and Accountability Series—devoted to framing the actions needed to support the transition to a more results-oriented and accountable federal government. To the extent that the billions of dollars in planned IT expenditures can be spent more wisely and the management of such technology improved, federal programs will be better prepared to meet mission goals and support national priorities. However, we identified seven continuing IT challenges that are key to achieving this goal: strengthening agency information security, improving the collection, use, and dissemination of government information, pursuing opportunities for electronic government, constructing sound enterprise architectures, fostering mature systems acquisition, development, and operational practices, ensuring effective agency IT investment practices, and developing IT human capital strategies. Until these challenges are overcome, agencies are likely to continue to have fundamental weaknesses in their information resources and technology management and practices, which can negatively affect mission performance. Since 1990, we have also periodically reported on government operations that we have assessed as high risk because of their greater vulnerability to waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement. In January of this year, in the information resources and technology management area, we designated information security and three agency IT modernization efforts as high risk. We have reported governmentwide information security as high risk since 1997, and the three major modernization efforts since 1995. The federal government’s information resources and technology management structure has its foundation in six laws: the Federal Records Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, the Computer Security Act of 1987, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, and the Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998. Taken together, these laws largely lay out the information resources and technology management responsibilities of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), federal agencies, and other entities, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology. In general, under the government’s current legislative framework, OMB has important responsibilities for providing direction on governmentwide information resources and technology management and overseeing agency activities in these areas, including analyzing major agency information technology investments as part of the federal budget process. Among OMB’s responsibilities are ensuring agency integration of information resources management plans, program plans, and budgets for acquisition and use of information technology and the efficiency and effectiveness of interagency information technology initiatives; developing, as part of the budget process, a mechanism for analyzing, tracking, and evaluating the risks and results of all major capital investments made by an executive agency for information systems;directing and overseeing implementation of policy, principles, standards, and guidelines for the dissemination of and access to public information; encouraging agency heads to develop and use best practices in information technology acquisition; reviewing proposed agency information collections to minimize information collection burdens and maximize information utility and benefit; and developing and overseeing implementation of privacy and security policies, principles, standards, and guidelines. Federal departments and agencies, in turn, are accountable for the effective and efficient development, acquisition, and use of information technology in their organizations. For example, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 require agency heads, acting through agency CIOs, to better link their information technology planning and investment decisions to program missions and goals; develop and implement a sound information technology architecture; implement and enforce information technology management policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines; establish policies and procedures for ensuring that information technology systems provide reliable, consistent, and timely financial or program performance data; and implement and enforce applicable policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines on privacy, security, disclosure, and information sharing. Another important organization in federal information resources and technology management—the CIO Council—was established by the President in July 1996—shortly after the enactment of the Clinger-Cohen Act. Specifically, Executive Order 13011 established the CIO Council as the principal interagency forum for improving agency practices on such matters as the design, modernization, use, sharing, and performance of agency information resources. The Council, chaired by OMB’s Deputy Director for Management with a Vice Chair selected from among its members, is tasked with (1) developing recommendations for overall federal information technology management policy, procedures, and standards, (2) sharing experiences, ideas, and promising practices, (3) identifying opportunities, making recommendations for, and sponsoring cooperation in using information resources, (4) assessing and addressing workforce issues, (5) making recommendations and providing advice to appropriate executive agencies and organizations, and (6) seeking the views of various organizations. Because it is essentially an advisory body, the CIO Council must rely on OMB’s support to see that its recommendations are implemented through federal information management policies, procedures, and standards. With respect to Council resources, according to its charter, OMB and the General Services Administration are to provide support and assistance, which can be augmented by other Council members as necessary. The information issues confronting the government in the new Internet- based technology environment rapidly evolve and carry significant impact for future directions. To effectively address these issues, we believe that the government’s current information resources and technology management framework could be strengthened by establishing a central focal point, such as a federal CIO. Increasingly, the challenges the government faces are multidimensional problems that cut across numerous programs, agencies, and governmental tools. Clearly, departments and agencies should have the primary responsibility and accountability for decisions related to IT investments and spending supporting their missions and statutory responsibilities. But governmentwide issues need a strong catalyst to provide substantive leadership, full-time attention, consistent direction, and priority setting for a growing agenda of government issues, such as critical infrastructure protection and security, e-government, and large-scale IT investments. A federal CIO could serve as this catalyst, working in conjunction with other high-level officials, to ensure that information resources and technology management issues are addressed within the context of the government’s highest priorities and not in isolation from these priorities. During the period of the legislative deliberations on the Clinger-Cohen Act, we supported strengthened governmentwide management through the creation of a formal CIO position for the federal government. In September 2000 we also called for the Congress to consider establishing a formal CIO position for the federal government to provide central leadership and support. As we noted, a federal CIO would bring about ways to use IT to better serve the public, facilitate improving access to government services, and help restore confidence in our national government. With respect to specific responsibilities, a federal CIO could be responsible for key functions, such as overseeing federal agency IT activities, managing crosscutting issues, ensuring interagency coordination, serving as the nation’s chief IT spokesman internationally, and maintaining appropriate partnerships with state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. A federal CIO could also participate in establishing funding priorities, especially for crosscutting e-government initiatives, such as the President’s recently proposed e-government fund (estimated to include $100 million over three years), which is expected to support interagency e-government initiatives. Consensus has not been reached within the federal community on the need for a federal CIO. Department and agency responses to questions developed by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs regarding opinions about the need for a federal CIO found mixed reactions. In addition, at our March 2000 Y2K Lessons Learned Summit, which included a broad range of public and private-sector IT managers and policymakers, some participants did not agree or were uncertain about whether a federal CIO was needed. Even individuals or organizations that support a federal CIO disagree on the structure and authorities of this office. For example, as you know, the last Congress considered two proposals to establish a federal CIO: H.R. 4670, the Chief Information Officer of the United States Act of 2000, introduced by Representative Turner, and H.R. 5024, the Federal Information Policy Act of 2000, which you introduced. These bills shared a common call for central IT leadership from a federal CIO but they differed in how the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of the position would be established. H.R. 5024 vested in the federal CIO the information resources and technology management responsibilities currently assigned to OMB, as well as oversight of related activities of the General Services Administration and promulgation of information system standards developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. On the other hand, H.R 4670 generally did not change the responsibilities of these agencies; instead, it called on the federal CIO to advise agencies and the Director of OMB and to consult with nonfederal entities, such as state governments and the private sector. Senator Lieberman also plans to introduce an e-government bill, which is expected to include a provision establishing a federal Chief Information Officer. Different federal CIO approaches have also been suggested by other organizations.