PDF版本

S. HRG。111-728删除保密的护罩：使政府更加透明和负责任 - 第二部分和II ======================================================================在联邦财务管理前的听证会，政府委员会的信息，联邦服务和国际安全小组委员会委员会安全和政府事务美国参议院__________ 2010年3月23日和4月13日___W______通过http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 56-893 WASHINGTON : 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202?09512?091800, or 866?09512?091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com. COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN McCAIN, Arizona MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina JON TESTER, Montana ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois PAUL G. KIRK, JR., Massachusetts Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk ------ SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman CARL LEVIN, Michigan JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois John Kilvington, Staff Director Erik Hopkins, Professional Staff Member Bryan Parker, Staff Director and General Counsel to the Minority Deirdre G. Armstrong, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statements: Page Senator Carper............................................... 1, 25 Senator Coburn............................................... 15 Prepared statements: Senator Carper............................................. 47, 51 Senator McCain............................................... 49 Senator Coburn............................................... 53 WITNESSES Tuesday, March 23, 2010 Vivek Kundra, Federal Chief Information Officer and Administrator for Electronic Government and Information Technology, Office of Management and Budget.......................................... 5 Hon. Aneesh Chopra, Chief Technology Officer and Associate Director for Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President...................... 7 Hon. David S. Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, National Archives and Records Administration............................ 9 Ellen Miller, Co-Founder and Executive Director, Sunlight Foundation..................................................... 23 Tuesday, April 13, 2010 John Wonderlich, Policy Director, Sunlight Foundation............ 27 Stephen W.T. O'Keeffe, Founder, MeriTalk Online.................. 29 Thomas Blanton, Director, National Security Archive, George Washington University.......................................... 33 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Blanton, Thomas: Testimony.................................................... 33 Prepared statement......................................... 85, 97 Chopra, Hon. Aneesh: Testimony.................................................... 7 Prepared statement........................................... 61 Ferriero, Hon. David S.: Testimony.................................................... 9 Prepared statement........................................... 67 Kundra, Vivek: Testimony.................................................... 5 Prepared statement........................................... 54 Miller, Ellen: Testimony.................................................... 23 Prepared statement........................................... 72 O'Keeffe, Stephen: Testimony.................................................... 29 Prepared statement......................................... 79, 93 Wonderlich, John: Testimony.................................................... 27 Prepared statement........................................... 89 APPENDIX Robert Pinkerton, Director, Public Sector Solutions, Adobe Systems, Inc., prepared statement.............................. 75 Stephen W.T. O'Keeffe, Founder, MeriTalk, prepared statement with attachments.................................................... 79 Thomas Blanton, Director, National Security Archive, George Washington University, prepared statement...................... 85 Questions and Responses for the Record: Mr. Kundra................................................... 101 REMOVING THE SHROUD OF SECRECY: MAKING GOVERNMENT MORE TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE--PART I ---------- TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security, of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Carper and Coburn. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER Senator Carper. Well, good afternoon, everyone. The Subcommittee will come to order. Senator Coburn and I were talking back in the anteroom about what is going to happen on the floor. It will be interesting to see what happens on the floor this afternoon, but we are going to go ahead and get started, and we will see how far we can go. We appreciate that our panel of witnesses could be here today. We will do as much as we can, and if we have to, we will just recess or adjourn and come back around midnight. [Laughter.] Well, maybe not that late, but it looks like we could be here for a long time tonight. Hopefully you will not have to be. But our thanks to our guests and our witnesses for joining us today. For the next hour or so, we are going to discuss ways that President Obama and his team of Open Government experts, some of whom are here today, can reshape old and inefficient bureaucratic agencies into lean--not so mean--citizen-focused machines. We have also invited a panel of outside experts to testify on areas where the Administration is doing well, what areas they may need to apply a bit more attention, and more importantly, how making agencies more open and transparent will make the lives of America's 300 million citizens better. I am told that Albert Einstein once said that, ``Information is not knowledge.'' Now, I would also like to quote Albert Einstein who said, ``In adversity lies opportunity.'' I have never heard this quote, but my staff told me that he also said, ``Information is not knowledge.'' And I think that statement is as true today as it was then. In the 21st Century, information is power. In fact, some would say that the U.S. economy has experienced a surge in job and wealth creation over the past three decades because of the information revolution and advances in technology. But like any other tool, information unto itself does not do us a lot of good unless we know how to use it. For example, just because we simply possess a hammer does not mean a house will build itself, but if we know how to use the hammer, then we can see how a house can be built and go right ahead and build it. I think the same is true with government information. So we called this hearing not only to see what agencies need to do to open up their treasure troves of information, but also I would like for us to learn how releasing this information will reduce wasteful agency spending, make senior leaders more accountable, and improve, we hope, the lives of everyday Americans. On his first day in office, President Obama took an extraordinary step in signing an Open Government Directive which instructed agencies to open their operations to the public. The idea behind the directive is that a more Open Government allows members of the public to contribute ideas and their expertise to government initiatives. This collaboration will hopefully improve the effectiveness of agenies by encouraging partnerships and cooperation within the Federal Government, across levels of government and between the government and the private sector. Further providing more government information by default instead of by exception will help reduce the financial and administrative burdens on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process and spur innovation in the private sector. But as our Administration moves forward on these new and exciting initiatives, I want to make sure that we are sticking to fundamentals. For example, I am told that despite the fact that legislation such as the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act have been law for decades, agencies have done an abysmal job when it comes to preserving their physical and electronic records. In fact, it was only 2 years ago when we held a hearing that touched on the fact that the Bush White House could not locate millions of e-mails, including those from the 3 months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. That type of situation is just unacceptable, and we need to make sure that it is not repeated again. Further, as our witnesses may know, I joined Senators Coburn and McCain and a former Senator named---- Senator Coburn. Obama. Senator Carper. Senator Obama, a few years ago when he was a mere mortal, passed the Federal Funding, Accountability, and Transportation Act under the leadership of the fellow sitting here to my right. My colleagues and I put forward this legislation to increase the transparency and accountability of the Federal Government by providing access to information on Federal spending through a single, searchable, publicly available Website. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released an evaluation of USAspending.gov, the Website created as a result of Senator Coburn's legislation, and it seems that there have been some problems. For example, GAO stated that there were widespread inconsistencies between the information provided on USAspending.gov and the actual physical records of transactions. And, furthermore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) apparently does not hold agencies accountable for ensuring that information placed on the site is accurate and reliable. So before we start pushing agencies to spend time and money on releasing more information, we want to make sure that the information we have is reliable and accurate. In closing, then, I will just add that as we discuss all the new, exciting initiatives that the Administration has underway or plans on undertaking in the near future, we need to keep our eye on the ball. Our job does not just end at making information freely available, but in making sure that the information can be effectively used to improve services to every American, to reduce wasteful spending, and to enforce accountability. Again, thanks to our witnesses for taking your time to be here with us today and for sharing your ideas on these and other important issues. I am not going to recognize Senator McCain, although my script says to do that, but I do want to recognize the Senator from Oklahoma whose initials I share and whose passion I share for trying to make government work better, more cost effectively. And I want to say, Senator Coburn, it was an honor to join you and a couple of our colleagues a number of years ago to pass legislation that we thought at the time could do a great service to this country. And I do not think we have realized its full potential yet, but we now have an Administration here that seems to be intent on making sure that we do reach that potential, and when we do, you are going to get a lot of credit. So thanks very much for being here today. Senator Coburn. Thank you. Well, welcome to each of you. The President and I and Senator Carper and Senator McCain worked very hard to put into place one of the tools we thought that American citizens could hold us accountable by. I must say I am significantly disappointed at both the quality and the depth of information that is available. I applaud President Obama for wanting to make more steps towards transparency, but I would caution him that if we cannot do the first one, the simplest one, and we cannot do it well, why would we start off on other areas until we got the first one right? So I look forward to your testimony. I have a lot of questions about the Transparency and Accountability Act. It is of no value when the vast majority of the money is subcontracted and we do not have any intent or have the information with which to hold subcontractors, sub-grantees, sub-awardees, accountable. Let me just give you two examples. During Hurricane Katrina, we paid the Corps of Engineers $60 a cubic yard to get rid of the debris. The guy on the ground eight layers lower was getting $6 a yard. We consumed $54 in sub-grantees before we picked up the first cubic yard of debris, and we paid 10 times more for that than what the actual cost of picking up the debris and hauling it off was. If we are not going to do sub-awards and sub-grantees, there is no reason to have the site in the first place. The other thing that is very dangerous about it is we are creating an expectation of the American public, and then we are going to pop the balloon. If the American public goes there thinking they can find out and it is not available--it was not just for Congress that we asked this. The other thing I would note is by June 30 of this year the law mandates--it does not say you may, it says you will have put in place a system to measure sub-grants, sub-awards, so that everybody in this country can see it. I am going to have a lot of questions in that regard. I know it is a tough effort. I do not deny that. But unless we have the OMB pushing down and holding the agencies accountable, it is never going to happen. I would like to see as much emphasis in fixing the Transparency and Accountability Act as the Administration plans to put on these other wonderful areas of transparency that we need. But if their results are the same as the Transparency and Accountability Act, we are going to create more disappointment in the American public. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Coburn. I want to turn to our witnesses and go ahead and introduce them. We may start voting at about 2:45 p.m., and if we do, if we just have one vote, Dr. Coburn, I do not know if you want to tag-team and I could stay here until maybe you could run and vote and then come back. But just think about that, if that might work for you. That way we can keep going. Senator Coburn. I will try to do that. Senator Carper. Good. Thanks so much. Let me just start by introducing our first three witnesses today. First we have a familiar face who is no stranger before this Subcommittee. Vivek Kundra is the Federal Chief Information Officer of the United States and responsible for overseeing the Federal Government's management of information technology. He comes to us most recently from the District of Columbia where he was recognized by InfoWorld as one of the top 25 chief technology officers not just in the District of Columbia, not just in the United States, but around the world. Congratulations and we thank you very much for your service. We thank you for being here and for the dialogue that we have enjoyed in the past year or so. Next up we have the Hon. Aneesh Chopra, who is the Chief Technology Officer of the United States. I understand that Mr. Chopra and Mr. Kundra are the ones responsible for tag-teaming President Obama's technology and transparency initiatives. Mr. Chopra comes to us from the Commonwealth of Virginia where he was the Secretary of Technology. Who was the governor then? Not Warner. Mr. Chopra. Tim Kaine. Senator Carper. Tim Kaine, OK. I am told that you and Mr. Kundra also served together in Virginia at the same time. Is that right? Mr. Chopra. Yes. Senator Carper. OK. We are grateful for you to be here today and serving together once more. The final witness is the Hon. David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States and the head of the National Archives and Records Administration. Essentially, he is the defender of our Nation's history. That is a heavy burden to carry. He has previous experience at the New York Public Library, at MIT, and he is a veteran of the U.S. Navy. We thank you, Mr. Ferriero, and the rest of our panelists for taking the time to be with us here this afternoon. I am going to recognize Mr. Kundra to begin with his opening statement. I was able to read everyone's written statements, so if you want you can summarize for about 5 minutes. If you go a couple minutes over that, I will not rein you in, but if you go too far over, then I will have to. But we look forward to having a great dialogue here with you this afternoon. Thank you so much for your preparation and for your presence and for your willingness to have this discussion with us today. Thank you. And your entire statements will be made part of the record, for each witness. Mr. Kundra, you are recognized. TESTIMONY OF VIVEK KUNDRA,\1\ FEDERAL CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER AND ADMINISTRATOR FOR ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Mr. Kundra. Good afternoon, Chairman Carper, Senator Coburn, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify about how this Administration is working to make government more transparent and accountable for the American people. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Kundra appears in the Appendix on page 54. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On his first full day in office, President Obama signed the Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government. This Administration is laying a new foundation that changes the default setting of the government from closed, opaque, and secretive to transparent, open, and participatory. I would like to talk about Open Government not as an abstract idea or notion, but specifically how it is driving innovation, improving performance, and changing the way we serve the American people. Opening our government allows us to draw upon the knowledge of all Americans, not just those inside the Beltway of Washington. The Federal Government does not have a monopoly on the best ideas, nor does it have unlimited resources. We have seen how third parties can create tremendous value when given the opportunity. The Department of Defense's decision to release Global Positioning System (GPS) data sparked innovations that touch our daily lives, helping us reach our destinations throughout the country and helping first responders save lives. To unlock the value of public data, we launched data.gov last May with just 47 data sets. Now there are over 169,000 data sets on every aspect of government operations, from public safety to the environment to health care. In just 10 months, third parties have already used these data sets to build applications that serve the American people such as FlyOnTime.us, which allows travelers to check wait times at security lines across the country and also view airline on-time performance. As we democratize data, we must also foster an innovation ecosystem to support the creative use of these data sets. That is why OMB released guidance this month to increase the use of prizes and challenges across the public sector and will launch a challenge platform to facilitate innovation. The concept of challenges and prices goes back to at least 1714 when the British Government offered 20,000 pounds to anyone who could develop a method to calculate a ship's longitude. The prize motivated clock maker John Harrison to develop the marine chronometer which solved the problem in a simple and efficient way. Open Government also helps keep the government accountable. As the President said in his inaugural speech, ``Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.'' Last June, we launched the IT Dashboard, which allows the American people to monitor Information Technology (IT) investments across the Federal Government. Last July, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) halted 45 IT projects that were significantly behind schedule or over budget, identified in part thanks to the IT Dashboard. In terminating 12 of these projects, the VA avoided wasting $54 million of taxpayer money. Building on the foundation of the IT Dashboard, we launched face-to-face evidence-based reviews of IT programs called TechStat Accountability Sessions. These sessions enable government officials to collaborate with one another to turn around or halt IT investments that do not produce dividends for the American people. As we continue to open up our government, we must balance our decisions with protecting the privacy of the American people and safeguarding national security. Individual pieces of data, when released independently, may not reveal sensitive information, but when they are combined, this mosaic effect could be used to derive personal information or information that is vital to national security. The government, unfortunately, has a history of not managing data quality from accuracy to completeness to timeliness. To improve data quality, OMB released the Open Government Directive on December 8, 2009. This directive actually requires every agency to designate a senior official accountable for data quality, objectivity, and internal controls across financial spending. On April 7, 2010, OMB will release a strategy for sub-award reporting to help carry out the vision of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transportation Act that this Subcommittee fought for. To provide better insight into Federal spending, we will launch an improved USAspending.gov platform. We are just at the beginning of what can be accomplished. Imagine enterprising Americans and government officials working virtually alongside one another to co-create the next generation of public services. Imagine being able to create and share dashboards on demand, powered by data, to shed new light into government performance in the same way that we share YouTube videos with our family and friends. Open Government is not an abstract notion. It is a new way of doing business in Washington. The Obama Administration is committed to make the Federal Government work better for the American people. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions. Senator Carper. Thanks for your excellent testimony. Very well delivered, thank you. Mr. Chopra, please proceed. TESTIMONY OF HON. ANEESH CHOPRA,\1\ CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER AND ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Mr. Chopra. Thank you, Chairman Carper and Senator Coburn. I would like to expand upon my colleague's testimony with particular emphasis on how we are harnessing technology, data, and innovation to improve the lives of everyday Americans. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Chopra appears in the Appendix on page 61. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In my capacity as the Chief Technology Officer, I've had the honor and privilege of working with the American people in developing the recommendations that form the basis of our Open Government Directive per the President's instructions in that memorandum that he signed on his first full day in office. Over the course of 2 months starting last May, we held an unprecedented consultation process that surfaced over 900 ideas, thousands of public comments, and over 300 draft versions of Open Government recommendations. The directive that we published December 8, 2009, referenced many of those recommendations and serves as an aggressive timeline for our entire Federal Government to meet specific milestones towards greater openness, including the publication of new high-value data sets on Data.gov. Now, what does Open Government mean to the American people? When the Department of Agriculture makes nutritional information available, parents can make smarter eating choices for their families. When the Department of Education makes key information available about colleges and universities, students can make more informed choices about the quality and cost of their education. When the Department of Labor makes information on workplace risks and hazards available, employers can improve the safety of their workplaces for employees. I would like to highlight three examples to better illustrate our approach and its current impact on the American people. On the topic of innovation, our engine of economic growth, as we all know, is born on the ingenuity of America's small businesses. To that end, I am pleased to announce that today the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), will begin providing data on awardees of the Small Business Innovation Research Program that utilize a new streamlined process for contracting and will extend this streamlined process to future Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) solicitations. Initially, DARPA will display data on the number of awardees that are eligible for this streamlined process, how many awardees have opted for it, and the average number of days it has taken to complete the streamlined agreement. As an example, Mr. Chairman, typical contracting in this domain might take 5 to 6 months to complete. But we believe that this streamlined approach will take, on average, less than 60 days. That represents a 60- to 70-percent reduction in both time and cost, savings that will help small businesses throughout the country in achieving lower costs and getting them to work faster on the important projects we have in front of them. In energy, we recently concluded a Smart Grid Forum online which focused on the impact the Nation's energy consumers will have in promoting innovation in smart grid products and services. Specifically, we invited all Americans to participate in a discussion on how best to deploy the smart grid, with particularly engaging discussions occurring on data access and consumer ownership. The thoughtful comments that we received will help our Nation accelerate the development of innovations to address some of the most challenging smart grid goals that we have, from deployment of smart grid solutions to the development of standards needed for the exchange of data, to ensuring cybersecurity in the smart grid. Put simply, Mr. Chairman, I want to know my energy usage on a real-time basis in my home, and this process helped to bring that forward. In education, on February 15, Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced the launch of the Open Innovation Web Portal at innovation.ed.gov, bringing together key stakeholders in education, including those who previously had no voice or way to elevate their ideas, in a collaborative manner so that those ideas can turn into reality. The Open Innovation Web Portal is a trial initiative that has engaged many stakeholders in education--from teachers to school administrators, parents and foundations, nonprofits and for-profit organizations alike--all to develop the innovations that our country desperately needs to achieve our President's goal to be the Nation with the highest percentage of college-educated citizens. The Department of Education has posted an initial set of challenges to engage the community around the Department's key priorities, including human capital and data. Again, Mr. Chairman, to make it simple, if a teacher in Delaware has a terrific idea to help kids understand physics better, this portal will allow that individual to find development capital from the philanthropic community so that the idea can be tested, validated, and scaled. Last, Mr. Chairman, I would like to end my remarks on how our commitment to an open and transparent government is surfacing and executing on the very best ideas from everyday Americans. Last August, President Obama challenged the 19,000 front- line workers within the Veterans Benefits Administration to reduce the backlog of disability claims and streamline processing. Todd Bonn, a dedicated veterans service representative from the offices in Togus, Maine, submitted an idea through the VA's Innovation Initiative Website to improve certain performance metrics to get the agency to focus more on results and less on process. He was one of 7,000 participants submitting and voting on over 3,000 ideas from each of the 57 regional offices within the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). His colleagues in Maine prepared a business plan that was pitched to a panel of national leaders, including Craig Newmark from Craigslist. Todd's idea was one of 10 selected for implementation, and what is remarkable about this is that his idea will take very little time and effort to reprogram the performance database. VA will implement this initiative by the summer at no incremental cost to taxpayers. Todd's story is yet another example of how this Administration is leveraging the principles of Open Government to meet our Nation's challenges. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time, and, of course, we look forward to answering your questions. Senator Carper. You bet. Thank you again for an exciting and, I think, uplifting bit of testimony. Thanks so much. We have started the vote. I am going to try, if possible, to allow Mr. Ferriero to finish his testimony, but if we run short, we will have to run out and come back in a little bit. But I think we have two votes, and I think we will be able to just bear down and stay here. Thank you. Mr. Ferriero, go ahead. TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID S. FERRIERO,\1\ ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Mr. Ferriero. Thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing on making government more transparent and accountable. The last time I appeared before you was my confirmation hearing in September, so it is truly an honor to return. I would also like to thank you for the opportunity to testify alongside two visionary leaders whose work I deeply admire, Vivek Kundra and Aneesh Chopra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Ferriero appears in the Appendix on page 67. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As the Subcommittee knows, on December 8, 2009, President Obama issued the Open Government Directive with the aim of making our government more accessible and accountable by improving transparency, public participation, and collaboration in and among the Federal agencies. This directive was enthusiastically received by the National Archives for the core of our mission is serving democracy by providing access to the essential documentation of the rights of American citizens and the actions of their government. NARA's own Open Government plan describes how we are providing guidance and services to assist Federal agencies with carrying out their plans. Our Records Management Program provides guidance for agencies on the records management issues highlighted in the Open Government Directive. Our National Declassification Center is taking a leadership role in ensuring that over 400 million pages of classified records in NARA holdings are declassified and made available to the public by the end of 2013. Our Office of Government Information Services has provided Questions and Answers on the Open Government Directive which outlines transparency issues that are relevant to the Freedom of Information Act. Today, however, I would like to focus my testimony on what I feel is the backbone of Open Government records management. To put it simply, the government cannot be accountable if it does not preserve and cannot find its records. Although I have only been in the job for 5 months, I have seen and heard enough to be concerned that across the government we are falling short in our records management responsibilities, particularly in regard to the exponential growth of electronic records. The long-term success of the Open Government Initiative--and the future of the National Archives--hinges on the ability of each Federal agency to effectively manage their records. At the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), our records management approach is grounded in these three principles: Agencies must economically and effectively create and manage records necessary to meet business needs; records must be kept long enough to protect rights and assure accountability; and records of archival value must be preserved and made available for future generations. NARA's National Records Management Program is made up of nearly 100 full-time staff members. They have the enormous job of working with Federal records officers in over 250 different Federal agencies. They develop policy, guidance, and training. They conduct studies so others can learn best practices and avoid costly mistakes. They also work with agencies to conduct self-assessments of records management programs. This is part of the Archivist's statutory authority to conduct inspections and report findings to the appropriate oversight committees and the Office of Management and Budget. Most notably, they work with agencies to schedule and appraise records. This is how we ensure proper documentation of our government's actions. The statutory authority to grant Federal agencies disposition authority to manage their records is the most important responsibility I exercise as Archivist of the United States, because it determines what records will come to the National Archives for permanent preservation and access. Given that records management is the backbone of Open Government, the central question is: What is needed to ensure that Open Government values are realized and that NARA's mission is accomplished? My answer has two parts. First, heads of agencies and senior leaders across the Federal Government need to understand that the records and information they and their organizations are creating are national assets that must be effectively managed and secured so that the public can be assured of the authenticity of the record. Heads of agencies and senior leaders need to be held accountable for managing these assets. This is required by law in the Federal Records Act, but moreover, it is good government and a necessary condition of Open Government. In the next 30 days, NARA plans to send to Congress and OMB a report based on agency self-assessments carried out in September 2009. Our preliminary analysis of the data suggest that 79 percent of reporting agencies have moderate to high levels of risk associated with their records management programs, particularly with electronic records. These levels of risk in agencies should be a great concern to all who believe in open and accountable government. Second, senior agency leaders must work with NARA, OMB, and GSA, as well as with groups like the CIO Council, the Federal Records Council, and the Federal Web Managers Council, to develop the IT tools necessary to manage electronic records. The technical challenges associated with developing the IT tools for records management are not insignificant; however, these tools do not exist today because, in my view, the Federal Government has not deemed recordkeeping a high priority in IT systems. The Federal Government spends over $70 billion annually on information technology that, to a large degree, creates or receives Federal records in some form. Developing cost-effective electronic records management tools that work and then integrating them into agency IT systems needs to be a high priority. In conclusion, as Archivist of the United States and the leader of over 3,000 dedicated National Archives employees, I would like you to know that we are committed to doing all we can to carry out the National Archives mission to provide access to the essential documentation of the rights of American citizens and the actions of their government and to build an Open Government that values transparency, citizen participation, and collaboration. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I look forward to answering your questions. Senator Carper. Mr. Ferriero, thank you very much, and my thanks really to each of you for setting the stage for what I think is going to be a very interesting and I think very productive and helpful hearing. We start off, first of all, it looks like we have two votes back to back. I have 7 minutes to get there. I am going to recess for probably about the next 20 minutes, and we will be back. Dr. Coburn may come back before I do. We will be back shortly, and we look forward to asking questions of our first panel. But thank you for getting us off on the right foot. With that, the Subcommittee stands in recess for roughly the next 20 minutes. Thank you. [Recess.] Senator Carper. All right. You have all been having enough fun. Back to the salt mines. Thanks for hanging in here, folks. Good to be back with you. We had two votes, and if we are lucky, we will be able to get this hearing in without any further interruptions. We could be in session all night, but fortunately you will all be spared that. I have a couple of questions for folks on this first panel, and one of the things to do is I love to go into schools. I think we have over 200 public schools in Delaware. I also think I have been at almost every one of them over the years. And whenever I visit a school, kids ask really great questions. Some are really funny questions, too. For example, are you married to a movie star? Do you live in a mansion? Do you have a limousine? And on and on and on. Sometimes they ask me what do I like about my job. One time a kid not long ago asked me this question: ``What do you do?'' [Laughter.] I thought that was a pretty good question. And I said, well--he was in elementary school. I said, ``Do you have rules in your school?'' ``Yes.'' ``Do you have rules on your bus?'' ``Yes.'' ``Do you have rules at home?'' There was kind of a mixed message on that one. But I said, ``My role is to work with other Senators, Representatives, and the President and Vice President to help make the rules for our country.'' And I said, ``Just like you have rules in your school and on your bus and at home, we have rules for our country. We call them laws.'' And he said, ``Oh, I get that. I get that.'' What do you do? How would you explain your job? Because a lot of what we are going to cover here today and what we have covered in hearings leading up to this day can be another world for some people. The topics may not make that much sense, and it is hard to relate to what we are actually talking about. But when people say, ``What do you do?'' I want you to explain it in simple terms. And then I am going to ask some questions to follow up and see if we cannot bring what you are talking about here today to terms that it will be real in the lives of most people in our country. Mr. Kundra, do you want to go first? What do you do? Mr. Kundra. Sure. So, simply put, what I would say to a school kid is essentially when you apply for college and you have to fill out that student aid application, part of my role is make sure that the Department of Education is using technology to make your life easier; or when your parents have to go online and interact with their government, it is to make sure that they can easily interact, whether it is filing taxes or filing for a passport. It is to use technology ultimately to serve the American people. Senator Carper. Good. Thank you. Mr. Chopra. Mr. Chopra. Oh, man, that is a hard one to follow. Senator Carper. I am sure you are up to it. Mr. Chopra. Mr. Chairman, I would describe my role as producing three P's. The first of those P's is to ensure that we have the right policies that harness technology, data, and innovation for national priorities. The second is to make sure that we make thoughtful investments in platforms, that is, a modest investment in the public sector spurs a much larger investment in the nonprofit sector to expand and leverage the goal. And then the third is to support public-private partnerships, and that often means no new laws and no new funding, but a way to bring, as the President described, an ``all hands on deck'' approach to advancing a certain priority. I am happy to engage on any examples in those domains, but that is essentially what I focus on. Senator Carper. Good. Thank you. Mr. Ferriero. Mr. Ferriero. And I am the records guy. My job is to make sure that we are collecting, protecting, and encouraging the use of the records of the government. Senator Carper. All right. The folks that all of you serve, we think they are interested in Open Government. A lot of them say that they are. How is Open Government going to help them from your perspectives, each of you? Mr. Kundra. Well, so in a big way, if you think about the innovations we have seen across the board, there has been this Old World view that the public sector has a monopoly on innovation and creating solutions. But if you think about just Apple, for example, and how Apple essentially created the App Store, and what happened is Apple did not go out there and build 150,000 applications. What it did is it provided a platform that allowed for innovation to happen on top of that. Or if you think about YouTube, YouTube did not go out there and create every video that you see there. It is the American people and people around the world that created that content that makes it so valuable. In the same way, when you think about government, it is a huge shift when you look at it in the context of Open Government where we are shifting power actually to the American people and not concentrating power in the hands of government employees. At the same time, by moving towards this architecture where we are building platforms allows third parties to start innovating, such as with spending data, and as Senator Coburn said, and providing the ability to see a $60 contract and recognizing that only $6 out of that $60 contract is actually going towards doing that work. By shining a light on those types of issues, we can rethink public policy; we can rethink how we are investing in money. But, more importantly, it is making sure that the American people now have as much power in terms of knowing how their government works and not just sending tax dollars over to the government and hoping that they are spent well. Senator Carper. OK. Thanks. Others, please. Mr. Chopra. It is difficult to follow my colleagues in describing this, Mr. Chairman. I would say three things. First, the average American would want greater confidence that their government is working for them, so a great deal of transparency, including spending but even beyond, on the actual performance and outcomes more broadly is how we view the transparency component. The second component is what I would call news you can use. My wife and I have two little girls, a 3-year-old and a 1-year- old, and we recently installed car safety seats. I am not the strongest guy in the world: You stick your knee in, you plug it in, and it is all really difficult to install. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration has a database on the ease of installation of car seats of every manufacturer in the country. Senator Carper. No kidding. Mr. Chopra. Yes, we just published that data for the first time in machine-readable format in January. So now every product has information on their ease of installation of that car seat online. News you can use. We have made it available so others can use it. And then the third one is the notion that somewhere someone has an idea on how our collective well-being can be improved. And the notion that your idea can be heard by your government and, frankly, acted upon it so that it can actually become real, Open Government allows us to shrink the concept of time from when you have an idea to when it can actually take hold and people can see those concepts being put into use to advance our collective well-being. Senator Carper. OK. Thank you. Mr. Ferriero. Mr. Ferriero. Let me answer that from two different perspectives. One, this is very much a bottom-up initiative. Each of the agencies has been encouraged to create an Open Government plan. And for my own agency, seeing how this process has unleashed talent in the organization in terms of thinking creatively about how we do our business, is for me one of the most important parts of this whole process. From the second perspective, I see a huge potential here to use the Open Government Initiative as a way of connecting our records management folks with our IT folks, because as I said, we cannot have Open Government if we do not have good records. Senator Carper. Thank you. I want to go back to a point that Senator Coburn and I mentioned earlier. About 3 or 4 years ago, several of us teamed up, under his leadership, with former Senator Obama, I think John McCain, among others, in order to pass something we called the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, and the original intent of that legislation was to shed a little bit of sunlight on the approximately $1 trillion that Federal agencies wrote every year in contracts and grants and in loans. One provision of the bill required OMB to set up a Website that would show where all the money was going. Unfortunately, the Government Accountability Office recently showed us that the information on the Website was inadequate in many instances and that agencies did not take the time to make sure that information was up to date. I have also heard that this type of situation may be happening on other transparency initiatives such as the Website used to track the stimulus spending and the Websites used to track overbudget IT investments. Let me just ask Mr. Kundra, if I could, what is the Administration doing to make sure that agencies provide accurate and up-to-date information on previous transparency initiatives as well as ones that we may be undertaking in the future? Mr. Kundra. Senator, I share your frustration and Senator Coburn's frustration in terms of how the government is moving forward and the quality of the data that is in a lot of these systems. But if I could just step back for a second, one of the challenges across the board as we look at the Federal Government is the number of systems that are out there. When this Administration came into office, there was a database that was set up, essentially USAspending 1.0. From a platform perspective, from a technology perspective, it was not scaled to be able to handle those trillion-dollars-plus transactions across the board. Second, if we looked at accountability at the agency level, one of the challenges was it was a culture of faceless accountability where everybody was responsible---- Senator Carper. A culture of what? Mr. Kundra. Faceless accountability, so there was not a single individual accountable for the data. And then on top of that, what compounded the issue is that you had the grants community and you have the contracting community, and the communities themselves had not set the appropriate standards across the board so you could identify a grant from one agency and compare it to the grant from another agency. Part of what we have tried to do in the Obama Administration is on his first full day in office, the President issued a memorandum on Open Government. Immediately following that memorandum, we began scaling from a technology perspective the USAspending platform. The other area we invested in heavily as we looked at a nationwide system was with the Recovery Act. We wanted to make sure that we were not wasting taxpayer dollars by building two parallel systems. So there is a nationwide effort to collect data at a sub- award level and across there, and we wanted to make sure, as we were making those investments, that we could leverage those investments as part of the USAspending platform. And as part of the Open Government Directive, what we have done is we have made sure that there is a senior accountable official at agencies who is charged to make sure that the data quality is accurate, it is comprehensive, and it is timely. At the same time, on April 7, OMB is going to be releasing very specific guidance to agencies on sub-award data collection. And we are also going to be launching shortly a new USAspending.gov platform. Senator Carper. Say that last sentence again. Mr. Kundra. We will be shortly launching a new version of USAspending.gov. Senator Carper. Do you have any idea when? Mr. Kundra. Shortly. Senator Carper. Around here that can be quite a while. Mr. Kundra. In a matter of a month or so. Senator Carper. OK. Good. Well, that is music to our ears. I am going to yield to Dr. Coburn, but before I do, let me just telegraph my next pitch, and I am going to come back and ask each of you to talk about some areas that the Administration and the Congress ought to be looking into to increase transparency and to try to reduce wasteful spending. But for now, Dr. Coburn? OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN Senator Coburn. Well, first of all, let me say to all three of you I have extreme confidence that you are the right guys for the right job. Had you put the same effort into USAspending.gov as you put into everything else, we would be a lot further down the road right now, wouldn't we? Mr. Kundra. Senator, I think we have put tremendous effort on USAspending.gov---- Senator Coburn. I did not say you had not put effort. First of all, there is only one of these that is a law, and that is the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. It is the law. In fact, we are out of compliance on the law. There has not been a report from you all, which is required under the law. As a matter of fact, this will be the second year that we do not have a report. I hope we get that this time. But it is the law. The others are mandates by the President, and I applaud them, but they have held us up from achieving what we were trying to achieve. I have no complaints with your capability. But the fact is that right now USAspending.gov is not accurate, and it lacks the biggest component that is necessary for Americans to truly know what is going on with spending, and that is sub-awards and subcontracts. The whole idea behind sub-awards and subcontracts was for everyday citizens could actually see what is going on. So when they saw waste, they could report it. They could be a whistleblower. Because we do not have sub-award and we do not have sub-grantee, they do not have that ability. So we do not really have transparency with the Transparency and Accountability Act. I am not here to beat you up. I think you guys have worked hard. I think you have done a wonderful job with everything that you have worked at. But I am still wanting to know when the law is going to be followed. Mr. Kundra. Senator, that part of our strategy hinges on leveraging the investments that have actually already been made with the Recovery Board. And the April 7 guidance will speak specifically to how we are going to be addressing the sub-award issue, whether it is on the grant side or on the contracting side. Because of the recovery investments, we are going to be further along as we have addressed one of the most complicated issues, which is how do you build a nationwide system that is going to be able to collect sub-award data, and how do you do it in a short time span. And we are going to benefit as we look forward in terms of leveraging that infrastructure, given the momentum that was behind driving transparency related to the Recovery Act. Senator Coburn. I do not doubt that, but what you just told me is you choose to do this rather than follow the law. When is it going to be there? What is the answer to that question? When is it going to be accurate? When is the sub-award and sub- grantee information going to be on there? It is a real simple question. And if ``I do not know'' is the answer, ``I do not know'' is the answer. We have a law, and the fact is that we choose not to follow it. Just like improper payments, we have multiple agencies that will not comply with the law because they do not think they have to. Again, I will compliment each of you. I think you are rightly suited for your job. But I tell you what the people of Delaware and the people of Oklahoma want. They think if it is a law, it ought to get done and it ought to get followed. I have been around this place long enough to know that if I do not pin people down, it never happens. If April 7 is not going to happen, then my hope is the Chairman will have another hearing so we can talk about that. We are 3\1/2\ years into this, and you may have been dealt a mess. I do not know. That is the usual thing that we hear from one Administration--it does not matter if it is Republican to Democrat or Democrat to Republican. It was not done right. But we cannot manage America without that information. You may be absolutely right that you have created the infrastructure and the base so that we actually will get there in the long run better. But part of not complying with the law is explaining to us why you are not complying with the law. I want to go back--first of all, car seats? Mr. Chopra. Yes, sir. Senator Coburn. I followed all the rules on them and pinched my finger every time. [Laughter.] Senator Coburn. I have grandkids, and it is tough. Mr. Chopra. It is tough. Senator Coburn. But it is designed to be tough so that the kid does not go anywhere. Mr. Chopra. You are right. Senator Coburn. Let me ask you, Mr. Chopra. You said three P's: Policy, platform, and public-private partnerships. Mr. Chopra. Yes, sir. Senator Coburn. Is that being applied to the Transparency and Accountability Act? Mr. Chopra. Well, I serve in the Office of Science and Technology Policy. I do not know to what extent we have been actively involved in the OMB implementation of the Act, but we are using these principles across a wide range of national priorities. I am happy to give you an example of public-private partnerships, whatever would be appropriate for you. The one that we most recently announced about a month and a half ago was in health care, and it focused on an initiative we called Text4Baby. Given your background, Senator, to address issues surrounding the number of women who lack access to the information on appropriate prenatal care to address both pre- term birth rates that are too high and infant mortality rates that in this country are too high. We understood that many of the young women in this country have cell phones that could be used as a vehicle to convey this information. We did not have any government money to spur this kind of collaboration, but what we did have was an opportunity to bring an ``all hands on deck'' approach. So the cell carriers, through their industry trade association, the Consolidated Treaties and International Agreements (CTIA), waived text message fees for 2 years. About 115 partners--nonprofit, for-profit, a whole mix--built content and have distributed content three times a week to women in need. So 25,000 women are getting this service. We did not pay for, but it is an example---- Senator Coburn. OK. So that is great, but my question was about the Accountability and Transparency Act. Mr. Kundra. Mr. Kundra. In terms of partnering with the public, one of the things we have done as we have looked at these platforms with the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) community. For example, the Sunlight Foundation launched an independent competition and actually created the applications. In my testimony, as I talked about FlyOnTime.us, it was a product of a competition that the Sunlight Foundation did. We have also seen private citizens actually build an application. For example, they took their recall data, and they built an application that allows you to see on your phone when a product has been recalled so you can prevent yourself from buying it. Senator Coburn. OK. We had two pilot sub-award programs that GAO said they were not successful. Are you planning more pilots or what is the plan with USAspending.gov? Mr. Kundra. So the plan as we move forward is to actually leverage the infrastructure that has been deployed, and also to go deep in terms of the sub-award data, which is to go to the $25,000 limit that has been set to make sure that we can get as much of the data out there and roll it up and characterize it as possible and make sure that we can also show trends as we look at the USAspending.gov. Senator Coburn. What is the problem with the sub-award data? Mr. Kundra. The sub-award data is a pyramid problem. When you go down one level, you may deal with 100,000 recipients. When you go down the second or the third level, you may start dealing with a million, 2 million, 3 million---- Senator Coburn. Give me an example of a program where we have sub-awards that go to 100,000 people. Mr. Kundra. So let us say you give out a grant at a State level, whether it is at the Department of Transportation or whether it is at Health and Human Services, and at a State level where you begin to allocate that funding across the board and then that is the government recipient. Now as you get down to the private sector recipient and companies that may start disbursing those funds across the board, you end up getting thousands and thousands of---- Senator Coburn. Yes, but you are not at 100,000 on anything. Mr. Kundra. Well, I am talking about across---- Senator Coburn. I know, but let us just take a Department of Education grant. There are 50 States, plus Territories, and then they may give 100 per State. So you have 5,000. That is a small data set. What is OMB's directive to all the agencies about sub-awards? Are they told that you have to do this or not? Mr. Kundra. So we actually issued guidance on sub-award data to try to collect that information. The challenge for us, as I mentioned before, was also on the technology front, which is we did not have a technology platform---- Senator Coburn. OK. So if you have the technology, then the real problem is not going to be technology. The problem is going to be compliance. Mr. Kundra. Yes. Senator Coburn. So what is OMB going to do about compliance? Is there any consequence to not following the law as far as the Accountability and Transparency Act? Mr. Kundra. So what we have already done is we have made sure that across the board there is a senior accountable official assigned at each of the agencies who is going to be accountable for the reporting of that data. And that is what I meant when I said there is a faceless accountability in terms of everybody was responsible for data quality---- Senator Coburn. No. I agree. Well, Mr. Chairman, thanks for allowing me to go a little bit over on my questioning time. I will submit a few other questions to you. Anything either of the other of you want to add before I finish? Mr. Chopra. Well, if I may--I would make two comments. One, this Congress did authorize about $37.5 million in this year for what we call the Partnership for Program Integrity, basically a fund that would allow us to get after the issue of federally funded government services that are State-administered, locally delivered, and anything in between. So my presumption is that a great deal of the architecture and the way we can get better data will come out of the grants process--to get that money out and to find ways to be more efficient. Coming from Virginia's State government, Senator, I can tell you our own accounting systems at the State level were very difficult, so Federal funds would come in, the State systems are often 20 or 30 years old, and their financials would only have a few items of information associated with the actual dollar figure. Then a separate system altogether would administer where the money ultimately went and the ability to cross-walk the---- Senator Coburn. But there is an easy way to fix that. With every grant acceptance, a State or an individual signs that they will comply, and here is what compliance means. It is easy. Then the onus is on them to comply: If you take this money, here is what you have to do to comply. Let me just share with you a minute until Senator Carper comes back. Almost every week, I have a whistleblower that contacts my office. Not having sub-grant and sub-award data keeps us from eliminating waste in this country. There is $350 billion a year in waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication in the Federal Government right now that I can document. How do you get it out? The only way to resolve these problems is to have the data there so that when you get a whistleblower and you have the data, you do not have to present a significant case because it is there already. If we can ever get the sub-award and sub-contract data-- and, remember, 98 percent of everybody in this country is doing the right thing, but the ones that are costing us are the ones like on Medicare fraud and some of these other things, they are costing us a ton. When we do not have that data, we cannot leverage the information. When we go to try to get the information, guess what? Even on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which has subpoena power, unless we subpoena it, most of the time we cannot get it, information that should already be online. So I want you to understand how important this is as a tool for us, and looking at what our financial situation is, what you guys are doing is more important than anything that I do up here every day, what you all are doing because it is going to pay far greater rewards and far greater dividends. Thank you. Senator Carper. Senator Coburn and I are interested, as he just reminded us, in trying to ensure that folks are doing what they are supposed to be doing. And it is hard for us to police every person in government or folks that are not in government to ensure they are doing what they need to be doing. One of the things that I like to do--and I think he does as well--is to try to find ways to incentivize people or agencies, people within agencies, to do what they ought to be doing, to do the right thing. And one of the things we have focused on over the years is trying to ensure that when Federal agencies have surplus properties that they do not need, that they sell them and get to keep some of the money to help fund their programs. We are interested in making sure that not only do we have agencies stop making improper payments, but actually to identify where the money has gone, particularly in---- Senator Coburn. Would the Senator yield? Just for the record, we spend $8 billion on properties we do not want and that are empty that the Federal Government owns. Every year. There is $8 billion. That will pay for the extender package that is coming on to the floor. But yet we are not doing it because we do not have all the data. Senator Carper. Yes. But one of the things we are interested in doing is trying to go out and collect all the money that is fraudulantly taken out of Medicare by fraudsters. If we allow contract recovery folks to go out and recover the money and let them keep a portion of it, then we can incentivize them to do a much better job. If we can do the same thing with whistleblowers, let them keep some of the money that is actually recovered. But the idea is to find ways to incentivize--use financial incentives to harness market forces and get people to help us do what needs to be done. I like to say--and Dr. Coburn has heard me say this once or twice--that the role of government is to steer the boat, not row the boat, and one of the things that always fascinates me is how do we harness market forces to drive good public policy outcomes. What I want to do is ask you all to take a minute--and I will start with Mr. Ferriero and then we will go to the other panelists. Are you trying to find ways to use prizes or rewards for people to be able to develop a more effective way to use agency information? What kind of results are you seeing so far, if you will? And is this something that we ought to be thinking about expanding in the future? What is your office doing to get the word out on these kinds of competitions? Are there ways that we can help put a spotlight on these competitions so that more people will want to participate? Can you all just take a moment and take a shot at that, please? Thanks. And, Mr. Ferriero, if you want to respond, you are welcome to. Mr. Ferriero. Sure. That is part of the Open Government plan that is being created now by the Archives, and there is the intention of creating within our agency opportunities for competition for coming up with new ideas about how we go about doing our business. And this is something that is very much why I am so excited about the plan, is that it is staff driven, it is from the bottom up. And we do not have concrete examples of that yet, but it is a definite part of our Open Government plan. Senator Carper. OK. Thank you. Mr. Chopra. Mr. Chopra. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely a key priority for us, and we think that is a terrific tool when thoughtfully designed--you cannot just have prizes and competition for anything--to achieve pretty dramatic outcomes. Senator Carper. How do we do the design there to make sure that what we are designing actually is going to be appealing to folks whose cooperation we need? Mr. Chopra. Well, we have built a community of practice that was launched in conjunction with the guidance that was released on March 8 so that we could incorporate best practices in that model. There are nonprofit and for-profit stakeholders who have been experienced in prize design, the most famous being the X Prize that is contributing to our community of practice. But even beyond, companies like McKinsey, the Joyce Foundation, and others have been contributing and publishing on best practices and how to achieve the proper design. But they run the gamut, so you might have a design to try to develop breakthrough new ideas that you had not thought of before. DARPA's most recent $40,000 network design challenge really allowed us, with a very small amount of money, to think about how do these new emerging social networking technologies help to advance big challenges. And they had a simple one: Find 10 balloons that were floated all over the country that all in one morning would be up and then brought down by the evening. The entire land mass of the United States was in play, and through social networking, the winning team built an incentive system. Your point about financial incentives? They tiered the payment structure to get thousands of people to volunteer to look out and invite their friends and neighbors to say, ``Hey, where are the balloons?'' In 9 hours, they found all 10 balloons across the entire land mass. Senator Carper. Were they mostly found in Delaware, do you think? [Laughter.] Mr. Chopra. Actually, I got a map in my head, but I cannot think of where it was. Mr. Ferriero. But guess where the team was from? Mr. Chopra. MIT. A lot of love. But I say that because there are prizes that spur new thinking, as was this prize. There were prizes that achieved outcomes goals where government investment may not be the right goal. So we want to help young people learn about healthier eating habits. It is one of the First Lady's top priorities in her Let's Move! campaign. We do not have a lot of government money. Whether we should or we should not--your point about row versus steer the boat is a great one. But we found $40,000 in modest prize money to spur all this creativity in the gaming community and the application development community, to take the nutritional information from the Department of Agriculture and find a way to help parents make better choices in food preparation for their kids and to educate kids on the food choices they have. There are communities popping up all over the country saying, ``Hey, we will sign up and help. We want to be a part of this.'' For a very modest investment, you can spur a great deal of leverage in behavior. I think the point you are making is a good one. How do we get this right? The guidance memo that OMB issued acknowledged that certain Federal agencies have certain explicit authorities. The Department of Defense (DOD), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, (NASA), and the Department of Energy (DOE) are explicitly authorized to run certain prize competitions. Others do not have some the same authorities, but have some other vehicles that might allow prize competitions. So we describe this marble cake framework for how one actually conducts prizes and competitions, and we are looking at ways to hopefully make that a little bit easier. And with your partnership and collaboration, Mr. Chairman, we would love to engage further. Senator Carper. Great. Thanks. Mr. Kundra, the last word. Mr. Kundra. And I think when you think of prizes, they are not just limited to monetary prizes. So what we have seen is, for example, at OMB we launched the President's Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAVE) Award, which is essentially to find game-changing ideas to help save money. And there was a woman at Veterans Affairs who came up with the idea of saying, well, why is it that every time we discharge a veteran from a hospital, we throw away the medicine that may be half empty, and recognizing that a lot of the talent and energies in the front lines, obviously, of the public sector and harnessing those ideas and baking them into how we run the government. Second is when we launched the IT Dashboard--and we still have issues, frankly, around data quality. But what is happening is we are getting the American people who are sending us e-mails or are coming in and saying, ``Well, why is it that you are spending all this money on this particular project? Maybe there is a better way, a third way.'' So, really, helping improve actually performance. And the third area I would say which is looking at how we fundamentally change the way we deliver services to the American people such as the application I was talking about, where someone could create an application using data from the Department of Transportation or, as Aneesh mentioned, car safety data or looking at data around consumer protection or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data around foods that may have been recalled. We are seeing people actually creating all these mobile applications that the government would have spent frankly years and millions of dollars building. And so we are finding mechanisms in terms of using challenges and prizes also to save taxpayer dollars as well as find innovative approaches and improve performance. Senator Carper. All right. It has been a great panel and a tough act to follow, but we have some folks sitting behind you that are going to give it a shot. We very much appreciate your being here, preparing for this and responding to our questions. We will have some more questions that we will want to submit and ask you to respond to those as promptly as you can. Mr. Chopra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Carper. Maybe at the end of the day we will not only provide better transparency but a lot better service for less money, and that is a pretty good goal for all of us. Thank you very much. Good to see you. I would ask the second panel to come to the desk at this time, if you would. Good afternoon. It is great to see you all. Thank you for joining us. There is Steve O'Keeffe going around here with crutches, and what is that device on your left foot there? What is that? I wore one of those a couple years ago when I broke my foot in a race. Mr. O'Keeffe. I guess I can remove it soon. Senator Carper. Eventually I got to stop wearing it. Hopefully you will, too. Mr. O'Keeffe. Thanks. Senator Carper. Thanks for joining us. Coming off the disabled list (DL), as we like to say in baseball, off the disabled list. I am going to give a brief introduction to our witnesses and then ask each of you to proceed. Our first witness is Ellen Miller, co-founder and Executive Director of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization dedicated to the openness and transparency of government. Ms. Miller is also the founder of the Center for Responsive Politics and Public Campaign where she focused her attention on the influence that money has in politics. She was named one of the 15 people the next President should listen to--I do not think I made that list, but I am glad that you did--by Wired Magazine. It is quite an honor, and we thank you for joining us today. Our next witness is Rob Pinkerton, Director of Public Sector Solutions for Adobe Systems. Mr. Pinkerton has an extensive background in government and technology, serving in both the public and the private sector. Notably, he has been an emergency medical response technician in Virginia. Whereabouts? Mr. Pinkerton. Henrico County, Richmond. Senator Carper. All right. A law clerk in the city of Baltimore and a legislative assistant in the U.S. Senate. Who did you work with? Mr. Pinkerton. Strom Thurmond. Senator Carper. Strom Thurmond. Well, we thank you for your service and thank you for his, too. Our next witness is Steve O'Keeffe, founder of MeriTalk, and I am told that MeriTalk is an online community of technology experts that focus on leveraging technology to improve the way that agencies operate. I understand that you have tasked this community of experts to grade the Administration leading up to our hearing and that you will report back the results today. We thank you for your help. Our last witness also has had some experience before our Subcommittee. Mr. Blanton is the Director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University. Mr. Blanton has been a leading national advocate in reforming the way that agencies classify and protect information. I understand that you have conducted over more than 40,000 Freedom of Information Act requests. That is a lot. Mr. Blanton, we thank you and all of our other panelists for being here. I am going to recognize Ellen Miller to begin her opening statement. Just try to keep your remarks within 5 minutes. If you get too far beyond that, I will have to reel you in. But we are glad you are here. We look forward to your testimony. Everything that is in your printed testimony will be made a part of the record, and feel free to summarize as you see fit. Ms. Miller, thank you. TESTIMONY OF ELLEN MILLER,\1\ CO-FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION Ms. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the invitation to be with you today. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Miller appears in the Appendix on page 72. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On a personal note, I want to just mention that 30 years ago I was a staffer to this Committee, so I have a particular affection for the Committee for which you do your fine work. Senator Carper. No kidding. Didn't they have child labor laws then? [Laughter.] Ms. Miller. They did. The Chairman was Senator Ribicoff at the time, and Ranking was Senator Percy. So it was some time ago. Senator Carper. OK. Ms. Miller. I am delighted to be here. My name is Ellen Miller, and I am the co-founder and Executive Director of the Sunlight Foundation. Sunlight is a 4- year-old nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to using the power of the Internet to catalyze greater government accessibility and openness and transparency. We take our inspiration from Justice Brandeis' famous adage, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' We are committed to improving access to government information by---- Senator Carper. Ms. Miller. Ms. Miller. Yes? Senator Carper. Please forgive me for interrupting. I have just been advised by my staff that on the floor of the Senate there has been a move to stop all the proceedings and hearings that are going on in the Senate, and we are compelled to stop at this point in time. I regret it, but there are rules here that unless there is a unanimous consent to proceed for a hearing--as you may recall, in the Senate we can only go for so long, and then we have to stop our hearings. And the whistle has blown, unfortunately, and we and all the other committees and subcommittees that are holding hearings have to now at this time cease. I feel very badly about that. It is not my doing. But we are not going to ask you to stay around, but I am going to ask you at some point that it is convenient for you and for us, we are going to ask you to come back and have an opportunity to hear from each of you. So with that having been said, maybe after the start of recess, we will be able to hold these hearings in a way that we would like to. But I am going to have to adjourn at this point in time. Again, my apologies, Ms. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Pinkerton, thank you, Mr. O'Keeffe and Mr. Blanton.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The hearing was adjourned before these three witnesses made their statements. The prepared statements for Mr. Pinkerton, Mr. O'Keeffe, and Mr. Blanton appear in the Appendix on pages 75, 79, and 85, respectively. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Blanton. Thank you, Senator. Senator Carper. I have had a chance to look through your testimonies. You have a lot to offer, and we want to be able to have not just those of us who have read your testimony benefit from it but a lot of people who have not. So that having been said, again, our thanks to you and I apologize to you for any inconvenience that this may have caused for you, and I look forward to seeing you again soon. Thank you very much. With that, the hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] REMOVING THE SHROUD OF SECRECY: MAKING GOVERNMENT MORE TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE--PART II ---------- TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2010 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security, of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senator Carper. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER Senator Carper. Good afternoon. This is a little bit like church. In church, you have the pews up front and the pews in back. The pews up front are always empty, and if our witnesses will turn around, you will see what I mean. The folks are sitting in the back pews there. Some of them look kind of young. I do not know where you ladies and gentlemen are from. Where are you all from? Well, this is like ``American Pie.'' This is good. [Laughter.] We are glad you are here. To our witnesses, this group has your back. Mr. Blanton. Thank you. Senator Carper. Our Subcommittee will come to order, and our thanks to our guests and our witnesses for being here today. For the next hour or so, we are going to discuss ways that President Obama and his team of Open Government experts can reshape both old and inefficient bureaucratic agencies into lean, not so mean, citizen-focused machines. And we had hoped to hear from our panel of witnesses today a couple of weeks ago, but there were larger issues at play, and unfortunately we had to take a rain check. As I recall, we had to basically stop our hearing. There is a procedure, a process in the Senate that at the beginning of the legislative day, the Majority Leader or his or her deputy will ask unanimous consent for the committees to meet beyond a 2-hour limit, and if we do not get that unanimous consent, we cannot meet. And the unanimous consent was sought, was refused, somebody objected from the other side, and as a result, we had to close down all of our committee hearings throughout the Senate abruptly. And we apologize again for the disruption. We are just glad that our witnesses were willing to come back, and nobody objected today so we can all be here. But before our hearing ended last month, we were able to hear from one panel, and that was from the administration's top officials who are leading the Open Government Initiative. I applauded them then and I will do so again today. The Administration released guidance to reduce wasteful agency spending to make senior leaders more accountable and to improve, we hope, the lives of everyday Americans. It should not be a talking point anymore that agencies should be as transparent and accountable as possible, and change needs to start at the top. When I was the age of these old people sitting--actually, these young people sitting out in the audience, to say to somebody that they were transparent was not a compliment, and it is interesting today that we want our agencies, we want those that are serving us, we want our legislative process, we want our leaders to be transparent in what they are trying to do. So what was not a compliment a few years ago is today. We are very much attempting to be transparent. Now that we have an opportunity to hear from our panel of outside experts, I hope to finish the discussion we started a couple of weeks ago and learn in what areas the Administration is doing well, what areas may need some more attention, and more importantly, how making agencies more open and transparent will make the lives of 300 million Americans a little bit better. Just to recap why this hearing is important, every year agencies spend nearly $1 trillion--think about that, $1 trillion--on contracts, grants, and loans. Yet it seems like every week or so we receive another report from outside watchdogs--actually, they are kind of like inside watchdogs, but the Government Accountability Office, which is a Federal agency, or from an agency's Inspector General outlining significant wasteful and inefficient spending. You expect some of that with an operation as big as the Federal Government, but there is plenty of waste that still goes around, and the folks at GAO and the Inspector Generals help us to identify that. But at a time when a lot of Americans are trying to keep from losing their jobs or avoid foreclosure on their homes, we in the Federal Government, need to lead by example and not by exception. I like to tell my staff, if it is not perfect, make it better, and try to focus on doing everything well. I believe that phrase can be applied here. There is more that both the Administration and the Congress can do to make sure that we are spending Americans' hard-earned tax dollars wisely, and we need to work together to get it done. The American people demand it. In closing, I just want to add that as we discuss all of the new and exciting initiatives that the Administration has under way or plans on undertaking in the near future, we ought to keep our eye on the ball. Our job does not just end at making information freely available, but in making sure that information can be effectively used to improve services to every American, to reduce wasteful spending, and to enforce accountability. Again, our thanks to our witnesses of this panel, one of whom showed up wounded--he is coming off the DL, the Disabled List--to be here with us today, and we are grateful for that. My statement says I will now recognize Senator McCain for his opening statement, but he has not joined us yet, and he may during the time that you all are here, and I hope so. And if he can, we will recognize him when he arrives. Again, thank you. Your entire statements will be made a part of the record, and I will just ask maybe, Mr. Wonderlich. TESTIMONY OF JOHN WONDERLICH,\1\ POLICY DIRECTOR, SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION Mr. Wonderlich. Chairman Carper, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. As you said, my name is John Wonderlich, and I am the Policy Director for the Sunlight Foundation. The Sunlight Foundation is a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to using the power of the Internet to catalyze greater government openness and transparency. We take our inspiration from Justice Brandeis' famous adage, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Wonderlich appears in the Appendix on page 89. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We are committed to improving access to government information by making as much of it as possible available online. Indeed, we believe it is important to redefine ``public,'' as in the phrase ``public information,'' as meaning online. We focus on creating databases and new tools and Websites to enable citizens to get the information they need to be informed participants in our democracy. We believe that transparency and openness are essential foundations for public trust and that without the former, the latter cannot survive. The Internet is making increased transparency cheaper, more effective, and in higher demand every day as Americans come to expect instantaneous and constant access to all kinds of information. Given the rapid technological advances in how information can be captured, stored, analyzed, and shared, this is the time for government to rethink how it makes information available. There are three core principles for establishing an open and transparent government: First, transparency is government's responsibility. Transparency must, first and foremost, be understood as the responsibility of our government since private and nonprofit responses can only reach so far. Second, public means online, so whenever the government has committed to making information public, the standard for public should include freely accessible online. Information cannot be described as truly public if it is available only inside a government building, during limited hours, or for a fee. Third, data quality and presentation matter. The Internet has redefined effective communications and publishing, and it is now an around-the-clock open medium in which now standard practices include continuous dissemination, permanent searchability and reusability, and other key features. So why are these improvements in government transparency so important? First, transparency is the basis for informed participation in self-government. The public has rising expectations of greatly expanded access to government information so that they can play a fuller role in understanding, evaluating, and participating in the workings of their government. Our role as citizens is only as strong as our government is open. This idea is not an abstract, distant kind of public good. The actions that make up our civic lives-- informed voting, active participation or analysis--these all depend on access to public information. Without that connection, citizens are left disconnected and dispirited, and substance and dialogue are replaced by apathy and divisiveness. Second, online transparency can create accountable and efficient spending, something that governmental bodies and cities and States and here in Washington are just now starting to discover. Third, when government makes data public, it can foster whole new businesses or industries. President Obama's Open Government Directive recognizes this potential, noting that information that make ``create economic opportunity'' should be given special priority. And, fourth, and perhaps most importantly, open and transparent government is accountable government. Open information allows us to check what government is doing with our tax dollars and for whom. Sunlight's vision is one of a rich, vital public sphere where politics is driven by dialogue and fact and merit drives decisionmaking in government. In that spirit, we are pleased to help shape the new policies and technology that will allow us all to benefit from a stronger democracy, creating new platforms and databases to inform and engage citizens, empowering journalists, lawmakers, and public officials, investing in our social infrastructure to demand and make better use of government information, and advancing the bold and responsible policies that will ultimately open our government. Thank you very much, and I am happy to answer any questions. Senator Carper. That is your story and you are going to stick to it? [Nodding affirmatively.] Senator Carper. Good enough. I failed to introduce Mr. Wonderlich before he began speaking, and I will just say just a couple things. Is it true that you are the Policy Director at the Sunlight Foundation? Mr. Wonderlich. Correct. Senator Carper. And is it true that the Sunlight Foundation is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to openness and transparency in government? Mr. Wonderlich. Sounds right. Senator Carper. All right. Is it true that in this capacity you work with the Congress, you work with agencies, and the public sector to develop smarter policies that help reform bad government practices? Mr. Wonderlich. Indeed, yes. Senator Carper. And that is why we asked you to be here today. Mr. Wonderlich. Thank you. Senator Carper. Thank you. Our next witness is Steve O'Keeffe, founder of--do you call it MeriTalk? You founded it, didn't you? Mr. O'Keeffe. I did. Senator Carper. How long ago? Mr. O'Keeffe. Two years ago. Senator Carper. Two years ago. And before that? Mr. O'Keeffe. I had been working in the public-private domain for about 20 years. Senator Carper. Where did you learn to speak English? Mr. O'Keeffe. That was in London. Senator Carper. OK. You speak it better than the rest of us, I think. Mr. O'Keeffe. Well, differently, maybe. Senator Carper. I did an interview this morning on Fox Business Network, and the guy who was interviewing me was British. He kept asking me, ``What are you saying?'' [Laughter.] He was wondering what I was saying. No, we actually had a Kumbaya moment. We actually agreed on some things. It was pretty amazing for both of us. I am told that MeriTalk is an online community of technology experts that focus on leveraging technology to improve the way that agencies operate. I understand that you tasked this community of experts to grade the Administration, give them a grade leading up to our hearing, and that you will report back the results today. And I just have one question before you start: Do you grade on a curve? Mr. O'Keeffe. No, it is not graded on a curve. Senator Carper. OK. Fair enough. All right. Well, good. You are recognized. Please proceed. Thanks again for being here. TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN W.T. O'KEEFFE,\1\ FOUNDER, MERITALK Mr. O'Keeffe. Chairman Carper and Subcommittee Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you here today. My name is Steve O'Keeffe, and as you mentioned, I am the founder of MeriTalk, the government IT network. MeriTalk is an online community that fosters public-private collaboration and dialogue in the government IT community. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statements of Mr. O'Keeffe appears in the Appendix on pages 79 and 93 respectively. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, I would like to congratulate you on the innovative format for this hearing, breaking it into two parts. Seriously, while the separation between government and industry panels was unorthodox---- Senator Carper. I just want you to know, Mr. O'Keeffe-- forgive me for interrupting, but I just wanted you to know the room is just emptying out. [Laughter.] Moments after you started to speak, everybody got up and began to leave. But we have a new group from Delaware that are here to bolster you and they are here to cheer. So go right ahead. Mr. O'Keeffe. It is probably because they cannot understand me. [Laughter.] So just to say, apart from everybody leaving, I wanted to congratulate you on the unorthodox format for this hearing, breaking in into two parts. Here we are in the reloaded session. While it was unorthodox, it did provide us the opportunity, candidly, to connect with some of the people who spoke in the first panel, the government experts, and engaged in some very meaningful dialogue. Just last week, I met with Vivek Kundra at OMB and with Mike Wood at the Recovery Board. We reviewed the results of the MeriTalk Ogov Study, which I am going to present in a minute or two here, and exchanged perspectives that will help shape the path forward on both sides of the equation, both government and industry, real, meaningful public-private dialogue. Perhaps this should be the format going forward. We should stop every hearing halfway and reload it. Senator Carper. Did you happen to engage them once the hearing had to stop? Is that when you all had a chance to talk? Mr. O'Keeffe. Yes. Senator Carper. How fortunate. That is great. We may want to do that more often. Mr. O'Keeffe. I think it could be the new thing. Senator Carper. It could be. Mr. O'Keeffe. So I would like to begin by noting that President Obama's Open Government Directive is not a stroke-of- a-pen initiative. If you will pardon the hyperbole, it is analogous to President Kennedy's challenge to go to the Moon in 1961. Nobody expected to see a spaceship take off one year after the announcement, and if they did, I would put it that few people would have jumped on board to ride that spaceship just one year after the announcement. Many of us have had the opportunity to ride on the Open Government Apollo 1, and I think we have had some mixed experiences, candidly. Just over a year ago, after the signing of the Open Government Directive, Open Government is getting mixed reviews. In my written testimony, I talk about some of our firsthand experience trying to build applications on top of the first version of the IT Dashboard from OMB as well as for searching for content on Recovery.gov. I guess the net of our experience was that it was pretty frustrating. If I might, the juice just really was not worth the squeeze once we had gone through the process. That said, seeing as this is an Open Government hearing, we thought it would be appropriate to bring the community's voice into this hearing, so that is why we hosted the Ogov Survey on MeriTalk prior to the initial hearing to get the community's read on how we are doing in Open Government. And with that, let me present a couple of slides here.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The slides presented by Mr. O'Keeffe appears in the Appendix on page 82. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The first is we asked, Do you think the government is more open today than it was when President Obama took office? And while 53 percent say yes, there is a surprising number of people that think that, no, the government is not more open, and also a significant number that think that they are not sure whether it is more open or not. Senator Carper. Interestingly enough, I saw some polling data today at a luncheon presentation, and the President's favorables and unfavorables or uncertains kind of reflect those numbers right there. Isn't that interesting? Mr. O'Keeffe. Yes, it is. Well, hopefully we can get the Open Government--send them an op and hopefully get the President's approvals up. That would be great. Do you feel that Open Government is providing---- Senator Carper. I am glad you got that in before Senator McCain joined us. [Laughter.] Mr. O'Keeffe. There will be more people leaving the room. We asked: Do you feel that Open Government is providing you with a voice in how government works? And you will see that 58 percent of the sample say no, which is interesting. So when we look at this notion of Open Government as a way for citizens to have a say in how their government operates between elections, we are not really meeting that requirement right now. I think that is an important point. These are just a few of the questions that we put. We asked: How would you grade OMB's IT Dashboard? And what we see is only 4 percent give that Dashboard an A grade. When I sat down with Vivek Kundra, he was keenly interested in this feedback. You will see that 37 percent give it a C grade and 21 percent give it a D grade. So there is a lot of room for improvement. One of the things that I think was very encouraging is a very open path in terms of discussion about what the feedback is. There is no denial from the executives. We asked: What was the biggest challenge to Open Government? And the No. 1 point here was management resistance to transparency--hardly a huge shock. Obviously, we are trying to introduce new ideas, and so I think we need a lot of evangelism inside the government and talking about the requirement to civil servants about the requirement to do this because this is a new way of looking at things. Another point here, 16 percent said the absence of a proven model and infrastructure for real citizen engagement, so looking at all this Web 2.0 stuff where we are looking at how to put that together as it evolves provides something that is really valuable. And then we asked: Should the government execute research to identify what citizens like and dislike, what they want and need from Open Government? So if the government is building a product, which is a new role for the government, it will be a great idea first to have some understanding of what citizens are looking for in Open Government rather than just building what we think, if that makes sense. So as I mentioned in my opening comments, I had the opportunity to sit down with Vivek Kundra at OMB and with Mike Wood at the Recovery Board since our first hearing. Both of these executives were keenly interested in the results of the MeriTalk Open Government Study and, importantly, open a dialogue about how to improve the state of Open Government. Vivek Kundra advised that OMB has made significant upgrades to its IT Dashboard since we looked at it last year. We talked about the opportunity for better communication with the community on the site's functionality as very important. That said, we took a look back out on the site, and we did find that the platform has much improved. I would like to present just a couple of slides from that to show the kind of data that is available today on the site. The data is there, the analysis we provided, and there is significant opportunity for public-private partnership going forward in this area. So a couple of quick slides. This is the first slide looks at what the government's information technology and management spend.\1\ This is $40.2 billion with a ``b'' each year. And so what we see here is that 64 percent of that spend is going on maintaining legacy systems. So keeping up expensive legacy systems, and in many circumstances we might perhaps be better off looking at modernizing rather than trying to put Band-Aids on the existing systems. And this speaks to cloud and many other initiatives looking at modernizing government's IT infrastructure. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The slide referenced by Mr. O'Keeffe appears in the Appendix on page 83. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We break out here by DOD and civilian, and what you see on the first chart there on the left-hand side is that DOD spends significantly less on maintaining the old than the civilian agencies, so maybe there is a way to look at accelerating that modernization and taking a leaf out of the DOD's book. The next and final slide that I will show you is a further breakdown of that data, and what this shows is information infrastructure maintenance, information management, information security spending.\2\ The red is information security spending, and you will see that far and away the lion's share of information security spending is happening in the Department of Defense. There are red portions on each of these civilian government's charts, but it is so marginal that you really cannot even see it. So sometimes graphing data provides new insight, and our intent is to look at taking data that is being published by the government and repackaging it in fashions that will provide applications and value for the American public. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The slide referenced by Mr. O'Keeffe appears in the Appendix on page 84. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Wonderlich talked a little bit about this notion of the private sector providing additional value-added, and we very much support that notion. We are currently in dialogue with a series of Federal agencies to ground source some of the numbers that we pulled from the Dashboard to find out whether they are indeed accurate, and so we look forward to continuing that dialogue and proving that out. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I await your questions. Senator Carper. Thank you. I thought your colleague who helped with the presentation on the charts just did an exceptional job. [Laughter.] Do you want to introduce her? Mr. O'Keeffe. Yes, this is Lauren Walker. She is really the brains of the outfit and helps out in all circumstances. Senator Carper. I was watching her from time to time during your presentation. I could just barely see her lips move when you spoke. [Laughter.] You guys are pretty good at that. Thank you. Our last witness is actually somebody we have seen around here before and we welcome him back: Thomas Blanton is the Director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University. Mr. Blanton has been a leading national advocate in reforming the way that agencies classify and protect information. We are pretty good at overclassifying, as I recall. Mr. Blanton. Yes, sir. Senator Carper. And as I stated during last month's hearing, I understand that you have conducted more than--is it 40 Freedom of Information requests? Is it 400? TESTIMONY OF THOMAS BLANTON,\1\ DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE Mr. Blanton. Forty thousand. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statements of Mr. Blanton appear in the Appendix on pages 85 and 97 respectively. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senator Carper. It is 40,000. That is probably more than anybody around--well, maybe not, but that is a lot of 40,000 Freedom of Information requests. I can hear them say, ``It is him again. It is Blanton again with another FOIA request.'' That is a lot. I do not know if you get paid by the FOIA request, but if you did, you would be well off. Mr. Blanton. The pharmaceutical industry does about 10 times as many. Senator Carper. OK. Mr. Blanton. We are just a small nonprofit media outfit trying to keep the government open. Senator Carper. OK. Well, we are glad you are here, and thanks for joining our panel again today. I want to apologize for your having to come back, but we are glad that you are willing to. And as Mr. O'Keeffe suggested, maybe some real good has come out of the fact that we were disrupted last time and had a chance to have a dialogue that otherwise would not have occurred. Mr. Blanton. I would echo that, Mr. Chairman. Last time I actually got to personally congratulate Vivek Kundra on the CIO Council winning the Rosemary Award, named after Rosemary Woods for her infamous 18\1/2\-minute gap in the Watergate tapes. And we gave it to them this year, to the Chief Information Officer Council, because although they have been in charge of best practices for government's IT, all that spending that Mr. O'Keeffe is talking about, since 1996 they have never addressed the crisis in electronic records and e-mail preservation. And if they cannot on the front end of those billions and billions put in the preservation and access piece, then none of us are going to have any documents to FOIA request for down the road, and we will not know what our own government has done. So your hearing last time gave me the opportunity to give him my own personal congratulations, but that is the least of it. I just want to make three points today, Mr. Chairman. One of them is just the importance of this process and this hearing and this follow-up, because by calling Vivek Kundra, Aneesh Chopra, and David Ferriero last time, you actually forced some decisions on them. They had to face up and push the agencies to come up with tangible deliverables and to be able to come here and tell you we are doing something really positive here. You have the bully pulpit, and your role, I think, is truly essential to the progress that we are already seeing. I think that is my second point. I am more optimistic today than I would have been on March 23 if you had me on the panel right after them. And the reason why is between March 23 and today, those agencies have all deposited their Open Government plans on the public. And it is a fascinating process to see the bureaucracy itself churning. They have been ordered to do so by the President, by the Office of Management and Budget, and they have actually created interagency processes where some of their best and brightest are trying to come up with ways to make their process more open to the public. They have systems that are trying to identify those high-value data sets they can put out there. You see this bureaucratic motion happening, and change will come of that. But that is really the third point, which is we are not there yet. It has not changed. Maybe the wheels over at the White House--this is Norm Eisen . He likes this metaphor. He says, ``We have turned the wheel all the way over with our directives and our orders and our guidance and the memos and Day 1 pronouncements by President Obama. But it is a super tanker, and so the ship is just barely moving like this.'' Well, I am here to tell you today is not a super tanker. It is actually a fleet. And there are aircraft carriers and there are dinghies, and we have actually found a couple of rowboats, too. And let me tell you, they have no radio equipment to be in touch with the White House, and they do not know what is going on, and they have not received the word yet. What we released last month was our eighth audit governmentwide of how Federal agencies are responding to Freedom of Information requests, and we did a real simple thing. The President had put out a directive on his Day 1 in office for agencies to get more responsive, change your Freedom of Information practice. The Attorney General then in March for Sunshine Week last year put out specific guidance to all the agencies saying: Change your FOIA practice, your regulations, and your training materials. So we did a simple thing. We filed Freedom of Information requests with all 90 major Federal agencies, said: Show us. What did you change? Give us a copy of your regs before and after. Give us a copy of your training materials. Give us a copy of your guidance. Give us a copy of anything that you changed in response to the President and the Attorney General. And I can tell you today 13 out of 90--only 13 out of 90-- Federal agencies made any concrete change to their actual FOIA practice in that first year. Now, why I am more optimistic. That made headlines across the country on March 15, and the headlines were, ``Report faults Obama's efforts at transparency,'' or ``Agencies lag Obama message.'' That was Monday morning. Tuesday morning, the White House Chief of Staff and the White House Counsel sent a memo to all 90 agency heads saying: Remember us? Change your Freedom of Information guidance, practice, regs, and show it to us. Twenty-four hour responsiveness, and that is, I think, Mr. O'Keeffe's experience talking to Mr. Kundra and others in this. They are not defensive about it. They want to change it. They need us pushing to change it. They need you holding oversight hearings to change it. They need agencies to get why it is in their interest and the taxpayer's interest to be more open. And that combination of pressure can actually make the change. But diversity of agency response is the great challenge. We are right in the middle today, with Openthegovernment.org, Mr. Wonderlich's great outfit as well, where we are looking at all those Open Government plans and saying what is real, what is Memorex, what is really going to be a change, and what is just promises for the future. And it is a fascinating diversity because some of them are really impressive. In my written statement, I describe my colleague Gary Bass has highlighted the Department of Health and Human Services and saying this is a really impressive Open Government plan. They have tangible high-value data sets they are going to have out by the end of the year. They have done this on their flagship initiatives. This is great. Others of those plans just say: Well, something? We are going to keep planning to write this plan. We will plan on planning, and we will plan some more, and then maybe we will plan again and we will give you the plan. And that is great, but it is not openness. You can see how frustrating it must be if you are sitting at the White House and you are trying to turn the ship or change agency practice. Our first governmentwide audit was whether Attorney General John Ashcroft back in 2002 had changed the way Freedom of Information requests were responded to. And, again, he sent out this memo saying, we at the Justice Department will defend you if you can find any reason to withhold information from the public, we will defend you. So we asked the agencies: What did you change? Fascinating. Four or five agencies actually had written memos from their counsel's office to their program people saying this is the end of the Freedom of Information Act, you do not have to respond to anymore requests. The vast majority of agencies, 30 or 40 of them, just sent a copy of the memo out to their field offices, but did not actually change their own regs or practice. And then there were four agencies that wrote us back, and they said: Excuse me. What Ashcroft memo was that? Could you send us a copy? We never got that one. I can tell you, every agency has gotten the Obama memo and the Holder memo, and you can see it in just the responsive process on the FOIA requests, and you can see it in the responsive process to the White House. But change, it is still in the future. So let me just end with a suggestion. We are in the middle right now of this evaluation of agency Open Government plans, which is sort of where the rubber meets the road. My bet is by the end of this month or certainly by the first or second week of May, Openthegovernment.org is going to publish our rankings, ratings, and evaluations. We are all volunteering. We have a whole network of people all pitching in, taking this or that agency, looking at it against a set of criteria. ProPublica just won the Pulitzer Prize yesterday. They are pitching in on this, too. A lot of us are doing it. I have a recommendation for a hearing that when those ratings are done, you not just invite Openthegoverment.org to present the evaluations, but you pick the two best agencies and the two worst agencies and have their chief information officer come in, their chief Freedom of Information officer, maybe their deputy head of the department, maybe even the Cabinet Secretary, and tell you why are you so good, what is your lesson, what is your best practice, and why are you so bad. And I tell you, I think you will see direct change coming out of that subcommittee hearing. I really appreciate your attention to these matters. It matters so much, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Thank you, Senator. Senator Carper. Thanks. Thanks very much for your comments and your counsel, and thanks for your advice on---- Mr. Blanton. For what it is worth. Senator Carper. It is going to be a pretty interesting hearing. I have a couple questions for individuals, but I have a question or two for the full panel. The first question I am going to ask is for the entire panel, and I do not care in what order you respond, but I would like for everybody to share at least one thought on it. One of the reasons we ask two panels to testify is to, first of all, provide Administration witnesses with an opportunity to really set the stage or attempt to set the stage about what we are actually working on; and then we invite a second panel of outside experts--that would be you--to provide us some food for thought, to provide just outside-the-box ideas and observations. In essence, your job is to let us know what the Administration ought to be thinking about going forward or perhaps what they could be doing better. And you have mentioned a number of those already here today. Can each of you tell me two or maybe three areas where my staff or I ought to focus on to help the Administration reduce wasteful spending and to improve services to the people we work for? Maybe two, maybe three ideas for our staff. What can we do to help make sure that the Administration reduces wasteful spending and improves services to our citizens? Mr. Blanton. All right. You started right in this direction at the last hearing, and I was really impressed that both you and Senator Coburn pressed Vivek Kundra on, OK, when is the subcontracting information going to be up there, and that is a great step forward because that is where the competitors are going to be able to see what the other folks are up to. That is where you are going to level the playing field some on both the procurement side but also on the effectiveness side, which is what your questioning goes to. It is interesting to me--and I still remember the Obama- Coburn bill, or was it Coburn-Obama bill? And it seemed like-- -- Senator Carper. Or in Delaware it was the Carper-Obama- Coburn bill. Mr. Blanton. I stand corrected, Mr. Chairman. Senator Carper. No. Senator Coburn was the lead. Mr. Blanton. It seemed to me that there was a meeting of-- -- Senator Carper. Barack Obama was just a mere mortal. Mr. Blanton. Just a junior Senator then. Senator Carper. He was a new guy. Mr. Blanton. It seemed to me there were two theories of governance that came together in that bill, and one theory from Senator Coburn is that the more people see of what the government spends, the more they will see the waste, the fraud, and the abuse, and they will demand that it stop. And there was another theory of that government spending which is that if people can actually see--it is that old notion of when people only vote for bond issues for a school when you can see what the money goes to. If you see what it goes to and you have got some built-in accountability so that there is counterpressure against waste, people might actually support it. They might actually want it. And it seems to me that argument is a perpetual argument in the American system. I still remember--I think Bill Moyers said the American eagle has two wings, a right wing and a left wing. It is a permanent argument, right? And that is great because that is a dynamic tension. But the commonality is that transparency is the key that will lead to those greater services. You can get to that subcontract data. I know it is required by law. I think it is supposed to be all up by October. Is that correct? Senator Carper. I think so. Mr. Blanton. Yes. Then I think we are a big step along the way. I think if you can also reinforce this whole Open Government process, because I really do see a level of new energy in the bureaucracy, now that they have deadlines that are set, now that they have been tasked by the President and by the budget folks, they are producing some ideas. Some of the ideas are terrible. Some ideas do not go anywhere. Some of them could really be best practices that will directly, I think, address what you are trying to achieve. Senator Carper. OK. Thank you. Mr. Wonderlich. So when the Open Government plans were released on the January 7, 2009, my organization looked specifically at the component of each agency's Open Government plan and how well they fulfilled the requirement to inventory existing data, high-value data, and identify future data to be available for download. And what we found was, I think, what we expected, and that is, very mixed results. Just as Mr. Blanton was describing, President Obama's clear political will to open up the Executive Branch translates into mixed results when you look at real change within the agencies. So through the lens of did agencies identify high-value data, the results are clearly mixed, and I think we can see some of the limitations of a concrete requirement like Mr. Blanton was describing. So the first point I would make is to look into the idea of data inventories. On top of the current Open Government Directive, there are existing statutory requirements for agencies to list all the information that they have that has been largely ignored for a decade or more. So I think the idea of telling the public what is knowable about an agency is a very powerful one, and that is why my organization is focused on it. Now, beyond the idea of the concrete requirement, I think one of the untold stories of the Open Government Directive is this idea of encouragement and brainstorming and collaboration. So in the last few days, the White House released this stretch criteria document which is bonus criteria or things that the agencies should do to move beyond what the directive requires, and I think that is a very unusual and laudable move for the White House to say: You know what? Our directive is not comprehensive and it does not go far enough. But that is not a failure. In fact, we are encouraging agencies to think about what should come next. And so I would encourage you and your staff to perhaps connect with the idea process that is happening across agencies and some of these working groups that are not just thinking about what the requirements are now but what they should become maybe in a 3-year time frame. I think there is a lot of really valuable work being done there. Then the third thing is I would encourage--and this is very much along the lines of what Senator Coburn was talking about at the first part of this hearing, that the problems that plague USAspending.gov and, by extension, the Recovery Website I think are much deeper and endemic issues than just building a Website, so questions of what kind of financial reporting systems have to be rebuilt from the ground up in order for the FFATA bill to actually come to fruition. I think that is a longer-term question that is going to take real effort to address and the one that we are looking into finding answers for. Senator Carper. OK, thanks very much. Mr. O'Keeffe. Mr. O'Keeffe. I will make a couple points. Senator Carper. Do you agree with anything they have said? Mr. O'Keeffe. Not at all, no. Senator Carper. OK. [Laughter.] Mr. O'Keeffe. Yes, of course. Got to keep us awake. But I think that the focus is very much on what data the government is publishing, and I think one of the things we have to look at is what data is America interested in consuming, and so I think more research on who is interested in this data and what kind of information we should be putting out is very important. I spent about a year or so working in the Department of Homeland Security in the National Cyber Security Division, and at DHS we launched a thing called the National Cyber Alert System, and it was a subscription-based service where you could log on to find out what problems were happening on the Internet and what might affect your computer. There were two different systems, two different levels. One of them was a technical level. That was for technical people. And then one was a regular level for regular people. And so what I would do is I would get these messages coming across my desk, and I would call my mother-in-law, and I would read them to her and find out whether she understood what I was saying. And if she did not understand what I was saying, then I would send them back to Carnegie Mellon. So after about 2 weeks, Carnegie Mellon got very frustrated with my mother-in-law. But what we have to do is understand what is the American public interested in. Who are the audiences for this Open Government content? Let us look at this hearing. Apart from a lot of the school group that left earlier, this is not a packed house, and so we need to work out what it is that people are looking for from Open Government and provide that content. The other thing I would say is that it is garbage in, garbage out, and so there is a lot of discussion, and Senator Coburn was quite forceful in terms of this subcontractor issue and reporting subcontractor performance and so on. And the net of it is if we do not have a better program management system and a more standardized program management system in government, then the data we get is going to be less than optimal, and the outputs that we can produce are going to be less than optimal. We need to do the same thing from a program management standpoint and also from a procurement standpoint. Wouldn't it be great if we had better quality data coming out of the agencies, people coding the same information in the same fashion. So I would say, that, yes, we need to look at the information that is coming out of the agencies, but we have to take one step further back and look at how that information is being captured, how we are managing projects in government, how we are managing and recording the procurement process, and also on the other end who is interested in consuming this data and what are their opinions. What are the outcomes of these efforts, not just the behaviors, which I think are very important. Senator Carper. All right. Well, thank you very much. I thank each of you for your thoughtful responses. Some of you have criticized the Open Government movement as focusing a little bit too much on inside baseball. Now that we are in baseball season, we will use that as an example. For example, the previous Administration typically focused their efforts on uploading outdated agency reports online that were many times difficult to find and oftentimes more difficult to understand. And although these reports were better than nothing, Americans want transparency in the day-to-day services that they depend on like Medicare, veterans' benefits, tax work done by the IRS, or maybe getting small business loans. How will Open Government help them? And how do we make sure that we prioritize our efforts to help citizens? So a two-part question. Mr. Blanton. The way we have looked at the Freedom of Information system is it is a kind of market signaling or should be a kind of market signaling to the government to help answer Mr. O'Keeffe's question about what are the audiences, what do people care about, what do they want to get out of their government. And if you look at the largest user groups of Freedom of Information, according to agencies' own reporting, it is veterans asking about their service records and their benefits; it is senior citizens asking about Medicare and Social Security and projecting their lifetime. And those are in the tens of millions, those information requests. And so the one problem is that many of those are personal or private. That is first-party information. They are asking for it about themselves or about their family. You do not put that on the Web, or you probably should not, not if it accompanies a Social Security record number, right? And yet there are probably ways--and this is what I think I am most optimistic about the Open Government plan focus on tools like dashboards that make the online experience so much easier to navigate so that you can then get to those individual--those pieces of information most directly relevant to your own needs, your own life. And if the Web can deliver what the promise is and that the dashboard kind of toolkit allows for, this single click, double click navigation right to the place, then the system can be far more responsive, but we have got to clean up the Freedom of Information nonresponsiveness of agencies, do exactly what Mr. Wonderlich and the Sunlight Foundation are trying to do, get more of the high-value data sets on the Web so people can go search for themselves, because I cannot predict what Mr. O'Keeffe's mother-in-law is going to want to know from a given set of files, but it is our obligation---- Senator Carper. But can Mr. O'Keeffe predict? Mr. Blanton. Maybe he cannot even predict, exactly. Senator Carper. OK, just checking. Mr. Blanton. But if you set up the navigation tool so that his mother-in-law can go to the site herself and look around, make it as easy as doing an online search in any of the major search engines, then you are at a place where you are going to get the benefit of the wisdom of crowds. Mr. O'Keeffe. It is a full-time job trying to predict what my wife wants to do, so I have not spent that much time pondering my mother-in-law's requests. As far as this notion of how will Open Government help and how to prioritize, I would put it that research obviously is very important, understanding, what are the priority issues, but maybe that is not necessarily the role for government. Maybe the role for government is to clean up the data, to provide transparency and accountability in order to show the faith in our democracy, to improve the quality of our bureaucracy and the efficiency of our bureaucracy. But by publishing the data in a format which is machine readable and intelligible, as Mr. Wonderlich had mentioned, there is an opportunity to unleash the private sector to develop new applications which will deliver value in multiple veins. So we are looking at perhaps almost a cable television model of applications that could provide value for different segments of the community, and how we work out whether those are actually delivering value, well, they will either succeed or they will fail. And so if you look at things, for example, like health or veterans' health, why shouldn't pharmaceutical companies step in and underwrite applications that will be written on top of government data which would deliver value to the American public. So I think that the notion of the government developing this complete infrastructure, from source, from cradle to grave, if you will, in the Open Government model is not necessarily the way to go. I think what we have to look at is at what point is the data high quality to begin with? Is it served up in a fashion which is easily navigable? Is it delivering value inside the government? Looking at the priority areas but then potentially providing the opportunity for the private sector to step in and deliver value-add on top of that, and if they succeed or fail, that is going to be largely a product of whether they are delivering value or not. Senator Carper. OK. Thanks. Mr. Wonderlich, you get the last shot at this question. Mr. Wonderlich. Thanks. So I think there is this existing-- the way things work now, so much of our government's data is collected for the benefit of maybe 10 government regulators. And for the life of me, I cannot figure out why that has been the case for so long. For example, the Department of Labor just released as one of their flagship initiatives a unified search for different accountability data, so certain OSHA violations and mine safety health data. And I think that is a great move, but it also leaves me wondering why that was never released before. So if that data is valuable to collect and should have a behavioral impact on the people that they regulate, then shouldn't it have been released to the public in the first place? And I think the mind-set responsible for not releasing that is one that says we know how this data should be used best, and it is our job to fix the problem. And I think what is happening now is there are whole teams of developers, many of which are organizing through our Sunlight labs, who are chomping at the bit to create new businesses and new visualizations of how power and how our country works and how they can use government data to start to tell those stories and hold people accountable. So on the question of priorities, I agree we have to have priorities about what to open, but I think at the same time we should recognize that we do not have all the right answers, and we should unleash the private sector and the nonprofit sector to help to start to find those answers. Senator Carper. I think that response gives us a pretty good segue to my next to the last question. Just based on what you have heard your colleagues at the panel saying here today, some of the discussion, some of the questions, some of the responses to those, is there anything else that you would like to either amend your original statements, opening statements, or maybe reinforce or underline, re-emphasize something that you had said in your opening statement? Just be thinking about that for us, if you will. I think there is a saying I like to remind my staff when we are considering what the role of government should be in America, and this is not original to me, but I like to say that the role of government is to steer the boat, not to row the boat. And people say, ``What do you mean by that?'' And I use the analogy of health care delivery. In England, for the most part, the doctors and nurses and health care folks actually are government employees. In this country, that is not the case. We have doctors, nurses, and so forth in the Defense Department and the VA, but for the most part health care delivery is--it is either done through nonprofits or it is done through for- profit entities. But the role of the government, as I think, is to steer the boat, not row the boat. I also like to tell them that public policy should really try to leverage market forces. At least one of you referred to that here today. And we ought to really seek to incentivize people to do what is the right thing. In last month's testimonies, Mr. Kundra and Mr. Chopra mentioned setting up prizes and awards for people to compete for if they developed a more effective way to use agency information, and that strikes me as an effective model, an interesting model but a potentially quite effective model that could lead to some interesting results. What type of results are we seeing so far? And is this something that Congress ought to think of expanding in the future? And, second, are there other ways we can incentivize agencies to do the right thing before it leads to a problem? Mr. Wonderlich. On the question of prizes and awards, that is a topic that my organization has some experience with. So we ran something called the Apps for America contest, and it has happened twice, and right now we have a Design for America contest going on, and this is really an effort for us to say there is this powerful new force in the country which is that of the developer, whether working for a business or perhaps on their own, and trying to say what happens when you take those developers and set them free on Data.gov, what kind of useful things get created. So things like FlyOnTime.us, which is a Web page where you can see for any flight, how often is this delayed, if this is an important flight, should I aim for a different time. Senator Carper. I wonder if we have those for trains. Mr. Wonderlich. I do not know if that exists, but if we---- Senator Carper. I will have to find out. I used to be on the Amtrak board, and I ride the train a lot. Amtrak used to have an ad campaign that went something like this: ``Maybe your next flight should be on a train.'' In Delaware we only have non-commercial airports. In Delaware, I like to say all of our next flights are on trains. I am sorry I interrupted you. Go ahead Mr. O'Keeffe. I think they were going to go with maybe your next trip should be on a train. Senator Carper. There you go. Mr. Wonderlich. But from an investment standpoint, we had enormous success with spending something, along the lines of $30,000 in prize money and getting dozens and dozens of applications that you would pay far more than that to have developed, and almost everyone involved benefited from the notoriety of being involved and getting attention to what it is that they were able to create. So we have had some success with the prize model. I am not sure how broadly that could apply to solving some of government's tougher problems, but I think that is an approach that the Obama Administration is committed to experimenting with and seeing how far we can take it. On a similar level, the phenomenon of the Dashboard, which I think we are seeing more and more of, there is the IT Dashboard. OIRA now has a Dashboard about pending regulations, and the Department of Justice just announced a new FOIA Dashboard. I think those are all very useful things to display what is knowable about a certain behavior. I think we can assume that will have a strong effect on behavior, and it will be interesting over the next couple of years to see what the limit is of how much behavior can be affected by displaying it. But I think that experiment is currently underway. Senator Carper. Thank you. Mr. O'Keeffe. So I think that the initiatives that are taking place are good, and we need to innovate in order to change to achieve different outcomes. At the same time, we need to realize that we are going to fail in some areas, and this is not something that the government is very comfortable with. And so one of the outcomes of innovation is failure in certain areas, so we need to develop walls around programs, try new approaches and recognize they may not succeed. And I know it sounds a little strange to say that government needs to embrace the idea of failing, but I do think that is important. In order to succeed, you have to try again. I think that this notion of prizes is a great idea, and I think wholeheartedly we support the innovation prizes that Mr. Kundra is working on and look forward to working with him on in that area. And at the same time, we need to look at both the stick and the carrot, so the prizes are a great idea. We also need to continue looking at reports that show how agencies are doing. And what I would recommend is that rather than just looking at measuring behaviors--and I think if you look at information security, FISMA is a perfect example of that where we measure whether or not you put in all this paperwork. We are not really measuring whether or not your agency is actually more secure. Senator Carper. We do a similar thing in education. When we measure performance in a classroom by educators or in a school or in a school district, we measure a process. We do not measure outcomes. Mr. O'Keeffe. Right. Senator Carper. Although speaking of leveraging resources and a race to the top, I am amazed at how effectively the Department of Education through Secretary Duncan has taken about $4 billion, which is, admittedly, a lot of money, but literally to leverage enormous changes in over 40 States in the way they deliver education. Mr. O'Keeffe. No. I think that is right. One of my colleagues has a severely disabled child, and so his wife has to go into the schools with Jack in order to take these tests. And it is critical that the kids actually take the test in order to get through the process. Of course, the kids cannot take the test, so the mother has to put the hand on the button in order to make sure they check the box, in order to file the paperwork, in order to get the funding. And so really what we have to do is focus increasingly on what are the outcomes that we are looking for and try to measure outcomes rather than behaviors. Senator Carper. Fred Voltaire is the guy I---- Mr. Blanton. Oh, Mr. Voltaire. Right, your college roommate. I was in Bulgaria a few years ago, and they had developed prizes for the government ministries who were the best and the worst at answering public request information. And the best award was called the Golden Key Award, and it was this beautiful, huge skeleton key on a trophy pedestal. Beautiful. The minister showed up to accept it, very happy. The bad award was not--they did not have Rosemary Woods to call on, and so for them it was the Rusted Padlock Award, also on a pedestal. And let me tell you, no minister showed up to accept it, but that was what all the newspaper stories led with, was the Rusted Padlock. And I think that is part of the problem with the prize approach, which is the news is the negative, when actually our challenge is how do you accentuate the positive, right? And so that is why I would say, when you are looking at constructing hearings, have a couple that are subperformers, but get a couple of the best practices ones, because the best practices ones, the prize winners are the ones that prove that the old bureaucratic refrain is resources, we just do not have enough resources, is not correct. The real difference between the high performers and low performers is not resources. It is leadership and will and pressure. Senator Carper. Well, we try to put a spotlight on both good behavior that we can to incentivize more of and that which is not so good. The last question was just to say after looking at what each of you have been saying in response--just in your opening statements but also in response to questions and listening to the responses of others to the questions that have been raised, is there anything that you want to say or add in closing? It can be something new, maybe a new thought. It could be just to emphasize or underline already something that has been said by you or by someone else. We will start, Mr. O'Keeffe, with you, if you do not mind. Mr. O'Keeffe. Right in the middle. Senator Carper. Yes. Mr. O'Keeffe. I would just close with reiterating what I talked about earlier, which is, this is really analogous to a trip to the moon, and it is going to take some time. So, Vivek Kundra was really put to it by Senator Coburn about the subcontractor issue, and I think it is a very important issue, but I think that we have to be practical about what can be done and the time frames associated with it. So if we have program management and procurement systems where the data is not properly passed and there is not sufficient fidelity, then it is going to be impossible to get the data that we require, so we need to be realistic about what can be done. I do not mean to say that letting people off the hook is the way to go, but I think we need to be practical. I think that we need to focus on outcomes, so it is not just a matter of publishing data. We want to work out what our priorities are and what we are looking to get out of this, who our audience is. And at the same time, I think that the notion of engaging with the private sector--and by doing that we allow the government to perhaps insulate it from some of the turbulence and ups and downs associated with getting new business models, which I think is a great idea. And, last, I would say that, I appreciate the hearing. It is great to have these issues raised, and we are looking for more dialogue with the Administration, with the government on how to make this better. The answers are not going to come from one source. They are going to come from this crowd sourcing and discussion. Thank you. Senator Carper. Yes, thank you. Mr. Blanton. Mr. Blanton. I would like to reiterate something that I mentioned to you when you came down from the podium when we called off that last hearing. I think I said to you, ``Mr. Chairman, that first panel of government witnesses was brilliant.'' And it was brilliant for this reason: That the money and the power was at one end of the table, Mr. Kundra's end of the table, and the legal responsibilities were in many ways at the other end of the table with Mr. Ferriero, the Archivist of the United States. Senator Carper. I remember when you said that. Mr. Blanton. And the National Archives is an orphan agency, unfortunately, and down at that end is where the money and the energy is and where the focus is, and yet our real challenge, I think, as citizens, as people who care about Open Government and transparent and accountable government, is to turn the Archives' role from that orphan agency out in the hinterland into being an integral part of the information technology development on which we are spending $40, $60, $80 billion a year, so that it is a seamless piece, so we are not saying to Mr. Ferriero, OK, pick up the mess after we have created all these very different legacy systems, all these different forms of metadata, all these different kinds of software and hardware, you have got to save the historically important stuff that is important to individuals and for history, but you are not integrated with what Mr. Kundra is doing. I think at one of our previous discussions I suggested that the concept we should be after for that integration is something that you see on personal computers today, an automatic, built-in, back-up process at the time that you are running your network or at the time you are running your ethernet. The Apple Mac has a time capsule function where I never have to back up my little computer. It is every day listening to my computer when I log on the net looking for a new file or an updated file and automatically saving it. The role the National Archives should play 5 years, 10 years, 15 years from now, should be the back-up hard drive for the whole Federal Government. But to get from where it is today, orphan agency spending only may be $400 million a year and then a clean-up after the parade mode is going to be permanent failure unless it switches over and becomes that back-up hard drive on the net for the whole Federal Government. To me that is the great kind of challenge, I think, institutionally. Senator Carper. All right. Thank you. Mr. Wonderlich, last word. Mr. Wonderlich. Thank you. So to me, I think we are at a really transformative moment for at least two reasons. One is because the gap between people's expectations and what the government is delivering is at an all-time high. If you look at our experience as consumers or shoppers or students, it is very different from our experience as citizens. The other reason is the way that President Obama raised the issue on the campaign trail of transparency and promised very big things about changing the way the government works. And that leaves us in a situation where the press and the public are very hungry for an evaluation, and it would be really simple right now to try to assign a pass-fail grade. To me, I think that would be an enormous mistake because what is happening is much more important and much more complicated than you could evaluate with a simple pass or fail. So I think the challenge that I see right now is to take these transparency issues, which are really some of the things that people care most about, like earmarks or the way Federal money is spent or the way influence works in Washington or the way our decisions are made, and keep the momentum that is happening now moving forward in a way that is meaningful but also recognizes the complexity of the challenge. So as evaluators, I think that is the challenge that we have right now. Senator Carper. All right. Thank you. Again, I will go back to where I started off, and that is just to thank you for coming back and finding time in your schedules to be with us now a second time and to actually have a chance to share your thoughts with us and to respond to our questions and actually reflect on what each of you have to offer. We thank you for that. When my wife asks me this evening, ``How was that hearing that you were going to hold today?'' I am going to say it was fun, and it also turned out to be, I think, highly informative, and we thank you for making it that way and sort of holding our attention and giving us some good insights going down the road. We discussed a lot of important issues that although to most of us, to a lot of people in this country, they seem fairly abstract, but they can also lead to real-world impacts. For example, one area that we have been focusing our efforts on is over-budget IT systems that many times just do not deliver what they were supposed to have delivered. I was happy to hear last month that, I think, because of our efforts, the Veterans Administration terminated, I believe, over $50 million in bad investments, and the Department of Homeland Security will be finishing a review soon that also may lead them to start cutting some of their dead weight. We need to expand this kind of accountability to most, if not all investments that our agencies undertake. I also hear that the Obama Administration is leveraging the private sector to come up with new and even exciting ways to use massive amounts of government information. This type of thinking, I believe, recognized that our government is not the only one with good ideas. In fact, many times it is the average citizen, or the above average citizen maybe, who knows where the problems lie and maybe has some pretty good ideas on how to fix them. So as we leave here today, I hope we will not stop discussing these issues. I think we will not. In fact, I want to invite our witnesses, or anyone else for that matter who might share our interests in these matters, to submit their ideas on ways to improve how our agencies are operating and to reduce wasteful spending. Now, usually my colleagues who were unable to be here today will submit some questions for the record, and if you do receive them. You have as much as 2 weeks to submit questions, and if you would be so kind as to respond to them promptly, we would be grateful for that. You all make a good team, and we appreciate very much, again, your taking your time to share not just part of your afternoon but some really good ideas with all of us. And with that having been said, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6893.047