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 is responsible for providing direction on governmentwide information resources and technology management and overseeing agency activities in these areas, including analyzing major agency information technology investments. 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 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. 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. 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. CIOs or equivalent positions exist at the state level and in other countries, although no single preferred model has emerged. The specific roles, responsibilities, and authorities assigned to the CIO or CIO-type position vary, reflecting the needs and priorities of the particular government. This is consistent with research presented in our ExecutiveGuide:Maximizing theSuccessofChiefInformationOfficers—LearningfromLeading Organizations,which points out that there is no one right way to establish a CIO position and that leading organizations are careful to ensure that information management leadership positions are appropriately defined and implemented to meet their unique business needs. Regardless of the differences in approach, the success of a CIO will typically rest on the application of certain fundamental principles. While our executive guide was specifically intended to help individual federal agencies maximize the success of their CIOs, several of the principles outlined in the guide also apply to the establishment of a governmentwide CIO. In particular, our research of leading organizations demonstrated that it is important for the organization to employ enterprisewide leaders who embrace the critical role of information technology and reach agreement on the CIO’s leadership role. Moreover, the CIO must possess sufficient stature within the organization to influence the planning process. We have not evaluated the effectiveness of state and foreign government CIOs or equivalent positions; however, these positions appear to apply some of these same principles. With respect to the states, according to the National Association of State Information Resource Executives, the vast majority have senior executives with statewide authority for IT. State CIOs are usually in charge of developing statewide IT plans and approving statewide technical IT standards, budgets, personnel classifications, salaries, and resource acquisitions although the CIO’s authority depends on the specific needs and priorities of the governors. Many state CIOs report directly to the state’s governor with the trend moving in that direction. In some cases, the CIO is guided by an IT advisory board. As the president of the National Association of State Information Resource Executives noted in prior testimony before this Subcommittee, “IT is how business is delivered in government; therefore, the CIO must be a party to the highest level of business decisions . . . needs to inspire the leaders to dedicate political capital to the IT agenda.” National governments in other countries have also established a central information technology coordinating authority and, like the states, have used different implementation approaches in doing so. Preliminary results of a recent survey conducted by the International Council for Information Technology in Government Administration indicate that 8 of 11 countries surveyed have a governmentwide CIO, although the structure, roles, and responsibilities varied. Let me briefly describe the approaches employed by three foreign governments to illustrate this variety. Australia’s Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has responsibility for, among other things, (1) providing strategic advice and support to the government for moving Australia ahead in the information economy and (2) developing policies and procedures and helping to coordinate crosscutting efforts toward e-government. The United Kingdom’s Office of the E-Envoy acts in a capacity analogous to a “national government” CIO in that it works to coordinate activities across government and with public, private, and international groups to (1) develop a legal, regulatory and fiscal environment that facilitates e- commerce, (2) help individuals and businesses take full advantage of the opportunities provided by information and communications technologies, (3) ensure that the government of the United Kingdom applies global best practices in its use of information and communications technologies, and (4) ensure that government and business decisions are informed by reliable and accurate e-commerce monitoring and analysis. Canada’s Office of the CIO is contained within the Treasury Board Secretariat, a crosscutting organization whose mission is to manage the government’s human, financial, information, and technology resources. The CIO is responsible for determining and implementing a strategy that will accomplish governmentwide IT goals. Moreover, the CIO is to (1) provide leadership, coordination and broad direction in the use of IT; (2) facilitate enterprisewide solutions to crosscutting IT issues; and (3) serve as technology strategist and expert adviser to Treasury Board Ministers and senior officials across government. The CIO also develops a Strategic Directions document that focuses on the management of critical IT, information management, and service delivery issues facing the government. This document is updated regularly and is used by departments and agencies as a guide. While these countries’ approaches differ in terms of specific CIO or CIO- type roles and responsibilities, in all cases the organization has responsibility for coordinating governmentwide implementation of e- government and providing leadership in the development of the government’s IT strategy and standards. As you know, the Congress is currently considering legislation to establish a federal CIO. Specifically, two proposals before this Subcommittee—H.R. 4670, the Chief Information Officer of the United States Act of 2000, and H.R. 5024, the Federal Information Policy Act of 2000—share a common call for central IT leadership from a federal CIO, although they differ in how the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of the position would be established. Several similarities exist in the two bills: Both elevate the visibility and focus of information resources and technology management by establishing a federal CIO who (1) is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, (2) reports directly to the President, (3) is a Cabinet-level official, and (4) provides central leadership. The importance of such high level visibility should not be underestimated. Our studies of leading public and private- sector organizations have found that successful CIOs commonly are full members of executive management teams. Both leave intact OMB’s role and responsibility to review and ultimately approve agencies’ information technology funding requests for inclusion in the President’s budget submitted to the Congress each year. However, both require the federal CIO to review and recommend to the President and the Director of OMB changes to the IT budget proposals submitted by agencies. As we have previously testified before your Subcommittee, an integrated approach to budgeting and feedback is absolutely critical for progress in government performance and management.Certainly, close coordination between the federal CIO and OMB would be necessary to coordinate the CIO’s technical oversight and OMB’s budget responsibilities. Finally, both bills establish the existing federal CIO Council in statute. Just as with the Chief Financial Officers’ Council, there are important benefits associated with having a strong statutory base for the CIO Council.