[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FIRSTGOV.GOV: IS IT A GOOD IDEA?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 2, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-271
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-926 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho (Independent)
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology
STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois JIM TURNER, Texas
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GREG WALDEN, Oregon MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
DOUG OSE, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. Russell George, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Randy Kaplan, Counsel
Bryan Sisk, Clerk
Trey Henderson, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 2, 2000.................................. 1
Statement of:
Barram, David, Administrator, General Services Administration 10
Bohannon, Mark, general counsel and vice president, Software
and Information Industry Association....................... 80
Brewer, Eric, founder and chairman, the Federal Search
Foundation, co-founder and chief scientist, Inktomi Corp... 18
Katzen, Sally, Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Management and Budget...................................... 3
McClure, David, Director, Information Technology Management,
U.S. General Accounting Office............................. 25
McDermott, Patrice, information policy analyst, OMB Watch.... 40
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Barram, David, Administrator, General Services
Administration, prepared statement of...................... 14
Bohannon, Mark, general counsel and vice president, Software
and Information Industry Association:
Letter dated June 23, 2000............................... 81
Prepared statement of.................................... 87
Brewer, Eric, founder and chairman, the Federal Search
Foundation, co-founder and chief scientist, Inktomi Corp.,
prepared statement of...................................... 20
Fleisher, Michael D., CEO, Gartner, prepared statement of.... 111
Katzen, Sally, Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Management and Budget, prepared statement of............... 5
McClure, David, Director, Information Technology Management,
U.S. General Accounting Office:
NASIRE study............................................. 120
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
McDermott, Patrice, information policy analyst, OMB Watch,
prepared statement of...................................... 43
FIRSTGOV.GOV: IS IT A GOOD IDEA?
----------
MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2000
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
and Technology,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Horn and Turner.
Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director/chief
counsel; Randy Kaplan, counsel; Ben Ritt, professional staff
member; Bonnie Heald, director of communications/professional
staff member; Bryan Sisk, clerk; Elizabeth Seong, staff
assistant; George Fraser, Rachael Reddick, and Trevor Pedigo,
interns; Trey Henderson, minority counsel; Jean Gosa, minority
clerk; and Michelle Ash, minority professional staff member.
Mr. Horn. A quorum being present, this hearing of the
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology will come to order.
On Friday, September 22nd, the President unveiled FirstGov,
a centralized Web site that allows anyone with a computer and
modem to one-stop shop for information on the government's 27
million Web pages.
By accessing FirstGov located at www.FirstGov.gov, computer
users can locate a wealth of government information and
services. A single search can produce information on subjects
from Social Security benefits to the latest advances in health
care. Businesses can find the government's most recent
procurement opportunities, and prospective applicants can
search for Federal grants. By the end of this year, nearly 40
million Americans will communicate with the government
electronically. That demand will undoubtedly swell as even more
people join the information age.
FirstGov is an important step in making government
information and services available to the public 7 days a week,
24 hours a day. FirstGov and electronic government in general,
offer the potential to revolutionize the way citizens and
businesses interact with their government. The benefits of this
instant communication are plentiful, but the challenges are
equally profound.
To be successful, government information must be current,
well-organized and readily accessible. Citizens and businesses
should expect government Web sites to offer the same quality
and service found on many business Web sites. They must be
confident that their on-line communications are secure and that
personal information is fully protected. The government's
electronic infrastructure must be planned and managed carefully
to avoid risking the loss of billions of taxpayer dollars.
Equally important, we must bridge the digital divide so
that all citizens have access to this new electronic
environment.
The FirstGov Web site uses technology developed by Dr. Eric
Brewer, who is co-founder of Inktomi--and I don't know how fast
I am to say that, or do I spell out each syllable? Which is it?
Mr. Brewer. You got it right. Inktomi.
Mr. Horn. Inktomi Corp., and a professor of computer
science at the University of California, Berkeley.
Dr. Brewer, who is with us today, has offered his search
technology to the FirstGov project at no cost for 2 years.
Dr. Brewer, I understand you flew all night from Japan to
be with us, and I welcome you and thank you. I am looking
forward to learning more about this new project and its
potential for providing citizens with a greater opportunity to
communicate with their government.
I welcome all of our witnesses today, look forward to your
testimony; and I now yield time to the ranking member, the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner, for an opening statement.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FirstGov is the first-ever government Web site to provide
the public with easy, one-stop access to all on-line Federal
Government resources. This site will bring government closer to
the people, expand the reach of our democracy and make
government more consumer friendly.
Launched on September 22, 2000, FirstGov allows users to
browse a wealth of information, everything from researching at
the Library of Congress to tracking a NASA mission. It also
enables users to conduct important business on-line, such as
applying for student loans, tracking Social Security benefits,
comparing Medicare options and administering government grants
and contracts. It is expected that this monumental breakthrough
in one-stop shopping for government services will help
Americans across the country and around the world find
information and resources quickly and easily.
As an advocate of e-government, I commend the
administration for making this effort; and I am pleased to see
FirstGov.gov up and running. The Internet offers us
unparalleled opportunities to literally put government at the
fingertips of the citizens. While the private sector has been
quick to capitalize on the new opportunities created by the
digital revolution, it is widely acknowledged that the Federal
Government is behind the curve.
Projects like FirstGov.gov show that we are making an
effort to head in the right direction. Hopefully, this is just
the first of many steps the Federal Government will be making
in order to ensure that 1 day ``dot gov'' is as commonplace as
``dot com.''
Again, I commend the chairman on holding the hearing to
bring this important step forward to the attention of the
American people, and I welcome each of our witnesses who have
come here this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much.
The tradition of the committee on Government Reform and its
subcommittees is to swear all witnesses as to the knowledge
they give us. So if you will stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Horn. The clerk will note that all the witnesses have
affirmed.
We will now start with the Honorable Sally Katzen, Deputy
Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget.
STATEMENT OF SALLY KATZEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Ms. Katzen. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner, I am delighted to be
here again.
FirstGov, the Federal Government's new and most
comprehensive Web portal, is a timely and important topic for
the government and the Nation; and we are glad that you
convened this hearing to explore its great potential so soon
after it was launched.
As the chairman noted, FirstGov is a piece of a much larger
effort of this administration to bring the American people
electronic government. Much of my written testimony is devoted
to the administration's work in this area, but in the interest
of time, let me move to the specific subject of this hearing.
Last December, the President issued a memorandum on
electronic government. It called for the establishment of a
one-stop gateway to government information available on the
Internet, organized by the type of service or information that
people are seeking rather than by the agency. That is FirstGov.
But the roots of FirstGov predate that memo. For several
years now, a dedicated team at GSA has been doing the spade
work on what was then known as WebGov. The President's memo
accelerated the process. In the very early spring, the
President's Management Council gave it enthusiastic support.
Shortly thereafter, we were approached by Internet
entrepreneur Eric Brewer with the offer of a powerful search
engine and data base that he would develop. That offer was a
major catalyst in bringing all government information together
in a way that the American people can find quickly and easily.
We chose the name FirstGov to signify the citizens' first click
to electronic government.
In June 2000, the President announced FirstGov in his
first-ever Webcast address to the Nation, challenging
government and industry to finish creating it in 90 days.
Exactly 90 days later, some would say in Internet time, the
President announced the launch of the site.
The site, located at www.FirstGov.gov, provides a single
on-line portal that connects Americans to one of the largest
and most useful collections of Web pages in the world. It
allows users to search all 27 million Federal agency Web pages
at one time, and it has plenty of room to grow because it can
search half a billion documents in less than a quarter of a
second and handle millions of searches a day. This is somewhat
mind-boggling but true.
Both the Director of OMB and I have given special attention
to this project, and I sit on the governing board of FirstGov.
GSA Administrator Dave Barram will give more details on some of
the arrangements.
The initial response to FirstGov has been largely
favorable. Initial estimates show that during the first 4 days,
about a quarter of a million people visited the site. More
interesting, Web traffic at various agency sites increased with
the launch of FirstGov. The Department of Transportation
reported a large increase and also cross-agency sites,
including disability.gov, reported a nearly threefold increase.
In addition, the on-line customer feedback we received is
widely supportive. Of roughly 700 messages received by FirstGov
in its first week, the vast majority were both supportive of
the site and excited about the opportunity to make the site
better through their comments.
Finally, to demonstrate the support for FirstGov among IT
professionals, there was a conference last week of State CIOs,
Chief Information Officers, and the States said they thought
FirstGov was a tremendous advance and asked how they could work
with us to become a part of it.
FirstGov is, in my mind, a revolutionary step in the way
this government provides information and services. A visitor
need not know what agency provides student loans to get
information on student loans. The search engine as well as the
topic directory can provide this. And FirstGov partners may
offer yet a third way to access the information in a way that
fits the user's needs.
Moreover, the site will get better over time. The search
engine will learn which pages are the most useful to the
citizens and display them more readily. The topic index will
grow and encompass those sites most commonly looked for and
accessed by the public. Ultimately, as agencies put more
information on-line, FirstGov will be the catalyst for
additional agency and cross-agency portals that continue to
break down the existing stovepipes and lead to a real
transformation in the way the government delivers information
and services.
Most importantly, citizen feedback will lead our efforts to
make our information and services more available on-line. The
public will point our way, and through their direction we will
give them a comprehensive and responsive electronic government
that expands opportunities for their participation in our
democracy.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk about
FirstGov and for your support in this area. I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Katzen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.005
Mr. Horn. Our next witness is the Honorable David Barram,
the Administrator of the General Services Administration. Mr.
Barram.
STATEMENT OF DAVID BARRAM, ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Barram. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner.
I want to add my appreciation to you for providing this
opportunity to explain the power of the elegantly simple idea
that is FirstGov. I believe FirstGov is a singular achievement
and one that will keep getting better--in fact, it must get
better.
This administration has been devoted to making a government
that works better and costs less. I believe we have done that.
In that context, we had to do FirstGov. By now, the American
people have come to expect that kind of productivity of us.
In my comments today I would like to briefly describe the
three modules of FirstGov and then explain the least well-
developed and least well-understood part of the FirstGov
partners.
The first module, and most visible, is the main portal
called FirstGov.gov. Behind that portal is the second module, a
powerful searching and indexing technology provided to us by
Fed-Search, the foundation created by Dr. Eric Brewer. The
third module is our idea of offering continuous, direct access
to the index behind FirstGov to a cadre of interested FirstGov
partners, rather than giving it to ourselves as a proprietary
government resource.
The FirstGov.gov portal was developed by the government
following the letter and spirit of all competitive procurement
processes using a fixed-price contract and, as Sally said, in
90 days--an amazingly short 90 days. When you sign on to
FirstGov.gov, up comes this simple, elegant, easy-to-look-at,
mainly blue and white page that has already received accolades
in focus groups and through feedback directly to FirstGov. It
invites you to find what you want in the way you want and when
you want it because it is open 24 hours a day.
You can click on a topic, such as learning, and get to a
page with a whole list of excellent government Web sites about
learning. You can click on Congress and get to Thomas or to the
House Web sites. You can click to a site where you can be
directed to State and local government sites.
You can click to one of the periodically changing featured
sites. Right now, we are featuring ``severe weather'' and
``school stuff.'' Or you can decide you just have to say
something to your government to give us feedback, and if you
want to search by keyword we have a comprehensive index waiting
for your search query.
That index was built by Dr. Eric Brewer's Fed-Search
Foundation. A few people seem to be skeptical of the Fed-
Search-government relationship. I would like to see us get over
that, and soon. Eric Brewer is here today, and you can hear the
Fed-Search story directly from him.
Eric Brewer and Dave Binetti, who is the president and CEO
of Fed-Search, have been magnificent partners throughout this
effort. At every turn when we presented them with one more need
of government, they gave it to us because they wanted to do
this right and wanted to be sure that it was above reproach.
Those who subscribe to the ``don't believe what I say until you
see what I do'' credo will like Eric Brewer. He is what he said
he was, a private citizen simply interested in giving a gift, a
very generous gift, to his country, a gift that will help
strengthen our democracy.
Fed-Search uses the Inktomi technology to do its searching
and index. In a few weeks, they spidered--searched--all
publicly available government Web pages and indexed the 27
million pages. Fed-Search will keep the index updated.
The third part of FirstGov is the FirstGov partner idea.
As we were developing FirstGov we knew that most Internet
users had a favorite portal, or a small group of portals, they
almost always used. Something like 85 percent of users navigate
the Web via the big three--Yahoo, AOL, NetScape or MSN. In
addition, there are over 200 other portals serving the
increasingly large base of regular users. These portals have
flourished because they innovate and provide a service to their
customers. They get their customers the information they want,
their customers want, in the way they want it, at the speed
they want it; and the portals that survive will survive because
they get better and better.
So we figured we should design FirstGov to be attractive to
these successful portals and thereby allow our ultimate
customers, the American citizens, more choice. We believe
FirstGov.gov is good, and we plan to keep it at the state-of-
the-art. But citizens are used to picking from their own
personal views of the best. They should have that choice,
rather than being forced to use only the government-provided
site if they want quick access to all government information.
We had some conditions, though. These conditions resulted
directly from concerns some citizens have expressed about the
``wild west'' character of the Internet. One condition is that
citizens should have free first use of all government
information. The Fed-Search index has all the publicly
available government pages, all 27 million pages. Through
FirstGov, the first use of government information will be free
to all citizens.
Another condition is that no individual can be tracked
while browsing government pages. We require that security must
be excellent, and there can be no advertising on pages
displaying government Web sites. You get all that when you log
on to FirstGov.gov, and that's what we will require of any
FirstGov partner's portal.
All these things led us to the idea to allow other portals,
public and private, to become FirstGov partners. We would like
them and, therefore, their customers to have access to the
results of a search in Fed-Search should they so choose, rather
than being forced to rely exclusively on their own proprietary
and incomplete data bases.
When you want to search for government information on
FirstGov, there are four ways to go.
One is the most obvious. Any portal, whether or not a
partner, can point to the FirstGov URL and when the user clicks
that user is transported to the FirstGov.gov portal. That's the
same as if you typed in the URL on any browser.
The other three are simply three ways any independent
portal can join the FirstGov world and demonstrate to its
customers that it subscribes to a basic set of principles
governing the privacy and quality of those accessing government
information. The independent portal benefits by being able to
provide better service to its customers, the FirstGov brand
benefits by having more people know about and use it, and the
American people benefit by knowing they can count on certain
safeguards while navigating government information.
In the three models, each portal agrees to the FirstGov
conditions. Along with the protections, the agreement provides,
it sets a high standard for access to government information
and transactions that benefit all involved.
In the first of the three models, the bronze model, the
portal puts a FirstGov logo, or words, with a link to FirstGov
on the portal site. Clicking there takes the user directly to
the FirstGov.gov page, the government page, and she proceeds as
if she had come there originally. This level of partnership is
at no cost to the partner.
The second model, silver, has a FirstGov search box, where
the user can enter a word or words directly from the partner's
page, with the promise of a keyword search. The keyword is
processed by Fed-Search, and results are returned to the user
on a FirstGov page displayed on the user's PC. Now the user is
in FirstGov, the government portal. This service is free from
Fed-Search. There is no cost to the partner.
In the third model, gold, the portal displays the search
box as though it were on the portal's own--as though it were
the portal's own search box. When the results are returned,
they appear as though they were on the portal's own search
return page. The portal retains the option to advertise on the
search return page, providing a revenue stream for the portal.
But let me be clear. When the user then clicks to the
government site from that portal, that user is now in the
government site and all those conditions that government sites
have prevail.
For this industrial-strength access and customized
formatting, the portal pays Fed-Search a nominal charge to
process the search, a sum designed to simply cover costs. The
portal provides its own bandwidth to Fed-Search, and Fed-Search
provides proprietary software, engineering support and training
to the portal, guaranteeing optimal performance of the portal.
The portal still adheres to FirstGov principles.
As of Friday--and in my testimony I think I have 178
companies--that number is now 226, I believe, companies and
nonprofits have already shown serious interest in becoming
FirstGov partners. They know the conditions, and they see the
value. We are pleased because we feel this validates our
initial thinking that offering access to the index could result
in innovative, new, citizen-centric business models that were
not previously feasible.
The FirstGov partners program is not a mystery. It is just
what I described and has been for weeks. When we first
introduced the idea, we listened to the concerns and excitement
from all quarters and have responded by modifying the
partnership concept and conditions substantially to make it the
best we could.
Mr. Chairman, I consider this a proud moment for the
Federal Government. I hope you do, too. In just a week,
FirstGov has captured the imagination of tens of thousands of
people. By now, citizens have likely made over a million visits
to the FirstGov.gov portal. Many have told us how much they
like it and a few things we should get better at.
Thank you again for your constant attention to the efforts
of so many to making a better government. It makes it easier
for people to do what they need to do and uses their money
wisely.
Mr. Horn. Is that the statement?
Mr. Barram. That's my statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barram follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.009
Mr. Barram. I would like to do a quick little demo.
Mr. Horn. All right. Go ahead.
I want to ask Ms. Katzen, you have to leave when?
Ms. Katzen. 11:05.
Mr. Horn. OK. 11:05. Because I want to make sure we have
enough for 20 minutes of questioning before you leave. So I
will have to interrupt some of the presenters, but go ahead,
Mr. Barram.
Mr. Barram. Let me take just a minute.
What you see up on the screens on the two sides of you, and
up front you can see it on yours, is a picture of the FirstGov
page. I trust many of you have already seen it. It looks good,
and it is very functional.
Do something, Bill, anything.
He just typed in the words ``Social Security,'' and up came
a list of results. He is clicking on the first one, and it
takes you to the Social Security page and the top 10 most
requested services from Social Security on-line. So click,
click and we were there.
Now he is back at the FirstGov home page. He clicked on
featured subject under severe weather and got to the second
page under severe weather and is looking for Hurricane Keith, I
think.
This is a NOAA page, National Hurricane Center. So we are
into the Department of Commerce's NOAA's page now, and there it
is. It is still down there circling around the Yucatan, not a
place to be.
We could do 2 hours of this. That's enough. You get the
idea. We will have it available. If there are other questions
you can ask about, we can find it. Find out how many times you
are listed, Mr. Chairman, in the government Web pages.
Mr. Horn. Just so they aren't in Federal prison pages.
Dr. Brewer, it is a great pleasure to have you here. You
have a very distinguished record. Please make your
presentation, and that will help round out on the positive
side.
STATEMENT OF ERIC BREWER, FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN, THE FEDERAL
SEARCH FOUNDATION, CO-FOUNDER AND CHIEF SCIENTIST, INKTOMI
CORP.
Mr. Brewer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Turner. I am
really glad to have this opportunity to speak to you today
about the Federal Search Foundation.
The free flow of information is a basic tenet of American
government. Freedom of speech, our judicial system and even the
basic principles of capitalism all revolve around the free flow
of information. The Internet is the greatest tool for this flow
in the history of the world; and, as such, it can be the most
potent ally for the citizens since the Constitution itself.
The mission of the Federal Search Foundation is not just to
build a government search engine but rather to catalyze an
Internet-enabled government. We seek to empower citizens with
comprehensive, unbiased information and interactive services
that make government more responsive to the public. The
creation of a comprehensive search engine and its inspiration
of the FirstGov portal are the first steps toward this goal.
Early in my career as a faculty member at UC Berkeley, I
received Federal assistance in the form of a DARPA research
grant. This grant led to novel search technology, which led to
Inktomi, an Internet infrastructure company, and then led to
the Federal Search Foundation. Thus, in creating the
Foundation, I am giving something back while I also hope to
promote truly American values of open, participatory democracy.
In fact, I hope my whole generation of Internet entrepreneurs
finds equally meaningful ways to give back to society.
But, by design, the gift is only a catalyst. The FirstGov
site was not built by me, nor by Inktomi, nor by Fed-Search. It
was built by the government itself, which is the only reason
that FirstGov is an important step toward an Internet-enabled
government.
The effects of this catalyst continue to grow. In addition
to the FirstGov site, we have seen increased focus by all three
branches on their Internet presence, an increase in the quality
of government sites, and an increase in traffic and feedback.
The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. In fact, much of
the feedback thanks us for sites that existed before FirstGov,
such as the NOAA site. We simply brought them to the public.
I hope that others, private and public, will continue the
momentum and put their own government-related services on-line,
leading to the same kind of diversity that we see for
television, radio, and print media. In fact, the Fed-Search
Foundation hopes that our mission as catalyst will be complete
in a few years and that we can simply cease to exist. To me,
the most valuable and personally rewarding part of the gift is
the confidence it gave Federal employees that they could build
a great site and that they could do it on Internet time.
The Internet is a deeply American phenomenon, not because
of its origin but because it reflects our values. It is the
ultimate expression of freedom of speech, it is fundamentally
open, and it has transformed our economy in the classic
American way, by enabling individuals to achieve their dreams
through inspiration and hard work.
I am fortunate to be one such American. I am honored to be
able to give something back. But, I am even more honored to be
able to help the government achieve the kind of deep
understanding and use of the Internet that will promote these
values well beyond the information age.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Horn. We thank you again, Dr. Brewer. That's very
generous of you, and we will get into some of those questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brewer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.014
Mr. Horn. Our next presenter, as we always have at these
hearings, the very able staff of the U.S. General Accounting
Office. So we have this morning David McClure, the Director of
Information Technology Management of GAO. Dr. McClure.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MCCLURE, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
MANAGEMENT, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. McClure. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner, it is a pleasure to
be here.
FirstGov represents, I think, an important milestone in
evolving toward Federal electronic government. There is no
question about that. Portals like this are being used with
increasing frequency at all levels of government.
As is evident from some of the information searches that
have been presented this morning and in some of the testimonies
that are being presented to you today, FirstGov is not yet
overly context sensitive. As is the case with commercial
Internet searches, the queries on FirstGov can yield hundreds
and even thousands of URL references, some of which may not
necessarily be relevant to the information or services that the
user is looking for.
However, I think it is very important to point out that the
capability, the search capability, is not the end game for
FirstGov. It is an evolving concept, and we would expect many
opportunities to emerge for increasing the capability and the
functionality of this site.
Not all issues associated with running FirstGov today and
on a permanent basis have been settled, and I just want to
briefly mention four of those issues to you.
The first of them deals with maintaining the security of
the FirstGov Web site itself. Computer and network
vulnerabilities swell to immense proportions in the Internet
age. The opportunities to create and cause problems for the
site accentuate the need for careful, coordinated information
security planning.
Based on the available information and discussions we have
had with GSA, FirstGov representatives and even representatives
from Inktomi, there are good security measures that have been
put in place for the FirstGov site. However, there are several
elements associated with a comprehensive security program that
are lacking. These include the establishment of a comprehensive
computer security plan, adequate coordination of security
measures being supplied by the different contractors that are
being used for the operation and maintenance of FirstGov, and
completion and independent validation and verification of risk
assessments on the site. These are fundamental computer
security steps.
FirstGov represents one of the most important national
sites on the Internet today. Given its visibility and its
importance, we would urge that these kinds of security measures
be put in place; and indeed, in conversations with GSA, we are
confident that a great deal of action has already been
initiated.
A second challenge deals with taking reasonable, practical
steps to ensure that FirstGov does not enhance abuse of the
government's information resources. We cannot ignore the
assistance that such a tool provides to those with malicious
intentions who regularly conduct tedious electronic
reconnaissance of Federal Web sites in search of information
that can assist in their wrongdoings.
FirstGov search results provide perhaps the most
comprehensive index of all information on the U.S. Government's
public Web sites. Commercial search engines commonly index only
a fraction of the government sites and pages. The search
engine, to be perfectly clear, does not search classified or
for sensitive information on government sites. That's not its
purpose. But it is imperative that agencies provide effective
frontlines of defense by ensuring that their own public Web
sites do not post or facilitate access to inappropriate
information, and it is also important that FirstGov itself
provide an effective reinforcement by considering formal
policies and procedures to routinely check, identify
questionable or sensitive materials and removing them as
quickly as possible from the FirstGov index.
The point here is not to make FirstGov a governmentwide
monitor, for computer security or privacy. It is a logical
extension of what we would consider practical steps that can be
put in place.
The third challenge deals with alleviating concerns that
have been raised about the impact of the government's
relationship both with the Federal Search Foundation and with
official partners that are being established in the private
sector. In 2 to 3 years, when an open, competitive bidding
process is expected to occur for FirstGov, its systems
operations, its development and its maintenance, it is
important for everyone to understand how the transition will
take place from the current arrangement to that new situation.
It is also important that policymakers throughout the
government have assurances that the Federal Government has
adequate control of how official data from its Web sites are
being collected and used now by the Federal Search Foundation
and by whatever vendor or private entity assumes control of
this project in the future.
With respect to the official sponsors or partners to
FirstGov, the board may simply need to explain the advantages
it sees behind why these partnerships are essential to
FirstGov's success, given the controversies that can emerge
with these kinds of relationships.
The fourth challenge lies with extending, tailoring and
coordinating access to government information. FirstGov is a
mechanism that should be adaptable to changing technology and
to changing needs of users. In its present form, there are
other government data bases and information that can be
indexed, more so than the public Web pages that it currently
searches. These are just issues that need to be addressed as
the site continues in development.
Surveys also indicate that an increasing number of Internet
users prefer to tailor their views of information based on
their personal needs and preferences. In the public sector,
legitimate privacy concerns and policies prohibit these
practices which are conducive to the type of electronic
interaction and Web page customization that you might want to
see in the government. So these are, again, issues that need to
be brought to everyone's attention.
So let me say, in conclusion, that the FirstGov effort
represents a significant achievement toward enabling electronic
government. Larger issues do indeed loom on how to sustain the
site as a permanent feature of the Federal Government, and it
takes on even greater significance in today's Internet
environment.
An overall management strategy and blueprint for setting
expectations, showing direction and demonstrating results would
be very helpful to see. However, this plan should also be
flexible to allow for creative approaches to accessing
information and responding to the dynamic technology changes in
today's environment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I will be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Horn. Thank you. We will get further testimony, I am
sure, from you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClure follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.026
Mr. Horn. Dr. Patrice McDermott is the information policy
analyst at OMB Watch, and then we will have two more witnesses,
Mr. Bohannon and Mr. Fleisher.
Dr. McDermott.
STATEMENT OF PATRICE MCDERMOTT, INFORMATION POLICY ANALYST, OMB
WATCH
Dr. McDermott. Good morning. I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman and Mr. Turner, for the opportunity today, the fourth
anniversary of the signing of the E-FOIA, to testify on
FirstGov, the Federal Government's new Web portal.
My name is Patrice McDermott. I am a policy analyst at OMB
Watch, a nonprofit research 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 that improved access. But
even though the Internet has grown increasingly ubiquitous, the
Clinton administration has done little to make access easy for
the average citizen--until now.
FirstGov is an enormously important first step, actually a
giant leap, in harnessing newer information technologies to
make the Federal Government more accessible to the public. We
applaud Dr. Brewer for his commitment to democracy and
information access, and we applaud the administration for
listening to and responding to our criticisms during the
developmental stages of FirstGov.
We also wanted to recognize, as Ms. Katzen did, that
FirstGov is built on the significant groundwork that was
undertaken for several years under the auspices of WebGov, an
effort with appreciable input from many people both inside and
outside the government.
While credit should be given to the President for his
leadership and his team for getting the task done, this should,
as others have noted, be recognized as a first step. Our
submitted testimony describes improvements that still need to
be made to FirstGov. In that, we also raise a number of
important policy issues raised by FirstGov, including its
relationship to the Federal Search Foundation, that have not
been fully addressed and must be resolved.
Our review of the FirstGov site can be summarized as
follows: The search engine is very fast and very impressive,
but, as Mr. McClure noted, to get search results relevant to
user requests often requires significant work. Indeed, we often
found government information for which we were looking more
easily through other search engines, and in some cases the
information was not retrieved at all through the FirstGov
search engine.
Second, the directory of topics is also a great first step
but also needs significant work. The topics need refinement,
and procedures for their being kept up to date need to be
established. I know that OMB and GSA have some plans for this,
but it can't depend just on what happens in the agencies.
The privacy statement on FirstGov is very clear and useful.
Unfortunately, however, when you click on some other government
sites from FirstGov, cookies are being sent in a number of
cases. Although OMB has issued guidelines, strong leadership is
needed to help agencies uniformly comply with privacy
protections. The details of some of those sites are in the
printed testimony.
Opportunities for feedback for the public to comment on
various aspects of obtaining government information are readily
at hand. This is great. While these comments should prove very
useful, there is still a need to conduct focus groups with
different types of users to identify ways to improve the
portal.
As has been noted and will be talked about also by Mr.
Bohannon--the subject of his testimony I have seen--the concept
of certified partners were confusing in earlier presentations
about FirstGov and is no clearer now that FirstGov is public.
As the portal is now operational, that is, the rush to get it
done in 90 days is over, GSA should not rush into these
partnerships without public debate on what is to be achieved
and what a partnership truly entails.
Some other issues about the site. Information about
FirstGov itself should be improved, which could be done through
FAQs--frequently asked questions. An example of useful
information is how often spiders are set to crawl agency Web
sites. The frequency determines how current information on
FirstGov is at any point and very likely relates to a problem
of phantom URLs that we and others have encountered. Also,
there are questions of what are the criteria for establishing
links; what the criteria for establishing the priority of what
appears as search results.
As I have said, the Web portal is a major accomplishment.
However, there are a number of major policy issues created or
highlighted that have been left unattended. These include, is a
privileged relationship being created? This has been addressed
by Mr. McClure, and SIIA will address it, and we share many of
the concerns.
Access to what? FirstGov needs to address a number of
access issues. It does not include an easy way to find current,
timely information, as searches do not capture the context of
important government data bases such as Federal Register and
WAIS data bases. And it will not find nor will it notify users
of the vast amount of government information that exists only
in print, nor of the records of the Federal Government.
FirstGov should be an important part of a comprehensive effort
to maximize access to government information.
Permanent public access. FirstGov's ability to retrieve
pages highlights the problem of Web pages that might be here
today and gone tomorrow. It is possible that Fed Search's index
data base could help facilitate permanent public access, but
technology could not solve the policy problems that exist.
Privacy. As I have noted, a number of Web sites yield the
cookies----
Mr. Horn. Ms. McDermott, we are going to have to bring the
gavel down on the next three, and you are one of them, if we
are going to get questions, because that's the only way we can
get it.
They are all anxious to leave.
Dr. McDermott. I understand. I thought I had it down to 5
minutes, but I didn't.
Mr. Horn. Well, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McDermott follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.063
Mr. Horn. Mark Bohannon--and we can get back to a lot of it
afterwards. Mark Bohannon, general counsel and vice president,
Software and Information Industry Association.
STATEMENT OF MARK BOHANNON, GENERAL COUNSEL AND VICE PRESIDENT,
SOFTWARE AND INFORMATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bohannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Turner, for
the opportunity to testify today on the FirstGov project.
We do not come here today believing that either we have all
the answers or that there is a one-size-fits-all solution to
this tremendous challenge that Ms. Katzen, Mr. Barram, and Dr.
Brewer are trying to undertake. Rather, our concern, which you
find in our testimony and our recommendations, necessary steps
to improve the project, are actually drawn from the unique
vantage point of over 1,000 companies in 33 countries who are
developing the backbone of access to the Web, developing unique
applications that meet a variety of consumer, educational,
business and governmental needs. Our members also include many
of the longstanding publishers in the off-line and digital
world. We are providing services and products that meet
virtually every market and every area imaginable, including
those incorporating information from government sources.
I also want to emphasize that the vision of e-government
that has been discussed today, the longstanding policy of this
administration and as reinforced by Ms. Katzen, is one that
SIIA shares and is at the forefront of encouraging both in the
digitization of government and in the provision of services.
We also want to note that we are very pleased that Director
Sally Katzen has been given a leadership role in reviewing on a
governmentwide basis all of these e-government initiatives,
particularly looking at the possibility which we have growing
concerns about, that there is increasing competition by the
government in the provision of electronic and commerce service.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner, we have stated our concerns on a
number of occasions, and we would be glad to provide that
information for the record.
In our prepared testimony for this hearing----
Mr. Horn. Without objection, that will be put in the record
at this point.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.068
Mr. Bohannon. Our testimony has been presented for the
record.
We also want to note that Mr. Barram was very, very kind
and gave us a very, very thoughtful response to our earlier
comments to GSA. With this background and with additional
information, it is important to understand that we want to
focus on FirstGov as a system, not merely as a portal, what one
sees up front. Quite frankly, we could get 10 experts in a room
and have 15 opinions about what the portal would look like.
Our focus really is on the system and the implications for
ensuring that there is access to all government information on
a timely basis, consistent with legal and public policy
principles.
This is a very unique venture by every measure, and we
commend Dr. Brewer for stepping up. It is not always easy to
work with the government.
It is also important to understand that out of this there
is a special exclusive relationship between the General
Services Administration and with the not-for-profit Fed-Search
Foundation. In this exclusive position, the Foundation will
build, operate and maintain the search engine. They will also
be responsible for indexing all U.S. Government Web sites. This
task is not merely technical nor ministerial. It will, in fact,
determine what citizens see about their government. It will
also determine what are priority queries and results in this
process.
Access to this index and, for that matter, any aspect of
FirstGov can only be done by being a certified partner. In our
view, imposing those conditions, regardless of which level you
are at, is inconsistent with Federal law and policy, including
the Paperwork Reduction Act, which prohibits agencies from
restricting or regulating the use, resale, or redissemination
of public information to the public.
Moreover, to be a gold or truly certified partner, in our
view, also requires you to enter into a number of agreements
with the Fed-Search Foundation. These dual negotiations, we
need to be cognizant of, create a ripe opportunity for
confusion. It also raises questions about whether we are all
benefiting from a gift or, in fact, reimbursing costs that we
just do not understand.
It also, based on the information we have today, might
raise the possibility that many of the existing redisseminators
or other access providers may have to change their business
models, their customer relationships, but again these are
questions that many of those who are interested in
participating are raising but yet we do not have information at
this point to answer these questions.
With the time remaining, let me quickly focus on our
recommendations.
First----
Mr. Horn. Well, could we ask that the things that Ms.
Katzen should be addressed to, if you feel it hasn't been here,
we will get back with you, but I don't want us to go without
questions by both Members.
Mr. Bohannon. That's fine. I would like to get back to our
recommendations.
Mr. Horn. All right, fine.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bohannon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.081
Mr. Horn. Mr. Fleisher, I will give you 1 minute on this,
and then you can have all you want after we are done, and then
we will get back to it.
Mr. Fleisher. Why don't I actually save you that 1 minute,
and why don't you get to the questions that you want to get to,
and I can come back to my thoughts.
Mr. Horn. All right. We will give you plenty of time.
Ms. Katzen, some of these only you can answer, and that is
the privacy situation. How many agencies have a privacy policy
now?
Ms. Katzen. Virtually all. We had sent out a memorandum
earlier in the year requiring agencies to post their privacy
policy on their Web pages, and GAO their report approximately 2
or 3 weeks ago. I think it was something like 9 sites out of
2,700 that did not actually have the privacy policy posted, and
we have been following up with those agencies. So I would say
virtually all is an understatement.
Mr. Horn. Now is there one basic approach to this in the
agencies or are they all different?
Ms. Katzen. Well, there are differences, but the
fundamental proposition is that personally identifiable
information should not be made available without the consent of
the individual, and unlike the commercial sector, the
government is subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, which sets in
place the rules and regulations for privacy information being
disseminated.
There are routine uses and other kinds of procedures that
have been in effect for the last 25 years, where agencies will
let people know when personal information would be used, and
those are published in the Federal Register, and there is an
entire process on that.
The issue that Ms. McDermott raised and that came up this
past summer was the use of persistent cookies. These are not
chocolate chip or oatmeal raisin. They are software devices.
Mr. Horn. Let's translate that for the layperson.
Ms. Katzen. I was going to say, they are software devices.
Mr. Horn. I love pricking bureaucracy.
Ms. Katzen. It is not my term. It is industry's term, but
these are software devices that track users over time and over
different Web sites. Now, there is a reason for this. If you
don't have this kind of a device, you don't know whether
somebody is coming to your site 12 times or if 12 different
people are coming to your site.
You also heard from Mr. McClure that he would like at some
point for us to be able to get back to individuals to give them
updated information. That means we have to know who they are.
But our position is that, unlike the commercial sector, we
should not be tracking individual information. You should not
have to reveal who you are or have some record kept of who you
are to access government information.
So one of the conditions that Mr. Barram talked about in
our policy on partners, and one of the policies of the Federal
Government and Mr. McClure raised, is our adamant position that
persistent cookies are inappropriate. Where we find them, we
take them down.
Mr. Horn. Let me move from privacy, which we can talk about
with the Administrator, to the fee structure 2 years from now.
What is the administration anticipating that the options might
be and has any guidance gone from OMB to GSA? How are we
thinking this through? It is a very generous offer that Dr.
Brewer makes, but 2 years can go fast and pretty soon is
everybody going to be billed $1 or something to get information
from the government?
Ms. Katzen. No. Our anticipation is that as technology
continues to improve and as FirstGov proves itself, this will
be something which Congress, in its infinite wisdom, will
choose to appropriate for so that we can have the funds
necessary.
The actual processes to date has been the funds needed to
set up the first page, the portal, and to administer the site--
which cost us $1 and there is $165,000 a month to maintain the
site over the next 2 years--that was achieved by a pass-the-
hat. I said that we took this to the President's Management
Council--the chief operating officers of all the major
agencies, usually the deputy secretaries--and it was
enthusiastically supported and agencies made contributions to
fund the maintenance of the portal for the next 2 years out of
existing funds because we did not have any appropriations for
this at this time.
The search engine itself was donated by Dr. Brewer, and his
arrangement for 2 years from now, or it is almost 3 years, will
be to leave a lot of options open for how we would proceed, and
Dave Barram can talk about the kinds of things that we are
thinking. Two years from now there will be a new
administration. It will also be, most importantly, after the
system has been tested. It will depend on whether it works, if
it is well received and it needs to go forward, and don't want
to lock anything in now, but there are a variety of options
available.
Mr. Barram. Let me add to that. We, as Sally said, we
passed the hat and I think in fiscal year--and in fiscal 2001
we are going to pass the hat to cover the costs we have still
to go in 2001, but for 2002 we should be getting an
appropriation. That's one point.
Second, as Sally said, when we get--the agreement we have
with the Fed Search Foundation, which is an independent,
private, nonprofit foundation, is that what they are doing, the
kind of technology they are using, will not be such that it is
proprietary and can't be assumed by someone else.
So we will have an open bidding process that will begin.
The process will begin 6 months before the end of the period,
which is two, two and a quarter years, or whatever. I forget. I
don't know exactly the date, but 6 months before that we will
begin the process to figure out where we go from there.
And we will--another really important thing is we will have
been knowing, understanding, collecting information on the
costs to do it. That's one of the things that Fed Search has
agreed to, that they will make open the costs of running it so
that we can have an open, fair bid.
Now here is something else that we all should always keep
in mind. Internet time is an amazingly new experience and in 2
years I am not going to sit here and try to predict what life
will be like. I don't know how old Inktomi is but they have
come from not very long ago to an amazing place in the world,
and technology is growing dramatically, so we don't--there is
no point, I don't think, in spending a lot of time figuring out
what the technology is going to be in 2 years, as long as we
have the right process for someone else, or even Inktomi, to
take this over. As long as it is there, that's what we have set
up.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Barram, I am going to yield the rest of the
questioning of 10 minutes to my colleague from Texas, Mr.
Turner. So go ahead.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to thank Dr. Brewer for the contribution that
he has made. I can see you have provided us with something that
moved us forward on a much more rapid basis than we ever could
have done without your contribution. To think that this was a
90-day project and that it succeeded on that timetable is truly
amazing.
I do know the sense and motivation that you have, as all of
us do here in public service, and you have taken your talent
and have, in your way, attempted to give back some of what you
have been so fortunate to receive. So for that we are very
grateful.
Mr. Brewer. Thank you, Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. I know that some of the questions that were
raised today are the kinds of issues that this committee and
all of us would be wise to diligently pursue, because obviously
your intent in making this gift of a search engine to the
government has a limited timeframe on it, and understandably
so.
But understanding how slow sometimes the government does
move, we would be best advised to be sure that we are prepared
to deal with the problems that we face and to make the
transition that you expect government to make and that has been
agreed to by you and the GSA.
I might just ask you, by way of overview, having heard some
of the comments here today, some of the questions that were
raised regarding the partners and the arrangements with
partners, some of the issues regarding whether or not others
may at the appropriate time be able to bid on an equal footing
to continue this operation of the search engine, to just share
with us your general overview and thoughts about the direction
you see this as the primary donor of this project.
Mr. Brewer. I would be happy to. To start, I think maybe
the first place to start is to realize that it has a fixed
lifetime in part because I want it to be done the right way
through a normal procurement process that is fair and even and
internal. It should not be something done outside the
government. It should be done by the government itself.
Second, I would point out we have no special relationship
with the government. The things we are doing is basically
visiting Web sites to collect information to build a data base.
Many other companies can and do that now. We are just doing it
as a foundation, so that we can donate it not only to the
government but to libraries and schools and other groups.
In fact, the government has no obligation to use the
Federal Search engine data base. They can use their own or
create a new one whenever they like, and I would love to see
that. There is no attachment to us being the solution. I think
my only attachment is to getting the process started, which I
am happy to say we have done.
So there--in my mind there is no special privilege that we
have, that we are using public information that anyone else can
go get from the same Web sites that we get it from.
Finally, I think it is worth pointing out that we have been
a bit more practicable than that. We have agreed not to affect
the requirements for the procurement process so that we are not
affecting what the requirements are in any way. We will stay
out of that process, and we have also agreed to continue to run
our data base not only until the decision for replacement has
been done but until it has been put in place, so that there is
no pressure on anyone to hurry up and make a bad decision. So,
in good faith I think we will run it as long as necessary to
get all of those things done.
At the same time, I would like it to be aimed for 2002
because I think it is one of those things where we ought to
focus on keeping the momentum, and if we set it at 5 years
nothing would get done for 3 of them. So let's--it should have
a fixed time line. That's definitely part of the design.
Mr. Turner. Could you give us some sense of what we are
likely to be facing in terms of cost? I know from the testimony
that we have heard already, the cost of maintaining the Web
site itself, I believe, Sally, didn't you say it was $165,000 a
month?
Ms. Katzen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Turner. Which has been raised by the agencies pooling
their resources.
Obviously, I am sure the agencies would prefer a direct
appropriation to take care of that some time in the near
future. But in terms of the cost, the estimated cost of taking
over and operating the search engine, what range are we talking
about?
Mr. Brewer. It is a little hard to tell at the moment
because it depends on two things that are very hard to predict.
One is the number of documents on-line, government documents,
which at the moment is 27 million, but my hope is that number
will increase dramatically. That will raise the cost pretty
much proportionately with the number of documents on-line. The
other one that is hard to predict is the amount of traffic. In
some sense, the more popular the site is, the more effective it
is, the more traffic it will have and the more it will cost to
operate.
So the underlying costs are tied directly to traffic and
data base size, neither of which is predictable. That being
said, I expect in the 2 years that it will cost me on the order
of $5 million to $10 million. That includes some subsidies from
both Inktomi and Sun Microsystems, and I obviously hope to
raise money from many other parties and in-kind contributions,
all the normal things that a charity would do.
Mr. Turner. It is obvious that the cost far exceeds just
the cost that we have talked about already that the government
has provided by pooling the $165,000 a month, is that right,
Sally?
Ms. Katzen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Turner. Have you all looked at any estimates? Is there
any way to try to determine what kind of costs we may need to
be prepared to appropriate?
Mr. Brewer. The plan is to do exactly that as we gather
more information, and I think we have the time to do that well.
Mr. Turner. OK.
Mr. Brewer. Also, there is a certain inefficiency in the
fact that we are completely keeping the systems completely
separate, and so I think there would be some cost reduction if
you actually did do a full procurement and did it with one
contractor.
Mr. Turner. I would like to hear some comments from any of
you who would like to address this issue. Obviously there are
reasons for government sites to be accessible at no charge, and
yet we all know the primary way of funding many of these sites
is through advertising. Give me, if you will, from your
perspectives, the pros and cons of operating this site solely
at government taxpayer expense versus the merits of perhaps--or
if there are merits of considering some source of private
outside revenue for support of this type of site.
Sally, I will start with you.
Ms. Katzen. Yes, sir. Well, the Paperwork Reduction Act
makes it quite clear that government information should be made
available to the citizens at no cost. It was the taxpayers'
money which generated the data in the first instance and they
shouldn't have to pay twice to get it back. That philosophy has
governed our approach to making government information as
widely accessible as possible at no cost.
The presence of advertising is viewed as a cost by those
who are distracted or disturbed by the boxes that flip up or
the frames that are created around the Web pages to entice
people to do certain types of activities that are commercial in
nature.
Information is, I think, at the heart of our democracy. It
helps us know better what it is that the government is doing
and to appreciate in some instances the complexity of that. As
we move into an information age from an industrial base on
manufacturing, it does produce certain challenges, and things
like privacy that the chairman mentioned and security are
terribly important concerns as we have these interconnected
networks. But the technology is really giving us a key and it
is opening the door here for us to be able to have much better
dissemination of information.
We just don't believe, and we think the Congress has spoken
eloquently on the subject, that it should not be paid for.
Mr. Turner. So that includes any form of consideration of
advertising on this site of any type, in your view?
Ms. Katzen. That is in my view, yes.
Mr. Turner. Does anyone have a contrary view? No one?
Mr. Brewer. It is certainly worth pointing out that many of
the partners would be able to have advertising, and I think as
long as there is one primary source of government information,
it is OK if there are others that are more economically minded
and may be more biased.
Ms. Katzen. They could have advertising on the gold model
that Dave is referring to.
Mr. Brewer. And the silver model.
Ms. Katzen. And the silver model, on their own pages,
because they are creating value added and that's their
compensation for their value added. But as to the underlying
documents, which are the government's property, those are to be
accessible without charge.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. Let me just ask and maybe we pursued it but not
enough, if the data bases are not in the public domain, what
impact does that have on the control of FirstGov and access to
government information?
Ms. Katzen. Well, actually the data base is in the public
domain, because what the search engine does is spider documents
that the agencies in the first instance have determined to make
on-line. Dr. Brewer's hope is that agencies will put more
documents on-line, but right now the agency makes the
determination, puts them on-line, and then the spider picks
them up and brings them into the data base. Those are all
public documents, and any citizen can go to the FirstGov page
and get access to any of them. It is absolutely free and it is
in the public domain. That is not an issue.
If others want to add value, if they want to do this in a
different way by asking questions rather than by keyword
search, if they want to use a different model, and there is a
number of them and we would like to see as many models bloom as
possible, we are hoping that universities will do so. We are
hoping that the private sector will do so--we have done a lot
in this administration on public-private partnerships, and this
is one place where we think there is a golden opportunity. We
are going to give it to you straight, and they can add whatever
value they want in whatever size they want, but the data are
all in the public domain. And that's why I disagree with Mr.
Bohannon about the Paperwork Reduction Act. I think that it is
quite clear that this is not a violation.
If I could just add one more thing, sir, before regrettably
I do have to go, I agree with a number of the comments that
have been made about what things we have to think about as we
mature the system. I am particularly sympathetic to the call
for clarifying or explaining how the partnerships work, and how
the data base will be developed over time and 2 years from now.
It seems that no good deed goes unpunished. When we first
started on this process, Dave Barram put together in his own
PowerPoint an explanation of what this thing could look like,
and to get feedback we put it out; in response, we got all of
these questions and concerns that we now understand how they
could have raised those questions, but that was not what we had
been planning. It was not what we were thinking about.
The speed with which we have tried to put this up and get
it started, and this is just a start, has meant that we have
spoken our language, maybe bureaucratic, maybe technical. We
have used shorthand for what we are thinking, and I agree
completely with the need to go slowly now to clarify.
Mr. Horn. Now on that point, is it OMB or GSA that would
develop a strategic plan that included anticipated
capabilities, costs, revenues and responsibilities?
Ms. Katzen. This would be the responsibility of the
FirstGov board on which I sit and Dave Barram sits, as do
several other members of the PMC, the President's Management
Council, and several of the CIOs from the relevant committees
of the Chief Information Officers Council. That board has been
meeting more than some of us would like, and we are going to
continue to do that.
Mr. Horn. You are going to expose Dr. Brewer to
bureaucracy. They don't have that in Silicon Valley. They are
doing things.
Mr. Barram. But he might have it at Berkeley, though. He
may know about this.
Ms. Katzen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horn. You are quite welcome. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Barram. Can I just add one thing to what Sally said.
She answered your question about who had the documents, the
public domain. What the Fed Search Foundation does is bring
back full text copies of all 27 million pages into a data base,
and from that people can search. They are simply copies of all
the data on the government's pages. So when you are given a--
when you ask a question, it comes back and says, you will find
what you want at the URL of, and you go to that and now you are
in the Federal Government page, which is in the public domain.
So for a moment these pages, the copies of these pages, are
in Fed Search's possession, if you will, but anybody can get to
those, the originals of those pages, and does.
Mr. Horn. Dr. Brewer, let me ask you this question: As I
understand it, the search engine donated by the Federal Search
Foundation includes a massive index data base. Now, who owns
this data base and can anyone gain access?
Mr. Brewer. Let's see. It is a bit complicated, frankly.
The data base, although it contains public documents, is in
fact a separate and new creation done by a private foundation
with private funding. So technically the Fed Search Foundation
has created this piece of intellectual property.
That being said, we want people to use it. Therefore, we
give it away, not only to the government but to libraries and
schools and in particular to anyone else the government tells
us to, a module of constraints which I will get to but roughly
that was the premise of the partner program. We are in some
sense agnostic about the definition of the partner. We simply
want to have the government decide what an appropriate partner
is rather than us having to decide.
So the thing that is, I think, subtle is because this is a
privately owned data base. In fact, we are not allowed to give
it to other corporations and we are not allowed to subsidize
their business. That's specifically against the rules about
charities.
So we can give it to them at cost, which we are happy to
do, but we cannot--we cannot subsidize their businesses. So if
they go through the government sites, FirstGov or any other
government site, then they can have it free because we are
subsidizing the government or the library or the school. If
they want direct access to do their own portal with this
information without going through the government, they can do
that but now it is a relationship to an ongoing business and we
cannot subsidize them.
We will provide it at cost, but that's really our only
issue.
Mr. Horn. Well, they are patented or copyrighted, the
software, or what? How does that work?
Mr. Brewer. In practice, the data base doesn't--isn't of
any use outside the servers that it runs on. So when you
actually do a query, the query has to physically travel to the
data base and then get returned. This is how all Internet
search engines work. So there is nothing special about this
from the Fed Search Foundation.
When we say give access, what we really mean is we will
have a connection, a network connection, to their servers and
they can send us traffic to our computers that will send them
the answers, but these have real costs. There are real
computers that the stuff has to run on. There is band width we
have to pay for. We have our own suppliers that have their own
restrictions that we have to follow, but those are, to some
extent, those costs.
Mr. Horn. What kind of security do you have against that
process so that when our unfriendly people that are engaging
our networks all over the world, what can you do to stop that
or slow that down?
Mr. Brewer. I would say two things. First, the most
important perhaps is that this is--we only have public
information. So in some sense the penalty for security
violations is mitigated by the kind of information that's in
the data base. That being said, we take very seriously that the
data base has to be secure, and these are the same constraints
that existing search engine portals have, and I think our
experience with groups like AOL and Yahoo has been educational
and I don't see any reason why the security measures taken in
those situations wouldn't work well here. So we do take it very
seriously; firewalls, private access, the whole nine yards. But
I do have to admit I find some comfort in the fact that it is
already public data.
Mr. Horn. Well, do you see your colleagues in Silicon
Valley, be it East, West, North or South, working on something
of diversion, shall we say, when that type of signal gets in
when they really shouldn't have access? And how are those
doing? It seems to me there will be millions of dollars made
that way if somebody can figure out how to divert the entry
systems that we see, whether they are in the Philippines or
Latvia. We had a whole number from around the world a few weeks
ago before this committee, and it is happening everywhere.
Mr. Brewer. I am not quite sure I understand--we don't
actually run the Web sites themselves so we don't operate the
FirstGov Web site. The servers we own have very few parties
that can connect to them and, in fact, one obviously being the
government, but we don't get traffic directly from end users
and that makes it much easier to secure.
So all the traffic of Fed Search today comes through the
FirstGov portal and we have a direct connection with them and
can authenticate that connection to know that it really is
traffic from them. In fact, that's part of the cost of adding
partners that don't want to go through FirstGov, is that we
have to then set up a direct connection with their servers for
the same reasons, to ensure the security and that again has
real costs that we simply pass on.
Mr. Horn. So you are saying that despite your system that
gets access to them, you are saying that those hackers could
not get into the governmental computers that way, or could
they?
Mr. Brewer. When you actually visit--so when you see a
result page, a set of links, that information has already left
Fed Search, is now being displayed by a server, in this case
the FirstGov server. So the information is actually there, not
at Fed Search, and then when you click on that link you go
directly from the FirstGov server to the branch or agency
server. You do not go back to Fed Search at any time during
that visit. So we have no effect, positive or negative, on the
security of particular government Web sites.
Mr. Barram. Let me just add a comment. You will remember
that when Bill did the demo, you saw the FirstGov page. That's
FirstGov. That's a government run thing on servers that are
contracted by the government, with appropriate security. When
he typed in Social Security, that search went to Fed Search and
back came a list on FirstGov.gov again. So from Fed Search, the
lists came back to the government page. When he clicked on the
top choice, it went to a Social Security site with all the
security around there.
It is now two levels away from the Fed Search search
engine.
Mr. Horn. So you don't see a problem, and if you do, it is
up to the government agency to worry about it and not the
process here?
Mr. Barram. You know, Eric has described what security they
have, and it is important that we--they have that security, and
there are a limited number of people who have pipes into the
Fed Search engine. The bigger security questions of course are
at the agency, and in a much less way at FirstGov, but the real
issues on security are, I think, at the agency level where all
the Web pages are managed.
Mr. Horn. Do any of our colleagues on this side, the ones
that have raised some questions, do you want to ask those and
we can get an answer to them and complete the record?
Mr. Fleisher in particular, I feel we have passed you by a
little bit, but your firm has a very distinguished position
with this subcommittee. You were our first witness in April
1996.
Mr. Fleisher. Thank you. I think the key reason for me
being here today was to focus on our findings on the digital
divide. I don't think those are 100 percent tied into the
detailed level of questions you are asking about FirstGov.
My 2 cents on it, my firm's 2 cents on it, is that FirstGov
is a good, powerful, first initiative for the government. We
are excited to see the government doing what we advised the
private sector to do, which is go out there and build something
and get feedback from your constituents, your clients, your
customers, and then adapt and iterate. That's a pretty
important process in the Internet world, and we are excited
seeing the government doing it that way.
Mr. Horn. Any other thoughts, Mr. Bohannon?
Mr. Bohannon. Well, if I might have a chance to respond. I
think there has been a tremendous amount of very useful
clarification and information provided by all the witnesses.
Let me try to address a couple of points that have been made.
First of all, it is very, very helpful from Ms. Katzen and
Dr. Brewer to point out that some aspects of the data base may
be in the public domain right now. We still go back, I think,
to recognizing that as this unique gift was provided to the
U.S. Government it is still nonetheless a special exclusive
relationship between GSA and the Fed Search Foundation. If, in
fact, there is a genuine offer by the Fed Search Foundation to
make both the data base of original URLs, as well as any index
that has been further developed based on any particular
technology available at cost, we are very willing to sit down
and discuss that.
The problem right now, and this is, I think, at the heart
of why we need to sit down, get a strategic plan, understand
what everyone's responsibilities are, is that right now you are
being given two choices. You can either become a certified
partner or not, and we clearly have concerns that the only way
in which this information will be disseminated is if you agree
to both GSA's and the Fed Search Foundation's conditions.
With all due respect to Ms. Katzen, we do not believe that
the Paperwork Reduction Act should be interpreted merely by
saying if one document is available with those conditions the
law is met. We believe that the Paperwork Reduction Act applies
to all government information, not just a couple of examples
that can be pointed out.
Clearly, and we have a number of recommendations which you
can read in the testimony, I think we need to have a very real
discussion with the Fed Search Foundation, with GSA, about
making sure that bulk access to the index which has been
enhanced by the Foundation is available, in our view, under
existing government rules, at marginal cost. We need to sit
down and make sure there is access to that without having in
every instance to meet the conditions that have been imposed by
GSA, nor inherently to rely on the technological
implementations that may, in fact, be offered right now for
access. I think that is a real discussion that we need to have.
I think that will go far toward addressing a number of concerns
making sure that there is independently available information
that is not designed in a particular way that may affect what
citizens see.
I think that is one very, very important discussion that is
worth focusing on. We appreciate very much the opportunity to
have this clarified because it has been very helpful and this
will allow some of the companies who do have a lot of interest,
who are members of our association, to know more about what
kind of business deal they are getting into.
I think that's the kind of information that we need to the
strategic plan, making sure that the way the GSA is
implementing this is done consistent with legal parameters,
with the goal of ensuring a diversity of information sources.
That is what is in the public interest here, and we appreciate
the candid answers today.
Mr. Barram. Can I make a couple of comments in response?
Mr. Horn. Sure.
Mr. Barram. I appreciate Mark's both recognizing this as a
valuable beginning--and I can assure, and I think he knows,
that we are very eager to talk with anybody, and this
association is especially important because of the number of--
because of the companies involved and their involvement in this
whole industry. We have absolutely no intention of not
communicating in the most thorough way we can. We have tried--
if we have been a little bit less than fully thorough with--I
don't know if you put those words together--but with them, it
is only because of the kind of time pressure we have been under
to get there, but we have listened carefully to their concerns
all along the way.
And as he noted, as I have noted, this is the beginning.
What this looks like 12 months from now, we are going to look
back and ask ourselves, what was all that stuff about in
October 2000 that we were scrambling about? So we are going to
be partners on this, as you are and all of us, as we go ahead.
Mr. Horn. Well, when you started with that question I was
going to praise you for all the good contracts you get at the
GSA and we take advantage of them in Congress, just as they do
in the executive branch, when it comes to airplane tickets,
communications with computers and telephones and all the rest
of it. So you do a great job with your team.
Mr. Barram. Thank you. Let me just make one more quick
comment. We have talked a lot about GSA today and I want to
make sure everybody does understand there is a board of
directors at FirstGov that is made up right now of 11 people
from a number of different agencies. We have been doing a lot
of the work at GSA and we are housing it at GSA. We are the
right place to do that, but this has been an interagency
involvement, driven by the PMC. So for shorthand, you can use
GSA. Think of it as the FirstGov board that is setting policy
and at times into the deep details.
Mr. Horn. Any other thoughts here, Mr. Fleisher?
Mr. Fleisher. No.
Mr. Horn. Well, thank you very much for coming. Sorry it
was sort of disjointed to get your testimony.
Mr. Fleisher. No problem. Happy to be here.
Mr. Horn. I looked at your document and that's wonderful.
Mr. Fleisher. If we could just be sure that would get into
the record that would be terrific.
Mr. Horn. All of these automatically go into the record the
minute we introduce you.
Mr. Fleisher. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fleisher follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.087
Mr. Horn. Dr. McDermott, any other thoughts? And then Mr.
McClure is the wind up.
Dr. McDermott. I think the only thing we would add is that
we heard today, and we have heard previously, that anybody can
spider government agency Web sites to the depth that Fed Search
has been allowed to, and that has, from what we hear--we
haven't tried doing that, that has not been the experience of
outside government entities that want to do that.
We have also been told that nobody else wants to do that to
the depth that Fed Search has, and I don't know if that's true,
but we would want to have a question addressed whether that is
the case that anybody could go into that depth as frequently as
it seems that Fed Search is being permitted to do it, and if
GSA or whoever facilitated this for Fed Search would also be
willing to facilitate it for other entities, private sector or
nonprofit.
Mr. Brewer. I would be happy to address that. We have got
every single document by spidering. There is no document data
base we didn't get any other way than by going to visit the Web
site ourselves. So anybody can do this. You don't even need to
be a corporation. A grad student can do it.
We did warn agencies that we would be visiting the sites,
but that's actually not required on the Internet. People can
visit as much as they want.
Dr. McDermott. But we have heard that agencies block
outside government folks from coming in and spidering because
of system demands, for all sorts of reasons, that we have been
told that by Web people.
Mr. Brewer. I believe that we follow the same blocking
restrictions. However, if there is stuff that we have crawled
that for some reason you can't get to, it is not that hard to
get the raw files. But I do want people to understand that we
are going to do it one way and if you want to use our servers,
you can do it at cost if you are a business. If you want to do
it a different way, go do it a different way. There is nothing
stopping you.
Dr. McDermott. It was just a question.
Mr. Brewer. I would be happy to help remove any such
boundaries. Again, this is a catalyst.
Dr. McDermott. This is not aimed at you.
Mr. Brewer. Yes. I think it is definitely worth a
discussion, but you have a lot of options here. You can
partner. You can do it yourself. You can get it from us at
cost, but we are in fact, you know, still just a charity and we
can't subsidize other businesses, and in some sense they are
not entitled to the data base. We are giving it to them because
that furthers the goals here.
Mr. Barram. Let me just add one thing to that. You know,
there are a number of search indexes that have collected
government pages. They just don't have all 27 million. You
know, the example I have used is that there may well be a page
that a scientist somewhere put up that describes how he created
garlic flavored ice cream. If you are a commercial Web search
engine, you may think I don't think I want to spend any time
chasing that down because my customers don't really care. So
economically, you are going to have many fewer pages.
Mr. Horn. Usually, we can't hear the witness. Not only is
it cookies, it is balloons popping.
Mr. Barram. So anyway, there are a number of search engines
out there that have searched a number of government pages. We
just have them all through this mechanism.
Dr. McDermott. I just wanted to say----
Mr. Horn. Let me ask Dr. Brewer this. In 2 years when the
Fed Search Foundation dissolves, would a new contractor have to
develop this data base from scratch?
Mr. Brewer. I am happy to discuss it with them but in
practice, yes, because they will have their own software
systems and the data gets stale anyway. It is not like you can
take a snapshot of it and say this is it, here it is. It
changes every single day. But I think, you know, there are ways
you could help that transition, but it really depends on who it
is and what system they are using. But again we did it in 90
days. They could do it in 90 days, too. It is not
insurmountable.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Fleisher, in your written testimony you
mention that a number of the public and private policy
initiatives are currently addressing the digital divide. Could
you provide a couple of specific examples of that?
Mr. Fleisher. I think in particular there has been a focus
on trying to get publicly available Internet access through
libraries and kiosks, and I think that has been a key public
policy focus. We believe that is a good first step, but just as
you can understand how--and a number of studies have shown how
when children have Internet access at home they do better in
the school than when they have Internet access only at school.
The same is true for the adult population.
Mr. Horn. When I saw that, I thought wouldn't it be
wonderful if the child comes home from school, can press the
buttons and get access that there would be a literacy program,
perhaps, for their parents? It seems to me that would be a
worthwhile educational endeavor because a lot of them are
completely illiterates, not just in what they are doing with
the computer--they can do that with a few things--but their own
lack of literacy and that would really help a lot.
Mr. Fleisher. We believe that anything that we can do to
find the 50 million U.S. adults that we believe in the next
several years will still be without access and help those
people have access to the myriad of programs, whether it is
FirstGov or others that will become available, is, you know,
one of the most important tasks at this point. Those people
will truly be left behind because, as you point out, it is the
new illiteracy.
Mr. Horn. Yes.
Mr. McClure, do you want to wind it up?
Mr. McClure. Yes, I have just two comments to make, Mr.
Chairman. One is in response to a question you posed a moment
ago about the importance of security. Again, in my written
statement and in my oral statement, I was making reference to
security provided on the FirstGov site. I do agree with Mr.
Barram that obviously the protection of the agency sites is the
real site of activity where you want stringent computer
security measures in place. As FirstGov evolves, and it could
indeed become the central portal for the U.S. Government for
the citizen to access government, it is critically important
that security, even of the FirstGov site itself, be maintained
so that it is reliable, it is stable and it is not subjected to
any kind of obstruction or tampering.
Also, the data base that is maintained either by Fed Search
or by some other private entity contains a voluminous amount of
government information, and as other contacts are made with
that data base which are potentially going to take place in the
future, the security of that data base will be important. It is
not a trivial matter or task, regardless of the fact that it is
publicly available information already.
I also wanted to mention to Mr. Turner in his question a
moment ago about the use of advertising, there are two studies
that we can submit to you for the record. One is from NASIRE,
who you have testify rather regularly in front of this
committee, representing the State CIOs. They have conducted a
study which I think is very useful for the committee to look at
on the use of portals in State government. Most State portals
are being maintained and built by the State governments
themselves. There are others that are maintained totally by
vendors. Of those that are being maintained by vendors,
transaction fees are commonly being allowed to be used to pay
for the cost of the operation and maintenance of those sites,
and I think that information is just good to have in front of
you.
The second is a study that has just been released by
Professor West at Brown University, in which they focused on a
survey of 1,800 public Web sites, State, local and Federal, and
they found in roughly 2 percent of those Web sites advertising
is allowed. This would be obviously the State and local sites.
So advertising is taking place on government Web portals at
the State and local level; again, a reference point and perhaps
the two studies can shed some information.
Mr. Horn. Well, without objection we will have those
studies put in the record at this point.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.119
Mr. Horn. What have you learned in looking at those?
Because there has been a big discussion within the educational
systems K through 12, should there be advertising in the
classroom, this kind of thing.
Mr. McClure. We haven't really looked at it to any great
extent. It is something that obviously I think is worthy of
people to examine and see how advertising policies are being
pursued and the ramifications of it. Quite honestly, I think it
is a growing topic of importance as they look at the funding
for those portals in the future.
Mr. Horn. Does the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner, want
to wind it up?
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to get
some comments perhaps from Dr. Brewer, maybe Mr. Barram, to
give us some sense of where this may lead us. I have the sense
this was just a first step. Obviously we have access now to
information from all agencies of government at one site through
this search engine, and yet the ultimate goal is to make
government more consumer friendly to allow the citizens to do
business with their government over the site, and how do you
view this as an element of moving us down that road more
rapidly than we otherwise would be able to go?
Mr. Brewer. You are right to ask both of us. I can speak to
our part. I think the most important thing here is that we have
now got agencies thinking about how they appear on the Web, how
they want to be found and how they want to interact with the
citizens. Frankly, that has never happened before, and I think
that's just incredibly powerful.
So there are lots of things I think that could be better
about FirstGov and Fed Search and the sites themselves. It
increases in relevance, a more longterm relationship with
citizens rather than just their each individual visit. Of
course, that has privacy implications so it has to be done with
their knowledge. But I think that's the kind of trust you want
to build with the citizens, where they do trust you with some
of their private information because they want you to know who
they are.
So I think it is a very powerful road we can follow, but it
starts with people caring, people in government and other
places as well, caring about how citizens interact with the
government. I think this is the most important effect of
FirstGov so far, and in the long-term its main effect will be
this just getting people to ask the questions. I think where
the answers go, I don't know but, boy, I am glad we are asking
the questions.
Mr. Barram. Can I add to that? On Flag Day of 1996 at GSA
we gave everybody access to the Internet. We decided to do it
and did it in a month or 2 months. Many people said what is
that all about? And if you look now 4 years later, the people
of GSA who have been using this technology, because it was the
tool in the last part of the 20th century and now in the first
part of this one, it was essential to the kind of productivity
we wanted. People are doing the same things better but much
more--and quicker, but much more they are doing totally
different things; interacting, communicating, playing, being
productive in totally different and better ways.
So agencies are going to get better, as Eric said. I think
we will see a real push toward more citizen-centric
interaction, interface with their government and this will be a
major tool.
I was in Oregon this weekend for a wedding for my nephew,
and one of my other sisters-in-law home schools her three
children and she is very excited about FirstGov as a way to get
to lots of information quickly. Her kids are very good at using
this technology and it is a wonderful tool for them.
I am not sure I thought about that 90 days ago. So we are
going to see lots of things like this happen where people are
able to use the technology better and get to the government
information better, and I think we will be very happy about
that.
The most important thing is for us to do it, make it better
and learn what people need and make it available.
Mr. Horn. Well, Dr. Brewer, we thank you for your
generosity and for getting some action in this area, and I am
sure it will be followed throughout the country.
I want to now thank the staff that put this hearing
together from both the majority and the minority. J. Russell
George, staff director, chief counsel; and to my left, your
right, for this particular hearing Randy Kaplan, counsel; Ben
Ritt, detailee from the General Accounting Office on our staff;
Bonnie Heald, director of communications; Bryan Sisk, the clerk
who moves those mics around and gets our ears back in sync;
Elizabeth Seong, staff assistant; George Fraser, Trevor Pedigo,
and Rachael Reddick, interns. You can see in the summer and
fall we get a lot of great interns, almost at nothing, but
experience is a lot. With the minority staff, Trey Henderson is
the counsel for Mr. Turner; Jean Gosa, minority clerk; and the
court reporter this morning is Mindi Colchico. We thank you for
all you have done over the years with us.
So with that, we are now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.126