The E-Government Act of 2001, S. 803, is a bill that will help the federal government move into the electronic information age. OMB Watch's Senior Policy Analyst, Dr. Patrice McDermott, addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the bill in this testimony to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on S. 803, the E-Government Act of 2001. We congratulate Senator Lieberman and the other co-sponsors on the development of a thoughtful bill that will do much to help the federal government move into the electronic information age.

OMB Watch is a nonprofit research and advocacy organization that works to encourage a more open, responsive, and accountable federal government. For more than 15 years OMB Watch has been calling for improved public access to government information. And we have encouraged the federal government to make use of the new electronic technologies to assist in the improved access. Since 1989 we have operated RTK NET (www.rtknet.org ), which provides public access to complex databases most of which deal with toxic chemicals in our communities. Thus, we have practical experience with providing public access to government information.

Unfortunately, it continues to be necessary to promote the same message about public access. As S. 803 notes, “The Federal Government has had uneven success in applying advances in information technology to enhance Governmental functions and services, achieve more efficient performance, and increase access to Government information and citizen participation in Government.” (Sec. 2(a)(2)) We couldn’t agree more, which is one reason that a bill like S. 803 is needed.

OMB Watch has maintained that an essential component of our civil society is an informed citizenry. In this context, the free flow of information is essential to democracy; it is a public resource that enables citizen participation, promotes greater transparency and accountability, and provides opportunities for improving quality of life. Through our Agenda for Access project, we have learned that, while many organizations heavily rely on government information, many of them have never thought of public access as a policy issue. To begin to address this gap, we worked with organizations across the country to develop a set of principles that should guide the public’s right-to-know about information created, collected, or held by or for the federal government. (See Attachment A) While we recognize the government cannot change overnight, we do believe the public is entitled to a floor plan for making government far more transparent and interactive with its citizenry.

This is why OMB Watch strongly endorses the principles undergirding S. 803—it is an attempt to strengthen our democracy by instilling information access leadership in the executive branch. In particular, we vigorously support the second purpose of the bill to use “Internet-based information technology to enhance citizen access to Government information and services, improve Government efficiency and reduce Government operating costs, and increase opportunities for citizen participation in Government.” (Sec. 2(b)(2))

As with any ground breaking legislation, we believe it can be strengthened. We believe that S. 803 provides the framework for critical legislation. The bulk of this statement addresses specific issues within the bill. What follows is a summary of the elements we support in the bill and those elements that we think can and should be strengthened.

Beneficial Elements in S. 803

• Leadership: S. 803 is to be applauded for filling the leadership vacuum with a plan for addressing e-government issues. OMB Watch has complained about lack of leadership in the executive branch, despite statutory authority being given largely to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs through the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act. Agency Chief Information Officers, who are primarily technology experts—not necessarily information policy or information access experts—have provided the most consistent leadership in information technology concerns with procurement and security. GSA and GPO (in the legislative branch) have taken leads in areas of access to web sites and in permanent public access to electronic (and other) government documents. But, even with the best legislative requirements, without central and focused leadership it is less than likely that there will be effective implementation.

  OMB Watch does not have a position on where to house the government-wide CIO, what level of authority the position should have (e.g., Senate confirmation), or whether it can be combined with other functions. We do, however, believe it vitally important to have leadership. S. 803 takes a bold step, and we see no reason not to try the structure. If there are future problems with the CIO or the CIO Council, the law can be modified.

  We do advise caution on two points. First, it is critical that the federal CIO have a firm grasp of information policy issues, not just expertise on use of technology. S. 803 appropriately delineates the CIO responsibilities to include information policy issues, but, too often, they are relegated secondary to technology issues. We understand that preventing this is one of the central reasons for the structure proposed, but we would urge that the legislation contain clear language on the areas of expertise that the federal CIO must possess.

  The second relates to the CIO Council. In its current form, there is a strong bias away from information policy and public access issues, mostly because the required membership is dominated by technology experts as noted above. It may be useful to require additional participation, including from other branches. We are also concerned that the CIO Council can have enormous policy clout, yet there is no required public accountability. There is no requirement for open meetings or records of such meetings. There is no requirement to make the recommendations to the CIO publicly available. We hope these issues will be addressed.

   

   

• Integrated Public Access: The public wants access to government information regardless of where it sits, whether it is in a database or held by several agencies. Ideally, the public should able to use the government’s web portal, FirstGov, to obtain not only a listing of documents on agency web sites, but also a list of government information in all its manifestations (publications, databases, records schedules, etc.) and an indication of whether the public can obtain such information. If the information is not available electronically, a description on how to obtain the information should be provided. If the information is available electronically, a link to such information should be available. And if it is not available, information should be provided as to why it is not.

  A list of government information is a good start, but there must also be access to public government databases through the government web portal and other entry points to government. For example, the public has a right-to-know about regulatory compliance by industry. An individual should be able to enter the name of a company in a search box on a government web site that accesses public databases across the agencies—such as the Toxics Release Inventory at EPA, accident and injury data from OSHA, and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Today, this cannot be done: FirstGov does not provide access directly to databases; there is no common identifier so that information about a company or its subsidiaries can be properly searched within a database; and there is no plan for a distributed database structure to link databases from different agencies.

  S. 803 does not provide the complete answer to these gaps, but begins to take important steps to address these problems. Key among these are the steps taken to identify both the information technology standards and the cataloging/indexing standards in use in the agencies, to limit the use of proprietary standards, and to move the government rapidly toward interoperability of its standards. The bill, in Section 215, also sets up a process for agencies to inventory their information, catalog or index it, and make it accessible online. Some clarification is needed in this part of the bill, to ensure that the intent of the legislation is clear. (See below)

  It also creates a process to identify and establish standards and policies for public access to information on a permanent basis. This is critical to meaningful public access over time.

  S. 803 also requires up to five pilot projects to test public access to integrated databases. This is a critically important component to achieving meaningful public access as described above.

   

   

• Public Participation and Accountability: Various parts of S. 803, most notably through creation of the Advisory Board on Government Information (Sec. 215(b)), place an emphasis on public participation. In doing so, there is an acknowledgment that there are different types of publics that must be involved. We think this perspective is not only appropriate but also essential to an accountable, transparent government. Unfortunately, OMB Watch still remembers only too well the meetings on public access organized by EPA that excluded the public from participation. Public access requires public involvement.

  As an example of good public participation, we commend Sec. 215 of S. 803. It provides a useful floor plan for a mix of public participation, agency authority, and CIO oversight. We are very pleased with the idea of creating an Advisory Board that involves the public in making recommendations on issues that are central to public access. Through our Agenda for Access project we have learned that there are many types of representatives who would do an excellent job on such a Board—experts on information policy, on privacy, and on technology. We hope that there would also be an emphasis on involving those who access and use government information, including unions, environmental organizations, health, religious, consumer and other public interest groups. We would encourage that the majority of participants come from a category that might well be called “users.”

  We would urge that the E-Government Status Report Sec. 201(c), the decisions over use of the E-Government Fund, and the notification to Congress of provisions that are obsolete or counterproductive to the purposes of this act, required under Sec.220, be made publicly available.

   

   

• Inequities: We concur with the principles underlying S. 803 that a shift to e-government cannot leave any citizen behind because they cannot use newer information technologies. There is substantial data showing a digital divide based on race/ethnicity, income, geographic location and other factors. This divide is about more than simply providing computers or Internet access. It also is about literacy, training, and availability of useful content.

  Over the years, we have been firm advocates of federal resources for training and technical assistance with use of technology. For example, we lead a coalition calling for more federal funding for community technology centers (CTCs). The studies identified in S. 803 to evaluate best practices of CTCs that get federal funding and to learn more about disparities in Internet access will be very useful. We hope that the study on disparities also looks at literacy issues. And we hope that the study also looks at Internet access for nonprofit organizations. In an ongoing study we are doing with Tufts University, we have found that 90% of charities use email and 84% use the web. But not much is known about the 10% who don’t use email or the 16% who don’t use the web. The disparities study could add to our understanding of potential digital divides in the nonprofit community.

   

   

• Money: We are pleased to see that S. 803 authorizes specific sums of money for various activities. Even when agencies want to improve public access and embrace e-government, it has been difficult because of a lack of resources. Of course, the main issue will be whether Congress chooses to appropriate the money that will be needed to do the job properly.

   

Portions of S. 803 to be Strengthened

• Linkage or Developing a Unified Framework: S. 803 is pioneering legislation. As such, it needs to provide a comprehensive framework for electronic access. In this regard, the bill has three areas that can be improved. First, it continues a tradition of creating information legislation without the creation of an information policy blueprint, a comprehensive policy plan to better understand that the sum of the parts is greater than each individual part. Such a plan would clarify how the initiatives in this bill relate to GPO Access, FedWorld, depository libraries, the National Archives, and other existing institutions and services.

  Notwithstanding the useful provisions in the bill, there are components that can create confusion. For example, how does the “integrated Internet-based system of delivering Government information and services to the public” described in Sec. 3602(a)(13) relate to the Government Information Locator Service required by the Paperwork Reduction Act or to FirstGov? Some of this may be appropriately addressed in report language, but the relationship to other statutes and other parts of Title 35 of the US Code need to be clearly addressed in the bill itself.

  Second, it is not clear how some of the provisions in the bill—online access to federally funded research and development, the online national library, crisis management—fit with the rest of the bill, particularly with its focus on standards and information management.

  Third, it is not entirely clear what the CIO is supposed to do with the information coming from the various fora created in Sec. 3602(a)(9)-(12) and what is to be done if there are conflicts. Nor is the relation clear between the Cross-Sector Forum and the Advisory Board created in Sec. 215, although they potentially will be addressing related issues and concerns.

   

   

• Public Participation and Accountability: As we noted above, S. 803, most notably through creation of the Advisory Board on Government Information (Sec. 215(b)), places an emphasis on public participation. There are other parts of the bill where we think additional public participation and accountability provisions are needed. For example, there are no requirements that the CIO Council’s action be handled in the sunshine. The decisions over use of the E-Government Fund are to be known to Congress, but there is no requirement to make the decisions publicly available. There is no public notice if agencies choose not to participate in the electronic docketing under rule-making procedures.(Sec. 206(e) The study required to assess best practices of community technology centers (Sec. 213) does not require public or user input. We urge the rectification of these gaps in public participation and government accountability.

  We think that the Advisory Board on Government Information should also develop recommendations for addressing inequities in access to information. And why shouldn’t the Advisory Board be involved in advising the creation of the “integrated Internet-based system” for public access required under Sec. 3602(a)(13)? The public and users have key stakes in these discussions as well and the perspective of information policy and information access should inform these discussions.

   

   

• Integrated Reporting: As mentioned above we applaud S. 803 for the integrated reporting requirements (Sec. 207) if they lead to improved public access. Accordingly, we would recommend that Sec. 207(d), dealing with pilot projects, be strengthened by being explicit that the pilots are also about public accessibility. For example, Sec. 207(d)(1) could be modified to state that there be “a series of no more than 5 pilot projects that integrate data elements and provide public access to such information .” (Italics added)

  We also believe that the bill should be calling for a corporate identification system that can be employed throughout the government for companies doing business with the government. This ID system should be used to help reduce reporting burdens and create the framework for improved public access across agencies. For example, the government has no way to know whether a federal contractor has repeated civil or criminal violations. With a common ID system, the public – and the government – can better track who they do business with across agencies and that they are not a scofflaw.

   

   

• Identification of Government Information: It is clear that the intent of the bill is to provide the public (and the government) with knowledge of and access to government information, of whatever type. For this reason, we are very concerned with some of the language in Sec. 215(e)(2)(B) and (3)(B)(i). The language is not clear on what is meant by “classes” of information. Either in the legislation itself or the report language, it should be spelled out that what is meant are such types of information as publications, databases, records schedules, and not, for instance, “public/non-public”or “administrative.” It is also imperative that Sec 215(e)(3)(B)(i) spell out that it is individual items that are to be inventoried (not just the “classes”), lest we end up with inventories that read “X Agency has publications, databases,...” We are very concerned about the language in (3)(B)(i) that the CIO will include in the circular or regulation requirements for the completion of “some portion” of government information. This would seem to indicate that the CIO can, at his or her discretion, limit the extent and content of the inventories. This creates an impossible situation for the public, as we will have no way of knowing what has been excluded. This problem could be partially resolved by requiring, in (e)(2), that the recommendations of the Advisory Board be made publicly available online.

  In terms of the inventories themselves, we would urge that report language indicate that they should identify which of the information is available online, which is available electronically (if not yet online), and which is available in other formats. The inventories should also list what information is not publicly available and why. Without this information, we run the risk that e-government will not enhance government transparency and accountability, and, thus, not live up to its potential.

   

   

• Legislative Branch: We would encourage an expansion of S. 803 to also address access to legislative branch information. For example, the online telephone directory in Sec. 203 should also include the staff in legislative offices.

  It would also be useful to require all testimony and reports (e.g., CRS and CBO reports) to be made available online.

   

   

The remainder of this statement provides specific reactions to sections of S. 803. We have broken these comments into three sections: the management of government information, the need to bring information policy and the coordination of information practices to the fore, and equity issues as we move to transformative e-government.

Managing Government Information

OMB Watch is most enthusiastic about the information policy and information access components of this extensive bill. In terms of information policy , the bill would give a federal CIO responsibility for implementing existing information provisions found in the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Clinger-Cohen Act, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act and other laws, for reviewing the agencies’ information technology budget requests, and for leading the efforts to address issues of government-wide concern, such as online privacy and computer security. We consider it essential that there be a central focus in the executive branch for ensuring the implementation of and compliance with statutory information provisions. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has never evinced much interest in the “information” component of its responsibilities—other than limiting information collections undertaken by the agencies—and we do not anticipate that the situation will change.

In terms of the information access responsibilities that would be addressed by the federal CIO and the advisory boards, we are most interested in those related to standards and protocols, the Integrated Reporting Program, and the process for identifying and providing access to government information. In order for government and its information to become more accessible and useful, IT interoperability standards and open, non-proprietary standards for categorizing and cataloging government information are essential.

We would note, however, that it should not be the role of the CIO to establish these standards (even in consultation with NIST) [Section 3602 (a) (8)]. It is established federal government practice that NIST (in coordination with other standards setting organizations) establishes standards. The role of the CIO should be consultation to identify these established standards, adoption and promulgation of them, and then establishment of guidelines to ensure their implementation. Moreover, what should be sought are not “standards for categorizing and electronically labeling electronic information”

[Section 3602(a)(8)(A)] but, rather, standards for categorizing and cataloging government information. The central concept and goal should be to make all government information findable, or “citable,” by common bibliographic elements such as Title, Author, Date of Publication, etc., to enhance both electronic and other search capabilities. In this same section, it is important to add language explicitly referencing Section 3511 (the Government Information Locator Service), along the lines of “...to enhance electronic and other search and retrieval capabilities, including compliance with Section 3511 .”

Providing real, meaningful, useful, ongoing access to the vast array of information created or collected or maintained by or for the federal government is complex. The E-Government Act of 2001 is a key step in acknowledging and addressing the need and the difficulties. The bill does not, however, rise out of a vacuum. A number of nonprofit public interest organizations, including OMB Watch and the library community, have been raising these issues for many years. And, both historically and more recently, voices inside the government have focused on these concerns. One significant recent report from the government on these issues is “Transforming Access to Government through Information Technology” from the Panel on Transforming Government of the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC).

One of the findings in the Panel’s report is particularly relevant: “Major technological barriers prevent citizens from easily accessing government information resources that are vital to their well being. Today government information is often unavailable, inadequate, out of date, and needlessly complicated.” The Panel notes that finding the important information stored in the government’s many databases is—in and of itself—difficult. The Panel recognized that FirstGov is not the solution to this problem, but is a “near-term effort built with currently available technologies.” They urged effort focused on “government-specific capabilities” such as “metadata creation, and comprehensive searchable catalogs of information and services.”

This is precisely the effort for which the E-Government Act of 2001 lays the framework.

Accessibility, Usability, and Preservation of Government Information and Common Protocols for Geospatial Information Systems We consider these sections, particularly the former, as key components of the bill. Each creates a process for moving the federal government to common and open protocols and standards. The former section also moves the government to establish basic knowledge and management of its own information—for both its own uses and for the public. This management is critical for access—the public cannot ask for and the government cannot disseminate what neither knows exists, or cannot find.

The process established in this bill is as fundamental as the end result. At every stage in the process of identifying standards, identifying information to be inventoried (listed), to be cataloged, and to be disseminated, public participation is required and the results of the decisions are to be posted online. This process is key, because moving from the “silos of rotting information” that exist now (with some notable exceptions) to real management of government information across its life-cycle (from creation/collection through its retirement from current agency use to archiving/disposition or permanent public accessibility through a repository) is not going to happen in a year or even two. So, an open process and public accountability are essential.

It is also critical to note that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), GPO Access, and the Federal Depository Library Program have existing permanent access programs, and interests and concerns in federal government information and must be included in all of the discussions, both in Section 215 and in the new Section 3602.

In terms of the process of setting standards and moving toward public access, we have heard concern expressed—and think there is validity in it—that the process may delay agencies from beginning to put up information and publications. Perhaps some modification of the language is needed to encourage the quick identification of acceptable standards for categorizing and cataloging information and the use of those standards by agencies to make their information available online. Certainly, all new information should be added to the inventories as it is created, and, as soon as acceptable standards are decided, cataloged and made available online As the process of public consultation is so essential, this should be an iterative process where agencies put information up and then get public response to the usefulness and appropriateness of that information and what it would prefer in terms of priorities. This process could be pursued simultaneously with the process outlined in the bill as currently written. The result would be to encourage agency openness while ensuring completeness and interoperability.

We consider the common protocols for geospatial information systems as a more specific manifestation of the problems identified above. As has been noted in your own materials, government data housed across federal and local agencies cannot be rapidly accessed, combined, and used for various applications because the data is developed with incompatible standards and processes. This problem, we would emphasize, is not unique to geospatial data but is a ubiquitous problem with government data of whatever sort (except, perhaps, statistical data).

In terms of the standards used for any classified geographic information systems and other classes of information, we believe that it is very important that substantially the same technology standards in place for unclassified systems be used, where such standards do not compromise the classified nature of the system.

Along these lines, we are very concerned by language in Section 215 (e)(2)(B)(ii). Allowing agencies to exclude from their inventories whole classes of information “of a sensitive nature” the disclosure of which “would harm the public interest” is much too broad. The terms are too open to expansive definition. We are concerned that it will become a catch-all for information that agencies do not want to share (or are pressured not to share). And we would note that those items excluded in (i) are always individually named/identified documents, and do not encompass classes of information.

It is also critical that the language in Sec. 215(e)(2) clarify what is meant by “classes” of information. Either in the legislation itself or the report language, it should be spelled out that what is meant are such types of information as publications, databases, records schedules, and not, for instance, “public/non-public.” It is also imperative that Sec 215(e)(3)(B)(1) spell out that it is individual items that are to be inventoried (not just the “classes”), lest we end up with inventories that read “X Agency has publications, databases,...” We are very concerned about the language in (3)(B)(i) that the CIO will include in the circular or regulation requirements for the completion of “some portion” of government information. This would seem to indicate that the CIO can, at his or her discretion, limit the extent and content of the inventories. This creates an impossible situation for the public, as we will have no way of knowing what has been excluded. This problem could be partially resolved by requiring, in (e)(2), that the recommendations of the Advisory Board be made publicly available online.

In terms of the inventories themselves, we would urge that report language indicate that they should identify which of the information is available online, which available electronically (if not yet online), which is available in other formats, and which is not available to the public and why. On more specific details, we urge that as agencies develop their inventories, GSA (or any successor agency with this responsibility) should make these accessible on a GILS-compliant server. This will provide the essential service interface and also assure search interoperability with library catalogs and directories throughout government at all levels.

In terms of the Online National Library, we think that it would be most in keeping with the rest of the bill, and of great use, for the energy and resources on this concern to be directed toward identifying or establishing common, open and non-proprietary standards for the description and sharing of information among libraries, archives, museums, historical societies, and other educational institutions. Such common standards do not, to our understanding, currently exist and, thus, creating a library such as that envisioned in this bill would be difficult, costly, and would maintain the current silos of information among these institutions. We would urge that the federal depository libraries (or the Federal Depository Library Council) be included in any such discussions.

Integrated Reporting Program The ability of the public to hold government accountable for its responsibilities will be greatly assisted by the Integrated Reporting Program. In a recent Hart-Teeter poll www.excelgov.org/egovpoll/index.htm, respondents said greater “government accountability” was the most significant benefit that e-government could confer. This was chosen by a considerable margin, almost three times as often as was “convenient services.” The second top priority according to the poll is “greater public access to information” (which is, of course, essential for greater government accountability).

We hope that the Administration and the CIO will take the opportunity to experiment with newly-developing technologies to benefit public health, safeguard the environment, improve government efficiency and help the public understand and participate in policy decisions, as well as reducing the burden of duplicate collection. For these reasons, we would suggest that—in addition to the language in Section 207 (d)(2)(B)(ii) about public access—the description of the pilot projects in (d)(1) should read “that integrate data elements and provide public access ." Centralized Online Portal We agree with the PITAC in its assessment (in the report previously mentioned) of FirstGov, as a “near-term effort built with currently available technologies.” We think, therefore, that, rather than the CIO directing “ the establishment, maintenance, and promotion of a centralized online government portal,” it would be a more appropriate role for the Federal CIO to recommend the direction of the development of an open, public domain framework or architecture for enabling the aggregation/integration of services for wide use, re-use and accessibility. The CIO should ensure that an infrastructure is in place that supports the creation of portals and other applications. Any such portals should be open and public domain, as should any databases of information indexed on or through such portals. It needs to be kept clearly in mind, and stated forcefully in this bill, moreover, that a transformed government does not and should not mean an electronic-only government. The access provided to government information and services needs to accommodate all those who seek information from and interaction with the federal government.

Given the existence of a portal, it is imperative that the information gathered in the agency inventories and cataloging of their information (electronic and otherwise) be captured by searches conducted through any such portal(s). This can easily be facilitated by making these inventories and catalogs accessible through a GILS-compliant server (mentioned above on page 4) through which the portal(s) can search this information, which could remain resident on agency sites. Failure to make these connections will leave vast amounts of government information unknown to the public. The public has a right and need to be able to learn about and obtain non-electronic publications, and to learn about electronic information (such as databases) with which they may not always be able to link directly.

Judicial Information This bill takes important steps toward encouraging the Federal Courts to move more aggressively into the electronic age. We are concerned, however, that nowhere in Section 205 is there a requirement that public access be provided for free. While the bill takes a step in this direction by permitting the PACER docket system to be made available for free, it does not go far enough. Court information is critical public information and should be treated as all other government information in terms of the cost to the public of access. This is of even greater concern as this bill allows the Chief Justice or any chief judge to opt out of compliance with online access with alternative methods—which also need not be free.

We strongly urge you to move the Courts rapidly toward free public access to all public court information, and to encourage them to provide this information in a manner that is easily accessible and usable by the public.

Directory of Federal Websites Our understanding is that this provision is similar in concept to the Open Directory Project (www.dmoz.org/about.html). If accurate, then this is an important service to the public and we support it. We also think it is useful for the federal government to search directly on the websites of state, local and tribal governments. We think that it would also be appropriate for the federal government to encourage the states and other governments to manage their own information more efficiently and, thus, to encourage the development of indexes maintained by state, local, and tribal governments that the federal government could then link to and search. And, again, the development and shared implementation of common, open and non-proprietary standards among these entities would be a great service to the ability of the public to find public information. The development of the public domain directory (taxonomy of subjects) of federal government websites can be a step in this direction by drawing on the work of state GILS (Government Information Locator Service) efforts, in addition to working with agency librarians, federal depository librarians, and other interested parties.

Online staff directory We consider this an essential component of meaningful e-government. We would urge that a requirement be added that each of these directories be interoperable with other search services adopted for government-wide use. We would also urge you, in report language, to put limitations on “agency judgment” as a justification for exclusion of departments and/or employees. We would urge that these directories contain street and mailing addresses, as well.

We also would urge that such a directory be developed and made accessible for Congressional offices. We understand that this is beyond the purview of this bill, but the legislative branch needs to make itself more accessible to the public as well—in this and other areas of legislative branch information.

Agencies’ Websites The current lack of any coherency across the executive branch in terms of what the public can expect to find on and the ease of use of agency home pages is a problem that, heretofore, has not received any attention. This is an example of the sort of guidance that should have been forthcoming from OMB, but has not been.

Regulatory Proceedings We also applaud this initiative as critical for public participation in governance, which should be a primary goal of e-government. It is critical that the link for information published in the Federal Register related to an administrative proceeding be posted on the agency’s homepage in language that will be clear to the general public. We would urge that agencies be required to accept print submissions as well, and that no extra burden (e.g., in terms of numbers of copies required) be put upon those who do not have access to electronic means for submission. In terms of the “Opt Out” provision, we understand that full electronic docketing may be difficult for some agencies, but we think that this should be strongly encouraged and that some clearance, public notice, and oversight process beyond simple “notification” should be instituted.

Bringing Information and Coordination to the Fore

The E-Government Act of 2001 also lays important groundwork in the areas of coordination of activities and of funding for interagency/cross-agency initiatives. Currently, there is no coherent coordination of funding for governmental information management initiatives, which must be both government-wide and agency-by-agency. And, currently, the coordination and oversight responsibilities for the management of government information fall within the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at OMB. For all of OIRA’s existence, the “I” has generally been subsumed and overwhelmed by the “R.” This is a situation that is likely to continue, if not worsen. As noted earlier, we consider it essential that there be a central focus in the executive branch for ensuring the implementation of and compliance with statutory information provisions. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has never evinced much interest in the “information” component of its responsibilities—other than limiting information collections undertaken by the agencies—and we do not anticipate that the situation will change.

The (currently-structured) federal CIO Council is no answer to this problem because, as the Panel on Transforming Government notes, the Council’s “mandates require them to focus primarily on near-term operational issues and acquisitions.” They also note that, while “the CIO Council has established mechanisms for sharing results and lessons , the process of creating standardized processes and information representations, eventually leading to cross-agency transactions and information federation and integration, is much harder and requires cross-agency budget planning and execution.”

While the E-Government Act does not solve all these problems, it takes some key steps. The primary of these are to raise the importance and visibility of information policy and information management within the executive branch. When these have not been subsumed to regulatory concerns, as in OIRA, they have been inundated by concerns with procurement and security. But information is central to government in all of its interactions with contemporary society, and the government needs to provide a central focus on it. The bill would establish a Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO), who would be charged with providing the “leadership, vision, communication, coordination, and innovation necessary to maximize government effectiveness in using information technology.” The Federal CIO would be located in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and would report to the Director. S/he would run a newly created Office of Information Policy.

The other key step that this bill takes is to establish an “E-Government Fund.” The PITAC has noted that budget planning processes make it difficult to carry out effective cross-agency coordination and execution and the long-term research efforts that many of the goals require. As they note, creating cross-agency budgets requires substantial work and, “therefore, is used only for large initiatives.” Moreover, depending on cross-agency plans is “very risky because of the uncertainty that all participants will receive adequate funding.” The use of the E-Government fund to fund interagency technology projects will go a long way to alleviating some of the problems identified by the PITAC. We are concerned, however, that there is no public input into the process of allocating these funds and that there is no requirement that the use of any of the funds advance the management of and public access to government information. As regards the former concern, at a minimum the CIO report to the President and Congress on the operation of the Fund should be put online for the public once it has been submitted.

There are, moreover, structural problems which this bill does not address. The reality is that agency CIOs are primarily from the technology sector and, because of the legislative genesis of the position (i.e., “Clinger-Cohen”), they are strongly focused on procurement and security issues. The information and information policy components of the agency’s work are usually not part of an agency CIO’s portfolio, nor interest. For instance, the privacy officers in an agency generally do not report to the agency CIO. They can be read in this bill, however, as responsible directly to the federal CIO for Privacy Impact Assessments. This is not a tenable structure. It raises, moreover, the concerns expressed by OMB Deputy Director O’Keefe, that a federal CIO would give agencies the sense that they are absolved from direct and ongoing responsibility for the use of information and information technology in developing and advancing e-government.

In our view, this bill would ideally amend “Clinger-Cohen,” and require agency CIOs to be versed in information access and information policy (including privacy policy)—to replicate at the agency level the responsibilities and coordination being vested in the federal CIO. This re-thinking of the roles and responsibilities has begun in some agencies —notably in EPA—and should be encouraged, at a minimum, throughout the executive branch. It is also critical that this bill have a similar requirement for the qualifications of the federal CIO, in order for that position not to just replicate the existing problems in the agencies.

This bill would codify the CIO Council. From our perspective, the primary reason to do this is to make what is currently an unaccountable, unopen body open and accountable to the public. This bill does not accomplish this goal and we strongly urge the addition of language that would do so.

On more specific concerns, we would support the recommendation that others have made that, in Section 209(b), the federal CIO not take responsibility directly for items (1)-(3) but, rather, charter the existing and successful (but to date unchartered) Federal Geographic Data Committee to do these items, with direct responsibility to the federal CIO. This is similar to the comment made earlier about the “adoption,” rather than the identification, etc., of standards. The point should be to coordinate and bring focus to these efforts, not to duplicate or supplant them where they are working effectively and openly.

Finally, we think that while the Advisory Boards established in Section 215 and the Cross-Sector Forum established in Section 103's new Chapter 36, Section 3602(a)(12) are each useful, it would be helpful to understand what the relation is envisioned to be between them, as they potentially will be addressing related issues and concerns.

Equity

Disparities in Access to the Internet are still important issues in our society and we congratulate you on your attentiveness to their likely impact on e-government. The study to examine how disparities in Internet access influence the effectiveness of online government services should look at not only technology access but also linguistic and cultural barriers and access to skill development. We would also urge that the study also look at Internet access for nonprofit organizations. In an ongoing study with Tufts University, we have found that 90% of charities use email and 84% use the Web. But not much is known about the 10% who don’t use email or the 16% who don’t use the Web. The disparities study could add to our understanding of potential digital divides in the nonprofit community.

We do not agree that the recommendations on actions should only ensure that online government initiatives do not widen any existing gaps in access to government services and that access is not diminished . This indicates that current discrepancies and discriminations are considered acceptable. The goal should be to identify ways in which the new technologies and changes in government can overcome existing gaps while also not creating new ones. We do agree that, to the greatest extent feasible, the federal CIO and agency heads should pursue technologies that make services and information more accessible to individuals who do not own computers or have access to the Internet. And, of course, and as your bill clearly states, in utilizing new electronic media, the federal government is required to comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which ensures accessibility by the handicapped to new information technology purchased by the government and the information disseminated/conveyed through that technology.

Community Technology Centers OMB Watch agrees with the analysis that, because these centers are funded by several agencies and run by a number of different organizations, there has been no coordinated approach in evaluating and disseminating best practices to ensure that the centers are most useful to the communities where they are located. The bill would require an evaluation of the best practices used by successful Community Technology Centers. We would note, however, that the measurement of "effective" and "successful" programs should not be generated from scratch, but should take into account existing community technology access service measures developed and utilized by groups such as CTCNet and the American Library Association. Taking a look at the common points of agreement on both what to measure and how to measure technology access by the public—at all points where public access is accommodated—will facilitate fleshing out what truly "works." An examination of what works, however, must also be accompanied by an examination of factors that hamper successful program development and implementation, and those that are impediments to sustained public access and to replication of scalable, cost-effective models.

It is important to note, moreover, that CTCs existed well before federal funding has been available to support them. Private efforts, private-public partnerships, and simple volunteer commitments to bring technology to both under-served and under-informed segments of our population have a long track record through community centers, libraries, community actions agencies, Urban leagues, co-op extension services, youth programs, places of worship, etc. Any study of what works, and what does not, should include an examination of both federally-funded programs and those programs that are not. For those programs that are not, an extra effort should be made to find out why those programs do not take advantage of the myriad opportunities for government funding and partnerships with government (e.g., for training).

The effectiveness of community technology access is not simply measured in a one-year program funding cycle. It is measured in terms of satisfaction by those served, the knowledge and skills they have gained and continue to employ in their lives, the range of services that are offered, and the capacity of the entities which offer them. For this reason, all studies of CTC effectiveness and best practices should be required to consult with the users and other publics in the process.

Any investment in providing greater access to electronic government through community technology access points of all stripes must allow for providing training, incentives, and technical assistance to points where the public access the Internet, and allow learning opportunities to take place at those very same points, commercial or non-commercial, federally-funded or not.

The investment of study as to the roles and relationship of enhanced community technology and information access, and increased interaction with electronic government, must, however, distinguish between commercial and non-commercial access, in terms of assessing the scope of what is truly available to the wider public, and those services that entail financial or even cultural barriers to citizen access to, and use of, these services. Internet cafes, for example, charge a fee for computer access time that, while affordable for a large number of people, will not meet the goal of equity for all users who wish to have access. Moreover, commercial access points do not necessarily come attendant with staff who are encouraged to provide training, not just on use of technology, but on the types of information available online.

Electronic government holds the promise of opportunities to eliminate knowledge- and opportunity-gaps among citizens—but only if citizens know about and have meaningful access to the technology that affords those opportunities.

Finally, we would note that the Federal Depository Library Program already operates about 1400 "information centers" within existing libraries. This public/private partnership program has a long history and its experiences and resources should be looked at in any assessment of community information resources and access initiatives.

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to submit testimony on this legislation. We look forward to working with you to strengthen and to pass this important bill.

Attachment A

A Right-to-Know Platform

In order to fulfill government’s democratic obligation to fulfill the public’s right to know, Congress, the federal Executive Branch, the Courts, the States and Tribes, and local governments must be guided in their actions and decisions by the following core principles:

Resolved:

• That an informed public citizenry is critical to the effective functioning of a democracy;

   

• That the public’s ability to participate in an informed democracy, as well as the Constitutional freedoms of speech, assembly, and petition and the functioning of a free press, all depend upon broad access to all relevant information;

   

• That the free flow of information is the lifeblood of our democracy and is a public resource, not a commodity to be taxed or sold; and

   

• That information is an essential public policy tool, supplementing but not supplanting government’s regulatory authority in carrying out its responsibilities to the citizens.

  Therefore:

   

• In our democracy, all members of the public have an enforceable right to private, timely, and unfiltered access to government information at low or no cost.

   

• Government has a duty to identify and collect data and information to protect and benefit the public, to spur efficiency and accountability, and to strengthen democratic processes. Government also has an obligation freely to disseminate information on threats to the public’s health and safety, as well as the identity of those responsible for creating and mitigating those threats.

   

• Government has an affirmative responsibility to make information broadly available to the public in an equal and equitable manner, in formats that are timely, easily located, understandable, meaningful, and useful. Strategies for information access must ensure equity among groups with differing levels of capability to acquire and process the information. Moreover, government must provide a means for locating and directly accessing information.

   

• Those who seek to withhold information carry the burden of proof to justify their position. Only the narrowest of exceptions should be allowed to the general principle of broad public access to government information; the most important exceptions are to protect individual privacy, and when a compelling need for withholding information under existing laws has been demonstrated, such as for the protection of national security or public safety. Those asserting trade secret or confidential business information claims carry the burden of substantiating those claims.

   

• Government should strive to ensure that the information it releases is complete and accurate; however, questions about completeness or accuracy should not be permitted to restrict the free flow of information. The best solution to inaccurate or incomplete information is to release all information in hand for robust debate and public airing of the issues, rather than keeping it secret. Government then has an obligation promptly to correct inaccurate information in an open process.

   

• Citizens have a right to participate in government decision making about public information access policies and strategies; however, this principle should not be construed as limiting the free flow of individual information products from government to the public.

   

• Citizens have a right to hold the government accountable for enforcing policies requiring public dissemination of information; government employees who disclose violations of those policies are entitled to the same “whistleblower” protections as those who disclose government waste, fraud and abuse.

   

• Government should embrace the use of electronic media to ensure meaningful public access, in a manner that does not disadvantage those without access to electronic dissemination tools; meaningful access means the ability to obtain, understand, and use information.

   

• Government has a responsibility to archive all information it collects, including documents, electronic files, and databases.

   

• The federal government has an obligation to ensure common data standards and collection mechanisms across the states, in order to gather data that can be used to determine national trends and indicators.