This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-1083T 
entitled 'Electronic Government: Proposal Addresses Critical 
Challenges' which was released on September 18, 2002. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States General Accounting Office: 


Before the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy, Committee 
on Government Reform, House of Representatives: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 2 p.m. EDT: 
Wednesday, September 18, 2002: 

Electronic Government: 

Proposal Addresses Critical Challenges: 

Statement of Linda D. Koontz: 
Director, Information Management Issues: 


Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting us to participate in today’s hearing on 
legislation pertaining to e-government. This is an issue of critical 
importance to the government and its ability to effectively communicate 
with the public. Recognizing this, both the Congress and current and 
past administrations have emphasized the importance of e-government 
[Footnote 1] and have put forth proposals to address the challenges 
associated with this issue. Moreover, earlier this year, the Senate 
passed by unanimous consent S. 803, the E-Government Act of 2002, 
[Footnote 2] which was introduced by Senator Lieberman and 14 co-
sponsors. [Footnote 3] 

As you are well aware, advances in the use of IT and the Internet are
continuing to change the way that federal agencies communicate, use and
disseminate information, deliver services, and conduct business. E-
government has the potential to help build better relationships between
government and the public by facilitating timely and efficient 
interaction with citizens. The government has not yet fully reached 
this potential, although substantial progress has been made. 
Specifically, federal agencies have implemented an array of e-
government applications, including using the Internet to collect and 
disseminate information and forms, buy and pay for goods and services, 
submit bids and proposals, and apply for licenses, grants, and 

In response to your request, in my remarks today, I will: 

* briefly describe the background of the federal government’s current
information resources and technology management framework,
discuss the challenges facing the federal government in effectively
managing information resources and technology; 

* discuss the significant legislative provisions intended to address 
these challenges, and; 

* comment on proposed structural changes in OMB to enhance its
e-government efforts. 

In summary, we strongly support the goal of enhancing the management
and promotion of e-government. To accomplish this goal, S. 803 addresses
many of the substantive information resource and management challenges
facing the federal government today. Initiatives contained in this bill
represent important steps in creating a government that is more 
efficient, effective, and focused on citizens’ needs. For example, the 
bill’s provisions would (1) secure the transmission of sensitive 
information in e-government transactions by promoting the development 
of electronic signatures, (2) protect individuals’ privacy by requiring 
agencies to conduct privacy impact assessments, and (3) make government
information more accessible to the public. 

A strength of S. 803’s provision to establish an administrator of a new
Office of Electronic Government is that it would provide the benefit of 
a high-level executive position within OMB to focus full time on 
promoting and implementing e-government. However, a complicating factor 
is that the federal government’s information resources and technology
management leadership would be shared between two offices: the
proposed new office and OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory


The need for strong leadership and an integrated approach to information
management has long been recognized as critical. The Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1980 established a single policy framework for federal
management of information resources and formalized information 
resources management (IRM) as the approach governing information
activities. The Act also gave responsibility to the director of OMB for
developing IRM policy and overseeing its implementation. The Clinger-
Cohen Act of 1996 amended the Paperwork Reduction Act to give the
OMB director significant leadership responsibilities in supporting
agencies’ actions to improve their IT management practices. These laws
created an IRM “umbrella” to govern the management of virtually all
federal information activities and to coordinate other laws governing
specific information functions such as privacy, security, records
management, and information access and dissemination. These other laws
include: the Federal Records Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, the Computer 
Security Act of 1987, [Footnote 4] and the Government Paperwork 
Elimination Act of

Under this statutory framework, OMB has important responsibilities for
providing direction on managing governmentwide information resources
and technology and overseeing agency activities in these areas. Among
OMB’s responsibilities are: 

* ensuring agency integration of information resources management plans,
program plans, and budgets for acquisition and use of IT and the 
efficiency and effectiveness of interagency IT 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; 
[Footnote 5]; 

* directing and overseeing implementation of policy, principles, 
standards, and guidelines for disseminating and accessing public 

* encouraging agency heads to develop and use best practices in IT
acquisitions; and; 

* developing and overseeing implementation of privacy and security
policies, principles, standards, and guidelines. 

While OMB’s director is responsible for these functions, by statute 
they are delegated to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(OIRA), which was created by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The 
administrator of OIRA reports to OMB’s deputy director for management, 
described by OMB as the federal chief information officer (CIO). A 
primary concern we have previously expressed about this structure is 
that, in addition to their responsibilities for information resources 
and technology management, the deputy director for management and the 
OIRA administrator have other significant duties, [Footnote 6] which 
necessarily restrict the amount of attention that they can give to 
information resources and technology management issues. [Footnote 7] 

Under this statutory framework, 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 [Footnote 8] 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. 

In addition, in June 2001, OMB established the position of associate
director for information technology and e-government. This individual is
responsible for (1) working to further the administration’s goal of 
using the Internet to create a citizen-centric government; (2) ensuring 
that the federal government take maximum advantage of technology and 
best practices to improve quality, effectiveness, and efficiency; and 
(3) leading the development and implementation of federal IT policy. In 
addition, the associate director is responsible for (1) overseeing 
implementation of IT throughout the federal government, (2) working 
with OMB’s deputy director for management to perform a variety of 
oversight functions statutorily assigned to OMB, and (3) directing the 
activities of the CIO Council. 

The CIO Council is another important organization in the federal
information resources and technology management framework that 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 IT 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. Regarding 
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. 

Federal Government Faces Significant Challenges in Managing Information
Resources and Technology: 

In executing these broad responsibilities for information resources and
technology, the federal government faces significant challenges. 
[Footnote 9] 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—including e-government 
initiatives—will be better prepared to meet mission goals and support 
national priorities. These challenges include: 

* Improving the collection, use, and dissemination of government
information. Agencies are increasingly moving to an operational
environment in which electronic—rather than paper—records provide
comprehensive documentation of their activities and business processes.
This transformation has produced a variety of issues related to, for
example, records management, privacy, and electronic dissemination of
government publications. 

For example, in July 1999, we reported that the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA) and federal agencies were facing the
substantial challenge of preserving electronic records in an era of 
rapidly changing technology. [Footnote 10] More recently a 2001 NARA 
study found that although agencies were creating and maintaining 
records appropriately, the value of most electronic records had not 
been assessed nor their disposition determined, as required by statute. 
Further, records of historic value were not being identified and 
provided to NARA for preservation, and may be at risk of loss. Our 
review at four agencies confirmed the results of this study, eliciting 
a collective estimate that more than 90 percent of mission-critical 
systems were not inventoried and the electronic records in these 
systems had not been assessed nor their disposition determined. 
[Footnote 11] Improving records management is particularly important in
an e-government environment to ensure the appropriate handling of the
potentially large number of electronic records generated by transactions
between the government and the public. 

In addition, the government cannot realize the full potential of the 
Internet until people are confident that the government will protect 
their privacy when they visit its Web sites. In September 2000, we 
reported that most principal Web sites we reviewed (67 of 70) had 
posted privacy policies that were clearly labeled and easily accessed. 
[Footnote 12] However, we also found that of 31 high-impact agencies, 
[Footnote 13] most did not post a privacy policy on all Web pages that 
collected personal information, as required by OMB. In addition, of 101 
on-line forms that we reviewed, 44 did not have a privacy policy posted 
on the Web page. We have made recommendations to strengthen 
governmentwide privacy guidance and oversight of agency practices that 
OMB has not yet implemented. 

Another important issue involves the use of the Internet and other IT to
disseminate government information to the public. Such electronic
dissemination offers the opportunity to reduce the costs of 
dissemination and make government information more usable and 
accessible—an important aspect of e-government. However, as we reported 
in March of last year, to move to an environment in which documents are 
disseminated solely in electronic format, the government would have to 
ensure that these documents are (1) authentic, (2) permanently 
maintained, and (3) equally accessible to all individuals. [Footnote 
14] In addition, certain cost issues—including shifting printing costs 
to libraries and other users—would need to be addressed. 

* Strengthening agency information security. Dramatic increases in
computer interconnectivity, especially in the use of the Internet, 
continue to revolutionize the way our government, our nation, and much 
of the world communicate and conduct business. However, this widespread
connectivity also poses significant risks to our computer systems and,
more important, to the critical operations and infrastructure they 
support, such as telecommunications, public heath, and national 
defense. Further, the events of September 11, 2001, underscored the 
need to protect America’s cyberspace against potentially disastrous 
cyber attacks. Finally, as we reported last year, security concerns 
present one of the toughest challenges to extending the reach of e-
government. [Footnote 15] The rash of hacker attacks, Web page 
defacing, and credit card information being posted on electronic 
bulletin boards can make many federal agency officials—as well as the 
general public—reluctant to conduct sensitive government transactions 
involving personal or financial data over the Internet. 

Since September 1996, we have reported that poor information security is
a widespread federal problem with potentially devastating consequences. 
[Footnote 16] Subsequently, in 1997, 1999, and 2001, we designated 
information security as a governmentwide high-risk area because growing 
evidence indicated that controls over computerized federal operations 
were not effective and because the related risks were escalating, in 
part due to increasing reliance on the Internet. Although agencies have 
taken steps to redesign and strengthen their information system 
security programs, our analyses of information security at major 
federal agencies have shown that federal systems were not being 
adequately protected from computer-based threats. [Footnote 17] 

Effective information security is essential to the expansion of e-
government. As the government moves toward providing citizens with the
capability to conduct the full range of their government business—
including sensitive transactions such as benefits applications—on-line,
citizens must be assured that these transactions are secure. In 
addition, unless security features are properly implemented, electronic 
transactions can be more susceptible to fraud and abuse than 
traditional paper-based transactions. 

A key piece of the solution to the Internet-based security problem will 
be the development and implementation of the Public Key Infrastructure 
or PKI technology. A PKI is a system of computers, software and data 
that relies on certain sophisticated cryptographic techniques to secure 
on-line messages by attaching so-called “digital signatures” to them. 
Digital signatures are a special kind of encrypted electronic signature 
that vouch for senders’ identities and establish authenticity of the 
message to which they are attached. Properly implemented, PKIs can 
provide the level of security needed to protect the transmission of 
sensitive transactions, such as those involving personal, financial, 
and health-related data. 

As we reported in February 2001, progress has been made in implementing
PKI technology throughout the government. [Footnote 18] However, 
because federal agencies are adopting different and potentially 
incompatible implementations of PKI technology, the development of a 
Federal Bridge Certification Authority is critical. The federal bridge 
is being developed to link disparate agency PKI systems and promote 
interoperability of digital signatures within and outside the federal 
government. Without a successfully functioning bridge, agencies will 
need to individually make arrangements to interoperate with other 
specific agencies in order to share secure information or transactions. 
This process could prove to be tedious and impractical and, thereby, 
hamper the expansion of e-government. Consequently, our recommendations 
for facilitating the adoption of PKI technology in the federal 
government included one to the Director, OMB, to prepare a program plan 
spelling out, among other things, when the federal bridge would be 
implemented, what resources would be required, and what roles and 
responsibilities participating agencies would assume. While progress 
has been made in implementing the bridge, OMB has not yet developed 
such a plan. 

* Constructing sound enterprise architectures. Our experience with 
federal agencies has shown that attempts to modernize IT environments 
without blueprints—models simplifying the complexities of how agencies 
operate today, how they want to operate in the future, and how they 
will get there—often result in unconstrained investment and systems 
that are duplicative and ineffective. Enterprise architectures offer 
such blueprints. 

Our February report on the federal government’s use of enterprise
architectures found that agencies’ use of enterprise architectures was a
work in progress, with much to be accomplished. [Footnote 19] In 
addition, in our testimony before you earlier this year, we noted that 
the success of the Administration’s e-government initiatives hinges in 
large part on whether they are pursued within the context of enterprise 
architectures. [Footnote 20] However, at the time of our testimony, 
approved architectures for most of these initiatives did not exist. 
Overcoming this obstacle would be a formidable undertaking even if 
federal agencies were now successfully using enterprise architectures 
to manage their respective operational and technological environments, 
but unfortunately this is not the case. At stake is the ability of 
federal agencies to not only effectively transform their respective 
operations and supporting systems environments, and thus elevate their 
performance, but also to effectively work together in implementing 
integrated e-government solutions. 

* Fostering mature systems acquisition, development, and operational
practices. High-quality software is essential for agencies’ information
systems to provide reliable management, financial, and administrative
information and to support agencies’ many programs. The quality of
software is governed largely by the quality of the processes involved in
developing or acquiring it and in maintaining it. Using models and 
methods that define and determine organizations’ software process 
maturity that were developed by Carnegie Mellon University’s Software 
Engineering Institute, which is recognized for its expertise in 
software processes, we have evaluated several agencies’ software 
development or acquisition processes. We have found that these 
agencies’ processes do not meet the criteria to be considered at the 
“repeatable” level of process maturity, which is the second level on 
the Software Engineering Institute’s five-level scale. [Footnote 21] An 
organization at the repeatable level of process maturity has the 
necessary process discipline in place to repeat earlier successes on 
similar projects. Organizations that do not satisfy the requirements 
for the repeatable level are by default judged to be at the “initial” 
level of maturity. This means that their processes are immature, ad 
hoc, and sometimes even chaotic, with few of the processes defined and 
success dependent mainly on the heroic efforts of individuals. 

In the government’s rush to provide greater electronic service 
delivery, it is essential for agency executives to remember that 
fundamental principles and practices of good IT planning and management 
apply equally to effective customer-centric Web-based applications. As 
we noted in May 2000, [Footnote 22] some of these fundamentals include: 

- developing a well-defined project purpose and scope and realistic,
measurable expectations; 

- understanding and improving business processes before applying

- performing risk assessments and developing appropriate risk
mitigation strategies; 

- using industry standard technology and solutions, where appropriate; 

- adopting and abiding by pertinent data standards; 

- thoroughly training and supporting users; and; 

- reviewing and evaluating performance metrics. 

* Ensuring effective agency IT investment practices. According to OMB, 
in fiscal year 2003, federal agencies plan to invest about $53 billion 
to build, operate, and maintain automated systems. If managed 
effectively, these investments can vastly improve government 
performance and accountability. If not, however, they can result in 
wasteful spending and lost opportunities for improving delivery of 
services to the public. The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires agency 
heads to implement a process for maximizing the value and assessing and 
managing the risks of its IT investments. In support of these 
requirements, in May 2000 we issued the Information Technology 
Investment Management maturity framework, [Footnote 23] which 
identified critical processes for successful IT investment and 
organizes these processes into an assessment framework. Using this
model, our evaluations of selected agencies found that while some
processes have been put in place to help them effectively manage their
planned and ongoing IT investments, more work remains. [Footnote 24] 

The importance of effective investment management practices is 
demonstrated by the government’s longstanding problems in developing or
acquiring major IT systems. For example, since 1995 we have reported
three agency IT modernization efforts as high risk. [Footnote 25] In 
some cases, we have seen improvement in the federal government’s 
implementation of major IT investments. For example, earlier this year 
we reported that the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Customs 
Service had made progress in implementing our past recommendations 
related to their system modernization projects, although significant 
work remains.[Footnote 26] 

* Developing IT human capital strategies. The challenges facing the
government in maintaining a high-quality IT workforce are long-standing
and widely recognized. As far back as 1994, our study of leading
organizations revealed that strengthening the skills of IT 
professionals is a critical aspect of strategic information management. 
[Footnote 27] Moreover, less than a year ago, we reported that, 
notwithstanding the recent economic slowdown, employers from every 
sector, including the federal government, are still finding it 
difficult to meet their needs for highly skilled IT workers. [Footnote 

Without fully developing staff capabilities, agencies stand to miss out 
on the potential customer service benefits presented by technology and 
the expansion of e-government. Employees must have the training and 
tools they need to do their jobs. The process of adopting a new system 
can be made much less difficult by offering well-designed, user-
oriented training sessions that demonstrate not only how the system 
works, but also how it fits into the larger work picture and “citizen 
as customer” orientation. A significant challenge for all agencies is 
providing internal incentives for customer service, reducing employee 
complaints, and cutting the time that employees spend on non-customer-
related activities. 

S. 803 Provisions Are Important to Addressing Challenges: 

Recognizing the magnitude of the information management and technology 
challenges facing the federal government, S. 803 seeks to address many 
of these challenges through its individual provisions. Next, I would 
like to comment on significant provisions of the bill concerning 
improving the collection, use, and dissemination of government 
information; strengthening information security; meeting IT human 
capital needs; and establishing the CIO Council in statute. 

* Improving the collection, use, and dissemination of government 
information. S. 803 emphasizes that an important goal is using the
Internet and other IT to make government information better organized
and more accessible to the public. The bill seeks to accomplish this 
goal first by establishing an interagency committee to make 
recommendations to OMB on how government information can be better 
organized, preserved, and made available to public. In turn, OMB is 
required to issue policies on (1) standards for the organization and 
categorization of information, (2) the categories of government 
information to be classified, and (3) priorities and schedules for the 
initial agency implementation of these standards. 

The proposal for an interagency committee appears to be a reasonable
first step to addressing this complex issue; however, we caution that
previous attempts to categorize government information have been
difficult to implement across federal agencies. For example, the Senate
report accompanying the bill concludes that a similar effort to develop 
the Government Information Locator System (GILS)—required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995—never achieved its goal of facilitating
public and agency access to government information. More specifically, a
1997 contractor study done for the General Services Administration
reported that while the concept of GILS was sound, its implementation
suffered because of many factors including (1) a lack of clarity as to 
the purpose and benefits of the system, (2) insufficient governmentwide
leadership, oversight, and guidance; and (3) inadequate senior agency
management attention and allocation of resources.29 An important role of
the interagency committee proposed by the bill would be to consider such
“lessons learned” and incorporate them into its recommendations. 

S. 803 also recognizes the need to make government information and 
services available to all citizens, including those without access to 
the Internet. It requires that when promulgating policies and 
implementing programs related to providing government information and 
services over the Internet, agency heads (1) ensure that the 
availability of government information and services not be diminished 
for individuals who do not have access to the Internet and (2) pursue 
alternative modes of delivery. We agree that an important policy 
consideration governments face is how to provide services and access to 
segments of the population with limited Internet access and ensure 
their participation in this new electronic environment. Although a 
February report by the Department of Commerce found that American’s use 
of the Internet has been impressive—with the percentage of individuals 
using the Internet more than doubling in about 4 years—in September 
2001, about 46 percent of the population was not using the Internet.30 
In addition, more than 60 percent of certain segments of the population 
were not using the Internet—including Hispanics, individuals without a 
high school diploma, persons over 50 years old, and those with a family 
income of less than $25,000. As a result, multiple access methods to 
government services and processes may be essential to supplement 
Internet use (e.g., in person, by phone, via fax, using public kiosks). 

Regarding privacy, S. 803 also requires agencies to conduct privacy 
impact assessments before developing or procuring IT, or initiating a 
new collection of information, that includes any identifier permitting 
the physical or on-line contacting of a specific individual. Such 
assessments would include what information is being collected, why it 
is being collected, and its intended use. Many agencies across 
government—including the Postal Service and the Internal Revenue 
Service—are already using privacy impact assessments and have found 
them useful. This requirement should focus needed agency attention on 
the privacy implications of collecting personal information and ensure 
that the use of these assessments continues. In addition, conducting 
these assessments may help achieve one of the goals of the Privacy Act, 
to reduce the amount of information that agencies collect, by 
discouraging agencies from collecting unnecessary personal information 
and encouraging them to destroy personal information that is no longer 

However, one issue with the privacy impact assessment provision is that 
S. 803 limits the requirement for these assessments to information 
systems and collections that include an “identifier permitting the 
physical or online contacting of a specific individual.” We note that 
the Senate committee report accompanying this bill describes such 
identifiers broadly as including a first and last name; a home or other 
physical address; an e-mail address; a telephone number; a social 
security number; a credit card number; or a birth date, birth 
certificate number, or place of birth. However, without this definition 
in the bill itself, the requirement could be interpreted more narrowly 
and may result in these assessments being applied to fewer collections 
and systems than intended. 

The act also requires OMB to develop guidance for privacy notices on 
agency Web sites used by the public. This is consistent with our 
September 2000 recommendation that OMB consider, in consultation with
appropriate parties such as the CIO Council, how best to help agencies
better ensure that individuals are provided clear and adequate notice
about how their personal information is treated when they visit federal
Web sites. [Footnote 31] 

* Strengthening agency information security. S. 803 would repeal the
November 29 expiration of the Government Information Security Reform
provisions (commonly referred to as “GISRA”) in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. We support the continued
authorization of GISRA. As we testified in May, [Footnote 32] based on 
its first-year implementation, GISRA proved to be a significant step in 
improving federal agencies’ information security programs and 
addressing their serious, pervasive information security weaknesses. 
Agencies have noted benefits from GISRA, such as increased management 
attention to and accountability for information security. 

Mr. Chairman, this provision of S. 803 is also consistent with one 
purpose of the legislation that you have introduced—H.R. 3844, the 
Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002, which seeks to
reauthorize and expand GISRA information security, evaluation and
reporting requirements. In our May testimony, we commented on the
provisions of H.R. 3844 and supported continued authorization of
information security legislation to (1) sustain agency efforts to 
identify and correct significant weaknesses, (2) reinforce the federal 
government’s commitment to establishing information security as an 
integral part of its operations, and (3) help ensure that the 
administration and the Congress continue to receive the information 
they need to effectively manage and oversee federal information 
security. In addition, on the basis of our review of first-year GISRA 
implementation, we noted a number of additional changes proposed by 
H.R. 3844 that could further strengthen the implementation and 
oversight of information security in the federal government, such as 
requiring the development and promulgation of, and agency compliance 
with, minimum mandatory management controls for security information 
and information systems. 

S. 803 also includes a provision to further interoperability of 
electronic signatures for use in securing electronic business 
transactions with the government. The term “electronic signature” 
refers to the full range of methods for attaching personal identifiers 
to electronic documents, including PKI technology. We agree with the 
bill’s support for digital signatures. [Footnote 33] We note that while 
previous versions of the bill authorized funding exclusively for the 
development of the Federal Bridge Certification Authority, S. 803 as 
enacted authorizes this funding for the bridge or other activities to 
promote interoperability of electronic signatures across the 

* Meeting IT human capital needs. S. 803 addresses this critical issue 
by requiring that, for IT and information resources management, the 
Office of Personnel Management, in consultation with OMB, the CIO 
Council, and the General Services Administration, (1) analyze, on an 
ongoing basis, the government’s personnel needs; (2) oversee the 
development of curricula, training methods, and training priorities 
that correspond to the projected personnel needs of the government; and 
(3) assess the training of federal employees in IT disciplines, as 
necessary. This requirement is consistent with our prior work, which 
found that leading organizations identify existing IT skills and needed 
future skills, as well as determine the right skill mix. [Footnote 34] 
Accordingly, we suggested that executives should systematically 
identify IT skill gaps and targets and integrate skill requirements 
into performance evaluations. In addition, our February 2001 study of 
public- and private-sector efforts to build effective CIO organizations 
found that leading organizations develop IT human capital strategies to 
assess their skill bases and recruit and retain staff that can 
effectively implement IT to meet their business needs. [Footnote 35] 

* Establishing the CIO Council in statute. S. 803 also establishes 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. Legislative 
foundations transcend presidential administrations, fluctuating policy 
agendas, and the frequent turnover of senior appointees in the 
executive branch. Having congressional consensus and support for the 
Council helps ensure continuity of purpose over time and allows 
constructive dialogue between the two branches of government on rapidly 
changing management and IT issue. Moreover, as a prime user of 
performance and financial information, the Congress can benefit from 
having the Council statutorily based, thus providing it with an 
effective oversight tool in gauging the progress and impact of the 
Council on advancing effective involvement of agency CIOs in 
governmentwide IT initiatives. 

S. 803 Proposes an E-Government Position: 

To oversee governmentwide implementation of the bill’s provisions and
other e-government initiatives, S. 803 would establish an Office of
Electronic Government within OMB headed by an administrator appointed
by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Under the 
bill, the administrator would be expected to, among other duties: 

* advise OMB’s director on the resources required to develop and 
effectively operate and maintain federal information systems; 

* provide overall leadership and direction to the executive branch on e-
government by working with authorized officials to establish management
policies and requirements for information resources, and by reviewing 
the performance of each agency in acquiring, using, and managing 
information resources; 

* promote innovative uses of IT by agencies, particularly initiatives
involving multi-agency collaboration; and; 

* sponsor ongoing dialogue among federal, state, local, and tribal
government leaders on e-government in the executive, legislative, and
judicial branches, as well as with leaders in the private and nonprofit
sectors, to encourage collaboration and enhance understanding of best
practices and innovative approaches in acquiring, using, and managing
information resources. 

One strength of this approach is that it establishes a high-level 
executive position within OMB to focus full-time on promoting and 
implementing e-government. However, a complicating factor is that the 
federal government’s information resources and technology management
leadership would be shared between two offices: the proposed Office of
Electronic Government and OIRA. The bill addresses this issue by 
requiring the administrator of the proposed Office of Electronic 
Government to work with the administrator of OIRA on a variety of
information technology and management issues. For example, the 
administrators of OIRA and the Office of Electronic Government would be
responsible for working together on security; privacy; access to,
dissemination of, and preservation of government information; the
development of enterprise architectures; and capital planning and
investment control for IT. 

Although a constructive working relationship between the two offices
could be established, having the two organizations hold joint 
responsibility for many information resources and technology management 
areas may result in a blurring of accountability for addressing 
critical information management and technology challenges or in 
significant issues “falling through the cracks.” One possible 
alternative that could be considered is to create a single 
governmentwide position devoted exclusively to information resources 
and technology management functions. There are various ways to 
accomplish this; one approach would be to establish a federal CIO whose 
responsibilities include both e-government and the other major IT 
challenges facing the government. In September 2000, we called for the 
Congress to consider establishing a formal CIO position for the federal 
government to provide central leadership and support. [Footnote 36] 
Consensus has not been reached within the federal community on the
structure and authorities of a federal CIO, or even the need for such an

Regardless of approach, we believe that strong and effective central 
management leadership for information resources and technology is 
needed in the federal government to address the wide range of IT 
challenges, which include but are not limited to e-government. 
Increasingly, the challenges that the government faces are 
multidimensional problems that cut across numerous programs, agencies,
and governmental tools. Although the respective departments and
agencies should have the primary responsibility and accountability to
address their own issues, central leadership has the responsibility to 
keep all focused on the big picture by identifying the agenda of 
governmentwide issues needing attention and ensuring that related 
efforts are complementary rather than duplicative. Further, such 
leadership can fulfill an essential role by serving as a catalyst and 
strategist to prompt agencies and other critical players to come to the 
table and take ownership for addressing the agenda of governmentwide 
information resources and technology management issues. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have at
this time. 


If you should have any questions about this testimony, please contact me
at (202) 512-6240 or via e-mail at 

[End of section] 


[1] S. 803 defines e-government as the use of Web-based Internet 
applications and other information technologies, combined with 
processes that implement these technologies, to (1) enhance the access 
to and delivery of government information and services to the public, 
other agencies, and other government entities or (2) bring about 
improvements in government operations such as efficiency, 
effectiveness, and service quality. 

[2] S. 803 was introduced in the Senate on May 1, 2001, and a companion 
bill, H.R. 2458, was introduced in the House of Representatives by 
Representative Turner on July 11, 2001. 

[3] Co-sponsors of S.803 are Senators Bingaman, Burns, Carper, Cleland, 
Daschle, Dayton, Durbin, Fitzgerald, Johnson, Kerry, Leahy, Levin, 
McCain, and Stabenow. 

[4] The Computer Security Act is complemented by the Government 
Information Security Reform provisions of the fiscal year 2001 Defense 
Authorization Act. 

[5] This responsibility is in addition to OMB’s role in assisting the 
President in reviewing agency budget submissions and compiling the 
President’s budget, as discussed in 31 U.S.C. Chapter 11. 

[6] For example, OIRA’s other duties include reviewing agency 
information collection requests under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
and reviewing agency rulemaking under presidential executive order. 

[7] U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Challenges 
Must Be Addressed With Effective Leadership and Management, GAO-01-959T 
(Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2001). 

[8] The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 revised the information 
resources management responsibilities established under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1980, as amended in 1986. 

[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and 
Program Risks: A Governmentwide Perspective, GAO-01-241 (Washington, 
D.C.: Jan. 2001) provides an overview of this series. The 2001 
Performance and Accountability Series also contains separate reports on 
21 agencies—covering each cabinet department, most major independent 
agencies, and the U.S. Postal Service. 

[10] U.S. General Accounting Office, National Archives: Preserving 
Electronic Records in an Era of Rapidly Changing Technology, GAO/GGD-99-
94 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 1999). 

[11] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Management: Challenges 
in Managing and Preserving Electronic Records, GAO-02-586 (Washington, 
D.C.: June 17, 2001). 

[12] U.S. General Accounting Office, Internet Privacy: Agencies’ 
Efforts to Implement OMB’s Privacy Policy, GAO/GGD-00-191 (Washington, 
D.C.: Sept. 5, 2000). 

[13] The National Partnership for Reinventing Government identified 31 
agencies as having high impact—that is, they have 90 percent of the 
federal government’s contact with the public. 

[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Management: Electronic 
Dissemination of Government Publications , GAO-01-428 (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 30, 2001). 

[15] GAO-01-959T. 

[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Security: 
Opportunities for Improved OMB Oversight of Agency Practices, GAO/AIMD-
96-110 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 24, 1996). 

[17] For example, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Computer 
Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Risk to Critical Federal 
Operations and Assets, GAO-02-231T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 9, 2001). 

[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Security: Advances and 
Remaining Challenges to Adoption of Public Key Infrastructure 
Technology, GAO-01-277 (Washington, D.C., Feb. 26, 2001). 

[19] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Enterprise 
Architecture Use across the Federal Government Can Be Improved, GAO-02-
6 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 19, 2002). 

[20] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: OMB 
Leadership Critical to Making Needed Enterprise Architecture and E-
government Progress, GAO-02-389T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 21, 2002). 

[21] For example, see U.S. General Accounting Office, HUD Information 
Systems: Immature Software Acquisition Capability Increases Project 
Risks, GAO-01-962 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2001) and Customs 
Service Modernization: Ineffective Software Development Processes 
Increase Customs System Development Risks, GAO/AIMD-99-35 (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 11, 1999). 

[22] U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Federal 
Initiatives Are Evolving Rapidly But They Face Significant Challenges, 
GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-00-179 (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2000). 

[23] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology Investment 
Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, 
Exposure Draft, GAO/AIMD-10.1.23 (Washington, D.C.: May 2000). 

[24] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: DLA Needs 
to Strengthen Its Investment Management Capability, GAO-02-314 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002); Information Technology Management: 
Social Security Administration Practices Can Be Improved, GAO-01-961 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 21, 2001); Information Technology: INS Needs to 
Strengthen Its Investment Management Capability, GAO-01-146, Dec. 29, 
2000); and Information Technology Management: Coast Guard Practices Can 
Be Improved, GAO-01-190 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12, 2000). 

[25] U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-
01-263 (Washington, D.C.: January 2001); High-Risk Series: An Update, 
GAO/HR-99-1 (Washington, D.C.: January 1999); High-Risk Series: 
Information Management and Technology, GAO/HR-97-9 (Washington, D.C.: 
February 1997); and High Risk Series: An Overview, GAO/HR-95-1 
(Washington, D.C.: February 1995). 

[26] U.S. General Accounting Office, Business Systems Modernization: 
IRS Needs to Better Balance Management Capacity with Systems 
Acquisition Workload, GAO-02-356 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2002) and 
Customs Service Modernization: Third Expenditure Plan Meets Legislative 
Conditions, but Cost Estimating Improvements Needed, GAO-02-908 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 9, 2002). 

[27] U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Improving Mission 
Performance Through Strategic Information Management and Technology, 
GAO/AIMD-94-115 (Washington, D.C.: May 1994). 

[28] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Attracting and 
Retaining a High-Quality Information Technology Workforce, GAO-02-113T 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2001). 

[29] William E. Moen and Charles R. McClure, An Evaluation of the 
Federal Government’s Implementation of the Government Information 
Locator Service (GILS), prepared under contract to the General Services 
Administration (June 30, 1997). 

[30] U.S. Department of Commerce, A Nation Online: How Americans Are 
Expanding Their Use of the Internet (February 2002). This report used 
data from Commerce’s Census Bureau’s September 2001 current population 
survey of approximately 57,000 households. 

[31] GAO/GGD-00-191. 

[32] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Security: Comments on 
the Proposed Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002, GAO-
02-677T (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2002). 

[33] Digital signatures are a special kind of encrypted electronic 
signature that vouch for senders’ identities and establish authenticity 
of the message to which they are attached. 

[34] GAO/AIMD-94-115. 

[35] U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Maximizing the 
Success of Chief Information Officers, Learning from Leading 
Organizations, GAO-01-376G (Washington, D.C.: February 2001). 

[36] U.S. General Accounting Office, Year 2000 Computing Challenge: 
Lessons Learned Can Be Applied to Other Management Challenges, GAO/AIMD-
00-290 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2000). 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site [hyperlink,] contains abstracts and fulltext files of current 
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The 
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using 
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 
including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
[hyperlink,] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail 
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink,]: 


Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: