Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO): Opportunities and Challenges

Report for Congress
Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO):
Opportunities and Challenges
Updated July 2, 2002
Jeffrey W. Seifert
Analyst in Information Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division


Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO): Opportunities
and Challenges
Summary
Debate over the creation of a federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) position
has ebbed and flowed over the past five years as Congress has sought to address
government information technology (IT) management issues. In private sector
organizations, a CIO is often a senior decisionmaker providing leadership and
direction for information resource development, procurement, and management, with
a focus on improving efficiency and the quality of services delivered. Originally
considered in an early draft of the Clinger-Cohen Act in 1995 (P.L. 104-106), the
idea of a single federal CIO was dropped in favor of creating CIO positions within
the executive agencies. The mixed results of agency-level CIOs, combined with a
growing interest in better managing government IT resources, has renewed attention
in this issue. Efforts to coordinate electronic government (e-government) initiatives
has also led some observers to call for an “e-government czar” or a federal CIO.
During the 106th Congress a number of lawmakers made proposals to establish
a federal CIO. In the House of Representatives one bill (H.R. 4670, Turner) would
have established a federal CIO in an office outside of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). A second bill (H.R. 5024, Davis) had similar provisions but also
provided a federal CIO with a broad mandate and budget authority to carry out
federal IT projects, and the power to coordinate and execute government-wide
information security efforts. Neither bill was passed in the last Congress. In May
2001 a Senate bill was introduced (S. 803, Lieberman), which included many of the
House bills’ provisions as well as new ones such the creation of a Federal IT Training
Center. A companion House bill (H.R. 2458, Turner) was introduced in July 2001.
On March 21, 2002, the Governmental Affairs Committee reported S. 803 (now
renamed the E-Government Act of 2002) with an amendment. The Senate passed
the bill unanimously on June 27, 2002.
Although the Bush Administration has opposed creating a separate federal CIO,
in June 2001 OMB announced the creation of a new position, the Associate Director
of Information Technology and E-Government, who will report to the Deputy
Director of Management (DDM) at OMB. The DDM, will be the federal CIO.
Despite the OMB announcement, some policymakers suggest that many issues
remain unresolved. One issue is the organizational placement of the position. There
is disagreement over whether the federal CIO should be placed in OMB or if a new
office should be established within the White House.
A second issue is the scope of responsibility of the position. Some proponents
suggest that the federal CIO should coordinate information security issues. Critics
argue that individual agencies may believe they have a reduced obligation or will
devote fewer resources to information security at a time when threats to information
resources are climbing. Another area of concern is budgetary authority. Many
observers consider some control over funding of IT projects critical to the success of
a federal CIO, either by controlling a portion of the various agencies’ budgets for IT
projects or providing the federal CIO with a fund to support interagency projects.



Contents
Background ......................................................1
Recent Legislative Proposals for a Federal CIO..........................3th
106 Congress..............................................3
S. 1993 (Thompson), Government Information Security Act....3
H.R. 4670 (Turner), Chief Information Officer of the
United States Act of 2000.........................4
H.R. 5024 (Davis), Federal Information Policy Act of 2000.....4
The 2000 Presidential Campaign..........................4th
107 Congress..............................................5
H.R. 2458 (Turner), E-Government Act of 2001..............6
S. 803 (Lieberman), E-Government Act of 2002..............7
Issues ...........................................................7
Should There Be a Single Federal CIO?..........................7
Where Should a Federal CIO be Organizationally Located?...........9
Potential Responsibilities of a Federal CIO.......................10
Information Security..................................10
Budgetary Authority...................................11
Appendix A: Legislation in the 106th Congress..........................12
S. 1993 (Thompson), Government Information Security Act.........12
H.R. 4670 (Turner), Chief Information Officer Act of the
United States of 2000.................................12
H.R. 5024 (Davis), Federal Information Policy Act of 2000..........13
Appendix B: Legislation in the 107th Congress..........................14
H.R. 2458 (Turner), E-Government Act of 2001...................14
S. 803 (Lieberman), E-Government Act of 2002...................17
Additional Reading...............................................20



Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO):
Opportunities and Challenges
Background
Debate over the creation of a federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) position
has ebbed and flowed over the past five years as Congress has sought to address
government information technology (IT) organizational and management issues. In
private sector organizations with a CIO, this person serves as the senior
decisionmaker providing leadership and direction for information resource
development, procurement, and management, with a focus on improving efficiency
and the quality of services delivered. The possibility of creating a federal CIO, to be
located in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), was originally considered
in an early draft of what became the Clinger-Cohen Act in 1995 (P.L. 104-106).
However, the idea of a single federal CIO was dropped in favor of creating CIO
positions within the executive agencies in the final version of the law. The mixed
results of agency-level CIOs, combined with a growing interest in better managing
government technology resources, brought renewed attention to creating a national
CIO position during the 106th Congress. In addition, the recent piecemeal efforts to
move governmental functions and services online has led some observers to call for
an electronic government (e-government) “czar” or a federal CIO to coordinate these1
efforts.
During the mid-1990s, Congress considered several bills focusing on
governmental reform and improved management of public resources. The option of
establishing a federal CIO was one of several proposals to address these problems.
The success of CIOs in the private sector is often cited as an example for government
to follow. However, the interest in establishing CIOs in the federal government was
generated by the experience of local and state governments. At the time forty states
had some form of a CIO operating in a policy capacity, as did several major cities.
For many, their experience demonstrated that there was a need for someone to
articulate a “vision” of information resources that helped coordinate agency activities
and goals rather than reinforce the artificial “stovepipes” that separated them.
However, the idea of a federal CIO was dropped in favor of agency-level
CIOs following testimony at a July, 1995 Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
hearing. At this hearing, a number of arguments were made in favor of eliminating
the single federal CIO provisions in the Clinger-Cohen Act. Some critics of the
proposal argued that the operational nature of the CIO position (i.e., the development


1See CRS Report RL30745, Electronic Government: A Conceptual Overview, by Harold C.
Relyea for an in-depth discussion of the policy issues affecting the development and
implementation of e-government initiatives.

of technical standards, determining the applicability of procurement laws, and
maintenance of performance and efficiency indicators) was a poor fit with the
traditional policy role of OMB. Other critics argued that creating a federal CIO was
adding another layer of bureaucracy and centralizing decisionmaking procedures.
They contended that it was counterproductive to the purpose of the Clinger-Cohen
Act, which was to decentralize decisionmaking processes and purchasing decisions
away from the General Services Administration (GSA) to the individual executive
agencies. A third argument made by some critics at the time was that the role of a
federal CIO was too big for any one person or agency to handle. Proponents of this
view noted that the size of the Department of Defense alone was larger than some
state governments, and that cross-agency groups focusing on specific problems
would be a more effective approach. In light of this opposition, Congress decided
to instead designate a CIO in each of the major executive branch agencies. These
agency-level CIOs were tasked with the following responsibilities:
(1) providing advice and other assistance to the head of the executive agency
and other senior management personnel of the executive agency to ensure
that information technology is acquired and information resources are
managed for the executive agency in a manner that is consistent with chapter
35 of title 44, United States Code, and the priorities established by the head
of the executive agency;
(2) developing, maintaining, and facilitating the implementation of a sound
and integrated information technology architecture for the executive agency;
and
(3) promoting the effective and efficient design and operation of all major
information resources management processes for the executive agency,
including improvements to work processes of the executive agency.2
Following the passage of P.L. 104-106, President Clinton created the Chief
Information Officers Council. Established by Executive Order 13011, Federal
Information Technology, on July 16, 1996, it serves as “the principal interagency
forum to improve agency practices on such matters as the design, modernization, use,
sharing, and performance of agency information resources.”3 The CIO Council is
comprised of the CIOs and Deputy CIOs from twenty-eight federal departments and
agencies.4 The Deputy Director for Management for the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) serves as the Chair of the CIO Council and the Vice Chair is elected
from the membership. The CIO Council meets monthly and has six committees to


2P.L. 104-106, Division E, § 5125b.
3 [http://www.npr.gov/library/direct/orders/27aa.html ]
4CIO Council membership also includes two representatives from the smaller federal
agencies, liaisons to other executive councils, committees and boards, including the Chair
of the Information Technology Resources Board and representatives from the Chief
Financial Officers Council and the Procurement Executive Council. In addition, a
representative from the Office of Science and Technology Policy and representatives from
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs are members of the Council.
ht t p : / / www.ci o.gov/ docs/ about .ht m

address specific information technology management concerns such as enterprise
interoperability, security and privacy, and e-government. The committees work to
help facilitate the growth of government standards, share best practices, and help
agencies work to be in compliance with reform legislation such as the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The Council’s materials are sometimes used
by the General Accounting Office (GAO) to help inform its methodology when
evaluating the information technology management progress of various agencies.5
The Council also has worked with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to
develop special pay rates for hard-to-hire IT professionals.6
Recent Legislative Proposals for a Federal CIO
During the 106th Congress (and the concurrent Presidential campaign) a
number of policymakers made proposals regarding the establishment of a federal
CIO. While none of these bills passed, new bills have been introduced during theth
first half of the 107 Congress. A summary of the major provisions of the relevant
bills is listed below, with a more comprehensive overview provided in Appendix A.
106th Congress
S. 1993 (Thompson), Government Information Security Act.
!Requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to establish
government-wide policies for the management of programs that: (1) support
the cost-effective security of Federal information systems by promoting
security as an integral part of each agency's business operations; and (2)
include information technology architectures as defined under the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.
!Requires such policies to: (1) be founded on a continuous risk management
cycle; (2) implement controls that adequately address the risk; (3) promote
continuing awareness of information security risks; (4) continually monitor
and evaluate information security policy; and (5) control effectiveness of
information security practices.
!Outlines information security responsibilities of each agency, including the
development and implementation of an agency-wide security plan for the
operations and assets of such agency.


5See General Accounting Office, Information Technology Management: SBA Needs to
Establish Policies and Procedures for Key IT Processes, GAO-AIMD-00-170, May 2000
as an example.
6General Accounting Office, Chief Information Officers: Implementing Effective CIO
Organizations, GAO-T-AIMD-00-128, 24 March 2000.

H.R. 4670 (Turner), Chief Information Officer of the United States
Act of 2000.
!Establishes an Office of Information Technology in the Executive Office of
the President to serve as a source of technical, policy, and management
analysis, leadership, and advice for the President and federal agencies with
respect to the development, application, and management of information
technology by the federal government.
!Provides for such office to be headed by a Chief Information Officer who shall
be the President's principal adviser on matters relating to such development,
application, and management of information technology.
!Establishes in the executive branch a Chief Information Officers Council to
assist and advise in the development and implementation of federal policies
and practices with regard to agency development, application, and
management of information technology.
H.R. 5024 (Davis), Federal Information Policy Act of 2000.
!Establishes an Office of Information Policy in the Executive Office of the
President to be headed by a Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the United
States who shall be the principal adviser to the President on matters relating
to the efficient and effective development, use, and management of
information technology and resources by the federal government. Outlines the
Officer's duties and grants the Officer certain authorities and duties currently
given to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
existing law.
!Incorporates certain provisions of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act
concerning the use and acceptance of electronic signatures by executive
agencies. Grants the Officer duties under such provisions currently given to
the Director.
!Requires the Officer to establish government-wide security and framework
policies for the management of programs, and requires such policies to
address risk management and assessment. Outlines information security
responsibilities of each agency, including the development and
implementation of an agency-wide security program for the operations and
assets of such agency. Makes each program subject to Officer approval and
annual review by agency program officials.
The 2000 Presidential Campaign. During the 2000 Presidential
campaign, both major party candidates expressed support for establishing a federal
CIO in some form. In a June 2000 policy statement on government reform, then-
Governor George W. Bush stated he would designate the Deputy Director of OMB
as the federal CIO to coordinate e-government initiatives and facilitate the



development of federal information technology management in general.7 Similarly,
Vice Presidential candidate Senator Lieberman issued a policy statement in July 2000
indicating his support for a federal CIO or “IT Czar” to work on e-government efforts
and coordinate interagency projects.8
107th Congress
Since the Bush Administration took office, it has been widely reported that
the President still favors the appointment of a federal CIO in some capacity, at the
subcabinet level or lower.9 In a statement to the Congressional Internet Caucus on
March 22, 2001, then-OMB Deputy Director Sean O’Keefe said that the Bush
Administration opposed the creation of a separate federal CIO position due in part
to concerns about agency accountability. Instead, O’Keefe stated that the Bush
Administration intended to recruit a deputy director of management for OMB who
will be responsible for oversight of agency-level CIOs and coordinating e-
government initiatives.10
On June 14, 2001 OMB announced the appointment of Mark Forman to a
newly created position, the Associate Director for Information Technology and E-
Government. As “the leading federal e-government executive,”11 the new Associate
Director will be responsible for the e-government fund, direct the activities of the
CIO Council, and advise on the appointments of agency CIOs. The Associate
Director will also “lead the development and implementation of federal information
technology policy.”12 The new position will report to the Deputy Director of
Management at OMB, who in turn will be the federal CIO.13


7Governor George W. Bush, “Getting Results From Government,” 9 June 2000.
[ht t p : / / www.ge or ge wbus h.c om/ M e d i a / P DFs/GovtModernizationFactSheetGetResultsfro
mGov.pdf]
8 Senator Joseph Lieberman, “Lieberman Outlines Revolutionary Potential of E-
Government,” 12 July 2000.
[ ht t p: / / www.senat e .gov/ ~ l i e ber man/ pr e ss/ 00/ 07/ 2000713842.ht ml ]
9Patience Wait, “Prospect of Federal CIO Still Lingers in the Wings,” Washington
Technology, 5 February 2001, p. 1; Diane Frank, “Federal CIO to Head E-gov,” Federal
Computer Week, 5 March 2001, p.10; Bara Vaida, “Bush Likely to Name Federal CIO, not
Technology ‘Czar’,” Government Executive Magazine, 11 January 2001,
[http://www.govexec.com/news/index.cfm?mode=report&articleid=19163]; Carson
Carlson, “Bush May Push for ‘Tech Czar’,” E-Week, 15 January 2001, p. 1.
10Drew Clark, “OMB Deputy Says White House Doesn’t Want Federal CIO,” Government
Executive Magazine, 23 March 2001,
[ h t t p : / / www.go ve xec.com/ dai l yf e d/ 0301/ 032301t d.ht m] .
11Office of Management and Budget, “Mark Forman Named Associate Director for
Information Technology and E-Government,” 14 June 2001,
[ h t t p : / / www.whi t e house.go v/ omb/ pubpr ess/ 2001-13.ht ml ] .
12Ib i d .
13Diane Frank, “Fed IT Pick Has Deep Résumé,” Federal Computer Week, 18 June 2001,
p. 10; Shane Harris, “OMB Appoints Technology Czar,” Government Executive Magazine,
(continued...)

In January 2002, Norman Lorentz began work as the first Chief Technology
Officer at OMB. Lorentz, a former USPS CTO, reports to Mark Forman. Lorentz
has been tasked to lead and coordinate multiple efforts to identify and develop the
technological architecture needed to support federal government e-government and
other information technology initiatives.14
Representative Davis (VA, 1st) has indicated he may reintroduce H.R. 5024
in the coming months, perhaps with some revisions to gain wider support, as a means
to further the debate.15 On May 1, 2001 S. 803 (The E-Government Act of 2001) was
introduced by Senator Lieberman. This bill was referred to the Governmental Affairs
Committee, which held a hearing on the bill on July 11, 2001. Also on July 11, 2001
Representative Turner introduced a companion bill to S. 803, H.R. 2458 (The E-
Government Act of 2001).16 On March 21, 2002, the Governmental Affairs
Committee reported S. 803 (now renamed the E-Government Act of 2002) with an
amendment. On June 27, 2002, the Senate passed S. 803 unanimously and the bill
was sent to the House of Representatives for consideration. A summary of their
relevant provisions is listed below, with a more comprehensive overview provided
in Appendix B.
H.R. 2458 (Turner), E-Government Act of 2001.
!Establishes an Office of Information Policy in OMB to be headed by a federal
Chief Information Officer (CIO). The CIO would provide “overall leadership
and direction to the executive branch on information policy,” and serve as the
leader and coordinator of federal e-government issues.
!Establishes the CIO Council by law and task it to work with the federal CIO
on issues such as developing collaborative multi-agency information
technology initiatives, coordinating the development of federal information
technology standards, and working with the Office of Personnel and
Management (OPM) regarding the recruitment and retention of federal
information technology expertise and leadership.
!Establishes as $200 million-per-year E-Government Fund for interagency
information technology projects, administered by the federal CIO.


13(...continued)

15 June 2001, [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0601/061501h1.htm].


14Gail Repsher Emery, “OMB Gets First Chief Technology Officer,” Washington Post, 11
January 2002, [http://www.washtech.com/news/govtit/14625-1.html]; Diane Frank, “Bush
Hires First CTO,” Federal Computer Week, 11 January 2002,
[ h t t p : / / www.f c w.com/ f c w/ ar t i c l e s/ 2002/ 0107/ web-ct o-01-11-02.asp] .
15Karen Robb, “Industry, Lawmakers Revive Call for IT Czar,” Federal Times, 4 March
2002, p. 5; Diane Frank, “Fed IT Pick Has Deep Résumé,” Federal Computer Week, 18
June 2001, p. 10; William Matthews, “Davis, Council Push for IT Czar,” Federal Computer
Week, 22 February 2001, [http://fcw.com/fcw/articles/2001/0219/web-cio-02-22-01.asp].
16Tanya N. Ballard, “House Version of E-Government Bill Introduced,” Government
Executive Magazine, 16 July 2001, [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0701/071601t1.htm].

!Establishes a Federal Information Technology Training Center to train federal
government personnel in information technology and information resource
management skills.
!Establishes an Online National Library through the collaboration of the
National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian Institute, the National Park
Service, the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences, and the Library of
Congress.
S. 803 (Lieberman), E-Government Act of 2002.
!Establishes an Office of Electronic Government in OMB to be headed by an
Administrator. The Administrator would provide “overall leadership and
direction on electronic government,” and serve as the leader and coordinator
of federal e-government issues.
!Establishes the CIO Council by law and task it to work with the Deputy
Director of Management of OMB and the Administrator of the Office of
Electronic Government on issues such as developing collaborative multi-
agency information technology initiatives, developing common performance
measures for agency information resources management, and working with the
Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) regarding the recruitment and
retention of federal information technology expertise and leadership.
!Establishes an E-Government Fund for interagency information technology
projects, administered by the Administer of the General Services
Administration.
!Establishes a Federal Information Technology Training Center to train federal
government personnel in information technology and information resource
management skills.
Issues
A variety of policy options have been proposed, suggesting there is bipartisan
support in favor of establishing a federal CIO position. However, there are some
dissenting voices raising a number of issues that remain unresolved. This includes
whether a federal CIO should in fact be established. If so, the organizational
placement of the position, and the scope of responsibility and authority assigned to
the position needs to be determined. Some of these issues arise from the implicit
paradox of trying to centralize management of decentralized technologies. Others are
the result of differing opinions regarding how information technology fits into the
general scope of governance.
Should There Be a Single Federal CIO?
Although there is disagreement about the exact nature of the position, support
for a federal CIO generated during the closing months of the 106th Congress appears
to have grown since the beginning of the 107th Congress. Discussed in greater detail



below, supporters cite a variety of reasons to justify creating a federal CIO position.
Some of the reasons include a need to develop government-wide cybersecurity17
measures and a need for a voice to advocate the appropriate budgetary support for
both short and long term information technology projects. Another reason frequently
cited is the need to coordinate the growing number of federal e-government
initiatives. As more government functions become available online, sustained and
focused central leadership becomes critical to improving federal IT performance and
enhancing the delivery of services.18 This includes the development of government
information technology standards that will contribute to a robust and secure
information infrastructure. A common theme underlying many of these arguments
is the belief that the role of information technology in governance requires leadership
with strategic vision to ensure that the improved productivity and efficiency expected
by the investment in technology is realized. Some observers also point to the role of
CIOs in improving the performance and productivity of private sector organizations
as an example of what could be done in the public sector.19
In response, opponents of efforts to establish a federal CIO argue that the
responsibilities of such a position are too complex and unwieldy for one person.
They believe that it is not possible for an individual to manage and coordinate the
various information technology projects and needs across the entire U.S. government.
Related to this argument, some critics also contend that centralizing management of
government information technology is a step backward rather than forward. Instead,
they suggest it is more appropriate to approach IT needs through smaller, interagency
groups focusing on a specific task such as the processing of student loan applications
online or improving online tax filing procedures.20 Another reason cited by some
opponents is the organizational obstacles to change that will not disappear with the
establishment of a federal CIO. One obstacle cited is a budget process that favors
separate agency projects rather than cross-agency initiatives. Another is a shorter
term focus when major IT projects require long term planning and implementation.
Some critics are also concerned about the implications for agency-level planning and
responsibility. They fear that centralized management by a federal CIO will be a
signal to agencies that they can rely on the federal CIO to supplant their responsibility
for tougher IT issues and can reduce their resource commitment toward solving them.
In contrast, these critics believe that efforts to change from an industrial age


17See CRS Report RL30153, Critical Infrastructures: Background and Early
Implementation of PDD-63, by John D. Moteff, for more information about computer
security.
18General Accounting Office, Federal Chief Information Officer: Leadership Needed to
Confront Serious Challenges and Emerging Issues, GAO/T-AIMD-00-316, 12 September

2000, p. 2.


19William Matthews, “A Czar By Any Other Name,” Federal Computer Week, 5 March

2001, p. 50.


20“Bush Urged Not to Name Federal CIO,” Government Executive Magazine,5 February

2001, [http://www.govexec.com/news/index.cfm?mode=report&articleid=19336].



government to an information age government must emanate from the bottom-up by
agencies rather than from the top-down by a cabinet-level position.21
Where Should a Federal CIO be Organizationally Located?
The placement of the federal CIO is perhaps the most hotly contested issue.
Specifically, there is disagreement over whether the federal CIO should be placed in
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), or if a new office should be
established within the White House to focus solely on information technology issues.
In September, 2000 the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
and Technology of the Government Reform Committee of the House of
Representatives held a hearing regarding two bills proposed by Representatives
Turner and Davis earlier that summer (discussed above). Much of the testimony
focused on the relationship between the proposed federal CIO and the OMB. Then-
Deputy Director of Management at the OMB, Sally Katzen, argued that situating
oversight of information technology management within OMB’s management and
budgeting authority was essential for the successful budgeting and execution of
information technology programs.
In response, critics of this approach argued that information technology
programs are crucial enough to warrant autonomous management and budget
authority by specialists who can devote their full energy to the success of government
information technology projects. In addition, some observers suggest there are
lessons to be learned from the lackluster results of the agency-level CIO provisions
in the Clinger-Cohen Act. The GAO has cited the divided attention of agency-level
CIOs with multiple spheres of responsibility as an obstacle for implementing
information technology management reforms. The GAO has further stated that the
role of the CIO is a full-time leadership position requiring complete attention to
information resource management issues.22
The Bush administration has indicated a preference for assigning some of the
responsibilities associated with proposals for a federal CIO to the Deputy Director
of Management of OMB. The bills introduced by Representatives Davis and Turner
during the 106th Congress both called for the creation of a separate position within
the White House. It has been reported that Senator Lieberman favors the creation of
a new, separate CIO position with deputy director status within the OMB.23


21Patience Wait, “Prospect of Federal CIO Still Lingers in the Wings,” Washington
Technology, 5 February 2001, p. 1; Drew Clark, “OMB Deputy Says White House Doesn’t
Want Federal CIO,” Government Executive Magazine, 23 March 2001,
[ h t t p : / / www.go ve xec.com/ dai l yf e d/ 0301/ 032301t d.ht m] .
22General Accounting Office, Chief Information Officers: Ensuring Strong Leadership and
an Effective Council, GAO-T-AIMD-98-22, 27 October 1997. General Accounting Office,
VA Information Technology: Improvements Needed to Implement Legislative Reforms,
GAO/AIMD-98-154, 7 July 1998.
23William Matthews, “A Czar By Any Other Name,” Federal Computer Week, 5 March

2001, p. 50.



Potential Responsibilities of a Federal CIO
The responsibilities of the federal CIO are closely related to the
organizational location of the position. If the federal CIO is expected to manage
interagency projects and influence budget decisions, then the position will need the
appropriate authority and stature to successfully carry out the mission of the office.
However, there is some disagreement over what that appropriate authority should be.
Some proponents, including Representatives Davis and Turner, and many federal
agency-level CIOs, favor the idea of the federal CIO being a cabinet-level position.
Other policymakers, including President Bush and Senator Lieberman, contend that
the federal CIO does not require cabinet-level status.24 On the other hand, in its
recent report, “E-Government: The Next American Revolution,” the Council of
Excellence favors the creation of multiple positions at both the cabinet and sub-
cabinet levels.25
Information Security. More specifically, questions have been raised about
oversight of government information security. Some proponents have advocated that
the federal CIO should be empowered to develop and implement a comprehensive
response to information security threats. Indeed, some observers cite information
security as one of the most important roles for a potential federal CIO, noting that
federal information security currently falls under the jurisdiction of twelve
congressional appropriations subcommittees and in practice is carried out through a
multiple of uncoordinated (and potentially incompatible) efforts by various agencies26
and departments.
In the September 2000 testimony before the House Government Management,
Information and Technology Subcommittee, the GAO made three primary
recommendations regarding governmental action to improve the state of federal
information security. Two of these three recommendations focused on the
centralization of responsibilities. One recommendation was to have greater
“prescriptive guidance regarding the level of protection that is appropriate for these27
systems.” The GAO witness observed that discretion is left primarily with the
individual agencies to decide which computer security measures to take and how
strenuously to enforce them. The second recommendation was to implement
“stronger central leadership and coordination of information security-related28
activities across the government.” The GAO witness stated that oversight of
government information security was “divided among a number of agencies,


24Ib i d .
25The Council for Excellence is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that “works to
improve the performance of government at all levels and government’s place in the lives and
esteem of American citizens.” [http://www.excelgov.org]
26Drew Clark, “Administration Security Expert Touts Benefits of Federal CIO,” Government
Executive Magazine, 11 December 2000,
[ ht t p: / / www.gove xec.com/ news/ i ndex.cf m?mode=r epor t &ar t i c l e i d=18997] .
27General Accounting Office, Federal Information Security: Actions Needed to Address
Widespread Weakness, GAO/T-AIMD-00-135, 29 March 2000, p.11.
28Ib i d .

including OMB, NIST, the General Services Administration, and the National
Security Agency,” and concluded that this dispersed oversight resulted in a lack of
“clear and central coordination” over key “roles and responsibilities.” In addition,
the GAO witness observed that there was a lack of sharing of information regarding
information security vulnerabilities and solutions.29
One of the central arguments in favor of centralized federal information
security management is that it will establish a clear level of accountability for federal
information security that is currently diffused. However, it is this very concern about
accountability that has concerned opponents of this idea. Critics of proposals for an
“IT security czar,” argue that agencies will assume they can minimize their
responsibility to secure their computer networks. Instead, these critics suggest IT
problems such as computer security must be addressed at the agency level where
change takes place.30
Budgetary Authority. Another issue is budgetary authority. Many
observers consider some control over funding of IT projects critical to the success of
a federal CIO. They note that major IT projects require long term planning and
implementation that is ill-suited to the short-term focus of most budgetary processes.
Currently, interagency projects coordinated by the CIO Council are funded through31
an ad hoc, voluntary “pass-the-hat” process.
Supporters of proposals to give a federal CIO some budgetary authority argue
that having someone who recognizes the financial needs of information technology
projects and has control over the flow of funding will help contribute to more stable
planning and ensure the completion of the project. There appears to be little if any
significant opposition to assigning the federal CIO some form of budget authority.
There has also been relatively little debate about what form it would take. Some
observers have suggested either having the federal CIO control a portion of the
various agencies’ budgets for information technology projects or providing the
federal CIO with a single fund to support interagency projects. President Bush
appears to favor the latter option. On February 28, 2001, President Bush proposed
an “E-Government Fund,” with an initial funding of $10 million in 2002, which
would rise to $100 million over three years. The fund was to be used by the federal
CIO to support interagency e-government projects such as developing a government-
wide public key infrastructure (PKI)32 for secure transactions and helping agencies


29Ib i d .
30Patience Wait, “Prospect of Federal CIO Still Lingers in the Wings,” Washington
Technology, 5 February 2001, p. 1; Drew Clark, “House Chairman Opposes Central IT
Security Czar,” Government Executive Magazine, 30 March 2000,
[http://www.govexec.com/news/index.cfm?mode=report&articleid=11776]; Drew Clark,
“OMB Deputy Says White House Doesn’t Want Federal CIO,” Government Executive
Magazine, 23 March 2001, [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0301/032301td.htm].
31Diane Frank, “Bush’s ‘02 Blueprint Pushes E-gov Fund,” Federal Computer Week, 5
March 2001, p. 10.
32See CRS Report RL30836, Encryption Technology: The Debate in the 105th and 106th
Congresses, by Richard M. Nunno, for more information on PKI.

comply with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA).33 However, the
fiscal 2002 Post Service appropriations bill that was signed into law on November
21, 2001 provided for only $5 million for the e-government fund. For the fiscal 2003
budget, President Bush has proposed allocating $45 million for the E-Government
Fund.
Appendix A: Legislation in the 106th Congress
S. 1993 (Thompson), Government Information Security Act
On November 19, 1999, Senators Thompson and Lieberman introduced S.
1993, which was referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. It was later
reported in the Senate by the committee on April 10, 2000 with an amendment.
Although not creating a federal CIO by name, S. 1993 proposed the centralization of
federal information security oversight in OMB. The bill specifically assigned these
responsibilities to the Director of OMB, who in turn could delegate this authority
only to the Deputy Director of Management of OMB. An exception for national
security systems was included that allowed these responsibilities to be delegated to
the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence. In many respects,
the provisions in S. 1993 mirror other proposals calling for the designation of the
Deputy Director of Management of OMB as the federal CIO. The bill would have
given the OMB the responsibility to establish government-wide information security
policies, including the development and implementation of standards and guidelines.
In addition, agencies would have been required to conduct independent evaluations
annually and report the results to the Director of OMB. These results, in turn, were
to be compiled and presented to Congress by the Comptroller General.
H.R. 4670 (Turner), Chief Information Officer Act of the United
States of 2000
On June 15, 2000, Representative Turner introduced H.R. 4670, which was
referred to the House Committee on Government Reform. The purpose of H.R. 4670
was “to establish a central focal point to provide effective leadership for efforts by
the Federal Government to use information technology,” to improve its efficiency
and effectiveness, create opportunities for innovation, and to “provide a mechanism
for improved coordination among Federal agencies” for the development and
management of information technology projects. Among its primary provisions,
H.R. 4670 would have established the Office of Information Technology in the
Executive Office of the President. This new office was to be headed by the Chief
Information Officer of the United States and advise the President on technical policy
issues related to “the development, application, and management of information
technology by the Federal Government.” The CIO was to be an appointee reporting
directly to the President as the principal advisor on information technology matters.
The CIO would also be responsible for submitting an annual report to the President
and Congress on the progress of information technology initiatives with


33Diane Frank, “Federal CIO to Head E-gov,” Federal Computer Week, 5 March 2001, p.

10.



recommendations for future actions. In addition to appointing the federal CIO as the
Chair of the Chief Information Officers Council, H.R. 4670 would have established
the CIO Council by law and asked the Council to assist the federal CIO with the
coordination of multi-agency initiatives, the development of performance measures,
and consult with the private sector to improve federal government information
technology practices. The provisions of H.R. 4670 were not applicable to national
security systems, as defined by section 5142 of the Clinger-Cohen Act (40 U.S.C.

1452).


H.R. 5024 (Davis), Federal Information Policy Act of 2000
On July 27, 2000, Representative Davis (VA, 1st) introduced H.R. 5024,
which was also referred to the House Committee on Government Reform. Similar
to H.R. 4670, the purpose of H.R. 5024 was to create opportunities for innovation for
the use and management of information technology resources in the federal
government, “harmonize existing information resource management laws in order to
coordinate and improve the Federal Government’s development, use, and
management of information resources,” and “create effective management and
oversight of related information security risks including coordination of information
security standards.”
H.R. 5024 sought to amend chapters 35-38 of title 44 of the United States
Code. The proposed amendments to chapter 35 would have established the Office
of Information Policy (OIP) in the Executive Office of the President. It also would
have established a federal CIO and deputy CIO to be appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate. The federal CIO would be the head of OIP and Chair of the
CIO Council. The CIO Council would also have been established by law rather than
executive order. Under H.R. 5024, the federal CIO was to serve as the principal
advisor to the President on information technology matters related to the functions
of the federal government. The federal CIO would also have been responsible for
providing direction to executive agencies on issues of collection and dissemination
of information, public access to public information, statistical activities, privacy, and
procurement of information technology. In the area of statistical activities the federal
CIO would have been responsible for coordinating the policies and procedures for
collection, handling, classification, and sharing of statistical information within and
between federal agencies. The federal CIO would also have been empowered to
appoint a chief statistician and establish an Interagency Council on Statistical Policy
to assist carrying out these duties.
To encourage the use of electronic documents in the federal government, H.R.
5024 would have provided the federal CIO with the responsibility to develop and
implement procedures for the use of electronic signatures and to conduct an ongoing
study with the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) on
the progress of these efforts. To further support the movement toward electronic
documents, H.R. 5024 called for the creation of the Government Information Locator
Service (GILS). GILS would have functioned as a distributed agency-based
operation to help identify major information holdings, enhance public access, and
work towards the development of technical standards to ensure the compatibility of
information between agencies. Finally, similar to H.R. 4670, the federal CIO would
have been required to submit an annual report to the President and Congress.



The bill proposed amendments to chapter 36 that would have reauthorized a
significant portion of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) with few or no changes.34
The bill also proposed amendments to chapter 37 that focused on information
security, designating it as specific area of concern for the federal CIO. This chapter
of H.R. 5024 would have established an Office of Information Security and Technical
Protection (OISTP) within the Office of Information Policy (OIP). The role of
OISTP was to serve as the principal advisor of the federal CIO on information
security matters (§3703). Overall, this chapter directed the federal CIO to enhance
information security measures through a variety of activities including the
development of standards and guidelines, sharing best practices, promoting
awareness, and making recommendations to the Director of OMB regarding
budgetary actions. Although a significant part of the federal CIO’s portfolio, §3705
of chapter 37 explicitly holds the individual agencies responsible for actively
developing, assessing, and implementing their own information security measures.
It also required each agency to conduct an annual independent evaluation of their
information security practices and submit the results to the federal CIO.
Proposed amendments to chapter 38 of H.R. 5024 focused on federal CIO’s
role in general information technology management concerns. Some of the
provisions included encouraging performance-based and results-based procurement
(§3803), enforcing accountability, developing federal information system standards,
and keeping Congress informed of the performance of these efforts (§3802 J). Some
observers describe H.R. 5024 as a much more detailed version of H.R. 4670,
combined with the primary elements of S.1993 and PRA reauthorization language.35
Appendix B: Legislation in the 107th Congress
H.R. 2458 (Turner), E-Government Act of 200136
On July 11, 2001, Representative Turner introduced H.R. 2458, a companion
bill to the original language of S. 803, which was referred to Committee on
Government Reform. H.R. 2458 contains a variety of provisions related to the
management and promotion of electronic government services. Its purpose is to
establish effective leadership of federal information technology projects, require the
use of Internet-based information technology initiatives to reduce costs and increase
opportunities for citizen participation in government, and promote interagency
collaboration for e-government processes.


34See CRS Report RL30590, Paperwork Reduction Act Reauthorization and Government
Information Management Issues, by Harold Relyea for a more comprehensive review of
PRA.
35Diane Frank, “New IT Czar Bill Introduced,” Federal Computer Week, 28 July 2000,
[ h t t p : / / www.f c w.com/ f c w/ ar t i c l e s/ 2000/ 0724/ web-ci o-07-28-00.asp] .
36The language of H.R. 2458 described here is identical to the original language of S. 803
when it was first introduced on May 1, 2001.

Title I establishes new organizational structures and amends different portions
of Title 44 of the United States Code. Section 101 would establish the federal CIO
position to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Office
of Information Policy would be established as an office in OMB. As head of the
Office of Information Policy, H.R. 2458 would task the federal CIO with carrying out
relevant OMB responsibilities for prescribing guidelines and regulations for agency
implementation of the Privacy Act, the Clinger-Cohen Act, information technology
acquisition pilot programs, and the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. It
would also require the General Services Administration (GSA) to consult with the
federal CIO on any efforts by GSA to promote e-government.
Section 103 would amend Title 44 by adding Chapter 36 - Management and
Promotion of Electronic Government Services, which focuses on issues related to the
functions of the federal CIO, the CIO Council, and the E-Government Fund. This
chapter would make the federal CIO responsible for carrying out a variety of
information resources management (IRM) functions. Some of these responsibilities
would include; reviewing agency budget requests for information technology capital
planning and investment, reviewing information technology investment legislative
proposals, evaluating the performance and results of agency information technology
investments, advising the Director of OMB on IRM resources and strategies,
providing “overall leadership and direction to the executive branch on information
policy,” promoting the effective and innovative use of information technology by
agencies especially through multiagency collaborative projects, administering and
distributing funds from the E-Government Fund (discussed in greater detail below),
consulting with GSA on the use of the Information Technology Fund to promote e-
government projects, serving as the Chair of the CIO Council, establishing and
promulgating information technology standards for the federal government,
establishing fora for federal, state, local, and tribal collaboration and consultation on
information technology best practices and innovation, promoting electronic
procurement initiatives, and implementing accessibility standards.
Section 103 would also establish the CIO Council by law, detailing its
organizational structure and mandate. In addition, Section 103 would establish a
$200 million-per-year E-Government Fund for interagency information technology
projects. The fund would be administered by the federal CIO in consultation with the
CIO Council. The provision would also allow funds be made available without fiscal
year limitation and require the federal CIO to submit annual reports to the President
and Congress regarding the operation of the fund.
Title II focuses on enhancing a variety of e-government services and
establishes the federal CIO’s role as the leader and coordinator of federal e-
government services. The provisions most directly connected to the responsibilities
of the federal CIO are described in greater detail while those less so are described in
less detail. Section 201 covers federal agency responsibilities as they relate to the
federal CIO. Some of these responsibilities include participation in the CIO Council
and submitting annual agency e-government status reports to the federal CIO.
Section 202 would require executive agencies to adopt electronic signature
methods that would ensure acceptability and compatibility with OMB standards.
Section 203 would direct GSA to develop an online federal telephone directory.



Section 204 would direct the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian Institute,
the National Park Service, the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences, and the
Library of Congress to collaborate in the creation of an Online National Library.
Section 205 would direct the federal courts to develop web sites containing
information about the operation of the court, dockets, and related materials.
Similarly, section 206 would direct regulatory agencies to establish web sites
containing relevant public information.
Section 207 would require the federal CIO to conduct a feasibility study on
integrating federal information systems across agencies and implement up to five
pilot projects integrating data elements. Section 208 would direct the federal CIO to
assemble an interagency task force to develop and implement regulations and
procedures for the creation of an online database and web site providing access to
federal funded research and development data. Section 209 would direct the federal
CIO to facilitate the development of common protocols for geographic information
systems.
Section 210 would amend the Share-in-Savings procurement provisions of
the Clinger-Cohen Act by allowing executive agencies to retain a portion of the
savings realized from this type of procurement method. It would also direct the
Administrator of GSA to move past the pilot programs and provide general authority
to executive agencies to use this procurement method.
Section 211would direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) to contract with the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences to “conduct a study on the use of information technology to enhance crisis
response and consequence management of natural and manmade disasters.” It would
also direct the federal CIO to conduct pilot projects based on the results of the study.
Section 212 would provide for the establishment of a Federal Information
Technology Training Center to train federal government personnel in information
technology and information resource management skills. Section 213 would mandate
an interagency study on the best practices of federally-funded community technology
centers.
Section 214 would direct the federal CIO to contract with a nonprofit, non-
partisan organization to examine disparities in Internet access based on demographic
characteristics. Section 215 would outline the federal CIO’s responsibilities for
maintaining accessibility, usability, and preservation of government information.
Among its provisions this section would establish an Advisory Board on Government
Information with its members to be appointed by the federal CIO. The board would
be tasked to conduct studies and submit recommendations to the federal CIO
regarding the development of interoperable cataloguing and indexing standards by
federal agencies and ensuring permanent public access to information disseminated
by the federal government online.
Section 216 would require the federal CIO to establish a public domain
directory of federal government web sites. Section 217 would require the Federal
CIO to promulgate community standards for federal web sites regarding features,



operation, and information provided. Section 218 would establish privacy
requirements regarding agency use of personally identifiable information and require
the federal CIO to establish privacy guidelines for federal web sites. Section 219
would require any of the actions taken under this act to be compliant with section 508
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 regarding accessibility to people with disabilities.
Section 220 would require the federal CIO to notify Congress if any of the provision
in the act were obsolete or counter-productive to its purposes.
Section 301 and 301 authorize appropriations for the bill through fiscal 2006
and has the bill take effect 120 days after it is enacted.
S. 803 (Lieberman), E-Government Act of 200237
On May 1, 2001, Senator Lieberman introduced S. 803, which was referred
to the Governmental Affairs Committee, which held a hearing on the bill on July 11,
2001. On March 21, 2002, the Governmental Affairs Committee reported S. 803
(then renamed the E-Government Act of 2002) with an amendment. S. 803 contains
a variety of provisions related to the management and promotion of electronic
government services. Their purpose includes to establish effective leadership of
federal information technology projects, require the use of Internet-based information
technology initiatives to reduce costs and increase opportunities for citizen
participation in government, and promote interagency collaboration for e-government
processes. The description below reflects the amended version of S. 803, which was
passed unanimously by the Senate on June 27, 2002.
Title I establishes new organizational structures and amends different portions
of Title 44 of the United States Code. Section 101would establish the Office of
Electronic Government in OMB. This new office would be headed by an
Administrator, who would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate. As head of the Office of Electronic Government, S. 803 would task the
Administrator with assisting the Director of OMB, and the Deputy Director of
Management, in conjunction with the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to carry out relevant OMB responsibilities for prescribing
guidelines and regulations for agency implementation of the Privacy Act, the Clinger-
Cohen Act, information technology acquisition pilot programs, and the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act. It would also require the General Services
Administration (GSA) to consult with the Administrator of the Office of Electronic
Government on any efforts by GSA to promote e-government.
Section 103 would amend Title 44 by adding Chapter 36 - Management and
Promotion of Electronic Government Services, which focuses on issues related to the
functions of the Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government, the CIO
Council, and the E-Government Fund. This chapter would make the Administrator
of the Office of Electronic Government responsible for carrying out a variety of
information resources management (IRM) functions. Some of these responsibilities
would include; advising the Director of OMB on IRM resources and strategies,


37The provisions of S. 803 described here reflects its language as amended on March 21,

2002.



providing “overall leadership and direction on electronic government,” promoting the
effective and innovative use of information technology by agencies especially
through multiagency collaborative projects, administering and distributing funds
from the E-Government Fund (discussed in greater detail below), consulting with
GSA “to promote electronic government and the efficient use of information
technologies by agencies,” lead activities on behalf of the Deputy Director of
Management, who serves as the Chair of the CIO Council, assist the Director “in
establishing policies which shall set the framework for information technology
standards” to be developed by the National Institute for Standards and
Technology,”sponsor an ongoing dialogue with federal, state, local, and tribal leaders
to encourage collaboration and enhance consultation on information technology best
practices and innovation, promoting electronic procurement initiatives, and
implementing accessibility standards.
Section 101 would also establish the CIO Council by law, with the Deputy
Director of Management of OMB as chairperson, detailing its organizational
structure and mandate. In addition, Section 101 would establish an E-Government
Fund for interagency information technology projects. The fund would be
administered by the Administrator of the General Service Administration (GSA),
with the assistance of the Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government. The
provision authorizes appropriations for the E-Government Fund in the following
amounts: $45 million for FY 2003, $50 million for FY 2004, $100 million for FY
2005, $150,000 million for FY 2006, and “such sums as necessary for fiscal year
2007.” The provision would also allow funds be made available until expended and
require the Director of OMB to submit annual reports to the President and Congress
regarding the operation of the fund.
Section 102 consists of conforming amendments.
Title II focuses on enhancing a variety of e-government services, establishing
performance measures, and clarifies OMB’s role as the leader and coordinator of
federal e-government services. The provisions most directly connected to the
responsibilities of the proposed Office of Electronic Government are described in
greater detail while those less so are described in less detail. Section 201 focuses on
definitions used. Section 202 covers federal agency responsibilities as they relate to
the Director of OMB. Some of these responsibilities include participation in the CIO
Council, developing performance measures for e-government initiatives, and
submitting annual agency e-government status reports to the Director of OMB.
Section 203 would require executive agencies to adopt electronic signature
methods that would ensure acceptability and compatibility with OMB standards.
Section 204 would direct the Director of OMB to work with the
Administrator of the General Service Administration (GSA) to “maintain and
promote an integrated Internet-based system of providing the public with access to
Government information and services.”
Section 205 would direct the federal courts to develop web sites containing
information about the operation of the court, dockets, and related materials.



Similarly, section 206 would direct regulatory agencies to establish web sites
containing relevant public information.
Section 207 would outline the responsibilities of the Director of OMB for
maintaining accessibility, usability, and preservation of government information.
Among its provisions this section would establish an Interagency Committee on
Government Information with its members drawn from executive branch agencies,
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), as well as the federal
legislative and judicial branches. The Committee would be tasked to conduct studies
and submit recommendations to the Director of OMB and Congress regarding the
development of interoperable cataloguing and indexing standards by federal agencies
and ensuring permanent public access to information disseminated by the federal
government online.
Section 208 would establish privacy requirements regarding agency use of
personally identifiable information and require the Director of OMB to establish
privacy guidelines for federal web sites.
Section 209 would provide for the establishment of a Federal Information
Technology Training Center to train federal government personnel in information
technology and information resource management skills.
Section 210 would direct the Secretary of the Interior, working with the
Director of OMB through an interagency working group, to facilitate the
development of common protocols for geographic information systems.
Section 211 would amend the Share-in-Savings procurement provisions of
the Clinger-Cohen Act by allowing executive agencies to retain a portion of the
savings realized from this type of procurement method, and extend the pilot-phase
of the program. It would also require the Director of OMB, after the completion of
five pilot projects but no later than three years after the effective date of the
provision, to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and
the House Committee on Government Reform regarding the results of the pilot
projects.
Section 212 would require the Director of OMB to conduct a feasibility study
on integrating federal information systems across agencies and implement up to five
pilot projects integrating data elements. Section 213 would mandate an interagency
study on the best practices of federally-funded community technology centers.
Section 214 would direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) to contract a study “on using information technology to enhance crisis
response and consequence management of natural and manmade disasters.” It would
also direct FEMA to conduct pilot projects based on the results of the study.
Section 215 would direct the Director of the National Science Foundation
(NSF) to contract with the National Research Council to examine disparities in
Internet access based on demographic characteristics. Section 216 would require the
Director of OMB to notify Congress if any of the provision in the act were obsolete
or counter-productive to its purposes.



Section 301 would repeal the expiration date on the Government Information
Security Act (44 USC Sec. 3536).
Section 401 and 402 authorize appropriations for the bill through fiscal 2007
and has the bill take effect 120 days after it is enacted.
Additional Reading
CRS Report RL30153, Critical Infrastructures: Background and Early
Implementation of PDD-63, by John D. Moteff.
CRS Report RL30745, Electronic Government: A Conceptual Overview, by Harold
C. Relyea.
CRS Report RL31088, Electronic Government: Major Proposals and Initiatives, by
Harold C. Relyea.
CRS Report RL30661, Government Information Technology Management: Past and
Future Issues (The Clinger-Cohen Act), by Jeffrey W. Seifert.
CRS Report 98-67 STM, Internet: An Overview of Key Technology Policy Issues
Affecting Its Use and Growth, by Marcia S. Smith, John D. Moteff, Lennard
G. Kruger, Glenn J. McLoughlin, and Jeffrey W. Seifert.
CRS Report RL31057, A Primer on E-Government: Sectors, Stages, Opportunities,
and Challenges of Online Governance, by Jeffrey W. Seifert.